Unifying Marxism-Leninism and anarchism

[el_chavista]

There is a gap in the Marxist-Leninist practice: After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they couldn't organize the working class as the new ruling class.

Isn't precisely anarchism the practice of workers/people seizing power? I am an eyewitness of the workers spontaneously taking their factories -which were abandoned/subutilized by the owners in the Venezuelan "oil coup" (owners strike 2002-2004).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, we both support the ideal of workers seizing power, but we differ in how we feel the workers should use such power. For those of us of Marxism-Leninism, we find it necessary for the working class to form a State under its own interests to oppress any opposing class wanting to seize power themselves again. Gotta realize that, even after the abolition of the Bourgeois State, the mode of production still didn't transition. The revolution was ideally towards the transition from the Bourgeois State to the Proletarian State - a transition on ruling class interests. It wasn't meant, ideally, to right there and then transition the entire economy and mode of production away from private hands to public hands. So there'll still be those under economic power wanting to overthrow the newly formed workers power. And so, the use of a State under the interests of the working class is necessary.

To those of anarchism, they, of course, differ on the ideals of the State. They do not see the necessity of any use of a State, and find it to be an oppressive institution - though I agree, I also, in my own opinion, feel they lack of any understanding what said oppressive institution is used for and under what interests. I'd love to see anarchists and Marxist-Leninists fighting together, but I won't hold my breath.

[syndicat]

Leninism and libertarian socialism are flatly inconsistent. Leninism is an elitist doctrine that emphasizes the alleged "right to rule" of people who happen to ahdere to a particular ideological construct, and whose focus is on control of the state, to use as an instrument of their political aims.

Working class liberation can only be self-liberation and this presupposes movements organized independently of control by some hierarchy of party or state leaders, and which aims to gain direct control not merely of workplaces but of society as a whole. This isn't going to happen thru electing -- or putting in place via guerrilla war -- leaders to run some bureaucratic state apparatus.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Leninism and libertarian socialism are flatly inconsistent. Leninism is an elitist doctrine that emphasizes the alleged "right to rule" of people who happen to ahdere to a particular ideological construct, and whose focus is on control of the state, to use as an instrument of their political aims.

Quite. You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought, but not Lenin since his entire approach runs counter to anarchism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought

Yeah, because Marx never stated anything about the need of a Proletarian Dictatorship, right? Sorry, Marxism doesn't correlate with that of Anarchist ideals. Marxism, itself, points out the need of a State against class antagonisms.


“As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight.”


~Friedrich Engels

[jake williams]

It depends what the terms mean. A lot of times "anarchism" refers to various weird reactions to industrial civilization and modern society, without a lot of meaningful content.

But there's also a long history of working class, pro-industrial anarchism which for historical reasons has basically become defined in terms of its relationship to Marxism(-Leninism): both are working class movements which want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with worker control, but anarchism is opposed to the use of state power (variously defined) in doing so. In that sense the two aren't really reconcilable, because their mutual difference is what defines them. More to it than that, historically Marxists have taken a number of views about how a revolution would work and what a revolutionary state would be, and anarchists have generally opposed them all by definition. Thus I'm not sure what sort of a reconciliation would be possible.

There are "anarchists" who basically support a workers' state, and "Marxists" who are basically syndicalists (or social democrats, but that's a whole other story). But I'm not sure they represent a "bridge" so much as a mislabling.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It depends what the terms mean. A lot of times "anarchism" refers to various weird reactions to industrial civilization and modern society, without a lot of meaningful content.

But there's also a long history of working class, pro-industrial anarchism which for historical reasons has basically become defined in terms of its relationship to Marxism(-Leninism): both are working class movements which want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with worker control, but anarchism is opposed to the use of state power (variously defined) in doing so. In that sense the two aren't really reconcilable, because their mutual difference is what defines them. More to it than that, historically Marxists have taken a number of views about how a revolution would work and what a revolutionary state would be, and anarchists have generally opposed them all by definition. Thus I'm not sure what sort of a reconciliation would be possible.

There are "anarchists" who basically support a workers' state, and "Marxists" who are basically syndicalists (or social democrats, but that's a whole other story). But I'm not sure they represent a "bridge" so much as a mislabling.

Chomsky would be one of those anarchists who support the use of a proletarian state.

[NGNM85]

This is a complete waste of time. Leninism and Anarchism are fundamentally opposed, to the extent Leninists actually subscribe to the ideas and practices of V.I. Lenin, (And the Anarchists subscribe to what has historically been known as Anarchism.) this theoretical collusion is doomed.

[Nolan]

No. Youd have better results mating an elephant and a radish.

[devoration1]

Quite. You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought, but not Lenin since his entire approach runs counter to anarchism.

I don't agree. Marxism-Leninism is alien to the interests of the working-class, and is thus incompatible with 'actual' marxism and internationalist or 'class struggle anarchism'. A number of extremely beneficial insights can be gathered from the life and work of Lenin and a number of other leading Bolsheviks- both on theory and practical problems encountered when the working class attempts to take power in a revolutionary period (and what happens when the international revolution of the proletariat recedes and is defeated). Baby.Bathwater.Throw.Out.


I am an eyewitness of the workers spontaneously taking their factories -which were abandoned/subutilized by the owners in the Venezuelan "oil coup" (owners strike 2002-2004).

You are eyewitness to class struggle, but also the mystifications of the bourgeoisie (in the form of 'Bolivarian Socialism') and the cul-de-sac that swallows up an otherwise militant and active section of the working class that is 'Worker Self-Management'- a scheme that goes back to the 19th century at least that was shown to be bankrupt in Marx and Engels day. Yes, working class militants and revolutionaries want worker self-organization and management in a future communist world- but you cannot have 'socialism in one factory' for the same reason you cannot have 'socialism in one country'- because communism is the abolition of class, capitalism as a mode of production, etc and any 'stronghold' of the workers will be recouped by capital. Worker co-op's still operate as capitalist industries; only now instead of a boss, workers extract value and surplus value from themselves voluntarily. This is also why the 'Hippie Communes' could not presuppose a new world (just as the "Utopian Socialists" of the 18th and 19th centuries, like Fourier) could not create a seperate part ofthe world that has communism, while the rest of the world is still capitalist.


Isn't precisely anarchism the practice of workers/people seizing power?

Anarchism is a historic current of the international workers movement going back over a century. All legitimately revolutionary currents of the workers movement support the workers taking power for themselves (to abolish class society, capitalism, money and markets, for the purpose of utilizing the groundwork of communication-trade-manufacturing-etc of capitalism to fulfill human want and need freely); they just disagree on how to best go about this, why, when, etc.

Marxism-Leninism (Maoism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism, Bolivarianism, etc) are not a part of the workers movement, but are a bourgeois ideology that uses workerist slogans and opportunism to support the capitalist status quo and kill legitimate workers struggles (as social democracy did a century ago).

[el_chavista]

I was not referring to the enterprises which have been nationalized and "declared socialist" by the bolivarian government.
My point is that workers began to seize their factories without any influence of left orgs. If this is only class struggle then, given a revolutionary situation, people alone can seize power.
Lenin led a victorious communist revolution and, indeed, the State was not abolished but it didn't wither away either.
So we are stuck with the contradition that there is no other effective tool than a CP to seize power but after then the party becomes useless as it is an obstacle to the self organization of the working class as the new ruling class.

[chegitz guevara]

If MLs stop using the terms "state" and "democratic centralism," and replace them with, "the self-organization of the working class" and "revolutionary self-discipline" then anarchists and MLs will finally get along.

[Sixiang]

No. Youd have better results mating an elephant and a radish.

Pretty much. I think that Marxists and Anarchists are too different in ideology to get along like that.

[syndicat]

If MLs stop using the terms "state" and "democratic centralism," and replace them with, "the self-organization of the working class" and "revolutionary self-discipline" then anarchists and MLs will finally get along.


it's not just the words that are different. there is a difference in practice, even if we take those anarchists who favor collective self-discipline and are pro-organizational. the libertarian left emphasis is on rank and file control of movements, not focusing power into hierarchies. self-management and direct democracy are seen as both an aspect of practice as well as the way to reorganize society.

that said, certainly there are useful insights in Marx and the writings of other Marxists. but critical thinking is needed to work out what is acceptable and reject what is not (such as Marxism's partyism).

[scarletghoul]

I wouldn't say 'unite' but we should certainly be working together. In the UK especially, we are at the stage where the most urgent thing for the left is to raise class consciousness. This is something both Anarchists and Marxists want to do; why not work together on this at least ? Anarchists and Marxists have so much common ground, its ridiculous that we don't work together. There were Anarchists in the October Revolution and Marxists fighting for Catalonia. Anarchists and Marxists fought alongside each other much more than against each other throughout history. That's because the most important thing usually is to struggle against the bourgoeisie; we can work on the specific forms of workers power when we come to it..

[devoration1]

that said, certainly there are useful insights in Marx and the writings of other Marxists. but critical thinking is needed to work out what is acceptable and reject what is not (such as Marxism's partyism).

However in practice the organizations promoted by anarchists and syndicalists often act in a manner that Marxists (not M-L's) support for their vision of the international class party- Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about). Modern day Anarchist Federations act in a manner consistent with the Marxist revolutionary organizations- neither claiming to be the international representative of the working class, only the regroupment of militants and revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary period in a given area.

There is not an uncrossable barrier between anarchism and Marxism- there is such a barrier between Marxism-Leninism and leftism in general and the revolutionary sections of the workers movement- anarchism and marxism. The disagreements between marxists and anarchists are not as serious as is claimed- but conflating M-L's and other leftists with Marxism and the insurrectionists and primitivists with anarchism confuses the matter unnecessarily.

[mikelepore]

Disclaimer -- this is my OPINION. Not literally "the answer" to a beginner's question.

Marxism and anarchism both want to get rid of the state. The difference is that Marxism proposes a plan for getting rid of it, whereas anarchism either has no plan or never clearly expresses one.

Marxism proposes that a political party responsible to the workers shall use whatever political process is available to take control of the state. Then there shall have to be a period of discovery and sorting out. Whatever functions of the state are found to be useful can be reorganized, say, converting the state-operated railroad over to control by the association of transportation workers, etc., while the purely useless and harmful departments of the state, such as imperialism, are just discontinued. Since the state today is an amalgamation of useful and useless functions, it may not be immediately clear in every case where to draw the line. In the language of Engels, this is called getting rid of the state, not by abolishing it, but by causing it to die out or wither away.

Most importantly, in the Marxist plan, the political process will give formal recognition to the fact that the workers' organization is the rightful owner of the means of production. If the loyalists of the deposed ruling class are found to riot and cause subversion, the forces of the state will be available to enforce the new law, the socialist law, by handling the rioting ruling class as outlaws.

Realistic or unrealistic, at least Marxism expresses a plan. The plan may not be complete, but there is a rudimentary plan.

But anarchism has no plan at all. According to anarchism, when the workers take control of the means of production, it shall be illegal for them to do so -- illegal by default, and intentionally, since there hasn't been even an attempt to have workers' representatives take control of the state. Oddly, since the workers never take over the state, the workers' actions shall remain illegal indefinitley, as though the workers could go on controlling the means of production, and also have it be illegal for them to be doing it, simultaneously, for the next thousand years, without any point of formal resolution of the question. Supposedly, in the anarchist view, either the police will just daydream forever, and will never decide one day to do their jobs and attack the workers, or else the anarchists will sneak up and assassinate all of the police officers -- the anarchists never come right out and say which of these (equally impossible) eventualities they are anticipating.

There's your contrast. Marxism: a plan, probably an imperfect plan, a starting point for developing a more complete plan. Anarchism: a lack of any semblance of a plan, which would get millions of workers killed in avoidable violence.

[syndicat]

However in practice the organizations promoted by anarchists and syndicalists often act in a manner that Marxists (not M-L's) support for their vision of the international class party- Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about). Modern day Anarchist Federations act in a manner consistent with the Marxist revolutionary organizations- neither claiming to be the international representative of the working class, only the regroupment of militants and revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary period in a given area.


it is a gross mis-statement to suggest the Bolsheviks were merely a pressure group in the soviets. Their aim was to wield a hierarchical state.

In "Before Stalinism" the Marxist sociologist Sam Farber points out that neither the Menshevik or Bolshevik parties...the two parties of Russian marxism...ever emphasized the direct participation of ordinary working people in making the decisions in their everyday lives, where they work or where they live. instead, the focus of the Bolsheviks was on control of the central state.

Thus the soviets in the cities, formed mostly by the Mensheviks initially, were highly top down affairs, with power concentrated in the executive committee and then in the Presidium, dominated by party intelligentsia. to get elected as a soviet deputy you didn't have to work some place. both Martov and Lenin ran as candidates to represent factories.

[syndicat]

But anarchism has no plan at all. According to anarchism, when the workers take control of the means of production, it shall be illegal for them to do so -- illegal by default, and intentionally, since there hasn't been even an attempt to have workers' representatives take control of the state. Oddly, since the workers never take over the state, the workers' actions shall remain illegal indefinitley

this is a rather silly statement. if the construction of socialism from below depends on the defiance of the authority of the dominant class and authorities, in seizing the means of production, this also includes a break on the part of employees of the state, including the rank and file in the military. Syndicalism has historically also proposed...and in fact on occasion created...worker militias. In both the Russian and Spanish revolutions the old state collapsed as various groups in the armed bodies at the core of the state revolted. and in both revolutions workers initially built militias.

the plan is to replace the state with a new governance system, based on assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces, and delegate democracy, rooted in the working class, for the self-governance of regions.

[devoration1]

it is a gross mis-statement to suggest the Bolsheviks were merely a pressure group in the soviets. Their aim was to wield a hierarchical state.

Notice the rest of the statement:


Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about).

Regardless, I'm not of the opinion the results of Bolshevism were the intended result, not even close. It ignores decades of work and published debates within and without the RSDLP to the wider working class movement. It also ignores the largely gradual movement away from the creative action of the workers themselves to one-partyism, Taylorism, the choking off of soviet and factory committee power and influence, etc from February 1917 to the Kronstadt massacre in 1921.


instead, the focus of the Bolsheviks was on control of the central state.


A process that took place gradually. It's a gross overstatement to suggest the Bolsheviks were materially capable of 'taking over' the reigns of a Russian state from day one (or that there was such a state to take over following the collapse of Tsarism, the abortion of the Constituent Assembly, the tiny numbers of the Bolsheviks compared to the number of workers in struggle directly administering their own affairs at work and in their communities/cities, the lack of Bolshevik majorities in the soviets until well after the February 1917 revolution, etc).


Thus the soviets in the cities, formed mostly by the Mensheviks initially, were highly top down affairs, with power concentrated in the executive committee and then in the Presidium, dominated by party intelligentsia. to get elected as a soviet deputy you didn't have to work some place.

Really? I think the reports of witnesses to soviet power in action in the early days of the Russian Revolution of October (as well as the soviets in action in 1905 and Feb. 1917) would disagree.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I wouldn't say 'unite' but we should certainly be working together. In the UK especially, we are at the stage where the most urgent thing for the left is to raise class consciousness. This is something both Anarchists and Marxists want to do; why not work together on this at least ? Anarchists and Marxists have so much common ground, its ridiculous that we don't work together. There were Anarchists in the October Revolution and Marxists fighting for Catalonia. Anarchists and Marxists fought alongside each other much more than against each other throughout history. That's because the most important thing usually is to struggle against the bourgoeisie; we can work on the specific forms of workers power when we come to it..

I couldn't agree more, regarding the present situation in the UK. We can disagree on tactics later, but for now i'd like to see class consciousness continue to rise without opposition within the Socialist/Anarchist movement, from either M-Ls or Anarchists or indeed any other ideological fringe.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I wouldn't say 'unite' but we should certainly be working together. In the UK especially, we are at the stage where the most urgent thing for the left is to raise class consciousness. This is something both Anarchists and Marxists want to do; why not work together on this at least ? Anarchists and Marxists have so much common ground, its ridiculous that we don't work together. There were Anarchists in the October Revolution and Marxists fighting for Catalonia. Anarchists and Marxists fought alongside each other much more than against each other throughout history. That's because the most important thing usually is to struggle against the bourgoeisie; we can work on the specific forms of workers power when we come to it..

It's not just a case of having lots of common ground though. The practice of many marxist groups isn't the same as libertarian organisations, they do not adhere to principles of self-organisation which runs central to working class self-emancipatory ideologies. Many groups ideas about workplace organising, and organising in general are heavily disagreeable with Anarchist ideas.

[chegitz guevara]

it's not just the words that are different. there is a difference in practice, even if we take those anarchists who favor collective self-discipline and are pro-organizational. the libertarian left emphasis is on rank and file control of movements, not focusing power into hierarchies. self-management and direct democracy are seen as both an aspect of practice as well as the way to reorganize society.

that said, certainly there are useful insights in Marx and the writings of other Marxists. but critical thinking is needed to work out what is acceptable and reject what is not (such as Marxism's partyism).

I would argue there is as much difference in interpretation of those terms within both movements as there are between both movements.

For me, I simply see democratic centralism as democracy. It's nothing more than majority rule + discipline. Certainly it can be abused and a hierarchical and authoritarian way. So can consensus.

I think comrades within anti-authoritarian organizations are particularly susceptible to becoming prey to authoritarians, because they simply refuse to believe their own people are capable of doing such.

We are running into this problem in the SPUSA right now, which is an overtly anti-democratic centralist organization, where an anarchist National Secretary is becoming increasingly an arbitrarily authoritarian and the male-co chair is effectively building a cult of personality around himself and thumbing his nose at collective work. Most of the comrades in the national leadership don't want to believe it's happening, and when specific problematic acts are pointed out, are more upset that we're breaking unity and fighting amongst ourselves.

[synthesis]

I personally don't think it is relevant whether or not Leninists and anarchists are unified. Leninism is obsolete in the modern world and any questions about the actual possibility of anarchism cannot be satisfactorily answered until after the bourgeoisie has been deposed. The only "unity" that matters is that of the proletariat.

[Tablo]

I can't see Leninists and Anarchists being able to unite. I do believe that the more libertarian Marxist tendencies can and have worked well with anarchists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I can't see Leninists and Anarchists being able to unite. I do believe that the more libertarian Marxist tendencies can and have worked well with anarchists.

I would agree with that, I don't have any experience with the organisation but the commune seem like solid comrades from what's on their website.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Interestingly, I think there are threads of Marxism-Leninism, particularly takes on "Mao Zedong Thought", and various anti-state communist traditions that if not reconcilable with anarchism per-se, certainly share some practical common ground and contemporary relevance.
That said, I don't see any particular reason for trying to mate two corpses: "Anarchism" where it is most interesting is anti-ideological: constructing a theoretical relationship between "Anarchism" and, well, any other capital-P Politics, for anarchists (platformist historical re-enactors aside), is, therefore, about less useful them a circlejerk (which, at least, represents a direct and unmediated collective experience). As for "Leninism" - well . . . that bloated corpse needs to quit stalking around and disgusting anybody close enough to get a good whiff. Its the fetishists need to stop acting like their kink is the solution to the worlds' problems.

[mikelepore]

this is a rather silly statement. if the construction of socialism from below depends on the defiance of the authority of the dominant class and authorities, in seizing the means of production, this also includes a break on the part of employees of the state, including the rank and file in the military. Syndicalism has historically also proposed...and in fact on occasion created...worker militias. In both the Russian and Spanish revolutions the old state collapsed as various groups in the armed bodies at the core of the state revolted. and in both revolutions workers initially built militias.

the plan is to replace the state with a new governance system, based on assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces, and delegate democracy, rooted in the working class, for the self-governance of regions.

What you describe would require that 100 percent of the employees of certain departments of the state walk away from their present jobs. If 75 percent of them were persuaded to follow your method, while 25 percent were conservative, then the state couldn't collapse without a violent conflict.

The Marx-Engels method is more reliable. If the word "state" is being used to indicate something that upholds class rule, then the only way to eliminate it is to control it politically, and be in the position to remove those features that make it be a "state." This is the removal of the stateness from the state.

I also don't support the replacement of ALL characteristics of the state with "assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces." I only support the removal of aspects of the political system that are related to upholding class rule.

[Amphictyonis]

DbaizDSg1YU

[human strike]

I personally don't think it is relevant whether or not Leninists and anarchists are unified. Leninism is obsolete in the modern world and any questions about the actual possibility of anarchism cannot be satisfactorily answered until after the bourgeoisie has been deposed. The only "unity" that matters is that of the proletariat.

That's an interesting view to hold. IMO traditional conceptions of both Marxism and Anarchism are somewhat irrelevant - neither are satisfactory or particularly well adjusted to the current constitution of capitalism. It's not that I don't appreciate the theory and struggles of both, it's just I think history has shown them to be flawed, Leninism most of all.

So can Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists be united? Yes, but only if both accept they're wrong.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Anarchists and Leninists can work together but uniting is impossible, especially with RAANistas and "Anarchist Killing Bonaparts" about.

[Amphictyonis]

Anarchists and Leninists can work together but uniting is impossible, especially with RAANistas and "Anarchist Killing Bonaparts" about.

Lenin offered some very good insight but I think it may be time (only my opinion) to look at Marx's original writings and apply them to todays world while using anarchism to make any future revolution as democratic as humanly possible. I think anarchists also really need to think long and hard about "abolishing the state" in advanced capitalist nations. In the early anarchists time there was no stealth bombers, drones, CIA/NSA/DOD/(with trillions in funding), the technology the state has today makes it possible for a small army to defeat millions and millions of people unless they have the same equipment.

Basically an anarchist/socialist military coup would be necessary.I personally think we need to take over the state in order to abolish capital/marginalize/expropriate concentrated wealth. The thing with anarchism is, they're absolutely correct in their critique of hierarchy and a centralized state. The few should not rule the many as happened in Russia (there was various reasons they never went communist, Stalin being one and the lack of a global revolution another). It's also my opinion we wil all need to wait for a massive global crisis to facilitate the global revolution and when that happens if Marxists and Anarchists are fractured it isn't going to happen.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You can't merge Marxism-Leninism and anarchism without compromising the nature of either ideology, as Marxism-Leninism at it's purest is opposed to anarchism (and especially anarcho-syndicalism), and they saw the anarchists as "class enemies".

so no, it's a fairytale to imagine that Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism could ever merge.


something must be wrong with me.

as far as anarchism goes, Anarcho-Syndicalism has to be my favorite. Its organized and completely a working class initiative. I remain a ML but like i said, as far as it goes.

[Frosty Weasel]

Not gonna happen. Although at its core Communism would eventually give birth to a stateless society. Anarchism is willing to do all it can to bring out this form now, rather than later.

[Amphictyonis]

Not gonna happen.
If so, then in my opinion, a successful socialist revolution in advanced capitalist nations will never succeed. In this day and age we need unity of the likes you can't even imagine to marginalize capital, take over the state/destroy the state. I don't see a 'Leninist' mass movement in advanced capitalist nations happening nor do I see a pure anarchist mass movement happening. We need to leave the past in the past other than learning what not to do.

[Frosty Weasel]

We need to leave the past in the past other than learning what not to do.These are at the trunk of either's ideologies though, not just a small branch of the tree.

Even now in the contemporary Anarchist authorship there is chatter about how Anarchy needs to move into a post-Left age, mainly based on the fact that the concept of the state is dying and globalization is taking its place.

Speaking of which, Marx scholars, did he ever conceive of this trend?

[Amphictyonis]

These are at the trunk of either's ideologies though, not just a small branch of the tree.

Even now in the contemporary Anarchist authorship there is chatter about how Anarchy needs to move into a post-Left age, mainly based on the fact that the concept of the state is dying and globalization is taking its place.

Na, post left anarchists don't attract me. What I meant was we need to be less dogmatic concerning Lenin/Mao/Bakunin etc and apply Marx's original works mixed with old anarchist ideas to today's circumstances and move forward together. A fractionated socialist movement will never facilitate a successful socialist revolution in advanced capitalist nations. I shouldnt say never but I just don't see it happening.

[human strike]

Do you not think people like John Holloway have a point though when they say that both Leninists and Anarchists need to abandon their focus on the power of the state?

[Frosty Weasel]

Do you not think people like John Holloway have a point though when they say that both Leninists and Anarchists need to abandon their focus on the power of the state?Lenin appealed for a "withering away of the state." Anarchists want the same thing.

[Magón]

Lenin appealed for a "withering away of the state." Anarchists want the same thing.

Anarchists want an immediate withering of the state, not replace one state with another, only to see it slowly wither away like the last state, and gradually the state doesn't wither as fast as it should. (In Anarchists eyes.)

Just sayin'.

[Frosty Weasel]

Anarchists want an immediate withering of the state, not replace one state with another, only to see it slowly wither away like the last state, and gradually the state doesn't wither as fast as it should. (In Anarchists eyes.)

Just sayin'.Well sure. The means may not be similar but my focus was the end.

[jastrub]

In an anarchist society, workers do not seize power. Power ceases to exist. Looking at an anarcho-communist system as if it were a marxist-state system is completely irrelevant, and is one of the reasons why so many people just don't get anarchism. Under true anarchism, power does not exist.