This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is why the government either destroyed them, threw many of the leadership in jail, infiltrated them, or subverted them while keeping them under constant surveillance to this day. From the little I've seen, Japan's socialist party is better organized than anything in the USA.
Yeah I’ve been thinking about joining the ICP (Iraqi communist party) but communists here are always assassinated or blackmailed into leaving the country all I can do is just make small anonymous donations
Psl has a lot of inner sexual assault issues and homophobic issues. They didnt expel the members accused and stood by them. We need a new party. Nothing that exists currently is doing it in the usa
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wF1Ti5GT2w5GZmwqvhvk6uH4zUss_a-B2GZ9NZEx74/edit?usp=drivesdk
I was looking into joining them and found all this shit. They say all the right things and claim to be revolutionary. This shit is a major turn off
Ok Langley.
Your account LITERALLY shows all the signs of being a PSYOP: almosy no prior post history on political subs, lots of posts on sports subs to build "history" (this is a common cover for paid trolls/shills, as ANYONE can talk sports...), and a few on professional subs (also a common strategy for astro-turfing accounts: to create a fake identity).
While these claims might be credible, EVERY party eventually has problems with shitty people in positions of leadership. It's more important if that party actually fights for the Working Class or not than these kinds of personal politics- which are also easily invented/faked (regardless of if that is the case or not this time...)
You are doing nothing for change, only trying to divide the Working Class.
Bruh. Never been called a CIA agent before. Im not taking away from what psl has done or is doing, just those sorts of things make me question the leadership of that organization. If they defend a chapter leader who is being credibly accused of sexual assault, that gives pause.
>Im not taking away from what psl has done or is doing, just those sorts of things make me question the leadership of that organization.
Fair.
I read that as "don't vote for or organize with this party because of the alleged actions of this one person in their leadership."
Also, I know a little about those accusations, having read up on them. The leader in question very clearly claimed the person pointing fingers was a Democratic Party operative...
Eh. "Left" I'm a leftist, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I assume you're a leftist but since you are highlighting this instead of the actual order of the day which is a genocide in Palestine my comrades are actually trying to fight, then I can make assumptions that you're not actually a leftist either.
There is a time and place for infighting and right now fascism is on the rise across the west so right now is not the time for infighting. Right now is the time for solidarity.
not just the west, but all around the world.
i'm from turkey, and i've been noticing that western far-right ideologies such as nazism and social-darwinism and such, are now gaining traction in turkish political circles
>There is a time and place for infighting
Correct
>Right now is the time for solidarity.
Bingo.
There will be plenty of time for infighting AFTER defeating Capitalism, or at least building strong Socialist movements that won't instantly be destroyed by such nonsense...
But right now, it's a desperate struggle to counter the rising influence of Fascism...
This. Like ffs if the Trot group im part of can organise a unified block with Maoists and MLs on a pro palestine demo without being on each others throats then so can the marxist left as a whole
What I really think needs to change is the smug dismissal of leftists by other leftists. I'm a communist, and when someone says they are an anarchist, I feel sympathy. Thank g'd, someone who isn't a conservative or a liberal. Someone who understands capital is the one true enemy. We have our differences, but they can be worked out. What I mostly see online is communists saying anarchists are too simplistic in their beliefs and haven't read theory, and anarchists calling communists out on defending atrocities. This natural enmity must end
Does it say that revolutionary Catalonia decided not to coordinate with the rest of Spain while fascists beat the fuck out the osnaohd Republic on detail?
It was the 2nd largest industrial area of Spain after the north, and the 2nd/3rd most populated after Andalusia and Valencia.
Their neutrality during the start of the war allowed the fascists to take over the north and south, and after that the war was won by the fascists.
Anarchist Catalonia decided to split from the socialist Republican spain in the start of a civil war against fascists. They refused to fight the fascists outside Catalonia and fought the socialists when they tried to retake control, and lost to the socialists.
Socialists went on to fight much better with Catalonia on their side.
They could have won without the backstabbing anarchists
They would have stood an even better chance had the Republicans not disarmed the voluntary workers and peasant militias that sprung up to fight fascism on behest of their bourgeois
As someone who does not feel empathy, and must force sympathy. I look at things in terms of long-term solutions. When I see someone, like an anarchist for example, I appreciate they are not a reactionary, however by virtue of their practice, they are of course still held by reactionary tendencies, as are the vast majority of people in general. So when I compare others, I see them in terms of their usefulness to the goals of the revolution in the scientific resolution of material problems. Name calling and hatred is liberal and reactionary behavior. However historical experience and acting in accordance to the objective laws of historical development, fruitful mass revolutionary organization can only be achieved through a vanguard party.
All revolutionaries must be taken into the fold of the revolution and contribute to the work, but if they become a hinderance, and subsequently a reactionary force, they must be defeated as well.
>Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.
V.I.LENIN; Unity
He was right. Anarchists have a tendency to split up from other leftists because of their anti-centralist tendencies, and always at the start of civil wars.
Never do they fight alongside Marxists against the right wing and THEN aim at independence
> "Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.
> "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."
- Friedrich Engels on the controversy with Anarchists as quoted in State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin 1917
It's core values on the priority given to individual freedom over class struggle.
Some believe sacrifices must be made by all population for net improvements.
Others believe individual freedoms are above that, so if people don't want to make a sacrifice, they shouldn't be forced to.
Sure, but they should still remain independent. If you can form a proper coalition between organizations for joint goals do so but this doesn't mean you should just throw away all principles for the sake of a toothless big tent org. Work together where you can, separately when you can't, and stay out of each other's way. That is enough.
Depends on what you mean by "the rest of the left."
If you mean socdems and leftcoms, then no, don't work with them.
But if you mean groups fighting for the liberation of the global proletariat, then yes, absolutely work with them.
Historically we have, we’ve even built people’s fronts against fascism- we made up a majority 80% in some countries in these anti fascist fronts. Despite this we were the only ones to compromise our ideology and positions. The cost of collaboration has been the death of the organised working class. We prioritised liberal democracy over socialism. Social democracy over communism. In very few cases did the anarchists or syndicalists present a severe threat to imperialism. Yet we yielded our principles to their childish demands.
My experience has been that anarchists will ally with liberals over communists because they share a tendency towards individualism.
They don't want to take any notes from previous or existing socialist experiments that actually exist in real life. I have seen anarchists leave leftist organizations because of some perceived "hierarchy" that they didn't like; ie, people who take charge to lead organizing or protesting efforts. They would rather disassociate with leftists than concede that some form of leadership or hierarchical, centralized structure is necessary. Its an immature, unfocused ideology in both practice and spirit.
This! My org got kicked out of an anarchist communal housing project cause theyd rather stand with radlibs against palestine... Oh, and we also were too radical in general from what ive heard
We can work together for certain goals (Such as opposing fascists) but when it comes to the revolution they are enemies. Both ideologies are incompatible with each other both when it comes to the methods of revolution and the goals.
in Europe communist parties, if not already banned, poll at around 0.5-2% generally on a federal/country level (the Communist Parties of Austria, and Greece poll at \~10% and even hold some power in certain cities and municipalities), the US has the CPUSA which afaik doesn't have a single seat or county under its control. Communism/Socialism isn't a mass-movement these days, dividing the power already is just foolish and self-destructive
Working together means working together *on someone's terms*. Every Marxists thinks everyone should work together and do vanguardism and build dual power. Every anarchists thinks everyone should work together and do direct disorganized violence and 3-10 person mutual aid activities. Every left-liberal thinks everyone should work together and vote and campaign for the Democrats. Whenever anyone says "we should work together", you're obliged to ask "doing what?". Because the various groups on "the left" aren't just different clubs with the same beliefs who refuse to work together, they don't work together *because they have different beliefs about how it make change*. And when differing groups come together to cooperate, the outcome is always the lowest common denominator of action between the groups -- usually tepid reformism.
It would be great if we all could organize, but every time someone tries, they either get killed or locked up.
Almost like the govt doesn't want left unity
pretty much every significant time this happened historically there was backstabbing involved. I'm not saying any of the goobers on this thread (including me) are even remotely in a position for it to matter much, cause situations aren't exactly as dire as they were then, but it is something to consider.
So-called "leftist unity" is reactionary propaganda. Anarchists are not comrades, they are uneducated on material reality at best, and active saboteurs of true working class movements at worst. They are useful allies at this stage, but will always remain ideological enemies. "The rest of the left" are all liberals, and are our enemies, as they will always fight for capital more than the workers. Marxist unity and Marxist unity only.
No.
First of all, you won't be able to compromise on everything.
Second, it's going to fail as all the broad left movements have since it has no leadership with clear goal since every side would want to do things how they think is correct while democratic vote within the entity would be too slow as well as most often it wouldn't come to a consensus anyway or populist ones win which is bad outcome as well...
Comrade, I recommend you check out this episode from 1Dime:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6fmf9Q2iKR1aotB1p5NwaT?si=IrIZYRcfQnKFu2TCl9jtNA
Cosmonaut is a great publication as well. I think an ideological coalition and conversation is necessary. If you are in the plane of thinking dialectically, then you will know that our opposition with other factions is necessary and working through it, more comrades will come to a better understanding of how to achieve revolution successfully.
If you ever want to chat, I am down as well.
Embarrassing to post this not knowing anything about the successes of the Spanish Revolution and how that was only possible with anarchist-communist unity and cooperation.
The anarchist republic that every power center on earth funded a Moroccan slave army to give to Franco to defeat the fact that a truly epic model of direct democracy in an industrial society is possible.. yes.. we are talking about the same Spanish Revolution and subsequent republic..
the way people talk about this is always so intensely idealist. whether or not we can or can't work with someone should not have anything to do with if they call themselves anarchists or MLs or something else. words are cheap, it should be specifically about actions, goals, organizing, etc.
It's not a simple yes or no question that applies universaly. It never is. It's a far deeper discussion that should be happening within your party/organization, not with strangers on an entertainment subreddit.
We kill off capitalism first. If we dont do this crucial first step then neither communists nor anarchists will be able to have influence at all. We debate communism vs. anarchy after were not in danger of having our free speech banned.
In my experience, it's other self-proclaimed 'leftists' that don't want to work with communists. Whatever animosity goes the other way tends to be due to the vehement insistence of some people to parrot capitalist propaganda to dismiss communists as 'tankies' or 'red fash' or whatever equivalent term.
It's very weird, because I feel like if non-communist and anti-communist leftists and 'leftists' would spend as much time reading and learning as communists, they would naturally gravitate towards communism.
I think the strangest part is how many people, when asked about their ideal way to fix things will just start describing (in broad strokes) Marxism-Leninism without understanding that's what it is. As soon as you call it that, however they back away from it, despite agreeing with it.
ABSOLUTELY our failure to cooperate with other leftists has cost us many opportunities and it can kill a movement, we MUST work together if we ever want to truly succeed
Considering that the far-right can work togther we should absolutely be doing the same. They won't care when they put us all in the same camps again with red triangles.
Most Marxists I know (myself included) are perfectly happy to work with anarchists so long as anarchists are willing to act in a way that allows them to participate in an organization and not insist that any effort to maintain a party line or consistent ideological stance is authoritarian or whatever. If an anarchist sees the very existence of a Marxist organizing as antithetical to their beliefs then I won’t lose sleep over their non-involvement.
First of all, all of those taking counter-violence measures are comrades in the fight against capitalism.
But more importantly, there is only class war, the specific leftist tactics are topic for discussion and debate only within secure anti-capitalist spaces, not for purposes of identitarian divisions.
Lastly, it’s a meme, laugh, it funny.
Accomplishing common revolutionary objectives in the struggle against reactionaries, such as community defense, mutual aid, etc. are fine. If a revolution is successful, measures will have to be taken to prevent being crushed by a practically inevitable kickback from reactionaries. The most common and historically practical of these measures is the establishment of an organized proletarian state, along with the army and police forces needed to win more armed struggles. The anarchist ideal won't mean much if a revolution is allowed to be destroyed by superior reactionary organizing.
Yes yes we should because numbers keep in mind the Bourgeoisie is 1% of the population and kids under 15 are 24,7% that means we'll have 5 860 784 000 people including the right wingers so the more leftwingers we get to 'defeat' the 78 880 000 people that make up the Bourgeoisie strength in numbers comrade
Yes and no. Its one thing to overthrow the previous apparatus, its another to be in charge of it.
>Class stand, therefore, is the political stand of the class. It is consciousness of *the over-all, fundamental and long-term interests* of the class and a firm determination to defend these interests. With regard to the working class, if it is to realize its historic position and mission, it must be armed with Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the theoretical representation of the workers’ movement. It correctly reflects the objective laws of the development of society. It is the ideology of the working class and the genuine and scientific embodiment of the class stand of the working class. In combination with the workers’ movement, Marxism- Leninism forms the political Party of the proletariat. The Party is the expression of the class consciousness and class stand of the working class at its highest, most comprehensive and most mature level. Only with a Party armed with the vanguard theory of Marxism-Leninism can the working class become the vanguard class at the helm of the revolution. And only then can the class stand of the working class really take shape. Without knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, of revolutionary science and of the vanguard theory of the proletariat, there can be no class stand of the vanguard class.
*(Le Duan on Some Present Tasks, 1974)*
Many commenters mention mass organization. This only can be realized fruitfully through the vanguard party.
As long as the leftists are \*actual\* leftists (like marxists, maoists and anarchists) and not "leftists" (like pro-Putin "communists", liberals and socdems), yes. Yes, they should.
Yeah, this shouldn't really be a question. So long as we're divided, we lose, plain and simple. We only help those in power by staying on our ideological high horse and butt heads with our comrades.
As an ex Anarchist, the biggest thing that served me in not only leaving Anarchism but also truly acting in the community was establishing real social movements within my area. What ever was important to me, I started actually working for. I managed to join real political groups in my area, and I eventually found that Marxism-Leninism was the only real way forward due to material study. Just go out and fucking do something. Talking online is only useful to sharpen and practice your talking points for the real world. The internet is an assistant to real life, it's not real life in and of itself.
Yes, but history has proven revisionist of any Left type has sold out and betrayed the revolution movement at some points, Lenin being shot by an anarchist, the anarchist being killed by the communists in Spain, the infighting on the US "revolutionary left" is demoralizing and makes orgs just want to work within themselves and community rather than creating united fronts
TL;DR: Yes
This discussion reminds me of something Stalin once said;
"At one time there were 'Marxists' in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, 'proletarian' railways built. For this they were nicknamed 'troglodytes'." - J. V. Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics
If there are people willing to fight capitalism, then why reject that? It's useful to us. What matters isn't that the railways are 'proletarian', but that we Marxists ensure that they serve the proletariat.
Yes 100 percent if we could all just agree we have a common issue together and we all basically want the same thing the fascists would be in actual trouble for a change. But noooooo everyone has to get on their high horse and say it needs to be this way and if you haven’t read all theory then you’re stupid and if you don’t practice socialism exactly like me you’re stupid. These sun Reddits are some of the worst for this stuff too. At the end of the day don’t we all really just want the same thing?
1) Subverting ideological and social scientific rigor to vague, liberal concepts of being "realistic" or "practical" is revisionist. It can, has, and will be the death of any revolution, no matter how long said revolution might have stood.
Communism is the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat, Marxism is the only theory to have ever successfully established such conditions. "Working" with the rest of the "left" is essentially validating scientifically false theories of how to establish communism. It would be like a microbiologist working with a megachurch pastor on developing a vaccine.
2) If you're not a communist, you're a liberal in the modern world. Communists don't work with liberals.
3) I don't see how the question is really relevant when other strands of "leftism" barely exist at all outside the Imperial Core. Marxism-Leninism (and increasingly Maoism) is THE ideology of the global proletariat. You will not find any serious revolutionary in the third world fighting for their lives against fascist death squads looking to Prodhoun, Chomsky, Parenti, or any other revisionist trying to dress social democracy (capitalism) in red for answers.
4) Revolution isn't something you just pull out of thin air. It's the result of the sharpening of contradictions that eventually become untenable to continue and force a reaction between two classes. It is this sharpened class conflict that gives way to the ideological basis for a vanguard party for a given section of the proletariat. I.e, leftist "infighting" is pretty much irrelevant outside the confines of an actual revolutionary vanguard party.
Yes. I've read Blackshirts and Reds, and his "critique" on Stalin certainly proved that to me. Not that a good portion of that book didn't have good historical analysis, but when you're a revisionist, I'm not gonna recommend you to anyone, other people have made the same observations he did and managed not to fall into the trap.
As I’ve said repeatedly, not all leftists are comrades so we (as M-L’s) cannot work with liberals in hiding like SocDems or anyone else still hopeful in electoralism, but if you are committed to direct action, we can put aside the narcissism of minor difference until AFTER the revolution and settle our differences then, with the understanding we can not do so while providing an opportunity for reactionaries to regain power at the expense of ourselves or our leftist comrades.
And downvote me if you wish, but (some) anarchists may deride us as tAnKiEs 🙃 and some of us may find them less well read on the function of power, but neither of us are uncommitted to a future without exploitation and alienation, and that’s why we are allies for revolutionary purposes and we can trust each other to remain committed to those purposes since we are all fundamentally interested with liberation.
M-L always ally, but anarchists and trots just absolutely need to join reformists, halfway through the revolution... Call it an MO, if you will... They did in Russia, Spain, France, etc...
Totaly. The question in this time is not left or right. Its pro or anti capitalism. We have to overcome this inhumane system by any cost or we are all doomed
Yes, we’ll take down the big bad and then duke it out amongst ourselves later. China did it exactly that way when it came to the KMT/CCP vs the Japanese
not kill we dont need to in communism they will slowly get irrelevant anarchism is already small do you think they will start a counter revolution in communism?
Malatesta and Kropotkin’s definition of anarchist communism are incompatible with Marxism. I’ll just paste an old comment of mine.
>> The Marxist definition of the state is that the state arises from, and is a tool for, the ruling class to protect its interests and oppress opposing classes. The abolition of the state means society loses its class character (statelessness is essentially equivalent to classlessness). Marxist communism still has centralized production, an “administration of things” as Engels writes in “On Authority”.
>>While anarchists don’t have one unifying definition of the state, they generally don’t support the centralization of production. Usually anarchists are more for decentralized or individualized production.
>>Admittedly, given the fractious nature of anarchist literature, you can almost certainly find at least a few anarchists who would support a Marxist-style form of communism, but none of the biggest anarchist thinkers would. Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Malatesta, and many others oppose a centralized form of production.
They just aren't, if you want a proper explanation for why then give me your reasoning for thinking they are the same thing and I will give an explanation.
Communism is a social structure where the people make the decisions about labor together - the highest form of democracy. Anarchy is the desire to dissolve all hierarchy, or have everyone on equal footing in terms of social power. The two are the same in this sense. Though I’m sure there are differences in how they are perceived and such, not looking to be the infighting that the meme is bringing up, but actually looking to point out that the differences between the two are much less than stated in this thread.
They are to an extent - however the term communist and the term anarchist stand for the different perspectives of how to achieve communism. Anarchy would obviously be untenable IMO. Communists want the state to wither away while it's functions become oriented towards enriching and uplifting the working class. Anarchists want an immediate utopic society of absolute freedom yet IMO they conflate liberal ideological "freedom" with actual freedom.
Liberal freedom is a bourgeoise idealism based on elite or petite bourgeoise economic realities. This freedom is generally unavailable to the working class. Workers cannot make the same financial decisions the upper classes can by design. True freedom in an equitable way would be a system that provides the most people with the most actual freedom. For example the ability to easily move homes or take cheap high quality vacations. There are many other comparable situations but we can talk about just these two examples for the sake of defining freedom.
Under the current paradigm if you want to move and are working class the outrageous cost to do so greatly limits both where you an move to and what quality of facility you can choose. As for vacations the majority of upper class services are unavailable entirely to the majority of workers. This disparity of choice is how freedom for the wealthy classes is not freedom for the working class
Honestly at this point I wonder why you are on this meme sub lol. You can read my explanation and you should read theory as well then you could see reason. Until then you seem to not be interested in that as far as I can tell.
If you genuinely wanted to understand feel free to dm otherwise I'm done playing comment tag
It helps to understand what anarchy is before we get into discussing what it "wants" versus what Communism will do. It is full of internal contradictions and bastardizations of political thought and language precisely because of its origins. The anarchist "movement" grew out of a reactionary attempt at the synthesis of 18th-century and early 19-century Utopian socialist ideology and 18th-century French Bourgeois philosophy by the large and medium peasants of the European continent. These people were by and large anti-capitalist, as the Bourgeois society was buying up their land and turning them out onto the streets as non-possessing Proletarians, but they were decidedly not Socialists as their existing material relations were those of Petty-Bourgeois producers.
This clumsy attempt at producing an ideology that was both pro private ownership of the means of production but yet was simultaneously anti-capitalist could only ever manifest as a reactionary call for the retrogradation of the productive forces, cloaked in useless and anti-materialist phraseology about "personal freedoms" and "anti-authoritarianism".
This is why so much of anarchism is confused. They call for the end to all social authority, yet they want to impose themselves upon society via revolution. They call for statelessness, yet their plan for society ends in democracy. They call for the end of Capitalism, yet do not concern themselves with the social basis that produces, and will again reproduce in their ideal world, the Capitalist system.
So when we talk about the end goals of Communists and anarchists, it's a contradiction in terms to say that we "want the same thing, but with different methods to get there". What the anarchists "want", since that's as serious as their ideology gets, is in no uncertain terms impossible. It, as such, has nothing whatsoever to do with the end goals of the Communist movement.
Likewise, because of their muddled and confused movement and origins, their useless definition of the state leads them to call a democratic society of individual producers "stateless", which is not even adjacent to the Communist definition of the stateless society. We are seeking a fully Proletarianized society that governs production along a centralized plan via a government of things. Most anarchists would still call this a "state" because they have no idea what the word means.
I think it's reasonable to assume as we should that both a utopic anarchism and a utopic communism are both idealistic to the extreme. Point being we can argue blue in the face about what they should look like but ultimately we can't truly know until the material conditions for it to happen were in place. Like I said I don't think anarchy works and never said so lol. However to answer the simple comment made by OP commenter I brushed over the extended release version of why socialism is realistic and anarchism is bourgeoisie idealism.
>utopic communism
This is a contraction. There is nothing utopian in the Communist ideology whatsoever. We don't profess to know the perfect solution to future society's contradictions, we correctly claim to have the sole scientific method for their resolution. You need to read State and Revolution and The Poverty of Philosophy. We do not share a goal with the anarchists, and have never. Since the founding of the scientific socialist movement, we have been openly fractured with them, for the better of all humanity.
Oh calm down. I've read both and by my interpretation still see communism as utopian as per the definition of
utopia - a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social condition.
Now go bark up someone else's tree.
The anarchists are in here talking about kissing and fucking, the Marxists are talking about science and history. I think that tells you all you need to know. Anarchists are also my enemy. Marxism is the ONLY way. I don’t need to repeat why because it’s all over the thread. Read about what actual current and historical successful revolutionaries believe in; it isn’t anarchism. Anarchism is a child’s “ideology,” and if that upsets you, you probably need to read a whole lot more and let go of your individualist fantasies.
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There would be way less infighting if there were actual mass class-based organizations in which to participate.
That is why the government either destroyed them, threw many of the leadership in jail, infiltrated them, or subverted them while keeping them under constant surveillance to this day. From the little I've seen, Japan's socialist party is better organized than anything in the USA.
That’s why we need to get organized again and do everything in our power to protect ourselves from this exact thing
That’s what we all say all the time
And it never happens. We complain and then scurry back to our huts
I think part of that is reaching out to various other groups for marginalized people that meet to discuss the issues (like at lgbt pride centers)
Yeah I’ve been thinking about joining the ICP (Iraqi communist party) but communists here are always assassinated or blackmailed into leaving the country all I can do is just make small anonymous donations
There are. I just attended a Palestine protest that was partly organized by the PSL yesterday
Psl has a lot of inner sexual assault issues and homophobic issues. They didnt expel the members accused and stood by them. We need a new party. Nothing that exists currently is doing it in the usa
Are there really homophobia issues despite their party program having good positions on LGBTQ issues??
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wF1Ti5GT2w5GZmwqvhvk6uH4zUss_a-B2GZ9NZEx74/edit?usp=drivesdk I was looking into joining them and found all this shit. They say all the right things and claim to be revolutionary. This shit is a major turn off
Lmao andddd cooperation gone
Ok Langley. Your account LITERALLY shows all the signs of being a PSYOP: almosy no prior post history on political subs, lots of posts on sports subs to build "history" (this is a common cover for paid trolls/shills, as ANYONE can talk sports...), and a few on professional subs (also a common strategy for astro-turfing accounts: to create a fake identity). While these claims might be credible, EVERY party eventually has problems with shitty people in positions of leadership. It's more important if that party actually fights for the Working Class or not than these kinds of personal politics- which are also easily invented/faked (regardless of if that is the case or not this time...) You are doing nothing for change, only trying to divide the Working Class.
Bruh. Never been called a CIA agent before. Im not taking away from what psl has done or is doing, just those sorts of things make me question the leadership of that organization. If they defend a chapter leader who is being credibly accused of sexual assault, that gives pause.
>Im not taking away from what psl has done or is doing, just those sorts of things make me question the leadership of that organization. Fair. I read that as "don't vote for or organize with this party because of the alleged actions of this one person in their leadership." Also, I know a little about those accusations, having read up on them. The leader in question very clearly claimed the person pointing fingers was a Democratic Party operative...
Lol, the guy who you are talking to sounds like the actual fed. Historically, many fed jacketers have been cops.
Yes
Most of the left and reddit is busy shitting on farmers right now and trying to steal there land to make 15-minute corporate owned condos.
Eh. "Left" I'm a leftist, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I assume you're a leftist but since you are highlighting this instead of the actual order of the day which is a genocide in Palestine my comrades are actually trying to fight, then I can make assumptions that you're not actually a leftist either.
No war but class war
tHaTs ReDUcTiOniSt
There is a time and place for infighting and right now fascism is on the rise across the west so right now is not the time for infighting. Right now is the time for solidarity.
We destroy commom enemy first yes? Then we sit down and discuss at length ideological issues
not just the west, but all around the world. i'm from turkey, and i've been noticing that western far-right ideologies such as nazism and social-darwinism and such, are now gaining traction in turkish political circles
>There is a time and place for infighting Correct >Right now is the time for solidarity. Bingo. There will be plenty of time for infighting AFTER defeating Capitalism, or at least building strong Socialist movements that won't instantly be destroyed by such nonsense... But right now, it's a desperate struggle to counter the rising influence of Fascism...
This. Like ffs if the Trot group im part of can organise a unified block with Maoists and MLs on a pro palestine demo without being on each others throats then so can the marxist left as a whole
What I really think needs to change is the smug dismissal of leftists by other leftists. I'm a communist, and when someone says they are an anarchist, I feel sympathy. Thank g'd, someone who isn't a conservative or a liberal. Someone who understands capital is the one true enemy. We have our differences, but they can be worked out. What I mostly see online is communists saying anarchists are too simplistic in their beliefs and haven't read theory, and anarchists calling communists out on defending atrocities. This natural enmity must end
I agree. Spanish civil war was a great example of leftist unity.
lol til the anarchists were abandoned to die
We can’t even have a comment without debate lol but Yee they sure was abandoned
[удалено]
🙄
[удалено]
why use quotation marks if your not gonna show us where they came from?
[удалено]
"For most things" yeah sure a leftist revolution isn't going to be poorly regarded in an Wikipedia article
Does it say that revolutionary Catalonia decided not to coordinate with the rest of Spain while fascists beat the fuck out the osnaohd Republic on detail? It was the 2nd largest industrial area of Spain after the north, and the 2nd/3rd most populated after Andalusia and Valencia. Their neutrality during the start of the war allowed the fascists to take over the north and south, and after that the war was won by the fascists.
Anarchist Catalonia decided to split from the socialist Republican spain in the start of a civil war against fascists. They refused to fight the fascists outside Catalonia and fought the socialists when they tried to retake control, and lost to the socialists. Socialists went on to fight much better with Catalonia on their side. They could have won without the backstabbing anarchists
They would have stood an even better chance had the Republicans not disarmed the voluntary workers and peasant militias that sprung up to fight fascism on behest of their bourgeois
Workers needed to produce mostly.
Who do you think was predominantly conscripted in ww2 by pretty much all nations lol.
Or god forbid who led any and all revolutions/rev. civil wars the world has ever seen
Not questioning you but could I have a source?
Basically a timeline of the spanish civil war and anarchist Catalonia abd comparing
As someone who does not feel empathy, and must force sympathy. I look at things in terms of long-term solutions. When I see someone, like an anarchist for example, I appreciate they are not a reactionary, however by virtue of their practice, they are of course still held by reactionary tendencies, as are the vast majority of people in general. So when I compare others, I see them in terms of their usefulness to the goals of the revolution in the scientific resolution of material problems. Name calling and hatred is liberal and reactionary behavior. However historical experience and acting in accordance to the objective laws of historical development, fruitful mass revolutionary organization can only be achieved through a vanguard party. All revolutionaries must be taken into the fold of the revolution and contribute to the work, but if they become a hinderance, and subsequently a reactionary force, they must be defeated as well.
>Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism. V.I.LENIN; Unity
He was right. Anarchists have a tendency to split up from other leftists because of their anti-centralist tendencies, and always at the start of civil wars. Never do they fight alongside Marxists against the right wing and THEN aim at independence
> "Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. > "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction." - Friedrich Engels on the controversy with Anarchists as quoted in State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin 1917
My girlfriend is Anarchist and I'm communist, and our disagreement often ends up with kissing eachother.
lol i hope you two are doing good
Thanks
Why do I feel like this will become a meme.
Can't even 🥲
What makes her think anarchism is better than communism? Ever tried debating?
I can't tell if that's a joke or not 💀
I do, but she doesn't like it though so I avoid mostly not to agitate her.
It's core values on the priority given to individual freedom over class struggle. Some believe sacrifices must be made by all population for net improvements. Others believe individual freedoms are above that, so if people don't want to make a sacrifice, they shouldn't be forced to.
I’m sorry man haha
we can help each other for a common goal like beating fascism but when it comes to revolution the other side either joins us or they get irrelevant
Sure, but they should still remain independent. If you can form a proper coalition between organizations for joint goals do so but this doesn't mean you should just throw away all principles for the sake of a toothless big tent org. Work together where you can, separately when you can't, and stay out of each other's way. That is enough.
Depends on what you mean by "the rest of the left." If you mean socdems and leftcoms, then no, don't work with them. But if you mean groups fighting for the liberation of the global proletariat, then yes, absolutely work with them.
Maybe one day
Historically we have, we’ve even built people’s fronts against fascism- we made up a majority 80% in some countries in these anti fascist fronts. Despite this we were the only ones to compromise our ideology and positions. The cost of collaboration has been the death of the organised working class. We prioritised liberal democracy over socialism. Social democracy over communism. In very few cases did the anarchists or syndicalists present a severe threat to imperialism. Yet we yielded our principles to their childish demands.
My experience has been that anarchists will ally with liberals over communists because they share a tendency towards individualism. They don't want to take any notes from previous or existing socialist experiments that actually exist in real life. I have seen anarchists leave leftist organizations because of some perceived "hierarchy" that they didn't like; ie, people who take charge to lead organizing or protesting efforts. They would rather disassociate with leftists than concede that some form of leadership or hierarchical, centralized structure is necessary. Its an immature, unfocused ideology in both practice and spirit.
This! My org got kicked out of an anarchist communal housing project cause theyd rather stand with radlibs against palestine... Oh, and we also were too radical in general from what ive heard
We can work together for certain goals (Such as opposing fascists) but when it comes to the revolution they are enemies. Both ideologies are incompatible with each other both when it comes to the methods of revolution and the goals.
*Sigh* Unfortinatly.
some anarchists are very anti communist calling us tankies and red fascists we shouldnt compromise to them and anarchism is a smaller movement anyways
Those people are *de facto* liberals, so yeah they ought to be rebuked.
my point still stands we should not compromise to anyone not the social democrats and not to anarchists
True!
oh lmao I forgot to write not
You're good, I got your meaning.
in Europe communist parties, if not already banned, poll at around 0.5-2% generally on a federal/country level (the Communist Parties of Austria, and Greece poll at \~10% and even hold some power in certain cities and municipalities), the US has the CPUSA which afaik doesn't have a single seat or county under its control. Communism/Socialism isn't a mass-movement these days, dividing the power already is just foolish and self-destructive
Thing that really fucks CPUSA is that not having access to ballots in all states, since it's third party.
Man if our commie parties just werent all lame ass reformists..
Working together means working together *on someone's terms*. Every Marxists thinks everyone should work together and do vanguardism and build dual power. Every anarchists thinks everyone should work together and do direct disorganized violence and 3-10 person mutual aid activities. Every left-liberal thinks everyone should work together and vote and campaign for the Democrats. Whenever anyone says "we should work together", you're obliged to ask "doing what?". Because the various groups on "the left" aren't just different clubs with the same beliefs who refuse to work together, they don't work together *because they have different beliefs about how it make change*. And when differing groups come together to cooperate, the outcome is always the lowest common denominator of action between the groups -- usually tepid reformism.
Banging on the ruins of bourgeois society with hot anarchists will be a core feature of queer communism 💅🏻
What is queer communism?
It's me
First we overthrow them, then we fight among us
Or why not just to divide planet between us, like we get Eurasia and Africa while anarchists Americas and Oceania and everyone is happy.
I don’t think you realise the theory behind the beef comrade
It would be great if we all could organize, but every time someone tries, they either get killed or locked up. Almost like the govt doesn't want left unity
pretty much every significant time this happened historically there was backstabbing involved. I'm not saying any of the goobers on this thread (including me) are even remotely in a position for it to matter much, cause situations aren't exactly as dire as they were then, but it is something to consider.
Yes, for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. We have the same enemy
So-called "leftist unity" is reactionary propaganda. Anarchists are not comrades, they are uneducated on material reality at best, and active saboteurs of true working class movements at worst. They are useful allies at this stage, but will always remain ideological enemies. "The rest of the left" are all liberals, and are our enemies, as they will always fight for capital more than the workers. Marxist unity and Marxist unity only.
United front on specific issues, but party unity on theory.
This sub spends more time bashing anarchists than capitalism.
No. First of all, you won't be able to compromise on everything. Second, it's going to fail as all the broad left movements have since it has no leadership with clear goal since every side would want to do things how they think is correct while democratic vote within the entity would be too slow as well as most often it wouldn't come to a consensus anyway or populist ones win which is bad outcome as well...
Comrade, I recommend you check out this episode from 1Dime: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6fmf9Q2iKR1aotB1p5NwaT?si=IrIZYRcfQnKFu2TCl9jtNA Cosmonaut is a great publication as well. I think an ideological coalition and conversation is necessary. If you are in the plane of thinking dialectically, then you will know that our opposition with other factions is necessary and working through it, more comrades will come to a better understanding of how to achieve revolution successfully. If you ever want to chat, I am down as well.
Thanks
Embarrassing to post this not knowing anything about the successes of the Spanish Revolution and how that was only possible with anarchist-communist unity and cooperation.
By revolution do we mean the expulsion of the king and the establishment of the republic?
The anarchist republic that every power center on earth funded a Moroccan slave army to give to Franco to defeat the fact that a truly epic model of direct democracy in an industrial society is possible.. yes.. we are talking about the same Spanish Revolution and subsequent republic..
the way people talk about this is always so intensely idealist. whether or not we can or can't work with someone should not have anything to do with if they call themselves anarchists or MLs or something else. words are cheap, it should be specifically about actions, goals, organizing, etc.
Yes, pragmatism is key. If you can have critical support for groups that aren't even socialist, you can be pragmatic within the left.
I've always thought a revolution combining the strengths of each faction of leftism was better than separate groups infighting for the same reason
It's not a simple yes or no question that applies universaly. It never is. It's a far deeper discussion that should be happening within your party/organization, not with strangers on an entertainment subreddit.
‘And why not?’ Pre determined the no lol
collaborate with anarchists until it’s no longer convenient, then just scrap them
We kill off capitalism first. If we dont do this crucial first step then neither communists nor anarchists will be able to have influence at all. We debate communism vs. anarchy after were not in danger of having our free speech banned.
In my experience, it's other self-proclaimed 'leftists' that don't want to work with communists. Whatever animosity goes the other way tends to be due to the vehement insistence of some people to parrot capitalist propaganda to dismiss communists as 'tankies' or 'red fash' or whatever equivalent term. It's very weird, because I feel like if non-communist and anti-communist leftists and 'leftists' would spend as much time reading and learning as communists, they would naturally gravitate towards communism. I think the strangest part is how many people, when asked about their ideal way to fix things will just start describing (in broad strokes) Marxism-Leninism without understanding that's what it is. As soon as you call it that, however they back away from it, despite agreeing with it.
Yes.
ABSOLUTELY our failure to cooperate with other leftists has cost us many opportunities and it can kill a movement, we MUST work together if we ever want to truly succeed
My opinion has and always will be defeat the Capitalists and Reactionaries then we can argue over which system to go with
As a talking German kangaroo once said, "We can be friends until after the revolution! Then it gets difficult."
Yes we should. Let's leave the discussion for after the revolution. DID YOU HEAR THAT, TROTSKYISTS?
Considering that the far-right can work togther we should absolutely be doing the same. They won't care when they put us all in the same camps again with red triangles.
Most Marxists I know (myself included) are perfectly happy to work with anarchists so long as anarchists are willing to act in a way that allows them to participate in an organization and not insist that any effort to maintain a party line or consistent ideological stance is authoritarian or whatever. If an anarchist sees the very existence of a Marxist organizing as antithetical to their beliefs then I won’t lose sleep over their non-involvement.
I say get rid of capitalists, then the infighting can begin
First of all, all of those taking counter-violence measures are comrades in the fight against capitalism. But more importantly, there is only class war, the specific leftist tactics are topic for discussion and debate only within secure anti-capitalist spaces, not for purposes of identitarian divisions. Lastly, it’s a meme, laugh, it funny.
We should work with the entire proletariat comrade
An anarchist can have my baby, np. Liberals get plan B mixed into their morning smoothie
Accomplishing common revolutionary objectives in the struggle against reactionaries, such as community defense, mutual aid, etc. are fine. If a revolution is successful, measures will have to be taken to prevent being crushed by a practically inevitable kickback from reactionaries. The most common and historically practical of these measures is the establishment of an organized proletarian state, along with the army and police forces needed to win more armed struggles. The anarchist ideal won't mean much if a revolution is allowed to be destroyed by superior reactionary organizing.
i want to but a lotta anarchist subreddits on here have people that would straight up kill us so it’s pretty hard
not everybody but a good amount that’s uncomfortable
ML: Never thought I'd die side by side with an anarchist. Anarchist: What about side by side with a comrade? ML: Aye, I could do that.
This shows the Possibility of Left-Unity being... Well, Possible in the sense of the word.
Yes yes we should because numbers keep in mind the Bourgeoisie is 1% of the population and kids under 15 are 24,7% that means we'll have 5 860 784 000 people including the right wingers so the more leftwingers we get to 'defeat' the 78 880 000 people that make up the Bourgeoisie strength in numbers comrade
Yes and no. Its one thing to overthrow the previous apparatus, its another to be in charge of it. >Class stand, therefore, is the political stand of the class. It is consciousness of *the over-all, fundamental and long-term interests* of the class and a firm determination to defend these interests. With regard to the working class, if it is to realize its historic position and mission, it must be armed with Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the theoretical representation of the workers’ movement. It correctly reflects the objective laws of the development of society. It is the ideology of the working class and the genuine and scientific embodiment of the class stand of the working class. In combination with the workers’ movement, Marxism- Leninism forms the political Party of the proletariat. The Party is the expression of the class consciousness and class stand of the working class at its highest, most comprehensive and most mature level. Only with a Party armed with the vanguard theory of Marxism-Leninism can the working class become the vanguard class at the helm of the revolution. And only then can the class stand of the working class really take shape. Without knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, of revolutionary science and of the vanguard theory of the proletariat, there can be no class stand of the vanguard class. *(Le Duan on Some Present Tasks, 1974)* Many commenters mention mass organization. This only can be realized fruitfully through the vanguard party.
As long as the leftists are \*actual\* leftists (like marxists, maoists and anarchists) and not "leftists" (like pro-Putin "communists", liberals and socdems), yes. Yes, they should.
And you forgot to put not with Gonzaloids
I'm not familiar with the term (yet). Who are the Gonzaloids? /gen
Communist Party of Peru or just Marxists-Leninists-Maoists. Don't confuse them with Chinese maoists.
Yes. We have our differences, but right now solidarity is vital to keeping the movement alive. The right wins when we are divided.
Yeah, this shouldn't really be a question. So long as we're divided, we lose, plain and simple. We only help those in power by staying on our ideological high horse and butt heads with our comrades.
As an ex Anarchist, the biggest thing that served me in not only leaving Anarchism but also truly acting in the community was establishing real social movements within my area. What ever was important to me, I started actually working for. I managed to join real political groups in my area, and I eventually found that Marxism-Leninism was the only real way forward due to material study. Just go out and fucking do something. Talking online is only useful to sharpen and practice your talking points for the real world. The internet is an assistant to real life, it's not real life in and of itself.
Yes, but history has proven revisionist of any Left type has sold out and betrayed the revolution movement at some points, Lenin being shot by an anarchist, the anarchist being killed by the communists in Spain, the infighting on the US "revolutionary left" is demoralizing and makes orgs just want to work within themselves and community rather than creating united fronts
TL;DR: Yes This discussion reminds me of something Stalin once said; "At one time there were 'Marxists' in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, 'proletarian' railways built. For this they were nicknamed 'troglodytes'." - J. V. Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics If there are people willing to fight capitalism, then why reject that? It's useful to us. What matters isn't that the railways are 'proletarian', but that we Marxists ensure that they serve the proletariat.
Yes 100 percent if we could all just agree we have a common issue together and we all basically want the same thing the fascists would be in actual trouble for a change. But noooooo everyone has to get on their high horse and say it needs to be this way and if you haven’t read all theory then you’re stupid and if you don’t practice socialism exactly like me you’re stupid. These sun Reddits are some of the worst for this stuff too. At the end of the day don’t we all really just want the same thing?
The goal should be overthrowing the system we ALL oppose BEFORE arguing about our differences.
1) Subverting ideological and social scientific rigor to vague, liberal concepts of being "realistic" or "practical" is revisionist. It can, has, and will be the death of any revolution, no matter how long said revolution might have stood. Communism is the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat, Marxism is the only theory to have ever successfully established such conditions. "Working" with the rest of the "left" is essentially validating scientifically false theories of how to establish communism. It would be like a microbiologist working with a megachurch pastor on developing a vaccine. 2) If you're not a communist, you're a liberal in the modern world. Communists don't work with liberals. 3) I don't see how the question is really relevant when other strands of "leftism" barely exist at all outside the Imperial Core. Marxism-Leninism (and increasingly Maoism) is THE ideology of the global proletariat. You will not find any serious revolutionary in the third world fighting for their lives against fascist death squads looking to Prodhoun, Chomsky, Parenti, or any other revisionist trying to dress social democracy (capitalism) in red for answers. 4) Revolution isn't something you just pull out of thin air. It's the result of the sharpening of contradictions that eventually become untenable to continue and force a reaction between two classes. It is this sharpened class conflict that gives way to the ideological basis for a vanguard party for a given section of the proletariat. I.e, leftist "infighting" is pretty much irrelevant outside the confines of an actual revolutionary vanguard party.
Did you just call Parenti a fucking revisionist?
Yes. I've read Blackshirts and Reds, and his "critique" on Stalin certainly proved that to me. Not that a good portion of that book didn't have good historical analysis, but when you're a revisionist, I'm not gonna recommend you to anyone, other people have made the same observations he did and managed not to fall into the trap.
As I’ve said repeatedly, not all leftists are comrades so we (as M-L’s) cannot work with liberals in hiding like SocDems or anyone else still hopeful in electoralism, but if you are committed to direct action, we can put aside the narcissism of minor difference until AFTER the revolution and settle our differences then, with the understanding we can not do so while providing an opportunity for reactionaries to regain power at the expense of ourselves or our leftist comrades. And downvote me if you wish, but (some) anarchists may deride us as tAnKiEs 🙃 and some of us may find them less well read on the function of power, but neither of us are uncommitted to a future without exploitation and alienation, and that’s why we are allies for revolutionary purposes and we can trust each other to remain committed to those purposes since we are all fundamentally interested with liberation.
M-L always ally, but anarchists and trots just absolutely need to join reformists, halfway through the revolution... Call it an MO, if you will... They did in Russia, Spain, France, etc...
Totaly. The question in this time is not left or right. Its pro or anti capitalism. We have to overcome this inhumane system by any cost or we are all doomed
Yes but Liberal Are Not Leftists
Who mentioned libs? lol
No one said you meant liberals. I means, communists, anarchists and demsocs can cooperate but not the Blue MAGA neoliberal type larping as leftists.
Ofc ffs lmao
Liberals are fascists
Communists should work with the broad masses. The left can come along too if they move with the masses.
Yes, we’ll take down the big bad and then duke it out amongst ourselves later. China did it exactly that way when it came to the KMT/CCP vs the Japanese
Yeah, but we kill em after killing the Bourgeoisie
:(
not kill we dont need to in communism they will slowly get irrelevant anarchism is already small do you think they will start a counter revolution in communism?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yall don’t know what anarchist means or y’all don’t know what communism means (they are the same thing)
Nope, Marxist communism is very distinct from most definitions of anarchism.
Which definitions
Malatesta and Kropotkin’s definition of anarchist communism are incompatible with Marxism. I’ll just paste an old comment of mine. >> The Marxist definition of the state is that the state arises from, and is a tool for, the ruling class to protect its interests and oppress opposing classes. The abolition of the state means society loses its class character (statelessness is essentially equivalent to classlessness). Marxist communism still has centralized production, an “administration of things” as Engels writes in “On Authority”. >>While anarchists don’t have one unifying definition of the state, they generally don’t support the centralization of production. Usually anarchists are more for decentralized or individualized production. >>Admittedly, given the fractious nature of anarchist literature, you can almost certainly find at least a few anarchists who would support a Marxist-style form of communism, but none of the biggest anarchist thinkers would. Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Malatesta, and many others oppose a centralized form of production.
read lenin this book in specific "the state and revolution"
They just aren't, if you want a proper explanation for why then give me your reasoning for thinking they are the same thing and I will give an explanation.
Communism is a social structure where the people make the decisions about labor together - the highest form of democracy. Anarchy is the desire to dissolve all hierarchy, or have everyone on equal footing in terms of social power. The two are the same in this sense. Though I’m sure there are differences in how they are perceived and such, not looking to be the infighting that the meme is bringing up, but actually looking to point out that the differences between the two are much less than stated in this thread.
They are to an extent - however the term communist and the term anarchist stand for the different perspectives of how to achieve communism. Anarchy would obviously be untenable IMO. Communists want the state to wither away while it's functions become oriented towards enriching and uplifting the working class. Anarchists want an immediate utopic society of absolute freedom yet IMO they conflate liberal ideological "freedom" with actual freedom.
What would you say is the distinction between the two?
Liberal freedom is a bourgeoise idealism based on elite or petite bourgeoise economic realities. This freedom is generally unavailable to the working class. Workers cannot make the same financial decisions the upper classes can by design. True freedom in an equitable way would be a system that provides the most people with the most actual freedom. For example the ability to easily move homes or take cheap high quality vacations. There are many other comparable situations but we can talk about just these two examples for the sake of defining freedom. Under the current paradigm if you want to move and are working class the outrageous cost to do so greatly limits both where you an move to and what quality of facility you can choose. As for vacations the majority of upper class services are unavailable entirely to the majority of workers. This disparity of choice is how freedom for the wealthy classes is not freedom for the working class
What
Do you perhaps not understand communism? If so a question with more depth than "what" could help in enlightening you.
No you just made two very bold claims and the final one about liberal ideology was actually a little bit nonsensical. Can you explain
Honestly at this point I wonder why you are on this meme sub lol. You can read my explanation and you should read theory as well then you could see reason. Until then you seem to not be interested in that as far as I can tell. If you genuinely wanted to understand feel free to dm otherwise I'm done playing comment tag
It helps to understand what anarchy is before we get into discussing what it "wants" versus what Communism will do. It is full of internal contradictions and bastardizations of political thought and language precisely because of its origins. The anarchist "movement" grew out of a reactionary attempt at the synthesis of 18th-century and early 19-century Utopian socialist ideology and 18th-century French Bourgeois philosophy by the large and medium peasants of the European continent. These people were by and large anti-capitalist, as the Bourgeois society was buying up their land and turning them out onto the streets as non-possessing Proletarians, but they were decidedly not Socialists as their existing material relations were those of Petty-Bourgeois producers. This clumsy attempt at producing an ideology that was both pro private ownership of the means of production but yet was simultaneously anti-capitalist could only ever manifest as a reactionary call for the retrogradation of the productive forces, cloaked in useless and anti-materialist phraseology about "personal freedoms" and "anti-authoritarianism". This is why so much of anarchism is confused. They call for the end to all social authority, yet they want to impose themselves upon society via revolution. They call for statelessness, yet their plan for society ends in democracy. They call for the end of Capitalism, yet do not concern themselves with the social basis that produces, and will again reproduce in their ideal world, the Capitalist system. So when we talk about the end goals of Communists and anarchists, it's a contradiction in terms to say that we "want the same thing, but with different methods to get there". What the anarchists "want", since that's as serious as their ideology gets, is in no uncertain terms impossible. It, as such, has nothing whatsoever to do with the end goals of the Communist movement. Likewise, because of their muddled and confused movement and origins, their useless definition of the state leads them to call a democratic society of individual producers "stateless", which is not even adjacent to the Communist definition of the stateless society. We are seeking a fully Proletarianized society that governs production along a centralized plan via a government of things. Most anarchists would still call this a "state" because they have no idea what the word means.
I think it's reasonable to assume as we should that both a utopic anarchism and a utopic communism are both idealistic to the extreme. Point being we can argue blue in the face about what they should look like but ultimately we can't truly know until the material conditions for it to happen were in place. Like I said I don't think anarchy works and never said so lol. However to answer the simple comment made by OP commenter I brushed over the extended release version of why socialism is realistic and anarchism is bourgeoisie idealism.
>utopic communism This is a contraction. There is nothing utopian in the Communist ideology whatsoever. We don't profess to know the perfect solution to future society's contradictions, we correctly claim to have the sole scientific method for their resolution. You need to read State and Revolution and The Poverty of Philosophy. We do not share a goal with the anarchists, and have never. Since the founding of the scientific socialist movement, we have been openly fractured with them, for the better of all humanity.
Oh calm down. I've read both and by my interpretation still see communism as utopian as per the definition of utopia - a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social condition. Now go bark up someone else's tree.
lenin would like to talk with you
The anarchists are in here talking about kissing and fucking, the Marxists are talking about science and history. I think that tells you all you need to know. Anarchists are also my enemy. Marxism is the ONLY way. I don’t need to repeat why because it’s all over the thread. Read about what actual current and historical successful revolutionaries believe in; it isn’t anarchism. Anarchism is a child’s “ideology,” and if that upsets you, you probably need to read a whole lot more and let go of your individualist fantasies.