Hey I don’t trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I’m just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I’d rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
Historically, it hasn’t really been the case that Marxists have hunted down anarchists for having anarchist beliefs. What normally happens is Marxists wage war ideologically on anarchism, and some anarchists take up arms or form cells to oppose the socialist state the Marxists have set up. The anarchists have historically had far more agency than simply being hunted down, and in many cases anarchists have worked alongside Marxists for mutual benefit.
I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI’s fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn’t the Kronstadt Rebellion’s fault for wanting the worker’s soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn’t the Ukrainian Black Army’s fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist’s principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don’t want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don’t see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Kronstadt wasn’t an anarchist revolt, nor was it about “freedom of speech,” it was a group of sailors that wanted privledged positions that destabilized the war effort that was led by a Tsarist that later joined the white army, Stepan Petrichenko.
Either way, I think the biggest struggle is that the ends are not the same at all, which is a common misconception. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primary about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
😢
Hey I don’t trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I’m just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I’d rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
Historically, it hasn’t really been the case that Marxists have hunted down anarchists for having anarchist beliefs. What normally happens is Marxists wage war ideologically on anarchism, and some anarchists take up arms or form cells to oppose the socialist state the Marxists have set up. The anarchists have historically had far more agency than simply being hunted down, and in many cases anarchists have worked alongside Marxists for mutual benefit.
Just wanted to give you fresh perspective.
I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI’s fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn’t the Kronstadt Rebellion’s fault for wanting the worker’s soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn’t the Ukrainian Black Army’s fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist’s principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don’t want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don’t see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Kronstadt wasn’t an anarchist revolt, nor was it about “freedom of speech,” it was a group of sailors that wanted privledged positions that destabilized the war effort that was led by a Tsarist that later joined the white army, Stepan Petrichenko.
Either way, I think the biggest struggle is that the ends are not the same at all, which is a common misconception. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primary about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.