Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

In my first comment I provided a link that explains in detail what I think

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

It's frankly not a yes or no question. It depends would be my answer.

There's a reason why most anarchist societies end up against walls within 3 months of establishing their "horizontal society".

I agree though. That's how socialism would develop if it were ever allowed a normal development.

It never has so far apart from in small towns like Marinaleda.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

SpiritOfTito wrote

the key difference in our solution is that your approach leaves a possibility to be usurped

Your position leaves everyone murdered.

And your country returned to a bannana republic under US control.

Its idealist and has been shown to be absolutely incapable of obtaining and keeping power in a global capitalist ideology.

If you want my eloquent, thorough and thought out opinion of it I would suggest reading the link I posted of Michael Parents article, Left anti communism the unkindest cut.

It deals with pretty much everything in your post.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

A) if you read the article I linked you'd know I view you as nothing else as a left anti communist. Therefore I'm not mad. Youre a dime a dozen.

b) that article succintly says what I think. Theres no need for me to elaborate because the only thing id do is run a hackneyed version of that article. No need to reinvent the wheel.

c) if you're gonna deviate from what was a polite conversation thats on you. But go fuck yourself.

0

DissidentRage wrote (edited )

Personally the way I see things is that it's necessary for communists and anarchists to keep each other honest at different stages of revolution.

Yeah, there is definitely the question of whether or not a communist leader or political body will voluntarily and gracefully relinquish power. I think a strong anarchist movement is necessary to make sure that happens, by whatever means, when it's necessary. But I also think some form of organized coalition is necessary to defend any movement from capitalist aggressors. There has been an unfortunate historical precedent of anarchist suppression by communist regimes, and it's important to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes, but this is not indicative of an inherent "kill anarchists" imperative in communism.

But at the same time, there is also a major problem that comes up here from sectarian anarchists. It's not so much purity, because I think what you are going for is exactly where we need to go, but sectarian anarchists are very quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. SpitOfTito pointed out some major points of improvement, and instead of being addressed, they are discarded as moot because the method to reach those was not the right one.

Nobody seriously says communist experiments have been perfect, but there are important lessons to be learned from them. IMO tossing them aside seems impulsive and reflective of an inability to analyze in good faith. I believe that some form of government (not a state because it's not defending bourgeois interests) is necessary, to both defend the revolution and to migrate existing systems into functional post-revolution equivalents, but it must be organized from the bottom up, and anyone who tries a little too hard to move 'up' needs to be actively swatted down. I think this is where a combination of strategies is necessary.

I see a full anarchist movement as being easily snubbed. There is a unique tactical advantage by not having a system that is centralized, as it is harder to unequivocally stop a movement that is still capable of functioning if one part fails, but there are issues of cohesion that make it difficult to mobilize a large-scale effort with the level of efficiency necessary to defend the revolution long-term. It also seems like there is a very strong drive to make left membership largely exceptional, which is not a helpful mindset when you're an actively disparaged political minority.

2

[deleted] wrote

-1

DissidentRage wrote

but to call us all communists and pretend like we have the same goals is a bit much.

Are you not also aiming for a stateless society where the workers own the means of production, and capital and oppression no longer exist? Perhaps it is a naiveté to think that we're both going for that, or that this is a sufficient goal with implicit effects on other areas of life. If this is not what you're going for, or if this is not substantial enough to describe what you're going for, then I do not understand, and perhaps this is the case with others. My own perception has been that the divide has been a difference in tactics rather than goals.

i'm not sure what you mean by sectarian anarchists though, i've not heard that term. if you mean people who only give the time of day to other anarchists, then i certainly hope i don't appear to be one of those. that's just foolish.

There is the perception that differences between us are exaggerated or emphasized for the sake of making unity impossible (see the dogpiling elsewhere in the thread), while not even attempting to reconcile the differences. There is also the assertion that communists inherently desire rule or be ruled (see other threads in this sub where the question of motive has been posed), based on what has happened historically, regardless of what is actually said by many of its proponents and in spite of the conditions in which those events have occurred.

Personally the resolution of both has been a great area of interest for me, however as someone who is not as well-versed (owing to a lack of any formal political education or time to dedicate to thorough reading of leftist literary works) I'm only going to get so far and I'm sure I will make mistakes. A lot of what I've picked up has been through participation in and observation of discussion.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

DissidentRage wrote

communists don't really have an issue with that.

I think enough look back on the USSR and others as being examples of failures in that regard. At the very least it's accepted as an example of why the strong man theory doesn't work. Personally I think having a figurehead that is purely representative is fine but not locking up all that power in one person.

i think every faction has those kinds, but other than being a minor hinderance to conversation, i don't see them as much of a threat for our advancement.

I think they pose a problem in that they can sabotage a revolution if it doesn't go exactly the way they want it to, whether it's by divisive actions and rhetoric, or actively siding with counter-revolutionaries. A couple here have expressed that they will be content breaking away and committing individual actions that aren't tactically considerate of the larger movement.

but there is something to consider.....perhaps all of our differences cannot be reconciled. that may not be a bad thing. but we do need to be honest about our differences.

People in general are going to have different perceptions of things. There are always going to be differences, and yes, some may not be reconciled, but decisions must be made on what the larger points are, and which minor things can be compromised. I don't see the major points of our political views as necessarily incompatible as I pointed out a couple posts ago, and I think it's important to emphasize our commonalities so that we can be more effective.