Practically speaking what's the difference between Marxism and Anarchism? Both as Lenin puts it require "Smashing the State" its just under the guise of Marxism the state will be rebuilt to be dictatorship of the proletariat run by armed workers with goal suppressing the bourgeoisie so they can head towards socialism. While with anarchism when the state is smashed they do not rebuild it and instead head straight into socialism. But I would argue that both large scale anarchist projects, Anarchist Ukraine and Revolutionary Spain, reestablished the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's just anarchists didn't call it state because to them a state is a highly centralized organization with a monopoly on violence, with both projects being federalism as opposed to a centralized body. But to Marx the state is a tool for one class dominating the other. It seems the main disagreement between mainline Marxists and anarchists is semantics.
63 posts and 7 image replies omitted.>>2617771Anarcrackers bad.
>>2617801>communists believe that […] we must first progress to the highest stage of capitalist development.rather than putting a lot of effort into this I'm just gonna say…
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism was published 109 years ago. Make of that what you will.
>>2617914"skibidi ohio rizzler gyatt 6 7 on god" - V.I. Lenin
"Every anarchis is a baffled dictator"
Klara Zetkin.
>>2617973believe it or not anon but semantics do matter if we cant agree with what words mean than there no way we can work together.
>>2618038wow cool i know about wittgenstein too
>>2618184adding to this quote a nice reminder that marx & engels fucking loathed intellectuals
<The biggest obstacles are the small peasants and the importunate super-clever intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm >>2618184The stateless communist society will also have commissions and such, some anarchists were retarded and hypocritical in their anti authoritarianism but so is Engels with his strawman.
In any case MLoids can mock anarchists for their defiance to authority all they want, everyone remembers how the USSR fell with barely a whimper because the working class was robbed of its power to such an extent the party could organize its collapse in a swift and orderly way without meaningful opposition from the masses.
>>2618442>The stateless communist society will also have commissions and suchwho gaf as long as its actually moneyless classless stateless
>>2618442Maybe the working class in the ussr never cared about communism in the first place.
>>2618442but anon anarchists do the same shit to this day. as do leftcoms. just call things different names and act like it's somehow different
>>2617771>Practically speaking what's the difference between Marxism and Anarchism?Practically everything but theoretically marxism wants to first establish dictatorship of proletariat as a transitional period for communism e.g stateless and classless society.
>>2618446They lost hope after party failed to deliver on their promises.
>>2618430>marx & engels fucking loathed intellectualsUnlike themselves, who were simply ???s.
>>2618558you dont even know what "intellectual" means lol
inb4 vague all-encompassing definition
>>2617771I felt like we had this thread a year ago, you bastards really haven't changed in your disregard for study.
>>2617867>marxists think communism is predicated on having the productive forces in industrial technology and capacity for a post scarcity economy such that part time voluntary free labor is sufficient to provide beyond the necessities of life for everyone so they can spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they want and will be able to develop according to their desires. No, tribes were communist.
marxist get shit done anarchists complain about it
>>2618603Its a fundamental discussion between two forms of communism. Also we have new friends and probably lost few too.
>>2618594What were they then?
>>2618638
Go back to /pol/.
>>2618605omg primitive communism (hunter gatherer society) is not the same thing as post-capitalist communism.
>>2618430anon's claim:
>marx & engels fucking loathed intellectualsanon's "proof" of claim:
<intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it.my conclusion:
they didn't hate "intellectuals" (after all, they were intellectuals) they hated the specific "intellectuals" who "always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it" i.e. what we now call "Victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect."
>>2618671Me living in that valley fr.
>>2618666Sure not, but it is similar in: no bourge class or exploiters, no wage labor.
Also post-scarcity is problematic. By developing productive forces I think Marx/Engels meant that capitalism inhibit development. Not some robot fuckers. Also when he say: "slave could not become fully free, he could become a prol". He does not mean there is no robots or tech. But also I think there is no commmodity that can get fully developed, or may just some commodities. So it is naive to assume bourge will perfect everything, then communists just take power from them. Naie to think things can get perfected at all. The perfect car. Perfect computer.. no.
>>2618671Read the whole letter.
> I cannot see how you can speak of the ignorance of the masses in Germany after the brilliant evidence of political maturity shown by the workers in their victorious struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law. The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true, but if the worst comes to the worst we can always buy them just as well as the capitalists buy them, and if a severe example is made of a few of the traders among them — for traders there are sure to be — they will find it to their own advantage to deal fairly with us. But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check. Nobody says "intellectual" to refer to engineers or scientists.
>>2618775>Nobody says "intellectual" to refer to engineers or scientists.I think you'll find that many people use that word to refer to the latter.
>>2618778>literally "many are saying this"Pretty sure they just call scientists scientists and, say, philosophers get called intellectuals or academics instead.
>>2618779at the time it kinda meant people who could read lol
>Posts quote about intellectuals making sophistic arguments based on terminology
<Starts long discussion about the meaning of 'intellectual'
Never change /leftypol/
You know it seems like 90% of Marxism is arguing about the definition of all the jargon, capitalism, commodity, DOTP, bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, abolish(aufheben), revolution, proletariat, lumpen-proletariat, labor time value, vanguard party, imperialism.
I could keep thinking and remembering many other debates on hear about all these terms and categories and what they mean and who fits them. You don't want to hear the Christian comparison, but it really is reminiscent where some vague term that's used like once and then every different sect extrapolates some grand meaning and how it applies to whatever far removed from the original context.
The most practical difference for me is that I get laid more on my Marxist bender than I do on my anarchist bender. Let's just say I'm older than 30 while not necessarily being in my 30s, so it feels more congruent to go around with my horn-rimmed glasses and my tweed turtleneck while calling myself a Marxist than it does while calling myself an anarchist. Nobody takes me seriously when I call myself an anarchist, because it conjures up images of edgy teenagers throwing Molotovs. It's sort of like when non-traditional Satanists try to call themselves Satanists and expect to be taken seriously because they don't really believe in Satan and are simply engaging with philosophical egoism or some such – nah, bro, there's no getting past the cringey stereotypes.
>>2619057theory without practice is academia, and practice without theory is adventurism.
>>2618775>Nobody says "intellectual" to refer to engineers or scientists.ok i wasn't suggesting they did, goalpost shifter
Holy fuck I wish I could just make everyone in this thread read
>>2617782>>2617779Practically the only useful posts in this entire thread. The rest of this nonsense has finally convinced me to stop coming to this site.
>>2618442I agree mostly but I do want to add on. The thing that enabled the collapse of the USSR in the first place were the relations of production, which privileged the managers of the state-ran enterprises and party members over the workers. And the USSR was in a predicament where socialism internationally had not come to fruition and actually existing socialism had already been proclaimed to the masses under Stalin, with all alternative political options and intellectual movements already purged or undergoing repression, so socialism was in practice implemented only in part (which is as such the only thing you could do in that situation) but this fact was not acknowledged due to the social structures which solidified after Lenin's death. So class struggle went on unresolved, with the working masses paradoxically repressed. Any future socialist movement will have to find a way to complete the tutelage of workers in their capacity to run a society and an economy on their own, without a way for apparatchiks to seize power. This seems to be a task that I haven't really seen any answers to in Marxist circles, even presupposing an international revolution.
Lenin on the difference between Marxists and Anarchists from The State and Revolution.
>The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.
But from my reading of The State and Revolution, Lenin is just as vague on the notion of what will replace the state after the social revolution as the anarchists are.
>>2617771Communists hate the gays. Anarchists hate the gays and women.
>>2620208It won't be "replaced", materially it will be there, but cease to be a state because there will no longer be classes. It will perform the "mere administration of things"
>>2620208>The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution,Lenin also says elsewhere:
<Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.<And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.<Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms. >>2620210most anarchists are gay, and women
>>2620208>But from my reading of The State and Revolution, Lenin is just as vague what do you mean? hes pretty specific, at least about the first phase that immediately replaces what was before
>>2620415In terms of organization of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>2620208Why should communists dogmatically copy a failed and collapsed model like Leninism?
anarkids believe "the state" is an actual god, they are idolaters and should be put to death according to the strict law of the torah
>>2620582but anon Capital is a real god
>>2618666Primitive communism as described by Engels wasn't all hunter gatherer societies. His main example were the haudenosaunee, an subsistance agriculture society
Unique IPs: 28