You're viewing a single thread.
My views fall mainly under progressive, between liberal and far-left. I believe we should cap wealth at a billion dollars, and use the surplus capital for alternative energy infrastructure.
That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
There are plenty of people on the left that hold non-centrist views, who would also not be considered far-left.
There is no "burn it all down and let a Socialist utopia rise from the ashes" perspective on the far-left, and I say that as a Marxist. Anarchists wish to build a new society out of the shell of the old, from within, while Marxists advocate building up dual power. In neither case do leftists believe in rising from "ashes," but building up and replacing the current system.
too many misunderstand anarchy to be about destroying structures that exist. many of them are doing a pretty good job of that to themselves already, and the ones that are left would rather slaughter us than disarm. it's the final throes of a dying beast. too dangerous to throw more lives at, but nature will run its course eventually.
so we (anarchists) instead create structure to survive where we are, with the goal of directly helping people help each other, aiming to grow past existing power structures. it has been surprisingly possible to do a lot of praxis without even firebombing a second Chipotle
Two points:
- Prefiguration means "building the new within the shell of the old. Otherwise, you could misunderstand it as some "rise from the ashes" philosophy.
- Prefiguration is a dual power approach, as well.
Re 1:
I don't see how what I said is different from what you said. My wording pretty clearly included "from within," it still relies on existing infrastructure and industry but creates new horizontal organizational networks from within. I used to be an Anarchist, I still have knowledge of Anarchism.
Re 2:
Marxist Dual Power and Anarchist Prefiguration are similar approaches but I believe calling them both "dual power" approaches can be very misleading. Marxists and Anarchists want fundamentally different structures in the end and the beginning, agreeing on building up alternatives within existing society does not mean they share anything else truly in common.
-
I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. I don't read what you wrote as properly describing prefiguration. If you disagree, consider it a clarification of what you wrote.
-
"Marxists and Anarchists want fundamentally different structures in the end"??? Say whut? I thought Marxists understood communism as a stateless society, as well.
Marxists don't have a monopoly on the approach of dual power. Every anarchist prefigurative approach that doesn't aim for a utopian commune, separated from the outside capitalist world (i.e.: every re-olutionary approach) is also a dual power approach. Or are you claiming that anarcho-syndicalist tactics aren't dual power?
The main difference between Marxists and Anarchists in this regard is that Anarchists try to unify means and ends, while Marxists do not. But both try to establish dual power.
-
As long as we both understand.
-
The idea that Marxists and Anarchists have the same end goal is common of those who don't read Marxist theory. Marxists and Anarchists have a different notion of what constitutes a state. Marxists see States as the aspects of society that enforce class oppression, Anarchists see States as monopolies on violence and hierarchy. As a consequence, Communism for Marxists is a world Socialist Republic fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned, as classes cease to exist in such a system, while for Anarchists Communism looks like a horizontal spiderweb of mutual aid networks. This fundamental difference in end goal means the tactics are different as well.
Marxists don't have a monopoly on "Dual Power," no, but those using the term "Dual Power" are almost always Marxists. I'm not saying that Anarchists don't practice similar approaches, but that calling said approach "Dual Power" has a Marxist connotation. Again, this is more semantics.
As for unification of Means and Ends, Anarchists place more importance on it but Marxists don't abandon that either. Engels does a good job of explaining the whithering away of the State:
When ultimately it [Cowbee clarification: The State] becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in 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 at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.
The Socialist government that forms the basis of Communism gradually folds Private Property as it develops into monopolist syndicates and makes itself ripe for central planning, this is why Marxists claim the State cannot be abolished overnight.
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
I'm not trying to argue against Anarchism here, or even argue in general, just offer clarification on Marxism. This community has strict rules against supporting Marxist movements and opposing Anarchism anyways, and I don't wish to infringe on those rules, but there's nothing against clarifying the Marxist stance.
You really can't help yourself with all the essays you write when no one is asking, huh?
In short: I disagree (e.g.: I know self-proclaimed Marxists who agree that the end goals of Marxists and Anarchists are the same) and disengage.
A couple paragraphs were necessary to answer questions *you asked.*Do you have any reasoning for saying that? I gave pretty clear examples straight from Engels. Oh well, you can disengage if you want.
Do you always answer rethorical questions? (don't answer, it's a rethorical question)
Edit: What question are you actually answering when writing books on your understanding of dual power and means-ends unification?
-
-
“burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
Yeah, I haven't really been able to make sense of all the tailism and accelerationism happening on .ml and hexbear. I don't know how we've gotten to the point where stanning a bunch of right winged authoritarian countries is a form of anti-imperialism.
Unlike anarchists, MLs don't really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can't cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.
The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of "burn it all down".
Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?
I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it's only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.
Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand...... But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the "imperialist core".
Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don't know about or something?
Lenin didn't define Imperialism as "competition between great powers," just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin's analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.
Lenin didn't define Imperialism as "competition between great powers," just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers.
I feel like that's a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.
The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin's analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits
I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn't really ever mention the "global South", during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.
selling back in the Imperial Core.
Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.
My point is that the "war" was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively, otherwise I'd link Imperialism and be done with it, like how I used the Coke example. Additionally, "Global South" is shorthand for "exploited countries," it usually coincides with geography but doesn't necessarily.
Finally, it isn't antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time. The world being divided and having one power with dominance is an example of two opposing ideas that can and do exist at the same time, and will be a source of conflict. Marxists call this a Primary Contradiction, that spawns Secondary Contradictions.
My point is that the "war" was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively
But people are utilizing the "short hand" of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.
Finally, it isn't antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
I just don't really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
Hence why Imperialism defeats itself.
Hence why Imperialism defeats itself.
Right, I'm not defending imperialism though. It just seems that leftist shouldn't be supporting the most reactionary views of the masses.
Supporting regimes like Russia is dismissing the social struggle of potential revolutionary voices at home and abroad.
"The tendency of tailism can be observed in the dismissive and confrontational attitudes some on the left take to matters of social importance—women’s struggles, LGBT+ issues, racism, etc.—that are adjacent to class struggle. We have surely all heard it said countless times that certain issues are “a distraction from class struggle,” or “not of any concern to the working class.” It surely does not need pointing out that the working class comprises people of all gender backgrounds, sexual orientations, races, and ethnicities, and these struggles are of direct and immediate concern to them and their lives. In fact these struggles are inextricably linked to class struggle and should always be regarded as such.
As communists, we assert that the primary contradiction that shapes and defines the world is that of class struggle: between the bourgeoisie and the working class. However, it does not follow from this that our work or our analysis must disregard all other contradictions and struggles as irrelevant. Quite the contrary: we must seek to unite struggles against all forms of exploitation in the revolutionary fight for communism. This is the very nature of class struggle.
In addition, Lenin critiques the narrow focus of economism, which he describes thus: “The Economists [limit] the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle [is] the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.”[2] He asserts that the fight for revolutionary gains must be waged on a political as well as an economic front. The task of communists is to unite the working class in a revolutionary movement, not to limit our focus to mere economic demands, which are in any case quantitative and not transformative."
Ah, yeah, they don't read theory written after the 1970s. I wouldn't try to reconcile it with anything written afterwards.
Well the crazy thing is, I'm starting to think they don't read anything but reductionist interpretations made by their fellow shit posters.
A lot of the language they use are terms made by liberal academics made to critique neoliberal policies in the Regan era. They just ignore the rest of the theory they don't agree with, and then claim it all as Marxist Leninists, despite it being antithetical to actual ML writing.
My main take on Tankies is that they're sort of stealth right-wingers.
They believe that the way to communism is through a strongman dictator who will enforce the communism from the top.
If you sub out communism for "social hierarchies" then you have the right-wing wet dream. Because Tankies worship Lenin, the man who betrayed the revolution to seize power after he lost an election. It was the first and last free election in Russia, and Lenin ignored the results because he lost. Then he spent the rest of his life pretending that an authoritarian dictatorship could ever be communist.
No, true communism needs to come from the people. Extreme democracy is the way.
If you sub out communism for “social hierarchies” then you have the right-wing wet dream.
If you replace "the abolition of social hierarchies" with "the reinforcement of social hierarchies," it makes left wing people sound just like right wing people 🤔
My point is that Tankies love dictators and hate democracy.
Which is the antithesis of communism.
Communism is much closer to a worker co-opt than anything else.
Dictators who seize the means of production are just kings in disguise. That's Feudalism. It's a step backwards.
Turns out when 90±% of people when put into power have to grapple with their own morals and outside pressures they conform to what the situation calls for right then or use it for their own gain. You're never going to get to utopia when there's so much disfunction and division in the human experience
To me the tankies are almost like nazis in that regard that they want to force the issue and create a new world RIGHT NOW. When there are going to be a billion different factors that are going to counter act that notion and with prejudice
How did you come up with 1 billion dollars as the cap? You know that's an absolutely absurd amount of money right?
i’d much rather be arguing about what the cap should be than be arguing if there should even be a cap
I chose it arbitrarily. Specifically, I think we should look at historical economic trends, admit that Trickle-Down/Voodoo/Horse and Sparrow economics yielded inequality, redistribute the surplus, and implement equitable economic policies.
I’m much more of a “be the dandelions cracking through the pavement” far left than a “burn it down” type
That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
I don't know how you combat climate change if you refuse to touch the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
I don't know how you address mass incarceration if you won't dismantle these massive organizations designed to surveil, arrest, and extort poor and homeless people at the scale we operate.
I don't know how you address greedflation and wage theft on a national scale if you don't touch the banking system, you leave in place these huge wage disparities, and you permit privatized industry to control all our critical natural resources.
When we talk about this kind of institution going away, we're talking about creative destruction. Clear space for Green Energy. Establish real civil rights and social justice, rather than a trillion dollar pack of mall cops guarding the richest people's property. Build an economy that allows public collaboration rather than industrial rent seeking.
That's not even utopian. It's just a step forward from capitalism.
But what are we going to do as a society if we don't label all people we don't like as a radical?
If I’ve learned anything from the collective left, it’s that unity comes second to bickering.
Wedge posts like this don’t help.
Exclusivity is more important than inclusivity.