Cowbee incoming…
Not all anarchist critique of communism is anarchist by virtue of coming from self-described anarchists. Some is liberal, and the barrier to entry for genuine anarchist critique of existing and formerly existing socialist states is higher than just repeating red scare era misinformation. Further, some anarchist critique is genuinely anarchist critique, but based on misinformation from liberals and fascists, and so still needs to be corrected even if we accepted the nature of the critique.
The reverse is also true for Marxists critiqueing anarchists, of course, but there just isn’t the same level of scale when it comes to existing anarchist projects, so the level of anti-anarchist fearmongering from liberals and fascists isn’t nearly as high. Regardless of your opinions on anarchism, this is a basic fact that must be accepted.
The pursuit of genuine truth for genuine critique is something anarchists and Marxists should agree on, especially when we both should agree that it’s the fascists and liberals that are our primary enemies, not each other. Anarchists and Marxists have worked together on numerous occasions, it’s the rare times that we’ve raised arms against each other that get remembered to sow division.
Not really arguing the main point, but I do find it important to mention that the reason there isn’t the same level of scale when it comes to anarchist projects is because communists actively sold them out, killed them, and jailed them. There were multiple anarchist communes and councils but they were systematically destroyed during the rise of the USSR and Stalinism. WW1 and 2 didn’t really help either, and it wasn’t only communists going after them either but I feel their role shouldnt be understated either. Obviously with an ideology opposed to state hood and wielding political power, it makes sense that the rhetoric and political machines communists used at the time won out, even if there was mass popularity for the anarchist cause amongst the workers.
Critique is important and so is being wary ornrepeating history. But at this point working together is our best strategy and fighting over petty differences is just doing the feds work for them.
That’s generally not true. Not only has Marxism been largely localized and thus anarchism had plenty of room on its own to struggle, but Marxists and anarchists worked together more often than not. The times with open fighting were usually when both groups took up arms against each other, such as Makhnovschina (which even other anarchists like Lucy Parsons called bandits). The deliberate choices of those anarchists shouldn’t be minimized.
Anarchists can have ideological disagreements with MLs without deepthroating western interpretations of eastern European events
This meme is giving me PugJesus vibes - hope that guy is doing ok.
Yes yes everything in the world is a CIA colour revolution, Stalin was Russian Jesus, nothing ever happened in 1989, there is no genocide of the Tibetans or Uyghurs, etc. etc.
This is giving me big .ml vibes.
GTFO with this antagonistic bullshit.
Me? Mate, you’re the one who commented shit.
Me? Mate, you’re the one who was shadowboxing nobody.
Communists love Anarchists (in the west).
That’s perhaps true since the fall of the USSR, but European so-called communists definitely did not love anarchists for most of their history. Most anarchists I know are still very weary of people calling themselves communists
Lotta anarchists are just liberals. Makes sense.
Nothing says liberal like wanting the working class to control the means of production and opposing the entrenched power structures that underpin capitalism. /s
Repeating Stalin’s bullshit takes is really cringe, comrade.
Most anarchists are libertarian socialists (i.e. anarcho-communists), comrade.
I didn’t even know Stalin said that lol. Kinda reinforces my point if people have been making this observation for generations now.
Every time this topic comes up, the users in this community rush to defend liberalism. If the shoe fits…
Explain how anarchism is supposedly “liberal”.
I’m still collecting observations, but I’ve had dozens of users in this community defend liberalism on numerous occasions. Maybe ur not sending your best?
Who do you mean by “you” who is presumably “not sending [their] best”? I’m not “sending” squat.
Every time this topic comes up, the users in this community rush to defend liberalism
Where??
The user ended up deleting their comment but they were making the point that liberalism is the pillar of a moral society and was getting upvoted. The same sentiment is often brought up in this community. Definitely a pattern.
but they were making the point that liberalism is the pillar of a moral society
Doesn’t sound too anarchistic, tbh.
Liberals are right wing. Both conservative and liberal criticisms of communism are right wing criticisms. Communists hate liberals for the same reasons they hate conservatives.
Anarchists can label themselves however they like, but it doesn’t mean they’re immune to liberal/conservative propaganda. I’ve seen far too many anarchists repeat debunked commie propaganda.
4/10 meme.
ohno - you were the meme, I’m sorry it hurt you ;p
Hahahaha, oh fuck please tell me you’re serious.
I’m just sharing a funny meme. Take a deep breath…
Damn, well at least it’s good to know you agree they can’t handle criticism of their ideas.
That isnt what the meme is depicting lol.
Correct, the meme is saying the opposite, but you were just sharing a funny meme so it’s not something you actually believe - right?
*checks username.
Sure.
The name of a cartoon dog. Everything ok fella?
The name of a cartoon dog created by an altright loony that uses his comic strip to promote libertarian ideas. You don’t get the accuse people who disagree with you of being influenced by propaganda while being enough of a fan of Scott Adams to use one of his characters as your name source.
I never watched dilbert lol. It’s a childhood nickname. This is one of the dumbest interactions I’ve ever had…
You know way more about the show than I do. Wouldn’t that make you the conservative? lol.
Sure.
Check-mate, conservative 😉
American Democrats are Right Wing. Liberals are centrist. (Center Left to Center Right).
Not every liberal is right wing - liberalism can be differentiated into social liberalism and economic liberalism, a point that is sorely missing in every US-centric discussion. Social liberalism is inherently left wing, and therefore their criticism of communism has a different reasons than the right-wing position.
Liberals ARE right wing, they all want capitalism at the helm of society
I must disagree - i am socially liberal, but i can plainly see that capitalism does not move us forward and is actively harmful at this point. There are areas where a tightly regulated free market has it advantages - not every area should be centrally planned, and i am not a proponent of abolishing private ownership. But i am very much for much stronger regulation and state ownership for the areas that are important for the populace and social peace, like energy, healthcare, pensions, housing, military, everything judiciary and basic food supply. Everyone should be able to have a life that is worth living, and the state does not have a say in anything social outside of some basic tenets - intolerance is basically outlawed, except intolerance towards exploitation or intolerance. There are of course many other important things that i can’t even start to think of, but noone is asking me anyways - but you see, social liberals are inherently left wing if they actually are social liberals.
Removed by mod
Left wing VS Right wing is a matter of economics, not morals. Communism is not a moral system. If an ideology is anti-capitalist then it is left wing. Authoritarianism can be left wing.
You can say authoritarianism stands in the way of progress, yet the USSR went from a country of peasants, to exploring space and going toe to toe with the strongest capitalist nation in history. I would consider that tremendous progress. That doesn’t mean the USSR was perfect, nor does it excuse the authoritarianism, but it doesn’t align with your perception of “regression”.
Communists oppose liberals because liberals are capitalists. Commies watched liberals create the most powerful racist colonial machine in human history. I don’t think there’s any envy of “personal freedom” here.
This is reductionist. Left vs Right is about societal organisation. Right wing politics believes hierarchies are natural, necessary, or both, and trying to tamper with them is bad. Left wing politics believes hierarchies are unjust or bad for human flourishing, and they should be removed. Reducing it to only one hierarchy, capitalism, leaves the door open for bad actors. A monarchist can be anti-capitalist without being left-wing.
Hierarchies are created by resource ownership. Capitalism is the current system of resource ownership. The disconnect here is coming from you thinking in the abstract, while communist perspectives are rooted in material analysis of the current world we live in.
Your proposal seems to be that we should replace the current hierarchical mode of resource ownership(capitalism) with another hierarchical mode of resource ownership(a state). This seems to not resolve the issue of hierarchies, only of the current hierarchy.
If you have even a cursory understanding of socialism/communism you understand that the end goal is a stateless/classless society. Socialism is merely the process where the resources are stripped from the wealthy and redistributed.
A hierarchy is immoral when it is triangular. That means the wealthy are a small few at the top, controlling the masses. When socialism creates a proletarian dictatorship, it flips the triangle upside down, where the masses are controlling the once powerful elites. I personally don’t have any moral objections to the masses having this power, but for those that do, they can rest assured that the end goal is for no hierarchy to exist in the end.
The anarchist method is a fantasy because it relies on a magic wand being waived where suddenly we are stateless and classless. Socialism is a scientific process and it takes time.
right, this was obviously why the soviets had to be abolished, they consisted purely of the elites. It is also why Makhnovist Ukraine had to be destroyed, because of it’s bourgeois stateness, and why so many stateless societies came from the communist revolutions, as opposed to the anarchist ones like in Rojava, which all failed. Obviously.
deleted by creator
Nope, leftism really does start with anti-capitalism. The depravity and immorality is baked into the system of capitalism, so morality is an important aspect in these discussions, but it’s really all about money at the end of the day. The hierarchies you’re referencing that existed before capitalism were still a result of wealth hoarding, and those that opposed these hierarchies were against the mass hoarding of wealth. Does that sound familiar? It should…
Ah yes the long term damages of Eurocommunism. The reason Europeans still get to enjoy free healthcare and stronger employee rights to this day. Terrifying.
Edit: lmao they deleted their comment 🤣
Leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy, y’know with the left originating from those opposed to greater monarchical powers in the French government.
Left/Right is intrinsically linked to social issues, not simply economics.
Left/Right is linked to social issues, because those social issues are impacted by economics. Economics always comes first my friend.
The notion that “leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy” is not really a sentiment that is supported by academic works in any capacity. It doesn’t even hold up to extremely simple scrutiny. There are plenty of conservative democracies across the world.
Authority predates economics. Authority is the root of all problems, economics in a capitalist sense are designed to maintain a hold on power.
Representative “Democracies” as they exist today are not anti-authority or even really a democracy. Only direct democracy can bring that.
Removed by mod
It’s a basic fact. If you are pro-capitalism but also pro-gay you are still right wing. This is just politics 101…
Liberalism is right wing.
Left and right wing are relative classifications. LIerals were left-wing in feudal times.
Both conservative and liberal criticisms of communism are right wing criticisms.
You should really learn to distinguish the contents of a critique from the party who uttered it. When liberals critizise the authoritarian structure of the USSR, that’s a leftist critique.
I love the understanding nuance displayed in your post. Political groups I disagree with can have progressive and left ideas. The acknowledgment of political spectrums is also fantastic. Left and right do not capture the nuance difference in communism sought by ML’s and anarchists.
I have been told ML’s don’t even want the same communism as anarchists. Moneyless, but the state and classes; that must be utilized for the revolution, my guy. Anarchists, by contrast, find the state and political class systemically flawed. May we build a better system than the state.
