Reconciling anarchism and MLM

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I know this question is asked so much but i would like some insights from you again.
Do you think its every possible for anarchists and totalitarian pigs to reconcile and work together to achieve communism?

More specific questions:
To anarchists, if there would be a MLM like revolution and anarchism has no traction at all, would you support the MLM? Why or why not

any more general insights are also appreciated.

[Raul Castro]

well idk if we r toltarian pigs, you guys have never accomplished anything but u punch nazis so im going to have to consider

[Antiochus]

The OP isn't an anarchist though. He is some liberal-vegan who equates cattle prodding to rape and meat consumption to murder. Anarchism will never succeed. That isn't to say Anarchists couldn't succeed. Its just that the methodology through a violent revolution requires, among other things, consolidation and direction of state repression against the Bourgeoisie, which cannot be implemented without the meaningless "totalitarianism".

Never mind the fact that the CNT Anarchists killed more people proportionally than the Bolsheviks did in the Russian Revolution.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'm not a Maoist or an Anarchist but if either is on a picket line, is marching for the rights of workers, women or minorities, or some such then I would show my solidarity and join alongside them. I would debate their theory and during a revolutionary situation I might have a differing conception of what's needed but overall I generally feel it's all kind of petty to make sectarian digs and not recognise a good thing when it happens.

[Sectarian]

Easy, both are pro-imperialist anti-soviet liberals. Plenty of common ground.

[Alet]

To believe that all those fancy labels leftists like to adorn themselves with will matter in a future revolution is sheer naivety and perfectly demonstrates how clueless the present Left is regarding the preconditions for and the practical meaning of a revolution in the 21st century. You can literally see how much is taken for granted when the underlying notion of a revolution is that it's merely an elaboration of pluralist parliamentary politics in a liberal society. But this is not how it works. During revolutionary periods, the whole of society is highly politicized and radically polarized. You simply do not have the privilege to sit together and discuss 200 Methods for Achieving a Communist Society™ as these are matters that ultimately relate to strategy or tactics and depend not on the creativity of certain individuals, but on the specific historical conditions of the respective countries.

If you think there are literally hundreds of possible ways to "achieve Communism" and that disagreements concerning this question are the ultimate reason for the political impotence of the present Left, this is your first mistake: We enjoy the privilege of having such discussions ONLY because every single group or sect is unable to have an actual political impact in the first place, so they seek refuge in such naively childish theorization. When it actually comes to a revolution, not only will the Fukuyamaist activists be traumatized as they never genuinely believed in our Cause, there will also be absolutely no room for civil discussions about WHETHER we should use violence and the death penalty against enemies, WHETHER we should restrict freedom of speech, WHETHER we should abandon the idea of reformism, WHETHER we should exert power via state institutions in order to defend the revolution etc. In times of revolution, these disagreements are not simply differing "opinions", they unveil our practical position and whether we genuinely believe in Communism, for they are not disagreements among like-minded people with the same goal but actual demarcation lines. In times of revolution, there are no gray areas, only the heroes of the revolution and its enemies, and the latter will be mercilessly crushed, no matter how many reactionaries opportunistically call themselves socialists.

Furthermore, there will never be such a thing as an "MLM like revolution", never. Why? Because Maoism vulgarized Marxism in order to adapt it to the practical necessity of carrying out a bourgeois revolution in China. The original ideology of Maoism, just like Stalinism, belonged to specific historical conditions which are long gone. So it's not only that - because it formalized Marxism - it lacks the essentials of historical consciousness: On top of this, it has lost its revolutionary potentials as there is no basis for a Maoist revolution anymore, not in our globalized era. It's really not surprising that so many Stalinists and Maoists are prone to darkest reaction. Just like the majority of modern Leftists, they fail to keep up with the present antagonisms of capitalist society in thought and have absolutely no idea of Communist politics in the 21st century.

[(A)]

Every socialist state has failed at its primary objective of combating reaction and Imperialism.
Forming a new socialist state to enact state sponsored terrorism is at this point wholly backwards looking and completely insane.
No socialist state can combat Imperialism on its own platform of International aggression and Capitalism.
Only the International efforts of the revolutionary within the capitalist states can combat that state capitalism.

Instead of stabbing capitalism in the back (attacking internally) Leninist's laughably believe in beating capitalist imperialism on capitalists imperialism's own terms; Politically and through and state repression against workers freedoms. Time and time again this has failed. Cuba for instance hosts an illegal U.S. Torture site or the U.S.S.R. being taken over internally by the KGB.

"But Cuba has to deal with Americas constant embargo's and policy against it!"

Yeah that's kind of the point; the Cuban state's supposed goal is to combat capitalism; Instead the Cuban bourgeoisie live like kings in the state sponsored palace while the workers beg tourists for change.
If State socialism worked then Cuba should be able to combat the U.S's imperialism but instead they host a internationally known black site and engage in capitalism internationally and internally.

The many many failed "socialist states" have proved over and over the inability of Marxist-Leninism-Stalism-Maoism or whatever Master you wish you Idolize; to actually be effective as a means of combating capitalism either internally or externally. At this point Marxist-(insert masters name here) are the joke of the left and will never amount to anything again. Time to move on and actually fight against capitalism and fascism.

[Ale Brider]

I don't think we could speak about reconciling different tendencies in theoretical differences. I don't think left unity is either possible or desirable. Let's assume for a moment that there will be a revolution. There will be actions that will further the revolution and actions that hinder it. We can't even say what these actions would be or how these certain actions would help or hinder the revolution since we are currently so far from this moment that every guess or assumption would be just some capitalist fantasy of what a revolution would look like. Thus, all these assumptions would be flawed to some degree, I guarantee it. The only thing that could be said for sure now is that there will be actions that further or pull back the cause, and when the moment comes, it is up to the particular tendencies and the people within them to 1) recognize these turning points of events where they must choose, and 2) to make the right choice. Some of them will (probably) make the choice that helps the advance of the revolution. Some of them will think that their choice is right while it is not and people will recognize this only when it's too late. Some will make obvious poor choices. And sometimes, there will be (again, probably) no particularly good choice. It is not about luck or anything like that, however. Neither about "just" making choices. The problems themselves will rise from the material realities the revolution will face; and the right choice will be the one which finds the best solution for these. And the best solution can only be found if a possibility of it exists. Not even a genius could solve problems that are determined to be nails in a revolution's coffin. If there are unsolvable problems (that are not just thought to be unsolvable but objectively are in the given moment and given material conditions), they probably signify that capitalism will persist and that our society, our world was not ready for the revolution that overthrows the system.

[(A)]

While a "wait and see" attitude is fine and all; Any revolution that ends with a new set of rulers is merely setting the stage for future revolution.
If the U.S.S.R. had not fallen and the world was eventually under the rule of the Supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R.; A new revolution against the "Socialist" state would still be necessary to achieve communism. People in power dont give that power away; if that was the case then reform would truly be the best path to communism.

The supreme soviet of the world would never give the power back to the worker and instead would become the birthing ground of a new nationalism (Stalinism) that would need to be overthrown by the free thinking working class who will not abide being ruled by their soviet masters.

Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital.

[John Nada]

While a "wait and see" attitude is fine and all; Any revolution that ends with a new set of rulers is merely setting the stage for future revolution.If the U.S.S.R. had not fallen and the world was eventually under the rule of the Supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R.; A new revolution against the "Socialist" state would still be necessary to achieve communism. People in power dont give that power away; if that was the case then reform would truly be the best path to communism.But that's exactly what Maoism says. There must be cultural revolutions after the socialist revolution. That even if you socialize the means of production, overthrow the bourgeoisie and set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, there needs to be more revolutions to prevent a new bourgeoisie from emerging and restoring capitalism, and to go further down the socialist path and eventually communism. Otherwise, it'll turn into capitalism.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

The OP isn't an anarchist though. He is some liberal-vegan who equates cattle prodding to rape and meat consumption to murder. Anarchism will never succeed. That isn't to say Anarchists couldn't succeed. Its just that the methodology through a violent revolution requires, among other things, consolidation and direction of state repression against the Bourgeoisie, which cannot be implemented without the meaningless "totalitarianism".

Never mind the fact that the CNT Anarchists killed more people proportionally than the Bolsheviks did in the Russian Revolution. Ad Hominem. I don't see why you have to vent your personal animosity towards me in every thread i make. If you would leave away the personal attacks your posts would seem quite reasonable. We can very well discuss animal rights or the lack thereof, but i don't see why you seem so obsessed with extrapolating everything i say to other threads. But since you brought it up and i now have to defend myself: yes i think putting your hands into an animal for no reason is indeed a sexual violation. And yes, killing an animal for no good reason, is murder. I don't see how i am wrong here and i would appreciate if you could explain how i am, since then i can change my opinion. This is how a discussion works, do you honestly think youre persuasive when you just call anyone you disagree with a fascist liberal zombie?

Your remarks about anarchism are well-taken and make sense to an extent.

[Babeufist]

There were so-called Mao-Spontex in France in late 60s. This was anarcho-Maoist current inspired by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. But Mao-Spontex were short-living phenomenon, in fact a kind of happening.

[ckaihatsu]

But that's exactly what Maoism says. There must be cultural revolutions after the socialist revolution. That even if you socialize the means of production, overthrow the bourgeoisie and set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, there needs to be more revolutions to prevent a new bourgeoisie from emerging and restoring capitalism, and to go further down the socialist path and eventually communism. Otherwise, it'll turn into capitalism.


I like to think that there would be some more-objective tipping-point, where once *structural* practices are revolutionized -- like workers control over social production and a moneyless post-capitalist economy -- the 'cultural' aspects would just fall into line, as the 'superstructure' does with the 'base'.

Recall that a socialist revolution would be fully mass-*conscious*, so people would have to want this (and know about it, too) in the first place, anyway -- my long-term concern is always that the political economy we adopt not intrinsically *hamper* the ideology / direction of a working class revolution. (Hence my criticism of orthodox 'labor vouchers'.)

I'll also add, as always, that much would depend on actual prevailing *circumstances* -- if the working class can coordinate relatively well worldwide for a mostly-*even* uprising, that could catch the bourgeoisie off-guard for a 'best-case scenario' revolution that *skips* the dotp and goes straight into non-commodity gift-economy production for the common good.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle



http://s6.postimg.org/44rloql0x/160309_History_Macro_Micro_politics_logistic.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/r686uhkod/full/)