• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Marxists and AnComms both have the same end goal, so what do you think the difference between them is?

    They do not. AnComms want horizontalism as the end goal, Marxists want central planning and elected councils. Anarchists believe all hierarchy to inherently be an issue, while Marxists don’t, and rely on central planning as a core concept for economic organization. I read both Anarchist and Marxist theory, despite being a Marxist, because Anarchists do make good points from time to time that can be adapted and learned from.

    My point here is that Anarchists and Marxists are united against Capitalism and Imperialism, but Anarchists are also against verticality with respect to organization, while Marxists are not, which is the drive in conflict when it does exist between the two groups.

    Anarchist societies and groups exists and have existed throughout history; they didn’t have to be “build towards” by taking control of the government first.

    Anarchism doesn’t just happen or fall into place. How do you believe the US, for example, will arrange itself into horizontal networks of Mutual Aid? By building them up. You seem to have no concept of Anarchist praxis in the modern era, you can’t vibe Anarchism into being.

    And please don’t be telling me why you like or don’t like anarchism; I’m arguing about what it is. Whether you like or think is viable is an entire different conversation.

    Absolutely, I don’t intend to engage in dogmatic sectarianism. Anarchists are my comrades against Capitalism and Imperialism, and if an Anarchist movement was spearheading the revolution, I would fall in line and support that mass movement, because only a mass movement can enact change.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They do not.

      Marxists are communists, for whom the end goal is a stateless, moneyless, classless, society. What do you think stateless means?

      AnComms want horizontalism as the end goal

      And as the process. Which is what separates them from other communists.

      Anarchism doesn’t just happen or fall into place. How do you believe the US, for example, will arrange itself into horizontal networks of Mutual Aid? By building them up. You seem to have no concept of Anarchist praxis in the modern era, you can’t vibe Anarchism into being.

      Building them up through grassroots movements. They don’t happen by taking control of the government and creating “elected committees” who then “plan production”, which is what the comic talks about doing (even adding a picture of Lenin), and which the other user - and you by extension - defended.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Marxists are communists, for whom the end goal is a stateless, moneyless, society. What do you think stateless means?

        Good question. Marx specifically referred to the State as the mechanisms within government by which one class asserts its power, not the entire government. Engels elaborates on this, and explains the “whithering away” of the state:

        “The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. 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.”

        This is not the Anarchist definition of the State, best described as a monopoly on violence. For Anarchists, elected councils are examples of vertical hierarchy that ought be opposed, as compared to Marxists who see it as a necessary tool for administration. This is the transformation from “the government of people” to the “administration of things,” ie government and councils and committees exist to fulfill managerial roles, while Anarchists seek full horizontalism and avoid managerial roles as they believe them to lead to corruption and coercion.

        Think Star Trek vs. The Disposessed.

        And as the process. Which is what separates it from other communists.

        Yes, I am familiar with Means/Ends Unity. I may disagree with the importance of it, but I am not here to promote infighting or sectarianism, I am here to explain Marxism.

        Building them up through grassroots movements. They don’t happen by taking control of the government and creating “elected committees” who then “plan production”, which is what the comic talks about doing (even adding a picture of Lenin), and which the other user - and you by extension - defended.

        Yes, you build up Anarchism, a network of horizontal structures, from the bottom up. You build up Marxism by building dual power via councils, unions, and other democratic structures that can replace the Capialist state. These are separate concepts with similar but distinct goals.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, you build up Anarchism, a network of horizontal structures, from the bottom up. You build up Marxism by building dual power via councils, unions, and other democratic structures that can replace the Capialist state. These are separate concepts with similar but distinct goals.

          Right, but so it seems we agree? This post’s explanation of socialism excludes anarchism, among other forms of socialism, which was my criticism. It only focuses on ML, but titles itself “What the heck is Socialism?”

          Perhaps I expressed my self wrong at some point, or misinterpreted something, but that’s the point I was trying to make from the start.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Right, but so it seems we agree?

            Mostly, the end-goal is different, however. Marxists view managerial roles and administration as tools to be used by the Proletariat (even as the Proletariat erases itself). Anarchists disagree, and want horizontalism the entire way through, like a spiderweb.

            This post’s explanation of socialism excludes anarchism, among other forms of socialism, which was my criticism. It only focuses on ML, but titles itself “What the heck is Socialism?”

            I agree, it is focused on Marxism. However, if it were to also include Anarchism, it risks being too complicated and lengthy. Additionally, nothing shown is ML specific, MLism gets into the idea of a Vanguard Party, Imperialism as the primary antagonist of Communism, and more, Lenin is just shown as an icon, like Picard is later on.

            Perhaps I expressed my self wrong at some point, or misinterpreted something, but that’s the point I was trying to make from the start.

            No worries, I think we are mostly in alignment, except with different ideas of what Marx was describing as Communism vs the Anarchist vision of Communism. If you ever have questions about Marxism, feel free to message me and I will do my best to help answer them.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Perhaps I expressed my self wrong at some point, or misinterpreted something, but that’s the point I was trying to make from the start.

            Glad to see that this got figured out. This is a perennial issue in interpersonal communication, especially text.