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.
Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
Administration is not a class, just as managers at companies are not owners. Collectivized production and distribution has equal ownership, but also contains administrators, foremen, etc as are necessary for global, interconnected production and distribution.
As for Marxists and anarchists working together, we share capitalists as a common enemy, and can work together as such. Right now, imperialism is the highest contradiction, so we share common interest in the downfall of the US Empire.
Returning to Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:
To abolish all Political Departments, because no single party may enjoy privileges in the propagation of its ideas and receive funds from the state for this purpose. Instead of these Departments, locally elected cultural-educational commissions must be established and supported by the state. This is the reason for the inclusion of this document in a collection otherwise devoted entirely to official publications.
All ‘cordon detachments” are to be abolished immediately.
To abolish all Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various Communist guards at factories. If such detachments and guards are needed they may be chosen from the companies in military units and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers.
They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal. Further, Lenin did not disband the soviets, the point raised by the sailors was that they “didn’t represent the will of the people:”
In view of the fact that the present soviets do not represent the will of the workers and peasants, to re-elect the soviets immediately by secret voting, with free canvassing among all workers and peasants before the elections.
They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn’t like how they were made up.
Further, they were led by a council containing Stepan Petrichenko, who claimed to be an “anarcho-syndicalist” but officially joined the Tsarist White Army a year after his failed terrorist attack. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.
I really don’t think you want to claim this as genuinely anarchist.
Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn’t work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I’ll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain’t claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
As for the soviets, they were democratic. Having a unitary democracy based on social cohesion and common interest over competing parties and outlawing bolshevik representation is both antidemocratic and horribly flawed in the context of a bloody civil war where the bolsheviks were the most supported group. Had the mutiny succeeded, the lack of cohesion would have led to the socialists getting trounced by fascists near-instantly.
All in all though, good luck yourself. I have no intention of being a “boot,” I want a better world for everyone, where we as a society can collectively produce and distrubute according to a common plan for the good of all. Basically Star Trek.
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.
Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/kronstadt-uprising/kronstadt-uprising-texts/demands-of-the-kronstadt-insurgents/
Administration is not a class, just as managers at companies are not owners. Collectivized production and distribution has equal ownership, but also contains administrators, foremen, etc as are necessary for global, interconnected production and distribution.
As for Marxists and anarchists working together, we share capitalists as a common enemy, and can work together as such. Right now, imperialism is the highest contradiction, so we share common interest in the downfall of the US Empire.
Returning to Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:
They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal. Further, Lenin did not disband the soviets, the point raised by the sailors was that they “didn’t represent the will of the people:”
They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn’t like how they were made up.
Further, they were led by a council containing Stepan Petrichenko, who claimed to be an “anarcho-syndicalist” but officially joined the Tsarist White Army a year after his failed terrorist attack. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.
I really don’t think you want to claim this as genuinely anarchist.
Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn’t work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I’ll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain’t claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
According to Paul Avrich, Petrichenko was denied in his attempt before Kronstadt, but was allowed in May, under general Pyotr Wrangel. My point is not to say that anarchists are bad people or anything, but that the Kronstadt mutiny was hardly anarchist, it was clearly opportunist in nature. The Spanish anarchists were real anarchists.
As for the soviets, they were democratic. Having a unitary democracy based on social cohesion and common interest over competing parties and outlawing bolshevik representation is both antidemocratic and horribly flawed in the context of a bloody civil war where the bolsheviks were the most supported group. Had the mutiny succeeded, the lack of cohesion would have led to the socialists getting trounced by fascists near-instantly.
All in all though, good luck yourself. I have no intention of being a “boot,” I want a better world for everyone, where we as a society can collectively produce and distrubute according to a common plan for the good of all. Basically Star Trek.