Of course. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
20 points (88.5% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
670 readers
31 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When the most pressing conflicts are between anarchists and communists, the most important victories will already have been won
That’s why the Big Tent strategy is pretty good, and depending on the place you may get lots of support. There were even some elements of the petty bourgeois that supported North Vietnam for independence against France and US aggression. And Luna Oi has said before that Vietnam has an anarchist feel to it, not everything is done by the government and plenty of people help each other directly without government involvement, not to say that they don’t reap massive benefits from their Marxist government tho. Her Deprogram guest ep was really good.
What's the Big Tent strategy?
Big Tent in political strategy means joining together towards a common goal. I, Person A, may not share all of the beliefs of Person B. But Person B agrees with me on a vital issue that is of particular (and usually an immediate and urgent) concern for our area. So we join together in a Big Tent Coalition, trying to sway as many people as possible towards our position so that Person C , our common enemy, doesn’t gain any ground. These coalitions usually are short-lived but it’s fine if everyone involved understands the nature of the coalition
Once socialism has brought us world wide communism, sure UwU But honestly I don't think Anarchists and Communists could coexist in times where it would be important to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Or generally, in times where Communism hasn't yet been brought about. The Anarchists would simply disagree with our approach and fight against it, I assume. So I'd say they'd stand in our way big time.. Same with the Trotskyists.
I've considered myself an anarchist for most of my life. I organize with people who are too, but I also routinely go to meetings with explicitly Marxist organizations and do shit with them because I'm a centrist.
what??
What's unclear?
ok, sorry, sometimes i forget that i'm on lemmygrad. when you said you were a centrist i thought you meant like a lib or something. my bad.
no worries
spoiler
I just wanna see shit become more livable for my comrades
They’re a Hexbear user. It’s widely accepted all Hexbear accounts are libs due to being funded by redacted
We historically aren’t usually the ones who fuck up that alliance. Typically(and this is really generalizing, not always true or in this order) the Left in general work together against the Fascists, the Reds then use their authority to try to keep the Revolution on the right path. Then the Anarchists come out either trying to revolt by themselves or they join a color revolution that the bourgeoisie create and they don’t think twice about it. It’s the duty of the Marxists to be open with their beliefs. We aren’t a final boss or anything who “betrays you at the last second, because we had devious plans that we were hiding from the start”, that’s weird af, we let Anarchists know that Big tent will work for a while, but at some point you need to start reading Theory to understand how and why authority is necessary.
Would anarchists be okay with an "authoritarian" dicatatorship of the proletariat? Or would MLs be pkay with an anarchist government ripe for exploitation by foreign powers? I'd say no, so it would be highly unlikely after the initial overthrow of capitalist power.
Joseph Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism" is a pretty clear and concise piece on this question that always gets recommended as introductory Marxist-Leninist reading so I'm surprised it hasn't been recommended in this thread yet.
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.
That’s my favorite book, he brings up good points and he cooks the anarchists with the best burns of the early 1900s
I don't think they're compatible in the long-term. I think there's room to work together on shared goals (the end of capitalism or dunking on shitlibs here), but I don't think we have the same end goals.
From my understanding, the communism MLs refer to is an efficiently administered, high technology, advanced industrial society. My understanding of the end-goal of anarchists is not compatible with that society.
Yes. It's a temporary distinction at best.
only westerners come to anarchism and all other idiotic ideological deviations .
no, we can coexist and even collaborate before and during a revolution but after it, it needs to be decided if a socialist state will emerge or an anarchist society...there simply is no middle-ground between so called "anarchism" and a government so one has to go
History says no. But who knows what a reconstructed Europe and North America would look like? It would be a novel situation to say the least, so if capital were to be defeated maybe a society could be built by collaboration between the two.
I am curious though, why did you only specify Europe and North America for a place of coexistence?
Anarchism is primarily a western ideology, but has existed long enough at this point to be a real material force in western society with arguably more influence than Marxism (probably not, but at least culturally it is). In a post-capitalist society, it may be necessary to collaborate with them in reconstruction at least in the short term. This goes without saying, but knowing what the future holds is impossible and there are many possibilities. I think most likely BIPOC nations will need to subjugate settler populations for a period of time making this idea of collaboration pretty much irrelevant, but I also don't want to discard the possibility entirely.
Do you really realistically think that Marxist-Leninists can cooperate with the ones who view us as literal fascists?
Do you realistically believe that the ones who are against authority and centralization and sometimes even work will last long enough to coexist with Marxist-Leninists?
To be fair, those kinds of "anarchists" are just confused social liberals with no real theoretical grounding, it would be like comparing MLs to the worst of the neocon pseudo-trots who populate so much of western marxian space
It's never a good idea to succumb to sectarianism for the sake of dunking on what is essentially an online "posting-style" Marxists of any type have to focus on the real and actual conditions of capitalism, not on old ghosts or liberals engaging in radical kayfabe
There are real anarchists out there, they're just not online
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.
There are lots of people who are anarchists because they like the aesthetics, just as there are some people who just like the aesthetics of communism (PatSocs, for example). What a person self-desribes as only tells you so much. As I like to say, for any given definition of socialism that you can imagine, you can always find someone who agrees and thinks it's bad and someone who agrees and thinks it's good.
I'd also like to point out that Mao was an anarchist at one point, funny enough.
I think it really depends on the person and the context. Communists and anarchists co-exist right now but I'm guessing that's not what you mean.
Depends on what principles they have
If they have principles, they will become marxists.