Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn’t a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it’s less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as “authoritarian” and Anarchism as “more likely” to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
Your first statement is pretty silly. For starters, Anarchists have had nowhere near the level of influence achieved by Marxists, so they haven’t even had a chance to make mistakes. Secondly, who are you referring to when you say Communists have “murdered millions?” Fascists? The Nazis during WWII, 80% of which were killed by the antifascist Red Army? The fascist slaver Batista and his goons? The landlords? Tsarists? Elaborate, because your only argument here is that Anarchists get to remain “pure” because they have never had widespread success. This is pointless sectarianism, Marxists are your allies.
Secondly, the Marxist conception of a State is not the same as the Anarchist conception. For Marxists, the State is a tool of class oppression, while for Anarchists the State is a monopoly on violence. Communism is a world Socialist Republic, because full public ownership eliminates class distinctions and thus the state. The State withers away as it gradually appropriates Private Property and folds it into the public sector.
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
I think of Maos Cultural Revolution, or all the Korean civilians caught up in the Korean War murdered for being seen as “collaborators”
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”. My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Most Communists agree that the Cultural Revolution was at minimum was misguided. The famines were avoidable, and government mismanagement was greatly to blame. However, ultimately the CPC ended famine and even under Mao, life expectancy doubled.
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
You’ve stated this, yes, but have done nothing to respond to my valid critiques of communes and cooperatives potentially giving rise to Capitalism again, nor to my statement that corruption can be fought just like hunger and poverty.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”.
It is not. My argument is that you can’t claim Anarchism “solves” anything until we see it in practice, if ever. I seem to have a better opinion of modern Anarchists than you do, as recognizing the failures and successes of former Anarchist movements is necessary to move on.
My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
What do you mean by “failed?” Is it a failure to double life expectancy, as happened in the USSR and PRC? What about going from vast illiteracy to near 100% literacy rates, as happened in Cuba, the PRC, USSR, and many others? What about increased housing, free healthcare, lower working times, eradication of famine, or even now with the PRC being the largest economy in the world with respect to Purchasing Power Parity?
Moreover, you’re implying support for the Tsars, the fascist Batista, the agrarian Nationalist Kuomintang, the French Colonizers of Vietnam, and so forth. Would you tell the people overthrowing these regimes that they “failed?”
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
So if you’re not going to argue, but are going to take unsourced, unsubstantiated potshots and respond to no points, and moreover refuse to read theory out of principle, what’s your point? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an essay, by no means a “long book,” so I am not even sure what you mean here. Do you expect to just have knowledge beamed into everyone’s heads? I tried to explain Marxism to you and you promptly ignored and took sectarian potshots.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Yes, safely inoffensive for not being threatening in any capacity to the Capitalist order, meanwhile much larger and more successful Marxist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth continuously work to improve the lives of the whole of society. Silly.
I’ve said multiple times I’m not interested and you continue to bombard me with theory. I’m not reading it and I don’t care. Go mansplain leftism to someone else.
this kinda shit is why you dorks get called anarkiddies
meanwhile marxists are the only ones who have staged successful large-scale revolutions, so they were obviously doing something right in regards to appealing to the general public in ways anarchists haven’t been able to. might be getting results and maintaining them for longer than a few years? idk
and yet we’re the ones who have actually accomplished real things while you dorks just vibe over vague sentiments and disrupt leftist movements for not being pure enough
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn’t a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it’s less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as “authoritarian” and Anarchism as “more likely” to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
We don’t have to debate, but I do think you should give this more thought. If you want to learn more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist reading list you can check out. Open for feedback!
Anarchists have yet to murder millions, unlike communists who seem to need a state to become stateless
Your first statement is pretty silly. For starters, Anarchists have had nowhere near the level of influence achieved by Marxists, so they haven’t even had a chance to make mistakes. Secondly, who are you referring to when you say Communists have “murdered millions?” Fascists? The Nazis during WWII, 80% of which were killed by the antifascist Red Army? The fascist slaver Batista and his goons? The landlords? Tsarists? Elaborate, because your only argument here is that Anarchists get to remain “pure” because they have never had widespread success. This is pointless sectarianism, Marxists are your allies.
Secondly, the Marxist conception of a State is not the same as the Anarchist conception. For Marxists, the State is a tool of class oppression, while for Anarchists the State is a monopoly on violence. Communism is a world Socialist Republic, because full public ownership eliminates class distinctions and thus the state. The State withers away as it gradually appropriates Private Property and folds it into the public sector.
-Engels, Socialism and Scientific
I think of Maos Cultural Revolution, or all the Korean civilians caught up in the Korean War murdered for being seen as “collaborators”
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”. My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Most Communists agree that the Cultural Revolution was at minimum was misguided. The famines were avoidable, and government mismanagement was greatly to blame. However, ultimately the CPC ended famine and even under Mao, life expectancy doubled.
Secondly, the idea that it was the North Koreans doing the indiscriminate killings while the US bombed 85% of all buildings in North Korea and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire pacific theater of WWII, slaughtered countless villiahws of North and South Koreans, as well as the South Korean Dictator Chun Doo-Hwan murdering thousands of schoolchildren and college students for protesting for democracy is monstrous.
You really need to read up on your history.
You’ve stated this, yes, but have done nothing to respond to my valid critiques of communes and cooperatives potentially giving rise to Capitalism again, nor to my statement that corruption can be fought just like hunger and poverty.
It is not. My argument is that you can’t claim Anarchism “solves” anything until we see it in practice, if ever. I seem to have a better opinion of modern Anarchists than you do, as recognizing the failures and successes of former Anarchist movements is necessary to move on.
What do you mean by “failed?” Is it a failure to double life expectancy, as happened in the USSR and PRC? What about going from vast illiteracy to near 100% literacy rates, as happened in Cuba, the PRC, USSR, and many others? What about increased housing, free healthcare, lower working times, eradication of famine, or even now with the PRC being the largest economy in the world with respect to Purchasing Power Parity?
Moreover, you’re implying support for the Tsars, the fascist Batista, the agrarian Nationalist Kuomintang, the French Colonizers of Vietnam, and so forth. Would you tell the people overthrowing these regimes that they “failed?”
So if you’re not going to argue, but are going to take unsourced, unsubstantiated potshots and respond to no points, and moreover refuse to read theory out of principle, what’s your point? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an essay, by no means a “long book,” so I am not even sure what you mean here. Do you expect to just have knowledge beamed into everyone’s heads? I tried to explain Marxism to you and you promptly ignored and took sectarian potshots.
Yes, safely inoffensive for not being threatening in any capacity to the Capitalist order, meanwhile much larger and more successful Marxist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth continuously work to improve the lives of the whole of society. Silly.
You don’t need to do this sectarian nonsense.
I’ve said multiple times I’m not interested and you continue to bombard me with theory. I’m not reading it and I don’t care. Go mansplain leftism to someone else.
Marxists ain’t gonna do shit in the US.
I “bombarded” you with zero theory here, all of that was just Cowbee. You say you aren’t interested, but you’re more than happy to peddle nonsense.
Why do you think Marxists aren’t going to do anything in the US?
“boo reading is hard”
this kinda shit is why you dorks get called anarkiddies
meanwhile marxists are the only ones who have staged successful large-scale revolutions, so they were obviously doing something right in regards to appealing to the general public in ways anarchists haven’t been able to. might be getting results and maintaining them for longer than a few years? idk
Y’all are the dorks writing novels instead of touching grass and organizing people in person.
and yet we’re the ones who have actually accomplished real things while you dorks just vibe over vague sentiments and disrupt leftist movements for not being pure enough