Greed as in people that abondon all morals for material and money.
If someone is both they will continue to live with only one of those.
Just curious what leftists target more.
Greed as in people that abondon all morals for material and money.
If someone is both they will continue to live with only one of those.
Just curious what leftists target more.
Except that with anarchocommunism, there is no class to speak of, as ownership is not private, but common; and neither transferrable (to the next generation) nor accumulatable.
If a larger whole - which is far stronger than an individual -, can decide for the person, then the state and correspondingly, capitalism will return, because they can override the individual, while not giving them an option to do otherwise.
Henceforth there absolutely can be repression without class distinction. If anyone ever has more power than others, and can misuse it, you bet some will.
I do think that some societies have achieved collectivisation and classlessness, such as the Zapatists. They have managed to do so without getting vertically organised - an incredible accomplishment.
And no: my question centered around the abolition of class and the state, which together would constitute communism for me. But the harsh reality is that without abolition of capitalism and all authority, socialism will never achieve free communism; oligarchs will either try their hardest to regress it into a free market, or use the power to repress. While building enough homes and raising life standards is good, it is not satisfactory enough when there’s no possibility for criticism after decisions have been taken. What freedom, what socialism is there, when one cannot criticise and be a free queer?
Your metaphor thus wouldn’t hold exactly; a better analogy would be that of the baseball player not using his prowess to harass other teammates into giving him gifts and doing as he says; and instead, the baseball player actually cooperates with everyone, sharing equally; because if he does so, so too will he receive equal positiveness back.
So, I’m inclined to beg to differ. Regression and repression is the mantra of an authoritarian. I reject the chances of such a path and prefer a direct path to communism.
Whips are indeed the same: as in parties often discussion is still permissible, but when it comes to votes, the whip forces aside freedom of decision. I view it as a tool of authoritarianism.
What would be most ideal, is to make the ‘equilibrium’ situation as close to anarchocommunism as possible, if not the same. The more attractive for oligarchs to give up their wealth and class distinction altogether, the better.
Anarcho-communism repeats petite bourgeois class relations, wishing each cell/commune/etc to be equivalent worker/owners while rejecting collectivized global ownership. As each cell has different resources and geography, each will have greater or lesser development, giving rise to further social striation.
Having individuals not capable of going against the collective interests of humanity isn’t a bad thing. Capitalism cannot return from a fully collectivized global economy without ecological disaster or something equivalent.
The Zapatistas explicitly reject the anarchist label, and still have class, for what it’s worth. Zapatismo is its own thing, and while they reference anarchism and Marxism-Leninism in their founding, they prefer their own terminology as it is the basis of a decolonial struggle.
Your insistence that any and all leadership will always revert to capitalism or private interests being upheld isn’t true. It isn’t backed up by historical evidence, nor theoretical, it depends on an idealist notion of matter having an inherent “corrupting” quality.
All AES states wish to spread socialism, but all exist under siege and threat from capitalism. Simply “sharing” will not spread socialism and result in communism, that completely erases the millitant role of capitalist nations against socialist states.
Ultimately, there is no direct path to communism. One cannot abolish the state and class without collectivizing all property globally, and this cannot happen without building it. There is no A to Z shortcut. Anarchism itself isn’t the same as the Marxist conception of communism, it’s based on individualism and horizontalism, rather than collectivization and democratization.
Democratic Centralism is a critical tool for practice, any group that cannot act in a unified manner and allows itself to fall into factionalism will fracture and buckle, failing to meaningfully challenge capitalism. Even some anarchist orgs are adopting democratic centralism as a matter of practicality.
Capitalists will not willingly give up their privledged positions, socialism has only truly come about in a lasting fashion through revolution.
Until that “collective interests” becomes an authoritarian force. I think you don’t understand me. I reject seeking to achieve communism through a dictatorship; it can only be done fully democratically, through and by the people; not through any vanguard.
Anarchism isn’t per se based around individualism - it is based around the rejection of the state altogether. Anarchocollectivism exists; but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.
You also say that it’s not rooted in historical evidence etc. that any and all leadership will *always* revert to capitalism or private interests being upheld… one would have to be more than blind to not see it; the Soviet Union and the PRC for example, are perfect examples of state bureaucracy. What communism, when Stalin murdered critics such as Trotsky simply because they didn’t fit his agenda? What non-capitalism when wages still exist? Or let’s look to social democracy, which is still susceptible to capitalist meddling, as with the murder of Olof Palme? Or to look at the dozens of coups by the capitalist US?
The facts are crystal clear: blindness for the bad side of leadership is blindness away from communism.
Zapatists also do not reject anarchism - they’re literally named after one and in contrast to marxists-leninists and adjacents, actually uphold the freedom of communism.
Democratic centralism is a tool for dictators. Point said. It is an attempt to establish and reinforce a state, and so I reject it.
There also, in fact is a direct path to communism. That is; setting up grassroots organisations, working together with each other. Giveaway stores, federation among all who adhere to a gift economy and workplace democracy model, and so on. When a tailor gives a farmer clothes, and the farmer the tailor clothes; and so on. It’s a simplified explanation, but Kropotkin’s good material to read.
Capitalists will not give up their position willingly, that is true; they will do what seems most advantageous or prestigious to them, is what I perceive. When we change the system to change what is advantageous to them, they are also forced to change along or perish.
I understand what you’re saying, I just reject it. You put the role of the individual over the collective in rejecting a socialist state as a method of reaching collectivized ownership, and conflate democracy with dictatorship without basis.
The vanguard exists whether formalized or not, all it is is the most advanced politically of the revolutionary class. As there is a difference between a first year medical student and a seasoned surgeon, there will always be differences in political skill among the people. The advantage of formalizing the most advanced is that it becomes visible, democratizable, and accountable, rather than shadowy and elitist.
We can learn a lot from the experience of the feminist movement in structure, actually, where the initial rejection of formalized structures resulted in counter-productiveness. Jo Freeman’s The Tyranny of Structurelessness is an excellent overview of this.
Democratic Centralism just means individuals are beholden to the collective decisions of the group, and are expected to uphold them. It’s the best tool for using the working class’s best advantage, our numbers, into one aligned spear, rather than a formless blob lashing out in different directions. An example of the benefits of aligning is the LGBTQ+ movement, the TERFs end up being less effective because fighting for the liberation of all unites greater forces, and that’s ignoring the evils of transphobia.
I understand where you’re coming from, I used to be an anarchist myself. I suggest you actually make it an effort to engage with Marxism-Leninism and the theory and practice of Marxist-Leninists. If you want a place to start, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
Edit: saw your addendum on the USSR and PRC. Both are excellent examples of the working class in power achieving dramatic results and improving the lives of the working class. Tripling of literacy rates, doubling of life expectancies, achieving dramatic improvements in science and well-being, fighting sexism and racism.
As for Trotsky, he was assassinated because he was organizing terrorist groups against the USSR after being bitter that his suicidal plan of Permanent Revolution, that saw the peasantry as an enemy of the proletariat, lost out democratically to Socialism in One Country. It wasn’t because he was just a critic, he was a traitor and a terrorist.
The Zapatistas do reject the western label of anarchist. They have horizontalist structures but reject western labelling.
Source
Mutual Aid is a good thing, but it does not create a fully collectivized and planned economy.
No, you appear not to understand it fully. It is true that I put the role of the individual as more important, but in a way where the individual helps the collective.
Under capitalism, the individual is motivated to profit at the expense of others; whereas with anarchocommunism, the individual is motivated to work together.
I reject the state because it will lead to tyranny. You presume that I conflate democracy with dictatorship, but that is not the case; for me, workplace democracy is crucial.
You also understand what I mean by ‘vanguard’; an organised group that is led, as opposing to federated and decentralised, where no one leads.
When we formalise the most advanced, then we create a new class. Which fails the entire point of communism! You might say formalising it helps; but I disagree with that. Here we for example do not log peoples’ races or religions; because we believe these to be counterproductive, as they are only ever used by fascists to segregate and create new classes. The lack of logging has resulted in that people do not as much feel animosity for each other based on race or religion; and that we cooperate more together. Indeed, it would be more classless.
Yeah, and when a majority votes for abolishing my rights, I sure as hell ain’t gonna uphold that. Democratic centralism, whips, all that can kiss my sorry ass. Screw that shit. It is authoritarian, period. There’s no “just” there; you are goodmouthing it. When they silence criticism, we become blind.
Except that in that case, there is no overarching group that enforces shutting down other opinions; the rejection of transphobia has grown through discussion and cooperation. Take blocking users, for example; it’s something you can do without a larger collective forcing it on you. Sure, there’s defederation as well, but you can always make an alt.
While these occur, you should also not discard that millions of people still died under these regimes, just as with capitalism. And that dissidence was repressed; criticise the party, and you’re gone.
What improvement in wellbeing is there then, when one cannot criticise? What improvement in fighting sexism is there, when queers were not allowed to be themselves in the USSR (and you can die for it in today’s mafia Russia) and even up to today, in the PRC, cannot do so?
What improvements in fighting racism, when Russification displaced a ton of people and hampered the Baltics’ selfdetermination, under an agenda of repression and ethnic cleansing? Indeed the US has far more of these problems; but it would be foolish to not also acknowledge the terribility of authoritarianism!
When I speak of communism, I speak of true liberation, not establishing yet another tyranny.
You’re goodmouthing Trotsky’s assassination. I know enough. I have one word of advice: stop and think about what you’re doing: should people be murdered at all? Thanks for the good discussion, but I’ve no need for talk like this. The whole “he was organising terrorism against Stalin” is literally a lie that Stalin spread himself. He lied also about who killed Trotsky, saying it was another Trotskyist, when he gave the order himself.
Come back to me when you don’t just criticise capitalism, but all forms of authoritarianism, totalitarian communism such as that of the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC included. We share the same fight, but that doesn’t mean you have to lick the authoritarian boot.
deleted by creator
There’s no point. Cowbee is a hardcore tankie and cannot be swayed by ethics, history, or logic. He firmly believes authoritarianism is justified so long as the people in charge pinkie swear to abolish their system later.
No, I don’t, actually. For starters, all states are authoritarian, as all states are means by which the class in charge exerts its authority. To get rid of the state, all property needs to be collectivized, which both gets rid of class and the state itself. That means its good for the working class to have a hold of that authority, and use it against the Capitalist class. There’s no “promising to abolish” anything, the state gradually withers away with respect to class withering away as property is sublimated and collectivized.
I am a Marxist, yes. I became one after engaging with history, theory, logic, and practice. The fact that poor logic and false history doesn’t sway me doesn’t diminish my points. I haven’t seen any ethical arguments being brought up here.
Not in the same ways. You support dictatorships where workers have no power, nor the means to eventually hold power later down the line. I support neither capitalist regimes nor dictatorships pretending to be socialist.
Yes.
No marxist can describe how this will happen. The dictators in charge do not have incentives to give away their power, nor are there other mechanisms in place that can bring about socialism. It’s literally just propaganda. Inequality in china is not withering away, there’s just a growing middle class the same way we had a growing middle class in other places where industrialization happened. The state owning and running things does not equate to socialism. It could, if there was democracy of some kind rather than oligarchy supplemented with very minor political participation from a fraction of the population.
Your auth states commit all the evils of capitalist empires and yet you still defend them. That’s not exactly ethical. Authoritarianism can’t be ethical in practice because of the incentives the people in power have to keep their power, and the things they do to keep it. “Communist” states are far more authoritarian than most liberal democracies, which is why I call them authoritarian. I call you authoritarian because you defend them and wish to implement similar oligarchies/dictatorships elsewhere. This is not to say I like liberalism, just by comparison your system is in many ways worse. Unions are way more suppressed, people are less active politically, and there are no big benefits to make up for it. Genocide is still happening, billionaires are still being produced, freedom of speech is still suppressed, etc. Like yeah we can sit here and compare metrics and see both capitalist and marxist states are doing good and bad in all sorts of different ways. Both systems work to a point. I don’t care. I want actual democracy. I want actual freedom. I want actual socialism, or at least a system which can produce socialism unlike your auth vanguard states.
I will be blocking you after this.
Edit: To me the big mystery is why defend these states? Why aim for vanguard states? Can’t we aim for something better rather than something that has “succeeded”? Why do we have to choose between liberalism and marxism when we can instead try to work towards actual socialism?
Claiming I support states where the workers have no power, without doing the legwork to explain how that’s the case, is just smearing. It isn’t a point. The socialist states I support are those that are broadly recognized as such by socialist and communist organizations and states, I am not acting out of the ordinary for doing so.
Marxists have described the withering of the state. From Engels:
To Lenin’s State and Revolution, which centers this very issue. Marxists have written about the state and how it withers away upon collectivization for centuries, this isn’t a new thing. Administration is not the same thing as a state. Further, the PRC is democratic:
The rest of your comment is a baseless, unsupported rant about socialist states supposedly being “just as bad” as capitalist states, despite the opposite being the case when it comes to uplifting the working class. From doubling of life expectancy, to certified safety nets, to tripling of literacy rates, to certified healthcare, to decolonial action, to fighting imperialism, socialist states around the world are rising while capitalism is dying, and you sit on the fence and say real socialism isn’t good enough for you while you live in a western country. It’s social chauvanism, plain and simple.
I don’t block people, nor would I announce that I am going to. I don’t take ill-founded insults or libel seriously, either.
To respond to your edit, here:
I defend the achievements of really existing socialism, that have brought dramatic democratization and uplifting of the working class. From Russia to China to Cuba to many other countries, socialism has proven to be extremely successful at meeting the needs of the people. We need to use a vanguard because it works, and vanguards themselves will appear whether we formalize them and democratize them as they have been in AES countries, or if we ignore them and let them form naturally and unaccountably.
We should always aim for better, but when that takes the form of saying “real socialism isn’t good enough,” then that becomes an incredibly privledged and chauvanistic viewpoint. Workers fought and died to win socialism in their countries, and are making constant improvements. This is actual socialism, not the socialism that lives only as a perfect ideal in our heads. Rather than saying that they did it the wrong way, or that they didn’t fight hard enough, we should respect the tremendous gains they’ve made and try our best to carry out our own revolutions, charting a path to a better world collectively.
When we oppose the working class in socialist countries for the mistakes they make, and declare these states enemies when they ought not to be, we make the same mistakes as those who oppose Palestinian liberation because they aren’t very queer friendly (and I say this as a pansexual person myself). It completely aids the imperialist narrative and serves as justification for color revolution and massive setback on the path to building socialism. It’s against solidarity.
Oh, I know. I still say it out of principle. I’ve already blocked the fool. But thank you for the words, comrade.
The revolution comes, comrade :3
I understand perfectly well, again, I’m a former anarchist. We’ve both read a lot of the same anarchist theory, the difference is that I’ve rejected it as I’ve read it and also read Marxist-Leninist theory.
My critique of anarchism is the same as it has been for centuries for Marxists, cooperative ownership as opposed to collectivized ownership gives rise to social striation on the basis of different geography and production, which gives rise to capitalism. The state doesn’t give rise to capitalism, capitalism gives rise to the state.
You keep saying you reject workers states because they lead to “tyrannny,” without justifying your claim, and further go on to say democratic centralism is dictatorship. How is workplace democracy to function if the outcomes are not binding? Any useful applications of democracy must be binding, otherwise nothing gets done.
As for your point against vanguards as being a class, this is wrong, flat-out. Vanguards are subsections of the revolutionary class, not a class in and of themselves, as they are formed from the working class, elected by it, and hold the same relations to production. A manager is not a class in capitalism, but a subsection of the proletariat.
Your argument against democratic centralism is an argument against democracy. Minority rights are absolutely crucial to a functioning democracy, but thay’s fully compatible with democratic centralism.
TERFs are less effective than unified, intersectional groups. I recommend reading Leslie Feinberg’s Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue.
The struggles faced by socialist states were real, yes, but it is a good thing to suppress fascists, Tsarists, imperialists, and terrorists. This is a fact of life, if you do not stamp out fascism, it will stamp you out. The USSR was more progressive on queer rights than western countries. Alexandra Kollontai was a bisexual woman and one of the most important figures in early socialist society. The GDR was giving state-run gender affirming care. Queer rights in the PRC are rapidly improving, one of their most beloved celebrities, Xin Jing, is a transwoman, and Cuba’s family code is among the most progressive in the world. Socialism enabled this.
“Russification” wasn’t really a problem. The USSR took national liberation very seriously. The fact that they established common methods of writing for communication existed alongside national autonomy in the various SSRs and SFSRs. You can read testemonials from various travelers to the USSR like Paul Robeson:
And yes, killing Trotsky, who was organizing terrorist attacks on Soviet citizens and government officials, was a good thing. Killing terrorists that threaten your people and Nazis is a necessary function of society.
Also, can’t help but notice you ignored that the Zapatistas despise being called by western labeling like “anarchists,” did you miss that part?
I’m not going to apologize for being a Marxist, nor for advocating for socialism as a means to eventually erase the state and thus any speak of authoritarianism. I will not be an enemy of existing socialism or of the working class of those countries.
You already are, auth
Nope, socialism is popular in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. The people like their system, and support their governments. Calling me “auth” for supporting them is a bit silly.