I know about the Paris Commune but..

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Does it really make sense for Marxists and anarchists to share the same forum? Sure we can work together up to a point (on most things anyway) but doesn't our ideological divide necessarily separate us at some point?

Some times it just doesn't make sense to me that we have statists and anti-statists on the same board and I've always been of the opinion that the anarchist v.s. Marxist tension never arose in the Paris Commune because it just didn't last long enough.

So why haven't anarchists and Marxists been able to work together since Paris, and can anything be done to reconcile these issues?

I know this is just asking for a flame war, but lets keep it civilized. This is an honest question. Do anarchists and Marxists really belong on the same forum or is there no hope for the cooperation of our movements?

[Nachie]

There is ample room for cooperation and mutual aid between Marxists and anarchists. It's when Leninists get involved that it all falls to shit. The organization I run with is actually built around that principle (exclusion of statist/centralist tendencies) and has never had any problems between the two camps.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

There is ample room for cooperation and mutual aid between Marxists and anarchists. It's when Leninists get involved that it all falls to shit. The organization I run with is actually built around that principle (exclusion of statist/centralist tendencies) and has never had any problems between the two camps.

I guess I have a hard time separating the two because almost every Marxist here seems to be an ML.

[Nachie]

Honestly I fail to recognize anything authentically "Marxist" about Leninism.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Well, so much for not sparking any tendency wars.

But I don't see any problem with Anarchists and Marxists(Leninists included) discssing politics. Besides, how can one hold on to an ideology, yet never discuss it with people who hold to different values? What would be the point in a board which consists of only Anarchists or Marxists agreeing with each other?

Plus, aren't there websites which are only for Anarchists and others catering to Marxists? Revleft is the place for all Leftist tendencies to converse. And it's not like Marxists have this deep hatred for Anarchists or the other way around. I find it very easy to get along with Anarchists(especially when compared to how I get along with the Right).

So, no. I don't think it would either help or hurt for every tendency to alienate itself from every other school of thought.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Well I wasn't saying we should completely cut off all communication between our movements, it just seems odd to me that RevLeft likes to portray us as allies when history has shown that it doesn't tend to be the case.

Let me explain my post a bit more: I used to be a Marxist so I am well aware of what the ideology entails and have discussed Marxist ideas with people since I can remember. Did I need RevLeft to do this? No. I joined RevLeft because the former Marxist in me wanted to believe that anarchists and reds could get along and work together for a better society.

I'm just simply starting to doubt that is the case though.

If this thread turns into a tendency war I won't be surprised. why? Because EVERY THREAD ON REVLEFT turns into a tendency war. I'm starting to get the picture why and I'm starting to think it's silly that we share a forum, that's all.

I'm just looking for some reassurances that our differences can be put aside and it is possible for reds and blacks alike to destroy capitalism without eventually pointing the guns at each other.

[Invincible Summer]

People tell me I stink like a Maoist, but the thing is I'm pretty open to Anarchism so it's not impossible for people to be open to both "sides."

Maybe I'm just wayyy more mature than the rest of these people :lol:

[Paulappaul]

Anarchists and Marxists share the basics, that is, the destruction of the State, the elimination of Capitalism, and how a Communist society would work.

Philosophy and Organization is where is gets touchy. Anarchists didn't sprout from the say Philosophical backgrounds as Marxists did.

Anarchism came from the failed promises of Liberalism, which aspired for a Small, almost meaningless state and a workplace where people would be able to express their creativity.

Marxism came from Hegalism, Ricardo, Kant and the Utopian Socialist movement and thus reflects their Dialectical method, Materialism and Socialism.


As for Organization, Marxists have aspired for Class Struggle - which more or less has been absorbed into a lot of Anarchist Movements - through a centrally organized proletarian revolution.

Anarchists have struggled outside the narrow field of a Proletarian Class Struggle and branched out to other means, organizing not only on the bases of the Working Class membership.


Anarchists and Marxists can work together and historically have. The narrow minded nature of some Socialist ideologies prevent this cooperation - from both Anarchism and Marxism - the working class really doesn't care though, and it only goes to divide us, to make us look more unrelible then we already are. It plays right into the media's portrayal of us.

[GPDP]

Upon reflecting on all my time here at RevLeft, I think I have an idea as to why tendency wars are so frequent here:

The stakes are simply too high.

There is a sense of urgency, almost, like we better go out and do something, but not without having the right politics and the correct ideas. Otherwise, all our effort goes to shit. And in such an environment, in the increasingly urgent struggle to replace this godforsaken system we call capitalism before barbarism takes its place, there arises a certain, shall we say, intolerance to ideas and movements we deem to be counter-intuitive dead weight, so to speak.

At least, that is my understanding of the conflict.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

When you think about it, considering how many times our ideological ancestors have violently and physically opposed one another to the point of murder, internet debates should surprise nobody.

I guess to make my question a bit more simple and to expand on what GPDP said: If the sense of urgency is already at a point where we can't simply discuss things without going at each others throats, what is to stop the violence that will be sure to happen between our movements in a revolutionary atmosphere?

It is no surprise (to me at least) that the section of RevLeft where a lot of the tendency wars tend to happen is the "Ongoing Struggles" section. It seems to me that while we may be able to have civilized conversation at times (though rarely), when we get down to business there is no possible reconciliation.

[Serge's Fist]

Anarchism and Marxism are not compatible and cannot be reconciled politically or into a single organisation First International style. That period has passed and there has been too much water under the bridge since then. What is important is that we do seek joint work, joint meetings and even joint internet forums where possible to help clarify programmes and work together where we can, historically Marxists and Anarchists have not only fought each other but have worked together at important moments of revolutionary struggles, the CNT-FAI's defence of the POUM, the widespread support by anarchists for the ending of the constituent assembly in Russia placing power in the hands of the working class, the movements in the factories of Italy in 1969 and even today on a basic level Anarchists and Marxists work together on many things .

[Jimmie Higgins]

The labels "marxist" or "anarchist" don't tell me much about how well people could work together or even how close their ideas are. Even though M-L's are technically a branch of a larger tradition with Trotskyists, personally I do not think that someone who sees "socialism" as state-control of industry and party control of the state is on the same "path" as me. I would feel much closer to some anarchists who support a syndicalist approach or some other organized bottom up strategy than with people who want to train a people's army or something rather than build working class radicalism in the workplaces and communities. Conversely, IMO, anarchists of a syndicalist bent are closer to many Marxists than they are with, say, Anarchists who see fighting with cops as the main way to "spark" revolution.

So I see no reason for Marxists and anarchists not to work on common goals together while keeping their individual organizations and political positions. I also think that when the revolution is nearer and the working class as a whole is class conscious and largely revolutionary in consciousness, then history will actually push us closer together because a lot of our debates can actually be tested in practice with real results that can be assessed more than they can in a period of low-struggle where a lot of our debates end up being abstract.

I don't think the "anarchist/marxist" divide is as wide as people make it out to be - I think the real divided is "revolution from above/revolution from below". Anarchists have screwed over other anarchists and the CPs as well as Trot groups have acted in sectarian ways towards other groups even of the same general tendency.

I think sectarianism is actually worse when there is no movement or movement go into decline because everyone begins to blame the next small unifluential group for preventing revolution or mass radical action. I think the internet also exacerbates these things to some extent because the only real interaction becomes ideas and since we don't all have the same ideas, wackiness ensues.:lol:

[Paulappaul]

Conversely, IMO, anarchists of a syndicalist bent are closer to many Marxists than they are with, say, Anarchists who see fighting with cops as the main way to "spark" revolution.

I disagree completely. Marxism has very little to do with Anarcho - Syndicalism. While they are mostly inspired by the works of Marx and organize Industrially, they abandon alot of Marxism and side more closely with Anarchism.

Furthermore this is somewhat a Strawman, your separating Anarchists into two groups, those who use direct action against cops and those who organize industrially. Anarchists organize much wider then this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I disagree completely. Marxism has very little to do with Anarcho - Syndicalism. While they are mostly inspired by the works of Marx and organize Industrially, they abandon alot of Marxism and side more closely with Anarchism.Admit it, you are a big ol' marxist:wub:

I was only arguing that in outlook, anarchists with a focus on building working class self-leadership from below in an organized way are much closer to my outlook than "Marxists" who want to win elections and pass reforms from above or take state power and rule as a party to make reforms for workers from above.

In "State and Revolution", you will see that Lenin (gasp) was arguing in support of an anarchist view against the views of the reformist socialists.



IMO, anarchists of a syndicalist bent are closer to many Marxists than they are with, say, Anarchists who see fighting with cops as the main way to "spark" revolution.Furthermore this is somewhat a Strawman, your separating Anarchists into two groups, those who use direct action against cops and those who organize industrially. Anarchists organize much wider then this.Oy. When I do this: "Pterodactyls fly like some modern animals do, say, condors" I am not arguing that the only animals that fly are condors, I am giving one example.

I was using one example of "anarchism" that does not see working class self-organization and action as the way to build revolution. An anarchist who sees an action like fighting cops as something that will "spark" a revolution, then that is a big difference from anarchists in the IWW who see self-organizing from below (organize, agitate, etc) as a way forward.

[eclipse]

It might be interesting to work out the exact breaking points in ideology and tactics and look into the possibility of synthesis and fusion from there.

I have the suspicion, that the real seperation and disintegration is often more a outcome of purism than of a necessarity in revolutionary tactics.
When we say that we have to get to this point somewhere after the revolution we could as well strive to reach it before it, perhaps also aiming at the possibility of consciously avoiding a "left civil war" during or directly after the next revolutions. It might even be a necessarity to reach a favorable revolutionary situation ever again and the opportunity to pull through with it to the end in my opinion, and not just pure idealism.

two main breaking points in my opinion, of course seriously shortened.

our common history: Suppression through other tendencies after the revolution, use of others as disposable allies before. The latter one is quite important, because its hypocritical. If I am sure, that I don`t have enough in common with people that I will have to violently dispose of them after the uprising, it would as well be honest to state that openly before.
Also the fixation on the animosities of certain leading theoretics some people have. Does not matter to us, if Bakunin and Marx clashed one and a half century ago, we live now. Both had their flaws, both laid certain foundations for our struggle.

Failure in revolutionary struggles, putting the means before the goals. Would need a hurtful dissection of the past revolutions, without any nostalgia or "at least they accomplished something". Something is not enough, we want a worldwide, classless society of abundance or at least something significantly leading there. That is no small goal, the means taken should reflect that.

the authority question: Can a proletarian, socialist state progress to communism, and more important, what structure can or should it have. "All power to the soviets" is not necessarily an authoritarian agenda, "all power to the party" might be, depending on party structure, "all power to our great leader" certainly is. View of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a way to get rid of class distinctions right away.

On the other hands, many anarchists want to stay clean of power, a revolutionary police, party politics, sometimes even unions are no option to them. Then of course, the question arises to which organizational forms anarchists strive and where there are similarities that jut go by another name. Perhaps we should find a more pragmatic approach there.

[Chambered Word]

There is ample room for cooperation and mutual aid between Marxists and anarchists. It's when Leninists get involved that it all falls to shit. The organization I run with is actually built around that principle (exclusion of statist/centralist tendencies) and has never had any problems between the two camps.

Because Leninists (and sane Marxists and anarchists in general) insist on bulding a base in the working class, rather than spending their time gluing over parking meters?

[Ovi]

I was having the same idea; separating the forum between anachists and marxists (though libertarian socialists/authoritarian socialists would make a lot more sense) might allow for some real debating of methods and events without leading to a tendency war every single time. Though there would still be plenty of opportunities for tendency wars on the learning section though...
There are groups, but for various reasons they're no replacement for the main forum. And of course there are trotskyists and maoists which seem to engage in more tendency wars than leninists and anarchists do.

[Adil3tr]

Saying we should have different forums doesn't make any sense, when the revolution comes, we can easily put away our differences. There is really no difference between non Stalinist Marxists and anarchists, its just which one you encountered first.

[Saorsa]

If you don't feel like talking to Leninists, why don't you just not post on Revleft? Go to libcom or anarchistnews or something.

[Wanted Man]

Everyone experiences these things differently. I feel closer to anarchists on some issues than to trotskyists, and this may just as well be for subjective reasons only.

Anyway, making some kind of forum division between "anarchists and Leninists" or "libertarians and authoritarians" would be kind of silly. Not everyone would identify with those categories, whereas everyone here identifies as "revolutionary left".

What is problematic about this is not so much that people have different opinions about authority or history, but that the different "tendencies" tend to exist in completely different circles, with entirely different priorities and norms. This thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-capitalist-steal-t138889/index.html) is the perfect example of this. It leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, especially since both sides tend to feel incredibly entitled and self-important because they are politically active.

So anyway, this kind of stuff can easily be overcome, and it's interesting to see the completely different views and conceptions of the "other side". If there's anything that I particularly appreciate about Revleft, it's that. People should stop worrying about "tendency wars". There's nothing wrong with those contradictions in general; it's just that people may sometimes need to take the stick out of their asses.

It's for that reason that it would be pointless to make such splits. If people want to discuss only with those who agree with them, there are the user groups. You can even make your own forum if you absolutely need to protect yourself from those nasty contradictory opinions that fundamentally question your holy beliefs. The same goes for people who only want to argue with other "Leninists", or people who only want contact between anarchists and "non-Stalinist" or "non-Leninist" Marxists. There are several major forums where this is possible already, like LibCom and Soviet-Empire.


Saying we should have different forums doesn't make any sense, when the revolution comes, we can easily put away our differences. There is really no difference between non Stalinist Marxists and anarchists, its just which one you encountered first.

Well, this is evidently crap, considering that some people do have a problem with all "Leninists".

[scarletghoul]

Probably over half the anarchists here would be indentifiable as Marxist if it wasnt for the question of the state. We have waaaaay more common ground than differances.

[Ovi]

So anyway, this kind of stuff can easily be overcome, and it's interesting to see the completely different views and conceptions of the "other side". If there's anything that I particularly appreciate about Revleft, it's that.

That's the problem. Revleft it's not a place where people who share similar views cooperate, but a place where people with different views criticize each other for being reactionary, good for nothing, capitalists, lifestylists, liberals and so on; sure, an online forum is not supposed to do much in the class struggle, but it can do more than it does already.

[bricolage]

The ICC recently wrote an article about this, I don't agree with everything in it but it is worth a read I'd say; http://en.internationalism.org/wr/336/anarchism

[bricolage]

Some times it just doesn't make sense to me that we have statists and anti-statists on the same board and I've always been of the opinion that the anarchist v.s. Marxist tension never arose in the Paris Commune because it just didn't last long enough.

It's more because what we perceive to be clearly defined categories now didn't really exist in the Paris Commune. The actual number of 'Marxists' from the International was low and when we talk about anarchists they were largely Proudhonists in a Paris branch quite independent from the central organisation. Ideologies such as anarchism, socialism, marxism, french republicanism were all fluid and interchangeable, overlapping heavily during the Commune. If you want to talk about what the Communards built in practice and what it is most similar to today I would have to say it is much nearer to anarchism than most of what passes for Marxism but I think that is another issue in itself.

[ComradeOm]

I know this is just asking for a flame war, but lets keep it civilized. This is an honest question. Do anarchists and Marxists really belong on the same forum or is there no hope for the cooperation of our movements?Which question do you want answered - whether RevLeft should be split, or whether there can be future cooperation between Marxists and anarchists? One does not necessarily follow from the other

Now, I'd be all for separate forums. Not because Marxists cannot talk with anarchists but because it would be good to rid this forum of all those idiots who feel unable to have any sort of discussion with 'petit-bourgeois anarchists' or 'Leninists'. Let them move on and leave the rest of us in peace

And with regards the larger question – future cooperation between anarchists and Marxists, just grow up. Over the past two hundred odd years both schools of socialist thought have fought alongside and against each other on countless occasions. They will inevitably continue to do so in the future. No point complaining or getting upset about this simple truth

[bricolage]

I think it's also worth saying that in a genuinely revolutionary situation near to all (maybe all?) of the various 'left'/marxist/anarchist etc organisations and ideological hangups that currently exist will be swept away into the dustbin of history, when such a time comes I don't think it will really matter whether you want to call yourself an anarchist or a marxist, it will be quite obvious who is on the side of the struggle and who is not.

[el_chavista]

There is a crisis in the Marxist-Leninist theory going on since the failure of the historical 20th century "socialism". The solution to the bureaucratization of the vanguards may well be in an intersection of the political strategic lines of anarchism and Marxism-Leninism.

[Paulappaul]

Admit it, you are a big ol' marxist:wub:I admit so with pride :)


But at the same time I don't see any problem working in Anarchist Organizations as long as they towards class struggle or significant change. As did Paul Mattick by working in IWW and prasing the CNT in Spain.

Council Communism is a current of Marxism, just so you know.


I was only arguing that in outlook, anarchists with a focus on building working class self-leadership from below in an organized way are much closer to my outlook than "Marxists" who want to win elections and pass reforms from above or take state power and rule as a party to make reforms for workers from above. Good point.


In "State and Revolution", you will see that Lenin (gasp) was arguing in support of an anarchist view against the views of the reformist socialists.Eh I wouldn't go that far. Lenin in State and Revolution tried to defend true Marxism, against the Second International, it wasn't necessarily a support of Anarchism's hatred for Reformism - which is seperate from true Marxists - but an attempt to defend the "true Marxist tradition".

[black magick hustla]

Honestly I fail to recognize anything authentically "Marxist" about Leninism.

idk what is leninism, it seems to me it is just an empty slur word, kindof like ultra leftist, but i fail to see how lenin was not a marxist. i remember reading all sorts of empty verbeage about marxist orthodoxy and lenin by the resident forum neo mensheviks but the truth is one cannot talk about one static lenin, rather, a lenin that went through different phases, and was ultimately, part of the rise of the revolutionary wave of post-WW I, and of its degeneration and subsequent defeat. the death of luxembourg and liebneckt, the failure of the italian red years, and ultimately, a post civil war russia that went through imperialist encirclment and white counterrevolution made Kornstadt unavoidable. discipline and centralism has always been part of the workers´movement at certain periods. hence the existence of the AIT in the CNT, the rise of the mexican anarchist insurrectionists, etcetera. To say that it was centralism and iron discipline that led to the defeat of the workers´movement is incredibly childish.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's also worth saying that in a genuinely revolutionary situation near to all (maybe all?) of the various 'left'/marxist/anarchist etc organisations and ideological hangups that currently exist will be swept away into the dustbin of history, when such a time comes I don't think it will really matter whether you want to call yourself an anarchist or a marxist, it will be quite obvious who is on the side of the struggle and who is not.

Thanks for stealing my post. :mad:

[black magick hustla]

Am I a leninist? I just find the term very interesting. For example, I do believe in centralism and organizational discipline. I believe that you should form part of an organization only if you agree with its platform and fully understand it.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

We all share the same goal Communism, the state and class-less society managed by the people as a collective, where evryone takes care of eachother and evry brakfast starts with a glass of pineaple juice.

Since the first split in the fisrt interantional i cant really see anny progress because of it, the splits have been more and for each time evrything becommes more and more fucked up. The left of today cant be picky ore sectarian, wich is very strange that if we claim to be pragmatic and hate idealism we wont cooperate with somone that has the wrong label, despite that we have 99,7% common ideas.

When it commes to goals in the nearest time (in the capitalist society) like defending public wellfare and union rights and so we should have no problem at all to work togetter for, in a objective point of view. Otherwise Jimmie Higgins said it all in his prewier post in this thread.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Am I a leninist? I just find the term very interesting. For example, I do believe in centralism and organizational discipline. I believe that you should form part of an organization only if you agree with its platform and fully understand it.

Yes. You're a despicable Leninist bastard.

Unless you're talking to an anti-revisionist. In which case you're an ultraleftist Anarcho-Trot.

In any case, I think that the nature of the discussion on this website contributes to a lot of the senseless vitriol. People on this website see themselves as the saviors of mankind, sent to lead the working class out of exploitation and darkness. Sure, they'll frame it in language like "the working class liberates itself!"....of course, they'll always sure to point out that the proletariat's long-term success depends upon the theories of the enlightened few, namely themselves, who've never actually been involved in a real revolutionary situation. They've read plenty of books, though, and their theoretical level is top notch...if only their post-industrial, post-modern world was Russia circa 1917! Or Spain circa 1936!

I fully include myself in that aforementioned category, too...I've never been in as much as a riot, let alone a revolution. I've been involved in work for a pretty good time, but I've never been involved in organizing my workplace, and most of the other times that I'm around other leftists, I just feel weird and alienated; most of my friends are apolitical. My reading level is fairly strong, but I know that I'm not the only one who's read about capital's theoretical minutea and wondered how it was going to help me in a world where our oppressors are not always easily identifiable. I try to keep my critiques of people who are actually involved in grassroots revolutionary struggle (in Nepal, Greece and elsewhere) to a minimum, though. Most Marxists I've met have been nice people, and I don't think that it's entirely useful to be unnecessarily divisive when I would never turn over a Stalinist to the cops.

That's not to say that I'm all in favor of the stupid "we all need to be united" crap, either, when there are very real divisions between schools of thought, some moreso than others. But if you're annoyed by arguing with Leninists (who start at many of the basic propositions that anarchists start out with), you probably won't do well arguing with non-leftists.

So yeah. I guess that was kind of rambling, but...

[What Would Durruti Do?]

What is problematic about this is not so much that people have different opinions about authority or history, but that the different "tendencies" tend to exist in completely different circles, with entirely different priorities and norms. This thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-capitalist-steal-t138889/index.html) is the perfect example of this. It leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, especially since both sides tend to feel incredibly entitled and self-important because they are politically active.

I disagree. The Red Army and the Black Army did not go to war in the Soviet Union because some anarchists today like to glue parking meters or steal books.

Our differences are the result of our ideologies (view of authority mostly) and history, not our "social circles".

I'm not sure which is more worrisome, the fact that history is bound to repeat itself in the way of violence between anarchists and authoritarians, or the fact that many of you reds seem to completely ignore all past instances of anarchist/left-comm suppression throughout history.

Ignoring something does not mean it doesn't exist.


So anyway, this kind of stuff can easily be overcome, and it's interesting to see the completely different views and conceptions of the "other side". If there's anything that I particularly appreciate about Revleft, it's that. People should stop worrying about "tendency wars". There's nothing wrong with those contradictions in general; it's just that people may sometimes need to take the stick out of their asses.I think you missed the point of this thread. I didn't make it out of concern for tendency wars, I made it our of concern for REAL wars. As in, you know, guns and bombs and what not.

If you think our ideological and historic differences can be "easily overcome" then please enlighten us all because that is the answer I am looking for.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Which question do you want answered - whether RevLeft should be split, or whether there can be future cooperation between Marxists and anarchists? One does not necessarily follow from the other

While it doesn't make much sense to me that we have statists and anti-statists on the same forum, my question was about real-life cooperation between the two movements.


And with regards the larger question – future cooperation between anarchists and Marxists, just grow up. Over the past two hundred odd years both schools of socialist thought have fought alongside and against each other on countless occasions. They will inevitably continue to do so in the future. No point complaining or getting upset about this simple truthSo if it is inevitable, shouldn't Leninists be organizing AGAINST anarchists, and vice versa? It doesn't make much sense to me that future enemies would be helping each other when they will eventually have to point their guns at themselves.

For example, I have much more success drawing people to anarchism when I distance it as far from Leninism/vanguardism/statism as possible. People don't want to get involved with something they have seen fail on numerous occasions throughout history. Why as an anarchist then would I want to be related to Leninists if that relationship has not only the possibility of pushing people away who might otherwise be interested, but if they will inevitably become our enemies in a revolutionary scenario anyway?


Probably over half the anarchists here would be indentifiable as Marxist if it wasnt for the question of the state. We have waaaaay more common ground than differances.

The state is a pretty big fucking difference.


when the revolution comes, we can easily put away our differences

You say this, yet provide no evidence for it. Well, how do we "easily" put away our differences?

[Wanted Man]

I disagree. The Red Army and the Black Army did not go to war in the Soviet Union because some anarchists today like to glue parking meters or steal books.

Our differences are the result of our ideologies (view of authority mostly) and history, not our "social circles".

(...)

I think you missed the point of this thread. I didn't make it out of concern for tendency wars, I made it our of concern for REAL wars. As in, you know, guns and bombs and what not.


What, you think the Red Army and Black Army went to war just because of two different ideas about authority that they dreamt up? Of course that was not the case. These battles were waged over social differences. They were in the middle of the first ever socialist revolution. Nothing was certain, and they struggled over the direction to take. It's not like they were just sitting around with their thumbs in their asses, minding their own business, when suddenly they thought up Marxism and anarchism, respectively, and decided to try it out in practice by shooting at each other. Their struggles were connected to the revolution that was ongoing.

For that reason alone, it's ridiculous to keep pointing at that kind of stuff. If the existence of Marxists and anarchists inevitably leads to shooting wars, where are they now? The only "battles" taking place today are self-important editorials in the party press and on Revleft. How are the situations even remotely similar?

Of course, in a revolutionary situation, this struggle over direction will come to the foreground again, but still: why are you so certain that it will look the same as it did in Russia between 1917 and 1921? This is basically the impotent complaint of the defeatist: "History always repeat itself, especially in bloodshed. Nothing will ever fundamentally change." As if history is some kind of higher force that human agency can do nothing about. If that is the case, why do any of us try at all, when all revolutions are bound to drown in blood?


I'm not sure which is more worrisome, the fact that history is bound to repeat itself in the way of violence between anarchists and authoritarians, or the fact that many of you reds seem to completely ignore all past instances of anarchist/left-comm suppression throughout history.

Ignoring something does not mean it doesn't exist.

What I'd like to ask you is why do you use Cold Warrior/McCarthyite language? It seems your mind is already made up.


If you think our ideological and historic differences can be "easily overcome" then please enlighten us all because that is the answer I am looking for.

I don't think all of these differences can be overcome. I was merely saying that the silly "tendency wars" on Revleft are not an obstacle at all. But yes, real contact and dialogue is much stronger than a bunch of angry white men on the internet denouncing each other in endless tracts.


So if it is inevitable, shouldn't Leninists be organizing AGAINST anarchists, and vice versa? It doesn't make much sense to me that future enemies would be helping each other when they will eventually have to point their guns at themselves.

Read more carefully. He said that they would both fight alongside and against each other, i.e. it's not necessarily "against" at any and all times. It's certainly possible. Anyway, if you want to do something about that, if you want to "organise against Leninists", nobody is stopping you. What do you propose? Or are you going to keep it a secret so that such terrifying Leninist figures as "Wanted Man" and "ComradeOm" and "scarletghoul" can't do something about it? :rolleyes:

[Red Commissar]

We could be having this discussion if our movement was on more favorable footing. I don't think it takes much to see that the fight against capitalism is very steep and uphill, and currently is not in a good position right now.

And this counts on any front- be it political within the bourgeois democracies, within the trade unions, or among the people themselves.

The "left" is already lampooned for its habit of splitting and unable to agree on things. For now we should all appreciate we are socialists and need to work together against a powerful enemy. I mean in most cases I'd imagine an anarchist forum lumping together anti-capitalist anarchist and those who proclaim themselves to be Anarcho-"capitalist" would present the same issues.

Additionally this is revleft- a discussion forum, and if something big is happening those specifics and what not would be discussed elsewhere. I mean one is attaching way too much importance to an internet forum if we bring these questions up.

[maskerade]

what is the ultimate evil for anarchists: capitalism or the state?

The only reason I'm not an anarchist is because I see capitalism as the greater evil, and if we need the state to crush the capitalist class, so be it. Other than that, all socialist anarchists are my comrades...

[Wanted Man]

By the way, as I understand it, the OP was asking about concrete political differences today. Well, in that sense, there doesn't seem to be a clear dividing line between "anarchists and authoritarians" at all.

In a place like a squatted social centre, we (a marxist-leninist group) work with anarchists a lot. In the students' union, I mostly encounter trotskyists and reformists (the latter being less relevant to revolutionary unity, but you can't pretend that they don't exist). These are cases where these groups step out of their traditional "core businesses" (urgh) and both have significant things to add to each other (moreso in the former case than in the latter, in fact; so much for the "libertarian/authoritarian" false dichotomy). They both want to make the project that they're involved with work, and they add to each other in a creative way. I doubt that many of them would give a shit about the most popular subjects on Revleft.

Maybe the OP has different experiences on this, but all he has given us is the fact that he finds it easier to convince people with "anti-statist" argumentation. But what kind of argumentation is this? Considering the OP's clear opinions on marxist "statism" (a strawman if I ever saw one), I doubt these people get an accurate idea of marxism. I could also contrive to assure people that we are not hooded, bomb-throwing thugs (i.e. "anarchists"), and I'm sure that would attract some people, whereas the presence of anarchists would scare them off if they thought that's what "anarchism" is all about. But what would be the point about that? I'd rather emphasise positive things and commonalities rather than slander other groups that the other person might not even have heard about otherwise. If more people started from that attitude, they would not be so pessimistic about these divisions either.

[ContrarianLemming]

There is ample room for cooperation and mutual aid between Marxists and anarchists. It's when Leninists get involved that it all falls to shit. The organization I run with is actually built around that principle (exclusion of statist/centralist tendencies) and has never had any problems between the two camps.

the problem is not between marxists and anarchists, its between statists and libertarians

[this is an invasion]

the problem is not between marxists and anarchists, its between statists and libertarians

That's what Nachie is saying.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Id like to announce the Revleftunionists movement to prevent the splitting of the website.

The discussion between "authoritarians/libertarians, statist/anti-statist, marxist/non-marxist, and just Communists vs communists" is too valuable. if this like many other meeting places between the two trends(in the same movement) is removed then we may see even more problems in the current debaters delight that is Greece.

it allows for a flow of ideas between the two trends and may provide a slight amount of cross checking to keep each of the two somewhat in line with their own ideologies. or even to purify the two by allowing for an open membrane to allow the movement from one trend/tendency to another.

some differences are irreconcilable, yes...
but like GPDP/GDPD(or whatever) said, it may be the sense of urgency because how often does revolution happen? we MUST work together for as long as possible. there is bound to be a split over time in a revolution but it doesnt matter so long as we have a fucking revolution in the making. things will get sorted out then, or it fails.

[ContrarianLemming]

Id like to announce the Revleftunionists movement to prevent the splitting of the website.

The discussion between "authoritarians/libertarians, statist/anti-statist, marxist/non-marxist, and just Communists vs communists" is too valuable. if this like many other meeting places between the two trends(in the same movement) is removed then we may see even more problems in the current debaters delight that is Greece.

it allows for a flow of ideas between the two trends and may provide a slight amount of cross checking to keep each of the two somewhat in line with their own ideologies. or even to purify the two by allowing for an open membrane to allow the movement from one trend/tendency to another.

some differences are irreconcilable, yes...
but like GPDP/GDPD(or whatever) said, it may be the sense of urgency because how often does revolution happen? we MUST work together for as long as possible. there is bound to be a split over time in a revolution but it doesnt matter so long as we have a fucking revolution in the making. things will get sorted out then, or it fails.

Maybe start a new group for marxist and anarchist cooperation?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Maybe start a new group for marxist and anarchist cooperation?
there already is one.

[Jazzhands]

There seems to be relatively little sectarianism in Research, Mutual Aid or the other boards nobody ever looks at. Plus Chit-Chat. So it shouldn't be that much of a leap. But it is. I sometimes can't shake the feeling that some of the hardcore ML crowd might actually want to kill me, but that's just me.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

What, you think the Red Army and Black Army went to war just because of two different ideas about authority that they dreamt up? Of course that was not the case. These battles were waged over social differences. They were in the middle of the first ever socialist revolution. Nothing was certain, and they struggled over the direction to take. It's not like they were just sitting around with their thumbs in their asses, minding their own business, when suddenly they thought up Marxism and anarchism, respectively, and decided to try it out in practice by shooting at each other. Their struggles were connected to the revolution that was ongoing.

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously I never insinuated that Marxism and anarchism were thought up on the spot during the Russian Revolution.

That does not mean that the result of the Russian Revolution is not the natural consequence of ML/Anarchist collaboration.

As you said, it was the first ever socialist revolution. So have we learned anything since then? Are we going to continue to work together even though there is no hope of reconciling our differences?


For that reason alone, it's ridiculous to keep pointing at that kind of stuff. If the existence of Marxists and anarchists inevitably leads to shooting wars, where are they now? The only "battles" taking place today are self-important editorials in the party press and on Revleft. How are the situations even remotely similar?

Of course I'm speaking hypothetically. Look no further than the "Ongoing Struggles" section for Greece that ML's and anarchists can't get along. Do you believe that if a revolutionary scenario were to break out in Greece that the KKE and the anarchist movement would get along perfectly? I highly doubt it myself.


Of course, in a revolutionary situation, this struggle over direction will come to the foreground again, but still: why are you so certain that it will look the same as it did in Russia between 1917 and 1921?

Because history repeats itself? If two groups of people with very different ideologies attempt to wrestle control in a specific region from the ruling capitalists, what do you think is going to happen? After capitalism has been defeated, there is no possible compromise between our ideas of what is to happen next.


This is basically the impotent complaint of the defeatist: "History always repeat itself, especially in bloodshed. Nothing will ever fundamentally change." As if history is some kind of higher force that human agency can do nothing about. If that is the case, why do any of us try at all, when all revolutions are bound to drown in blood?

History repeating itself is not defeatist, it is a simple understanding of human society.

Honestly, why do you think anything would be different today if Leninists and anarchists were to fight capitalism than what happened in Russia? Nothing has changed, we still have our same ideals and our same plans for a post-capitalist society.

I am just asking a simple question. Can you not answer me why you think it would be different today? It is all I want to know.


What I'd like to ask you is why do you use Cold Warrior/McCarthyite language? It seems your mind is already made up.

lol "reds" is just a term for socialists. Stop being a typical Leninist and painting me as an anti-communist because I used the word "red". It is just a color that socialists happen to identify with. It does not mean I am a McCarthyist for gods sake.


I don't think all of these differences can be overcome. I was merely saying that the silly "tendency wars" on Revleft are not an obstacle at all. But yes, real contact and dialogue is much stronger than a bunch of angry white men on the internet denouncing each other in endless tracts.

Thank you for finally answering my question.

I agree with you that silly "tendency wars" on Revleft are not an obstacle as well. My question had nothing to do with tendency wars, or even RevLeft. I'm sorry if I confused anyone with my statements that it didn't make sense to me that anti-statists and statists shared the same forum but my question was about ideology, not the future of RevLeft.


Read more carefully. He said that they would both fight alongside and against each other, i.e. it's not necessarily "against" at any and all times. It's certainly possible. Anyway, if you want to do something about that, if you want to "organise against Leninists", nobody is stopping you. What do you propose? Or are you going to keep it a secret so that such terrifying Leninist figures as "Wanted Man" and "ComradeOm" and "scarletghoul" can't do something about it? :rolleyes:

Not at all. I still consider Leninsts closer allies than any other political ideology that exists. I wouldn't even begin to think about organizing against them unless we were in a pre-revolutionary scenario. So maybe if I was in Greece perhaps... but here in the U.S.? Of course not. We have bigger fish to fry, like the Tea Party.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

That's what Nachie is saying.

Its also what I was trying to say, but it just didn't come out right.


what is the ultimate evil for anarchists: capitalism or the state?

There is no "ultimate evil". Capital and the state work hand-in-hand. It is foolish to oppose only one when it will necessarily re-generate the other half.


I doubt these people get an accurate idea of marxism.

What is more accurate than history itself?

They see that Marxism has lead to situation they do not like (and failed at that), so they want nothing to do with it. It's simple.

Anarchism, however, does not have that same connotation so they are more open to learning about it.


I could also contrive to assure people that we are not hooded, bomb-throwing thugs (i.e. "anarchists"), and I'm sure that would attract some people, whereas the presence of anarchists would scare them off if they thought that's what "anarchism" is all about.you are very correct. However, if I discuss Marxism with someone (being a former Marxist myself) I do not further anti-Marxist myths to push them away from Marxism. I am happy to correct any fallacies they might have about it, but at the same time I emphasize our differences and where I believe anarchism to be stronger.


But what would be the point about that? I'd rather emphasise positive things and commonalities rather than slander other groups that the other person might not even have heard about otherwise. If more people started from that attitude, they would not be so pessimistic about these divisions either.It doesn't matter what attitude you start from, and I am proof of that. Fuck, when I was younger and stupider I even used to defend Stalin. Fortunately I have moved beyond that and while I am still able to emphasize the positive aspects of Marxism, I will still advocate anarchism when differences arise.

[Wanted Man]

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously I never insinuated that Marxism and anarchism were thought up on the spot during the Russian Revolution.

That does not mean that the result of the Russian Revolution is not the natural consequence of ML/Anarchist collaboration.

As you said, it was the first ever socialist revolution. So have we learned anything since then? Are we going to continue to work together even though there is no hope of reconciling our differences?

Well, obviously, the situation between marxists and anarchists will be different if the next revolution takes on a different form from the one in Russia. I, for one, definitely hope that the next revolutionary situation won't be the same scenario: that it occurs in a large, backwards country, and that it will remain isolated and be attacked by 14 foreign armies and a reactionary uprising. And that if such a thing were to happen, that "you anarchists" will not use this situation to try and overthrow the socialist government against the will of the majority of workers, essentially doing the reactionaries' work for them.

Of course, if all anarchists do fully intend to do this again and again, despite all the failures and suffering that was brought about by this, then there is no hope, as you say, but I'm certain most of you guys are smarter now.


Of course I'm speaking hypothetically. Look no further than the "Ongoing Struggles" section for Greece that ML's and anarchists can't get along. Do you believe that if a revolutionary scenario were to break out in Greece that the KKE and the anarchist movement would get along perfectly? I highly doubt it myself.

What do discussions on Revleft prove? You just said yourself that it's not about tendency wars on Revleft at all.

As for the Greek situation itself, well, the anarchist movement claimed in December 2008 and this year that there was already a revolutionary scenario in Greece, and that's why they supported the idea of going out to start an insurrection. The communists in both cases recognised that this was not the case, and continued to organise on class lines, rather than support an "insurrection" that they knew was going to fail (as it did). They foregrounded the idea that only the working-class can liberate itself, and that a "youth uprising" or anything like that has nothing to do with a real revolution. Indeed, no revolution happened, and most people voted in a "lesser evil" social-democratic party who turned out just as "evil", as both of us could probably predict. This alone shows that there is a lot more work to be done in terms of consciousness, although Greece is much more advanced than our countries in this sense.

One main lesson from the Greek situation is therefore that neither of us can simply proclaim a "revolution" as soon as there are riots in the streets. In the Greek case, only one of us already accurately analysed this as the events were ongoing. If there were a real revolution, I also think that the side with the most significant amount of working-class organisation and the ability to correctly analyse the situation would be able to show the best leadership. Whether the other side (i.e. the anarchists) wants to fight this reality with violence is entirely up to them.

In any case, the Greek situation is completely different from the one in America, the Netherlands, Britain, etc. Greece has a powerful CP with massive trade union operations. In Western Europe and America, all of us are equally irrelevant, and it is doubtful whether we would be able to pose a threat to each other, let alone to capital.

Finally, in Greece, the contradiction is not just between "communists and anarchists", or "authoritarians and anti-authoritarians". There are also contradictions between the official CP and all the trotskyist and maoist groups, between class-struggle anarchists and individual anarchists (up to and including violent incidents, I believe). How do these fit into your view of things? Do we simply pretend that they do not exist?


Because history repeats itself? If two groups of people with very different ideologies attempt to wrestle control in a specific region from the ruling capitalists, what do you think is going to happen? After capitalism has been defeated, there is no possible compromise between our ideas of what is to happen next.

This alone shows a complete misunderstanding of what's going on here. Revolution is not about "two groups with very different ideologies" trying to conquer a particular region of the world. This completely ignores class. It is well possible that the clear-cut "two groups" that you envision will be completely irrelevant to the eventual working-class revolution.



History repeating itself is not defeatist, it is a simple understanding of human society.

Honestly, why do you think anything would be different today if Leninists and anarchists were to fight capitalism than what happened in Russia? Nothing has changed, we still have our same ideals and our same plans for a post-capitalist society.

I am just asking a simple question. Can you not answer me why you think it would be different today? It is all I want to know.


What does "history repeats itself" even mean? It's just a phrase that sounds intellectual. Prove to me that history repeats itself. If history just repeated itself, humanity would still be stuck with loincloths and shacks, and all movement forwards would inevitably turn on its ass. Clearly history does not repeat. If history has to "do" anything, perhaps it spirals?

I'd say it's a pretty major misunderstanding if you think that it's all about "ideals" and "plans", anyway.


lol "reds" is just a term for socialists. Stop being a typical Leninist and painting me as an anti-communist because I used the word "red". It is just a color that socialists happen to identify with. It does not mean I am a McCarthyist for gods sake.

Well, there you go already. Like I said, it seems your mind is made up. Apparently there are "typical Leninists" who are constantly trying to paint you as an anti-communist. I did not call you a McCarthyist. I said you used their language. There is quite a difference between saying "you are X" and "you are talking like X".

I'm not the one painting entire groups of people with the same brush. You're the one who's doing that by going on about "you reds", "typical Leninist", etc., as if all communists are suspect. You also seem to forget that many anarchists are both red and black.


Thank you for finally answering my question.

I agree with you that silly "tendency wars" on Revleft are not an obstacle as well. My question had nothing to do with tendency wars, or even RevLeft. I'm sorry if I confused anyone with my statements that it didn't make sense to me that anti-statists and statists shared the same forum but my question was about ideology, not the future of RevLeft.

Not at all. I still consider Leninsts closer allies than any other political ideology that exists. I wouldn't even begin to think about organizing against them unless we were in a pre-revolutionary scenario. So maybe if I was in Greece perhaps... but here in the U.S.? Of course not. We have bigger fish to fry, like the Tea Party.

Okay, fair enough. Not much to add to this, really.

[Wanted Man]

Just responding to the parts addressed to me:


What is more accurate than history itself?

They see that Marxism has lead to situation they do not like (and failed at that), so they want nothing to do with it. It's simple.

Anarchism, however, does not have that same connotation so they are more open to learning about it.

you are very correct. However, if I discuss Marxism with someone (being a former Marxist myself) I do not further anti-Marxist myths to push them away from Marxism. I am happy to correct any fallacies they might have about it, but at the same time I emphasize our differences and where I believe anarchism to be stronger.

It doesn't matter what attitude you start from, and I am proof of that. Fuck, when I was younger and stupider I even used to defend Stalin. Fortunately I have moved beyond that and while I am still able to emphasize the positive aspects of Marxism, I will still advocate anarchism when differences arise.

How is it simple? Most people in my environment (ranging from "a-political" classmates and friends to trade unionists and student unionists) would react similarly to anything they read on the activity of anarchists: "They look like thugs. How are they any different from the 'fascists' that they claim to be fighting against?" "Surely they are walking anachronisms. Their revolution has failed long ago." "Do they really think a stateless, classless society can work?"

I don't even have to open my mouth; they come up with that themselves. Is it that simple, though? Can anarchism be reduced to fascistoid thugs and miserable failure at every turn of history? No, of course not. I don't like it when people say these simplicities about "anarchism", because it also reflects negatively on communism itself. After all, we also back anti-fascism, the idea of revolution, and a communist society with no state and no classes.

That's why I don't try to distance myself from others as much as possible. Of course I will firstly advocate what I do believe in, and that's what I meant by a positive attitude. You don't have to defend everything about Marxism or even bother with it.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Does it really make sense for Marxists and anarchists to share the same forum? Sure we can work together up to a point (on most things anyway) but doesn't our ideological divide necessarily separate us at some point?

Some times it just doesn't make sense to me that we have statists and anti-statists on the same board and I've always been of the opinion that the anarchist v.s. Marxist tension never arose in the Paris Commune because it just didn't last long enough.

So why haven't anarchists and Marxists been able to work together since Paris, and can anything be done to reconcile these issues?

I know this is just asking for a flame war, but lets keep it civilized. This is an honest question. Do anarchists and Marxists really belong on the same forum or is there no hope for the cooperation of our movements?

People who fetishize the black and red cleavage in the bosom of the proletariat are a blight on the communist movement. It don't have shit to do with Lenin or Paris. Marxists are not "statists." Marxism is simply the application of scientific method to the study of society. (which is why all the social sciences have been so greatly influenced by what we know as "Marxism"; it is simply a scientific approach to social analysis.) Marxists and anarchists are involved in many of the same movements. I regularly see Marxists and anarchists at the same events: labor, gay rights, anti-fascist events, and I even went to a coalition building meeting recently with both anarchist and marxist participants. I just hate how irrelevant tendency labels are. Either you support the proletarian class struggle or you don't; it is not that complicated.

[ComradeOm]

While it doesn't make much sense to me that we have statists and anti-statists on the same forum, my question was about real-life cooperation between the two movementsToday or in the past? In both cases there is as long a history of cooperation as there is hostilities


So if it is inevitable, shouldn't Leninists be organizing AGAINST anarchists, and vice versa?No. This is the typical RAAN line and it is insanely stupid. Are anarchists 'the enemy' of 'Leninists'? Don't be fucking ridiculous and don't flatter yourself. The bourgeoisie are the enemy of Marxists, the bourgeois state is what we struggle against. Actually expending energy on fighting anarchists (like, say, vandalising bookstores) is beyond stupid. You will struggle to find any real Marxist who disagrees with this

Secondly, don't misinterpret my post. I stressed that anarchists and Marxists have "fought alongside and against each other". Like it or not, we are two eternal bedmates on the far left. In the past there has been cooperation and there have been fights. Any honest evaluation of the history of this relationship (which is really like an old married couple) has to accept that this. In the future there may be conflict and there may not be. Only an imbecile would poison current relations by assuming the worst

[Jimmie Higgins]

Because history repeats itself? If two groups of people with very different ideologies attempt to wrestle control in a specific region from the ruling capitalists, what do you think is going to happen? After capitalism has been defeated, there is no possible compromise between our ideas of what is to happen next.I don't think having different ideas alone is what might cause infighting after a revolution, I think it has a lot to do with the way the revolution goes down and the material situation we find ourselves in.

The compromise between our ideas is whatever set of ideas carry more water with the majority of workers at the time of the revolution. I don't think syndicalism alone can help workers build a revolution, but if I am wrong and most workers are joining together into one large revolutionary union as the vehicle for revolution, then no non-syndicalist revolutionary who is actually committed to worker's power would say, no, workers should break up their organization and start from scratch so they can build a specific kind of "vanguard party" or "autonomous community collectives" or something.

If worker's were overwhelmingly in support of a bottom-up form of centralized organization like Lenin argued for in "State and Revolution" and worker's power was secure, would you really be acting towards that organization the same way that you would act towards the capitalist state - or would it be more in your interests to agitate for a different kind of organization among the workers from within that worker's system?

I don't agree that because something happened, it will happen again or that ideological arguments necessarily lead to violent confrontations. For one thing, the examples we are using are all of FAILED attempts at revolution. So you can't really study aerodynamics by lookig at a plane with a crippled wing that crashed - basically the only things you can learn are what not to do and why things went wrong. The Spanish Civil War also has the factor of Stalinism and pro-USSR foreign policy impacting that revolution and I do think there is a real ideological difference between those who want worker's power and those who want to run a state supposedly in the name of workers (either in a Stalinist style or a Democratic-Socialist style).

Second, are people committed first to worker's power and also to the goal of a stateless classless societies really ideologically different or just different in their approaches? I think with worker's power secure, political tendencies will be organized around questions like "how do you prioritize what to produce" and "how quickly can the worker's organizations set up after the revolution be dismantled". So basically the people who are currently marxists or anarchists would just be parts of different wings of one ideology centered around worker's power in much the same way that Republicans/Democrats and so on are just different approaches to how to handle the capitalist system most effectively.

[Chambered Word]

For example, I have much more success drawing people to anarchism when I distance it as far from Leninism/vanguardism/statism as possible. People don't want to get involved with something they have seen fail on numerous occasions throughout history. Why as an anarchist then would I want to be related to Leninists if that relationship has not only the possibility of pushing people away who might otherwise be interested, but if they will inevitably become our enemies in a revolutionary scenario anyway?

Out of curiosity, do you bother to study why the Soviet Union failed in the end or do you just put it down to 'mean authoritarians'? I've been reading some Trot texts on Russia and the arguments are much more convincing and logical than all that hyperbole about centralism taking over.