Comments
hirao OP wrote
There's no fundamental difference between anarchism and communism so I don't understand why we can't get along with people who wish to get to communism / anarchism using a vanguard.
I honestly believe most anarchists misread the history of vanguardism. The vanguard is never supposed to exist as a formal structure with power over the rest of the revolution, it's a social phenomena that will be present in any revolution and so those who fall into should be aware of their social role. There is a vanguard among anarchists socially (that's the point of criticizing horizontalism, it fails to deal with the vanguard in a constructive way). It's not supposed to be made into a rigid party bureaucracy. As long as the true intent of vanguardism is followed, there is honestly no difference between our objectives.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
hirao OP wrote
Authoritarian values and perspectives.
Anyone who thinks Marxism promotes authoritarian values doesn't have a very good understanding of dialectics or historical materialism. The laws of the development of human society (historical materialism) show us without a doubt communism is an inevitability. The productive forces (technology regarding production and the skill of labor regarding production) will develop to the point of the necessity of the socialization of the means of production (as Stalin points out in "Dialectical and Historical Materialism"). There's nothing authoritarian about this natural progress of social development, not any more than a lion is authoritarian for eating a zebra. It's just natural.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
🤮
existential1 wrote
We should add a counter to the site for "Days since someone posted about how dope Marxism is _"
[deleted] wrote
GlangSnorrisson wrote
I love it. Taking a quick break from doom and gloom to dunk on tankies is self-care.
[deleted] wrote
GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )
I’m sorry to hear you find them boring and tiring. It’s probably different if you mod forums.
Mostly I wait until they say really ridiculous stuff, and then repost that to meta_ lol.
GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )
How undialectical!
mofongo wrote
doesn't have a very good understanding of dialectics or historical materialism
that's a cop out. Show me where Marx speaks about any of those things.
And even if Marx arguably doesn't, Left Unity promoters follow Stalin and Mao, which do promote authoritarism.
The laws of the development of human society (historical materialism) show us without a doubt communism is an inevitability.
Society is not a straight line where one thing leads to another. Things may appear like it does with the power of hindsight and cherry picking (which Marx did a lot).
The productive forces (technology regarding production and the skill of labor regarding production) will develop to the point of the necessity of the socialization of the means of production (as Stalin points out in "Dialectical and Historical Materialism").
And yet, it has not happened. Additionally, we're in a process of collapse on which socialization of production is meaningless. Making Coca-cola a cooperative won't prevent it from manufacturing plastic.
There's nothing authoritarian about this natural progress of social development, not any more than a lion is authoritarian for eating a zebra. It's just natural.
That's like saying that capitalism is part of human nature. There's nothing natural and unavoidable on the shape of society humans arrange themselves into. Historically, that sort of thinking only leads to dehumanizing those that don't share your views.
hirao OP wrote
Joseph Dietzgen came up with dialectical materialism after Marx died, but based on Marx's theories. Marxism is more than simply the writings of Marx...
Making Coca-cola a cooperative won't prevent it from manufacturing plastic.
Of course it would, we would democratically opt to switch to plant based polymers.
There's nothing natural and unavoidable on the shape of society humans arrange themselves into.
Then you believe capitalism will go on forever? That's ignorant of the way society works. Perhaps natural was the wrong word... It's scientific. Capitalism has to fall away to communism in the end because it cannibalises itself by its very nature. We have to embrace communism in order to survive.
mofongo wrote
Joseph Dietzgen came up with dialectical materialism after Marx died, but based on Marx's theories.
He came up with it independently from Marx and Engel.
Marxism is more than simply the writings of Marx...
Also Stalin's and Mao's.
Then you believe capitalism will go on forever? That's ignorant of the way society works. Perhaps natural was the wrong word... It's scientific.
You got it backwards, when capitalism collapses it doesn't mean that communism will take its place. This inevitability of history it's nothing more than blind faith. Moving heaven from the sky above to an earthly utopia.
Going from natural to scientific does nothing to eliminate the metaphysicalness of it.
We have to embrace communism in order to survive.
I have no interest to live in a soviet or Chinese style totalitarian society.
Pop wrote (edited )
every tank is a parody of theirself
rora wrote
Much the same can be said for anarchists. Uncritical dogmatism from all sides must die if we are to gain any ground.
Pop wrote
most 'anarchists' have shit politics but all tankies have shit politics
GlangSnorrisson wrote
Oh great another visitor.
rora wrote
And?
GlangSnorrisson wrote
We’ve had a string of entertaining guests these past few weeks. I’m wondering if you’re a part of that or not.
rora wrote
I've been lurking here for ages, got fed up of Leftbook and the influx of Vaush-bros so i made an account
GlangSnorrisson wrote
Yep and I saw your other comment. My apologies, I assumed you came here to shout at us about China.
[deleted] wrote
hirao OP wrote
You shouldn't misgender people just because you disagree with them, and using "tank" as an insult to attack any communist is just juvenile.
videl wrote
The laws of the development of human society (historical materialism) show us without a doubt communism is an inevitability.
Where's this optimism coming from? It seems more likely every day that human society will lead to cybernetic hellscape or total collapse or some fucked up mixture.
ziq wrote
ideology is pretty similar to religious faith
GlangSnorrisson wrote
There’s no fundamental difference, dialectially, between motor oil and olive oil. Which is why only REAL LEFTISTS like my cooking.
ziq wrote
You'll never understand anarchy because you're high on authority.
willow wrote
like 80% of the people on this site are post-left anarchists, so i'm sure they'd be happy for leftists to do unity while they go off and do their own thing.
hirao OP wrote
80% Why is that? Why does it use a red logo and communist aesthetic if it's really for non socialists?
willow wrote
it's like a venus fly trap but for communists
Majrelende wrote
Because they look fine.
And you can change the theme if you would like-- I use the 'forest' theme, which makes it green where it was red before.
zddy wrote
Anarchists are usually the first on the chopping block for whomever takes power after whatever revolution happens. Left unity, as an ideal, would be great, but its usually weaponized against anarchists to pull them into whatever flock the prevailing ideology is.
Bezotcovschina wrote
Damn! I have to go now, but, seems, all the fun just beginning! Not fair!
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
I get this same experience when it happens to me :D
celebratedrecluse wrote
because these people are not leftist, and they see leftists as their enemy
train wrote
I think this site is reasonably accepting of ancoms, libcoms, and demsocs. However, I think a lot of the users here do see a philosophical distinction between themselves and socialists which they don't want papered over under the assumption that we're all working for the "same thing". I think that's a fair critique but I don't think it precludes solidarity and cooperation. The prerequisite for that is just understanding.
I will say there is an exception for Marxism Leninism which is firmly rejected by this site's user base. That has more to do with a historical and material critique of ML projects which even as a socialist myself I tend to agree with.
MHC wrote
I was in a supposedly broad-based socialist party. When it moved premises, an official took home the collected works of Lenin! So he turned out to be a tankie, as authoritarian as they come. Unity to them, meant follow the leader.
asg101 wrote
Leftist infighting is now and always has been encouraged by the plutocracy. They will seize on EVERY disagreement and blow it up into insurmountable barriers for solidarity of any kind. Divide and conquer has never failed the elite, today is no different.
ziq wrote
Tankies are conservatives, their way of looking at the world is completely different from an anarchist's. They celebrate authority, we shun it. There's no way to claim a fundemental conflict like authority vs. anti-authority can be anything other than an insurmountable barrier. The only anarchists who get along with them have zero understanding of anarchy and are well on their way to switching sides.
ziq wrote
Left unity is tankie doublespeak, it just means "obey tankies".