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.
>>2617771the communist line is that communism is a proletarian ideology based on collective (class) liberation and negative freedom (as in freedom from exploitation) and anarchism is a petty bourgeois ideology based on individual liberation and positive freedom (as in freedom to do what you want without consequences).
Communism is fine with authority, especially revolutionary authority. Anarchism flattens Fascist, Communist, and Capitalist governments into "Authoritarian" threats to individual freedom.
>>2617771> It seems the main disagreement between mainline Marxists and anarchists is semantics.Here is an entire playlist of audiobooks going into this subject matter from a Communist perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2snvadNla0CQAB3jfwAM_MGu7 >>2617779But what of the classless, stateless society?
>>2617783>But what of the classless, stateless society?Marxists and Anarchists disagree on how to get there, i.e. the actual practical methodology, so even though they have the "same" goal they aren't going to get along well when it comes to the actual work. I used to think they would get along, but in practice I see that they don't. It saddens me but it's true. There's no room for my sadness getting in the way of reality. Maybe at certain junctures they can team up against reactionaries, but there is too much distrust and difference of theory and methodology.
>>2617784And in any case they typically regard one another with hostility, and as reactionaries. There's also a lot of historical bad blood going back to the 1870s (see "The Bakuninists and their Work" by Marx for example.)
>>2617784>>2617785Can any of you even explain what the fuck is an Anarchism in the current era? Or even in any era, but the fuck is an anarchism?
>>2617771>Practically speaking what's the difference between Marxism and Anarchism?My understanding is that Communists want to taker over the state, and Anarchists want to just live outside the confines of the state as much as they can. Anarchists want found communes or be hobos or whatever brand of hippy. I don't think their goals are the same at all. Communists just want more or less what we already have but better and without the bourgeois controlling things and then without any classes whatsoever. Anarchists just want to RETVRN to the pre-industrial era, pre-feudal era, maybe the tribal era, but this time we'll do it right and it won't turn into feudalism and then capitalism all over again.
Or maybe you're telling me that anarchists want to keep up supply chains, road networks, telecommunications, energy grids, nuclear power plants, but like, ANARCHICALLY.
>>2617789I don't see anarchists as any kind of threat tho. I just see them as like the mentally handicapped brother, but I guess he has a good heart or something. He won't bother anyone really, but it's not like he's ever going to accomplish anything, he's just there, being retarded for the rest of his life.
>>2617789>>2617790In the modern era too, it seems like it's mostly just an aesthetic, not even a lifestyle.
>Oooh I wear all Black and shop at Hot Topic, I'm such an edgy boy! In the West you'll meet with most anarchists in social democratic parties, e.g. Die Linke, DSA, etc.
In the East anarchism doesn't exist because it has no practical answer to imperialism.
That's all you need to know about these idiots in 2026.
>>2617794>In the east anarchism doesn't existIndonesia?
>>2617789>My understanding is that Communists want to taker over the state and Anarchists want to just live outside the confines of the state as much as they can. Your understanding is wrong. They both want to eliminate the state, they just disagree about the means of getting there. Anarchists believe that a classless, stateless society is possible now, whereas communists believe that we do not yet have the means of production, or industrial technology, necessary for such a thing to exist, and that we must first progress to the highest stage of capitalist development.
>>2617801>Your understanding is wrong. They both want to eliminate the state, You are wrong, and we're going to end up getting into some autism about what Abolish(Aufheben) means.
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. >>2617803> When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. Nowhere does it say shit about abolishing the state. It is just about abolishing classes.
I wonder how much associating with retarded anarchists trying to explain what communism has corrupted the communist movement.
>>2617803Of course, as everyone knows, Marx predicted a class society based around the state! How could I have been so foolish?
>>2617779>marx opposed positive freedom Just right off the bat the terms positive and negative freedom came from a paper in 1942 by Isaiah Berlin so Marx never used the term, instead used the term real freedom with is more or less a combination of both but i'm just going to ignore that right now. But you have it wrong from the definition of positive and negative freedom Marx would have supported both he just argued under capitalism "…personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class." Negative freedom is freedom from tyranny while Positive freedom is the ability do want you want. Under capitalism in liberal democracy freedom is only negative we are free the arbitrary tyranny of the state. But we are not free to develop are selves as we see fit because under capitalism we are subservient to the will of capital and those modes of existences out side of that will are impossible. As marx put it "Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person"
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm
>Communism is fine with authority, especially revolutionary authority. Anarchism flattens Fascist, Communist, and Capitalist governments into "Authoritarian" threats to individual freedom.Anarchism is not opposed to authority in general rather that of centralized authority which all state types you have mentioned. Because centralized authority in the anarchist mind is that of the state. By that definition Fascist, Communist, and Capitalist states would be the same.
>>2617801>communists believe that […] we must first progress to the highest stage of capitalist development.You are such an ignorant idiot.
>>2617806>Marx predicted a class society based around the stateWhat do your words even mean, lmao
>>2617813>>2617814Thanks for correcting me. Now not only I but everyone else on this website knows and shares your exact viewpoint.
>>2617806What? Did you read what I quoted?
>>2617806>Marx predicted a class society based around the state!How did you read this from any of my posts?
>>2617819My 'exact viewpoint' is that you are so full of shit, so ignorant about basic Marxist 101 takes, that I can't even begin to critique you.
I think in general its a question about centralization. Marxist are for centralism while anarchists want federalism. To anarchists centralism is a state while under federalism its not. To marxists the state is tool for ruling class to oppress the ruled class. As long as there classes there will be a state for them. So in weird way for marxists there is such thing as 'Anarchist State' because there the proletariat are oppressing the bourgeoisie.
Just read state and revolution. The end goal is the same, but As think you can skip the proletarian dictatorship while Ms think it's an obligatory part. The other main point - As deny political action while for Ms it's like unleavened bread (necessary to live). don't listen to people telling you the two can be reconciled (so, anarchism and socialism by plekhamov, anarchism or socialism by stalin, theses on anarchism and state and rev by lenin and read also on authority by engels for good measure, and marx's letter to annenekov)
>>2617831But even afterwards it's still basically a state.
>In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Marx calls it "an association" which still sounds like a state to me. I think Marxism is just about reaching the ideal state where there are no more classes so the state or "association" actually exists to serve the people, or maybe more that the state and the people are one in the same.
>>2617837>I think Marxism is just about reaching the ideal state <the goal of a revolutionary materialist philosophy is to reach an ideal of the thing it wants to abolish look at my theoreticians of the movement dawg we are never getting revolution
>>2617841What does abolishing the state mean to you?
>>2617842The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by 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 also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ’abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ’a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight." (Herr Eugen Duhring’s Revolution in Science [Anti-Duhring], pp.301-03, third German edition.)
>>2617836<Just read state and revolutionI read it and it only sounds like some autistic obsession about what a state is.
>The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. “The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else–this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely “according to his needs".
>From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is “sheer utopia” and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.Whoahh, we won't have a state! We will live in a society! Oh bravo. But is a society different from an association? Marx called it an association, is Lenin talking about something different?
>>2617844I think it's some autism about what a state is. But what does it even matter, the state withering away is some natural process that will just occur after the proletariat seize control of the state. Why even worry about it at this point?
we're limited in words to describe the future state of things because they still have to develop and happen
how is this difficult to understand
when marx eggless or lenine use words with contemporary meaning to describe something in the future they're doing an approximation
what is society? well it depends on how we resolve the contradictions today
why do you retards fail to grasp dialectics so consistently
>>2617849>describe the future state of things I thought we weren't going to have a state in the future?
>>2617848it's not a natural process
>>2617850you're not going to have a burgeois state
the bourgeois state is smashed, the proletarian dictatorship withers away
>>2617851>it's not a natural processDid you even read what you quoted?
>>2617844>State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ’abolished’. It withers away. >>2617852Marx said that the proletariat seizes control of the state, making it a proletarian state.
>>2617854yeah i did. where is the "natural"? history shows class struggle intensifies under a dotp
>>2617855wrong, the proletariat wins the battle of democracy (abolishes the bourgeois state) and makes itself the ruling class (dotp) which then withers away
>>2617857Wrong-Guy, you need to fucking read.
>>2617803>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, >i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. State, of the proletariat organised as the ruling class >>2617859that was before the Paris commune, read the prefaces as well ;)
>>2617836>anarchism and socialism by plekhamovgood for its history of anarchism but completely mischaracterized it as banditry, even Lenin critiqued it for that.
>anarchism or socialism by stalinstalin mischaracterizes anarchism as vulgar individualism
>theses on anarchism by leninidiotic ramblings
>state and rev by leninsurprisingly he gets a lot right, just at some points falls into the same nonsense talking points of engles
>on authority by engelsthe worst thing ever written
>marx's letter to annenekovI haven't read it
But its hard to say if can be reconciled besides the oppostite to centralism anarchist are opposed to party politics, because with parties implies electoralism and comprise with the state. Anarchism predominantly being a revolutionary ideology as no interest in elections.
>>2617771its materialism v idealism.
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.
anarchists think communism has always been possible at all points in time and its just mean bad guys with authority stopping everyone from doing what they want all the time and if we just got rid of the bad guys then you could get glasses and insulin from people who just like to make them cause they are nice.
>>2617801yep
>>2617803no theyre correc. centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State is just the first step, the state withers away when production becomes so efficient that the coercive apparatus transforms from one that governs the distribution of labor to one that administrates the distribution of products.
>>2617810>centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the Statesome are and shit their pants over the justified hierarchy or the teacher or parent. the thing about anarchism is that no one has the authority to define it for everyone
>>2617836>The end goal is the same, but As think you can skip the proletarian dictatorship while Ms think it's an obligatory part.i mean you could speedrun it if it happened in an advanced country. like you could probably transition to full communism in the US within one five year plan and that would also allow AES to accelerate their own plans because they wouldn't have to spend half their labor on defense from imperialism, nor would they have to hide their power and bide their time until they vastly eclipse it because they would just be equal partners internationally
>>2617865>because with parties implies electoralism and comprise with the state. Anarchism predominantly being a revolutionary ideology as no interest in elections.political organization is not just elections and parlamentarism
your pretty bourgeois nature and incorrect understanding of the role of the state is showing, anarchist
>>2617861The Paris Commune text and the preface never say it's not a state.
>>2617867>no theyre correc. centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State is just the first step, the state withers away when production becomes so efficient that the coercive apparatus transforms from one that governs the distribution of labor to one that administrates the distribution of products. But how is it not a state anymore? What makes it not a state?
>>2617869then why call it a party if you are against electorialism? just it call it a communist collective, organization, association, ect. Parties on the current system apply they are electoral in nature.
>>2617845look at the text around the quote. the chapter is called
"The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State" and the section "The Higher Phase of Communist Society"
what is the economic basis?: productive forces .
>>2617875a state is a monopoly on violence, the transition from governance to administration is a transition from coercion to facilitation
>>2617875to the marxist the abolishment of classes to the anarchist the abolishment central authority
>>2617876who's against electorialism? can you show me where i say Marxists are against electorialism?
>>2617880classes are an scientific category, central authority is a moral one. not the same
>>2617879But that's not the definition of a state. Just saying that all states before have been that doesn't make that the definition of a state. Have not all societies been that as well?
Explain the difference between an association, a society, and a state.
>>2617836>anarchism and socialism by plekhamov, anarchism or socialism by stalin, theses on anarchism and state and rev by lenin and read also on authority by engels for good measure, and marx's letter to annenekovSometimes I think that asking anarchists to read is completely futile. 99% are anarchists because they refuse to read in the first place.
My advice to young people instead: just hang out with anarchists. If you don't find them repulsive they can have you. I will NOT try to convert you, reason with you, debate you.
That's it. If you don't have a functioning vibes detector I can't convince you through reason anyways.
>>2617881you did when I said that parties imply electorialism and said "political organization is not just elections and parlamentarism"
>>2617883central authority is real thing is the will of the few or one opposed on the masses. as to opposed to will masses opposed on itself
>>2617884>But that's not the definition of a state.yeah it is
>>2617810>marx opposed positive freedom didn't say that 😒
>Just right off the bat the terms positive and negative freedom came from a paper in 1942 by Isaiah Berlin so Marx never used the termdidn't say that either
> instead used the term real freedom with is more or less a combination of bothOK; interesting, thank you
> but i'm just going to ignore that right now. But you have it wrong from the definition of positive and negative freedom Marx would have supported both he just argued under capitalism "…personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class." Negative freedom is freedom from tyranny while Positive freedom is the ability do want you want. I don't disagree
>Under capitalism in liberal democracy freedom is only negative I disagree. The bourgeoisie have positive freedom to exploit people for surplus value, and workers do not have negative freedom from said exploitation.
>we are free the arbitrary tyranny of the stateOK but the private sector is full of arbitrary tyranny
>But we are not free to develop are selves as we see fit because under capitalism we are subservient to the will of capital and those modes of existences out side of that will are impossible. As marx put it "Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person"yes
>Anarchism is not opposed to authority in general rather that of centralized authority which all state types you have mentioned. Because centralized authority in the anarchist mind is that of the state. By that definition Fascist, Communist, and Capitalist states would be the same.Decentralized authority can be arbitrary, parochial, and terroristic as well, lacking broader societal oversight.
>>2617897According to who?
>>2617771Anarchism = use democracy to smash authority
Leninism = use authority to smash authority
>>2617912Boomer facebook memes
>>2617901>didn't say thatI'm just informing everyone that positive and negative freedom is not a marxist term.
>I disagree. The bourgeoisie have positive freedom to exploit people for surplus value, and workers do not have negative freedom from said exploitation.they do not have positive freedom just like proletariat they subservient to the will of capital. they are in constant competition with each to maximize profits lest they be consumed by a greater capital. they can not afford to exist out that system or they will be reduced to that of proletariat.
>OK but the private sector is full of arbitrary tyrannythats why anarchists oppose private ownership
>Decentralized authority can be arbitrary, parochial, and terroristic as well, lacking broader societal oversight.we are not utopians we do not believe that there can society with no injustice. where authority is welded arbitrarily. but we believe that it can be prevented in most cases through democratization of the means of production and housing. Its the same as the marxist end goal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>>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: 33