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.
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.