Hello and thank you for visiting r/theredleft! We are glad to have you! While here, please try to follow these rules so we can keep discussion in good faith and maintain the good vibes:
1. A user flair is required to participate in this community, do not whine about this, you may face a temporary ban if you do.
2.No personal attacks
Debate ideas, not people. Calling someone names or dragging their personal life in ain’t allowed.
3.Blot out the names of users and subreddits in screenshots and such to prevent harrassment. We do not tolerate going after people, no matter how stupid or bad they might be.
4.No spam or self-promo
Keep it relevant. No random ads or people pushing their own stuff everywhere.
5.Stay at least somewhat on topic
This is a leftist space, so keep posts about politics, economics, social issues, etc. Memes are allowed but only if they’re political or related to leftist ideas.
6.Respect differing leftist opinions
Respect the opinions of other leftists—everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented. None of this is worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours.
7.No reactionary thought
We are an anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist, anti-fascist, anti-liberal, anti-bigotry, pro-LGBTQIA+, pro-feminist community. This means we do not tolerate hatred toward disabled, LGBTQIA+, or mentally challenged people. We do not accept the defense of oppressive ideologies, including reactionary propaganda or historical revisionism (e.g., Black Book narratives).
8.Don’t spread misinformation
Lying and spreading misinformation is not tolerated. The "Black Book" also falls under this. When reporting something for misinformation, back up your claim with sources or an in-depth explanation. The mod team doesn’t know everything, so explain clearly.
9.Do not glorify any ideology
While this server is open to people of all beliefs, including rightists who want to learn, we do not allow glorification of any ideology or administration. No ideology is perfect. Stick to truth grounded in historical evidence. Glorification makes us seem hypocritical and no better than the right.
10.No offensive language or slurs
Basic swearing is okay, but slurs—racial, bigoted, or targeting specific groups—are not allowed. This includes the word "Tankie" except in historical contexts.
11.No capitalism, only learning — mod discretion
This is a leftist space and we reject many right-wing beliefs. If you wish to participate, do so in good faith and with the intent to learn. The mod team reserves the right to remove you if you're trolling or spreading capitalist/liberal dogma. Suspicious post/comment history or association with known disruptive subs may also result in bans. Appeals are welcome if you feel a ban was unfair.
I'd rather work with you than against you, but so many seem incredibly eager to attack anarchists whenever the chance arises that it makes even me wary.
Outside of a base of theory we have nothing to do with the Soviets or what happened between them and the anarchists. Worrying that much about the past just seems like pointless larp. Apply your ideology to the modern day and build allies with who you can.
I have nothing against anarchists and have no intention to do them any harm if we did come to power.
Can Marxist-Leninist states allow for the existence of free anarchist territories alongside them? I suspect that the need for a global Marxist state would lead them to "free" the anarchists. Maybe you would the head of the politburo, but... probably not.
You, personally, might allow anarchists to thrive, but it's unlikely you'll be in a position to make that decision, or to stop the ones who make the decision to crush them and "liberate" them by incorporating them into the enlightened position of a state in its movement forward through history to end stage communism (the same thing the anarchists already had before they were obliterated).
lol thank you for making the point I was trying to make, that i took three paragraphs to make, in the latter half of my reply to this, in one sentence.
I can respect that idea, and I trust you when you say this. The problem is principles are just words on paper if they aren't followed. If no one in your party shares your sentiment, even if nuclear option you replace all of them somehow, there's no guarantee a replacement won't share their predecessors' attitude or that you can prevent damage being done before you replace them.
This isn't a critique of you or marxist leninism, and I fully acknowledge that at the very least, not wanting to repest past failures might be enough motivation to ensure the principles are followed, but I personally wouldn't put so much faith in principles.
If you have no faith in principles then what are we all doing here thats what all our ideologies are based on.
I am tired, yall are worried about things that happened over 100 years ago which in reality bears no relevance to now. We are not living under those material conditions nor do either of our groups really resemble those back then in any meaningful way outside of the methods to resist capitalism. I'm not attacking you personally here but this all just comes across as larp.
I'm not attacking you personally either, sorry if it came across that way. It's not that principles have no value, we all have them and that's the basis for the whole thing we're doing here, it's just that you can't put trust in principles being the ONLY stopgap to an abuse of power if you're going to maintain the power structures that allow for them.
I'm not "worried about what happened 100 years ago". I don't have trust in the attitudes I see about anarchists from too many marxist-leninists today because it's basically the same attitudes that led to mass imprisonment of anarchists despite them working with the MLs for the revolution. The attitudes are the same, if not repeated verbatim. I don't see marxist-leninists as enemies, especially not today, with our current material reality and with what we're currently dealing with. But you don't establish a coalition with someone you see as counter-revolutionary liberals, as MLs seem to genuinely believe anarchists are. As I said. I trust you. I trust you see us as allies in the struggle. And we are. But what about your successor? You follow your principles, but will your successor follow them as strictly? Even if for a practical reason, or hell, even if just a different analysis of the same principle between different people, how do we ensure everyone follows the party principle as you do? Part of the breakdown between Trotsky and the rest of the movement in The Soviet Union was over this. This isn't me demanding an answer from you, this is me explaining where my hesitancy in the rhetoric, specifically, comes from.
What you're saying is "what happened last time won't happen this time" but you're also saying we should have similar structures that allowed for those things to happen to stay. Part of the anarchist applied theory to dismantling capitalism is to destroy the structure of capitalism so that it's can't grow back again even if it tried.
Our groups are for sure not the same as they used to be, and I agree with your main point. I mean that sincerely. I'm just trying to explain why most anarchists don't trust ML rhetoric, and why "establishing firm party principle" isn't a reassurance for that. At the end of the day I have worked with MLs in organization. They're good folk, always have been, and frankly, this is strictly an online problem. You're right that it's a larp comrade, it's terminally online shit, but online discourse can color the views of new initiates to the movement.
Peasant communes, and other smaller communes still existed in many previous ML states. Anarchists just rarely do massive revolutions like in Catalonia or Ukraine. To be blunt they also rarely consolidate victories. For what it's worth many MLs who actually read do kinda despise how makhno fell because Trotsky did it while painting it in his nonsensical ultra-"revolutionary" slogans (word mongering as Lenin called it)
The biggest issue is in a revolution very rarely do communications survive long enough to keep alliances moving, and just due to all the yknow revolution eventually you have to consolidate your gains, if you don't you'll just cease to exist. The zapistas are so far the only even anarchist adjacent group I've seen do this, and they're not terrifically large. But they're long standing
A few days ago I saw a ML creator (who used to be an anarchist) say they should work with the anarchists until they don’t need them anymore and then would just kill them (not those exact words but that’s how I interpreted it). Not saying all MLs are like that, but it’s things like that that certainly would make anarchists skeptical of y’all
I know. I’m just pointing out that some of y’all say concerning things. Def not the majority or anything but there’s def reason people worry about teaming up with y’all. But in the end we’re on the same team, even if we have different ideas about the details. We’re all comrades
I am curious what you were trying to convey here, cause it's not only due to one incident that anarchists give pause to working with other leftists, and I can tell you that "it's the past, get over it" aint the rallying cry of alliance you might think it is.
I think it was in another thread that someone mentioned that we may disagree on some of the methodology, but overall agree on the desired outcome. I believe it was on a post about the current self cannibalizing within maga.
I think we are mostly content with just being snarky towards each other, and debating the path towards a (mostly) similar goal - as opposed to actively trying to destroy each other, as we’ve seen recently with maga right wing grifters.
I think that if push comes to shove, we will have each other’s backs, or at least I hope so. I hope we can put any differences aside when the shit hits the fan. Because, make no mistake, the capitalists and fascists will see no distinction between us when trying to marginalize or murder us.
To be completely fair, though, the person who also replied to you here also has a point. Many anarchists are skeptical and apprehensive to trust the motives of some self proclaimed MLs given the history, and will try and parse out any authoritarian tendencies that may be under the surface before trusting them as a genuine ally.
Given the current climate of widespread ACP/maga-communist infiltration (whether that be in social spaces or within organization efforts), it is not without reason, and their marginalization of our cause is not helping, whether by way of negative influence on public perception of leftists, or their damage to the cause of leftist unity and organizational efforts.
Not to you maybe, but as anarchists we've paid attention to the myriad times that Marxist-Leninist states have imprisoned and killed anarchists, much less destroyed any attempts for us to freely organize, even though almost every time we were trying to work with you.
I would like to believe left unity is possible, but when a large state is created it no longer is. At that point, the apparatus attempts to eradicate free organization in order to consolidate control. Left unity is only possible while capitalism still exists, ironically.
I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but I do believe long-term unity isn’t possible with anarchists if you don’t believe in the destruction of the state in the short term (Marxists in general, Leninists, democratic socialists, etc).
I believe that past unity with Leninists (even revolutionary ones) and reformist socialists (like Salvador Allende) was possible because both wanted to keep a state, but transform its nature and the economy.
I also believe unity with LibSocs in the long term, and Marxists (Libertarian Marxists also exist), is also possible because many don’t want to destroy the state immediately.
Yeah, it's difficult when ostensible communists want to keep oppressive structures instead of... achieving communism. Especially when they're so dedicated to having a state that they refuse to even allow anarchists to exist alongside them
History shows us the opposite. That anarchists have attempted to do this and even ally with Marxist-Leninists in the process, but each and every time, Marxist-Leninists have undermined and destroyed anarchist territories, made anarchy illegal, executed and imprisoned anarchists, and so on. Your position isn't historically informed.
Most alliances between anarchists and Leninists were temporary and strategic.
My position on anarchists is that I would applaud large-scale anarchist experiments that threaten capitalism, and I don’t mind anarchist experimentation and communities within socialist states if those groups seek amicable relations.
Ah yes, liquidating the Makhnovschina and backstabbing them was definitely necessary because they were actually Kulak traitors that were undermining the Soviet Union and constantly conspiring with the white army, right? It's just empirically true that when an anarchist breathes the bourgeoisie comes back
Hey at least we agree that we both think the other is traitorous scum. That's the first step towards a working relationship. It's cute that you Anarchists have your own falsified version of the historical record though.
It's just empirically true that when an anarchist breathes the bourgeoisie comes back
Well I mean your philosophy is pretty much just a more radical version of liberalism so....
It's cute that you Anarchists have your own falsified version of the historical record though.
Like Makhno being an anti-Semite? Or maybe the POUM secretly working for the nationalists and at the same time being Trotskyists even though it made no sense? Oh and of course how could I forget there was never a revolution in Spain.
The POUM wasn't even Trotskyist that's just what Stalin used as an excuse to persecute them. Besides they were the best allies anarchists have had in the time of 1930s
Respect differing leftist opinions and PSP's/ESP's (No Sectarianism)
Respect the opinions of other leftists, everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented, none of this are worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours as well.
This includes being Anti-Sectarian
Uncritical, baseless, and propaganda driven attacks against AES states of past or present is not tolerated as it can be seen as troll-y and shilling of propaganda
Pluralism can exist in a leftist economy you absolute goon.
You can have multiple parties all with different leftist ideals, while still fucking off Liberalism and other capitalist ideologies to the landfill of history.
What is the Marxist-Leninist obsession with suppressing any differing Socialist thought. The only people who fear the left more than Liberals are MLs, change my mind.
Sure mate, I’m sure oppressing the Anarchists, Classical Marxists, Council Communists, Democratic Socialistsand thr Trade Unionists will go fine then, it’s not like all of these ideologies have merit and should be involved in open debate or anything.
Bro I think you’re doing the classic confusing Social Democracy/Welfare Capitalism with Democratic Socialism thing.
Democratic Socialism is abolition of private property, means of production in the hands of the workers, economy geared towards public good etc etc… just through democratic means, with a pluralist democratic political system as well as a democratic economy, strong unions, strong worker councils and strong collective bargaining.
Social Democracy is Capitalism with SOME concessions, perhaps collective bargaining, perhaps some welfare, some state ran infrastructure but still no independent worker ran industries. Means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie, private property still king, economy geared towards market principles.
Howay man, should know the difference by now mate.
Wasnt it tried under allende in chile? Like haway man since when have liberals played fair with democracy? Voting hard enough isnt gonna make them just hand over the keys
Please flair up, thank you.
To do so, go to the subreddit page, if you are on desktop the side bar on the right has a section called user flair, on mobile tap the three dots and tap change user flair. If you are right-wing and are here to learn we do have a 'Learning Right Winger' flair.
While this server is for everyone, including rightists to come and learn, we do not allow the glorification of any ideology, making it seem perfect. This sounds 1984-ish, but glorification is not allowed. Truth only based off historical evidence is important. This also includes the glorification of your own ideology, or past administrations and such. No ideology is perfect, so please do not glorify as it makes us seem extremely hypocritical and just like the right
Yeah man, way to disrupt left unity and any sense of pluralism you claim to support. Your statement that other tendencies will “naturally” be wiped out is especially troubling. Any criticism you may have of laterally organized anarchist tendencies is immediately discredited by such a statement, and does nothing to dispel the notion that a decent portion of Marxist-Leninists have an authoritarian bent. You are hurting not only your own cause (and personal reputation as a trustworthy advocate), but the collective cause of leftist ideology, let alone feeding the fire of right wing rhetoric and propaganda surrounding leftism.
If we are somehow including anarcho-capitalists and von mises school/Larouchites in the category of Anarchism - which the majority of political theorists, or anarchists themselves (or anyone with an IQ above 40), would not - then maybe, just maybe, your whole bit about individualistic tendencies could make a single bit of sense. Crypto bro libertarians are grifters who utilize the badge of anarchism as a means to gain support from the lowest (intellectually and politically speaking) common denominator, and disingenuous fellow grifters, who are not in any way associated with the principles of anarchism.
Anarchism means free association, mutualism/mutual aid, and a foundation (and strengthening) of workers collectives - in opposition to state power and bureaucracy.
While I understand that many examples of Communism (and Marxist-Leninist/Maoist) societies have historically involved a considerable degree of bureaucracy, this is not their only form of organization, and does not place anarchism in direct conflict with socialism/communism. To speak in such absolutes, and to imply that collectivism requires bureaucratic state control, is a bit self serving to whatever biases and personal ideologies you may hold. I am beginning to develop a sneaking suspicion you may lean in the direction of ACP or “MAGA-Communism”. I am rather surprised that mods have not flagged you for factionalism, or have at very least, reminded you to keep it civil.
Collectivism, and specifically, worker empowerment and control (of production and/or economic organization) are grounding principles of both ideologies. To state that anarchism and communism are in direct opposition to one another, merely because of anarchisms opposition to state control and bureaucracy, is rather lazy, and does not display an attempt to do simple critical analysis or any reasonable effort to study theory. We have far more in common than we have differences.
The unifying goal should be to crush any existing capitalist bourgeois liberal/fascist state, thereby eliminating its power over us, both economically and socially. Particularly when it comes to labor, exerting our collective will over how, why, where, and when that labor is performed, and more specifically, its intrinsic value.
While I would love to see a world where money has little to no role in outcomes, this discussion on the empowerment of workers also involves fair and just compensation for that labor. Ideally, we would develop a society and system by which one’s economic means has little to do with quality of life, but fair compensation and living conditions are (for now) inherently linked. Whether the benefits of those improvements to quality of life are doled out by means of mutual aid, collective organization and ownership, or by a worker led democratic system of government, is up for debate, and is likely where our methodology will differ.
In the end, our goal is (or should be) the same - a liberation from systems of oppression, economic inequality, and the fascistic aims of capitalism.
I just get that feeling from the fairly open authoritarian rhetoric, purity testing language, and absolutism that there is “only one way”. I don’t think it’s too outlandish to assume as much.
Democratic processes and collective decision making that serves the common interests is liberalist nonsense?
“Practical, scientific method?” You do realize we are talking about human beings, which are complex and nuanced creatures? The methodologies must be pragmatic and adaptable to the material conditions of each community, peoples, or nation, in which we wish to pursue socialism.
Adherence to strict dogmatic thinking will not serve our goals. This rhetoric of “falsifiers”, “utopians”, and “revisionists” is, again, quite troubling. I will repeat my concern, and assert my position that this is blatantly authoritarian.
Would you say that the (unified and pluralistic) partisans of Italy were a farce? They almost singlehandedly took back their country from fascism, and successfully captured (and rendered righteous vengeance upon) its figurehead. If not for western interference, they would have quite easily held majority power in the subsequent Italian elections (operation Gladio, anyone?).
If we cease to imagine and strive towards liberation, what is the point? The old methodologies and ideas are outdated. We must adapt and improve upon our tactics if we wish to see a revolution of the proletariat. While it’s true that there are some tried and true methods, and worthwhile tactics among the various successful attempts (and even the unsuccessful ones) to realize socialism, this does not indicate that there is but one singular path. To believe such things is juvenile and shows a lack of knowledge, and I must assume, no organizational experience. Organization requires openness to the ideas of others within the community, many of which may not align perfectly with our preconceived notions and personal beliefs.
It’s rich of you to assume that I (or others who may share my views) are completely opposed to violence (in Minecraft, of course). This is akin to the right wing assumption that leftists are unarmed, or support the idea of a disarmed populace. You seem to be confusing and equating state violence with the use (or display) of force as an acceptable means of liberation. I will openly state that among my ideological influences, I count the Black Panther Party, Fred Hampton, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara (and their methods), among others.
And, excuse me? Yes, we all know that center left elements marginalized Rosa and the Spartacist movement, electorally speaking. But it was the Freikorps who executed her - the progenitors of the Nazi SA. No amount of political betrayal is equivalent to the direct efforts and actions to hunt down and murder communists by a fascist paramilitary. It’s widely understood and agreed upon that the capitulation of the centrists and center left parties to the Nazis served to accelerate their rise to power. This capitulation only temporarily delayed their demise, but it did not prevent it. Rosa warned of, and addressed this infantile mode of thinking in “Reform or Revolution?”
Trying to use Rosa as some sort of example to give credence to your claims is a weak tactic, and further proof that you have little ground to stand on. Whatever “own” or personal dig you were aiming for there was pretty silly.
Her tendencies towards, and influence on, (little “L”, French school) libertarian socialism and anarcho-communist theory are pretty well understood, and her open criticism of the missteps of the Marxist-Leninists in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War are also well documented. She generally, from my reading of her, erred on the side of council communism, and democratic processes, over bloated bureaucracy or an authoritarian state.
So, again, left unity and pluralism is possible, and in my humble opinion, Rosa supported it. To leave out the distinction of center left politics as little more than soft liberalism, rather than a genuine leftist ideology, is (yet again) pretty disingenuous. I would say that I suspect, but I am, in fact, fairly certain, you are arguing in bad faith, and are little more than a crypto-ACP authoritarian, and by that metric, leaves no doubt that you are full, to the brim, with excrement.
This rule is related to the more right wing of the sub, as this is a leftist sub we are against a lot of the beliefs that you may have. We ask that you argue in good faith and have the intentions of learning if you plan on participating. The mod team has the discretion to remove you from the discussion if you show you are not here to learn and are only trolling or spreading capitalist liberal dogma. If you have bad post and comment history and are active in certain subs where trouble makers are
But as the movement gains strength and we recognise the need to build one organisation instead of many, yes other tendencies will be wiped out, particularly the ones with zero value in building a tangible socialist society.
Bro was not aware of the proletaryan line of the division of one into two and not the other way around./j
Actually I was making fun of the way Maoists repeat the dogma, along with the connection between this strange thesis of DM and the movement’s sectarianism. If you want a Lenin quote along these lines, gladly,
"The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts...is the essence (one of the 'essentials,' one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.... The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute...."
Respect differing leftist opinions and PSP's/ESP's (No Sectarianism)
Respect the opinions of other leftists, everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented, none of this are worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours as well.
This includes being Anti-Sectarian
Uncritical, baseless, and propaganda driven attacks against AES states of past or present is not tolerated as it can be seen as troll-y and shilling of propaganda
So at this point, how credible is it to consider that Chomsky is in with the elites, and that some of his views (soft support for Russia etc) are because he has an agenda
Hello and thank you for visiting r/theredleft! We are glad to have you! While here, please try to follow these rules so we can keep discussion in good faith and maintain the good vibes: 1. A user flair is required to participate in this community, do not whine about this, you may face a temporary ban if you do.
2.No personal attacks
Debate ideas, not people. Calling someone names or dragging their personal life in ain’t allowed.
3.Blot out the names of users and subreddits in screenshots and such to prevent harrassment. We do not tolerate going after people, no matter how stupid or bad they might be.
4.No spam or self-promo
Keep it relevant. No random ads or people pushing their own stuff everywhere.
5.Stay at least somewhat on topic
This is a leftist space, so keep posts about politics, economics, social issues, etc. Memes are allowed but only if they’re political or related to leftist ideas.
6.Respect differing leftist opinions
Respect the opinions of other leftists—everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented. None of this is worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours.
7.No reactionary thought
We are an anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist, anti-fascist, anti-liberal, anti-bigotry, pro-LGBTQIA+, pro-feminist community. This means we do not tolerate hatred toward disabled, LGBTQIA+, or mentally challenged people. We do not accept the defense of oppressive ideologies, including reactionary propaganda or historical revisionism (e.g., Black Book narratives).
8.Don’t spread misinformation
Lying and spreading misinformation is not tolerated. The "Black Book" also falls under this. When reporting something for misinformation, back up your claim with sources or an in-depth explanation. The mod team doesn’t know everything, so explain clearly.
9.Do not glorify any ideology
While this server is open to people of all beliefs, including rightists who want to learn, we do not allow glorification of any ideology or administration. No ideology is perfect. Stick to truth grounded in historical evidence. Glorification makes us seem hypocritical and no better than the right.
10.No offensive language or slurs
Basic swearing is okay, but slurs—racial, bigoted, or targeting specific groups—are not allowed. This includes the word "Tankie" except in historical contexts.
11.No capitalism, only learning — mod discretion
This is a leftist space and we reject many right-wing beliefs. If you wish to participate, do so in good faith and with the intent to learn. The mod team reserves the right to remove you if you're trolling or spreading capitalist/liberal dogma. Suspicious post/comment history or association with known disruptive subs may also result in bans. Appeals are welcome if you feel a ban was unfair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Sometimes we anarchists and comunists seem tô hate each other more than we hate the capitalists, this shit makes no sense
Agreed, even though I can see where our Anarchist friends don't trust us
I'd rather work with you than against you, but so many seem incredibly eager to attack anarchists whenever the chance arises that it makes even me wary.
Outside of a base of theory we have nothing to do with the Soviets or what happened between them and the anarchists. Worrying that much about the past just seems like pointless larp. Apply your ideology to the modern day and build allies with who you can.
I have nothing against anarchists and have no intention to do them any harm if we did come to power.
Can Marxist-Leninist states allow for the existence of free anarchist territories alongside them? I suspect that the need for a global Marxist state would lead them to "free" the anarchists. Maybe you would the head of the politburo, but... probably not.
You're gonna have to clarify what you mean at the end there man.
You, personally, might allow anarchists to thrive, but it's unlikely you'll be in a position to make that decision, or to stop the ones who make the decision to crush them and "liberate" them by incorporating them into the enlightened position of a state in its movement forward through history to end stage communism (the same thing the anarchists already had before they were obliterated).
lol thank you for making the point I was trying to make, that i took three paragraphs to make, in the latter half of my reply to this, in one sentence.
😅
A valid concern, which is why myself and others encourage strict party discipline and principles. I do not intend to repeat past mistakes.
I can respect that idea, and I trust you when you say this. The problem is principles are just words on paper if they aren't followed. If no one in your party shares your sentiment, even if nuclear option you replace all of them somehow, there's no guarantee a replacement won't share their predecessors' attitude or that you can prevent damage being done before you replace them.
This isn't a critique of you or marxist leninism, and I fully acknowledge that at the very least, not wanting to repest past failures might be enough motivation to ensure the principles are followed, but I personally wouldn't put so much faith in principles.
If you have no faith in principles then what are we all doing here thats what all our ideologies are based on.
I am tired, yall are worried about things that happened over 100 years ago which in reality bears no relevance to now. We are not living under those material conditions nor do either of our groups really resemble those back then in any meaningful way outside of the methods to resist capitalism. I'm not attacking you personally here but this all just comes across as larp.
I'm not attacking you personally either, sorry if it came across that way. It's not that principles have no value, we all have them and that's the basis for the whole thing we're doing here, it's just that you can't put trust in principles being the ONLY stopgap to an abuse of power if you're going to maintain the power structures that allow for them.
I'm not "worried about what happened 100 years ago". I don't have trust in the attitudes I see about anarchists from too many marxist-leninists today because it's basically the same attitudes that led to mass imprisonment of anarchists despite them working with the MLs for the revolution. The attitudes are the same, if not repeated verbatim. I don't see marxist-leninists as enemies, especially not today, with our current material reality and with what we're currently dealing with. But you don't establish a coalition with someone you see as counter-revolutionary liberals, as MLs seem to genuinely believe anarchists are. As I said. I trust you. I trust you see us as allies in the struggle. And we are. But what about your successor? You follow your principles, but will your successor follow them as strictly? Even if for a practical reason, or hell, even if just a different analysis of the same principle between different people, how do we ensure everyone follows the party principle as you do? Part of the breakdown between Trotsky and the rest of the movement in The Soviet Union was over this. This isn't me demanding an answer from you, this is me explaining where my hesitancy in the rhetoric, specifically, comes from.
What you're saying is "what happened last time won't happen this time" but you're also saying we should have similar structures that allowed for those things to happen to stay. Part of the anarchist applied theory to dismantling capitalism is to destroy the structure of capitalism so that it's can't grow back again even if it tried.
Our groups are for sure not the same as they used to be, and I agree with your main point. I mean that sincerely. I'm just trying to explain why most anarchists don't trust ML rhetoric, and why "establishing firm party principle" isn't a reassurance for that. At the end of the day I have worked with MLs in organization. They're good folk, always have been, and frankly, this is strictly an online problem. You're right that it's a larp comrade, it's terminally online shit, but online discourse can color the views of new initiates to the movement.
Peasant communes, and other smaller communes still existed in many previous ML states. Anarchists just rarely do massive revolutions like in Catalonia or Ukraine. To be blunt they also rarely consolidate victories. For what it's worth many MLs who actually read do kinda despise how makhno fell because Trotsky did it while painting it in his nonsensical ultra-"revolutionary" slogans (word mongering as Lenin called it)
The biggest issue is in a revolution very rarely do communications survive long enough to keep alliances moving, and just due to all the yknow revolution eventually you have to consolidate your gains, if you don't you'll just cease to exist. The zapistas are so far the only even anarchist adjacent group I've seen do this, and they're not terrifically large. But they're long standing
Would you not call DAANES anarchist adjacent?
Wait did you just say the anarchists achieved end stage communism before they were crushed?? 💀
A few days ago I saw a ML creator (who used to be an anarchist) say they should work with the anarchists until they don’t need them anymore and then would just kill them (not those exact words but that’s how I interpreted it). Not saying all MLs are like that, but it’s things like that that certainly would make anarchists skeptical of y’all
I can't account or speak for every online edgelord, all I can say is amongst principled good faith people from my ideology this isn't what we think.
I know. I’m just pointing out that some of y’all say concerning things. Def not the majority or anything but there’s def reason people worry about teaming up with y’all. But in the end we’re on the same team, even if we have different ideas about the details. We’re all comrades
I spat out my drink I laughed so hard at that.
I am curious what you were trying to convey here, cause it's not only due to one incident that anarchists give pause to working with other leftists, and I can tell you that "it's the past, get over it" aint the rallying cry of alliance you might think it is.
[removed]
https://imgur.com/a/LM5ALR3 For the record this is a joke
I think it was in another thread that someone mentioned that we may disagree on some of the methodology, but overall agree on the desired outcome. I believe it was on a post about the current self cannibalizing within maga.
I think we are mostly content with just being snarky towards each other, and debating the path towards a (mostly) similar goal - as opposed to actively trying to destroy each other, as we’ve seen recently with maga right wing grifters.
I think that if push comes to shove, we will have each other’s backs, or at least I hope so. I hope we can put any differences aside when the shit hits the fan. Because, make no mistake, the capitalists and fascists will see no distinction between us when trying to marginalize or murder us.
To be completely fair, though, the person who also replied to you here also has a point. Many anarchists are skeptical and apprehensive to trust the motives of some self proclaimed MLs given the history, and will try and parse out any authoritarian tendencies that may be under the surface before trusting them as a genuine ally.
Given the current climate of widespread ACP/maga-communist infiltration (whether that be in social spaces or within organization efforts), it is not without reason, and their marginalization of our cause is not helping, whether by way of negative influence on public perception of leftists, or their damage to the cause of leftist unity and organizational efforts.
Not to you maybe, but as anarchists we've paid attention to the myriad times that Marxist-Leninist states have imprisoned and killed anarchists, much less destroyed any attempts for us to freely organize, even though almost every time we were trying to work with you.
I would like to believe left unity is possible, but when a large state is created it no longer is. At that point, the apparatus attempts to eradicate free organization in order to consolidate control. Left unity is only possible while capitalism still exists, ironically.
I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but I do believe long-term unity isn’t possible with anarchists if you don’t believe in the destruction of the state in the short term (Marxists in general, Leninists, democratic socialists, etc).
I believe that past unity with Leninists (even revolutionary ones) and reformist socialists (like Salvador Allende) was possible because both wanted to keep a state, but transform its nature and the economy.
I also believe unity with LibSocs in the long term, and Marxists (Libertarian Marxists also exist), is also possible because many don’t want to destroy the state immediately.
Yeah, it's difficult when ostensible communists want to keep oppressive structures instead of... achieving communism. Especially when they're so dedicated to having a state that they refuse to even allow anarchists to exist alongside them
The issue is both see the temporary or long term necessity of a state, which anarchists don’t.
That’s why intra anarchist unity and potentially anarchist/LibSoc unity is a lot more possible than with Marxists, DemSocs, etc.
I'm not understanding why that means anarchists cannot exist in an anarchist territory next to a Marxist-Leninist state. Could you explain that to me?
Sure, I don’t see an issue with that.
I’m also okay with anarchist communities in a broader socialist state.
I just don’t think that would be acceptable to anarchists.
History shows us the opposite. That anarchists have attempted to do this and even ally with Marxist-Leninists in the process, but each and every time, Marxist-Leninists have undermined and destroyed anarchist territories, made anarchy illegal, executed and imprisoned anarchists, and so on. Your position isn't historically informed.
Most alliances between anarchists and Leninists were temporary and strategic.
My position on anarchists is that I would applaud large-scale anarchist experiments that threaten capitalism, and I don’t mind anarchist experimentation and communities within socialist states if those groups seek amicable relations.
Well hopefully we'll achieve immortality soon and you'll be voted permanent head of the politburo
[removed]
Oh, Jesus Christ.
“Yeah we’re kinda weary of MLs because of how many times they betrayed us.”
“Oh yeah! Well you made us betray and kill you!”
lol accurate
[removed]
jesus fucking christ i feel like every single comment this guy made breaks at minimum 2 rules
Never change vanguardists, never change.
[removed]
Debate ideas, not people. Calling someone names or dragging their personal life in ain’t allowed.
Ah yes, liquidating the Makhnovschina and backstabbing them was definitely necessary because they were actually Kulak traitors that were undermining the Soviet Union and constantly conspiring with the white army, right? It's just empirically true that when an anarchist breathes the bourgeoisie comes back
Hey at least we agree that we both think the other is traitorous scum. That's the first step towards a working relationship. It's cute that you Anarchists have your own falsified version of the historical record though.
Well I mean your philosophy is pretty much just a more radical version of liberalism so....
Like Makhno being an anti-Semite? Or maybe the POUM secretly working for the nationalists and at the same time being Trotskyists even though it made no sense? Oh and of course how could I forget there was never a revolution in Spain.
[removed]
The POUM wasn't even Trotskyist that's just what Stalin used as an excuse to persecute them. Besides they were the best allies anarchists have had in the time of 1930s
Do you think any leftist tendency other than Marxism-Leninism has any merit whatsoever?
Respect the opinions of other leftists, everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented, none of this are worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours as well.
This includes being Anti-Sectarian
Uncritical, baseless, and propaganda driven attacks against AES states of past or present is not tolerated as it can be seen as troll-y and shilling of propaganda
mod note: reverse icepick moment
Yeah, prolewiki contains the real facts
Yep. Better than the Wikipedia that you people love to edit.
Let me guess, you think all Baltic people are nazis and those countries are imperialist empires? Russia is the center of the free world?
Really not beating the allegations with this one, chief
Not trying to, bro. I'm affirming what the parent comment is saying.
Pluralism can exist in a leftist economy you absolute goon.
You can have multiple parties all with different leftist ideals, while still fucking off Liberalism and other capitalist ideologies to the landfill of history.
What is the Marxist-Leninist obsession with suppressing any differing Socialist thought. The only people who fear the left more than Liberals are MLs, change my mind.
[removed]
Sure mate, I’m sure oppressing the Anarchists, Classical Marxists, Council Communists, Democratic Socialistsand thr Trade Unionists will go fine then, it’s not like all of these ideologies have merit and should be involved in open debate or anything.
[removed]
When has Democratic Socialism ever been tried!?!
Bro I think you’re doing the classic confusing Social Democracy/Welfare Capitalism with Democratic Socialism thing.
Democratic Socialism is abolition of private property, means of production in the hands of the workers, economy geared towards public good etc etc… just through democratic means, with a pluralist democratic political system as well as a democratic economy, strong unions, strong worker councils and strong collective bargaining.
Social Democracy is Capitalism with SOME concessions, perhaps collective bargaining, perhaps some welfare, some state ran infrastructure but still no independent worker ran industries. Means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie, private property still king, economy geared towards market principles.
Howay man, should know the difference by now mate.
[removed]
Debate ideas, not people. Calling someone names or dragging their personal life in ain’t allowed.
mod note: jesus christ dude touch grass, this is the internet no need to get so hostile over a disagreement
It has been tried several times, and every time the US stopped it from happening. Therefore it must be chauvinist! Naturally!
Wasnt it tried under allende in chile? Like haway man since when have liberals played fair with democracy? Voting hard enough isnt gonna make them just hand over the keys
Please flair up, thank you. To do so, go to the subreddit page, if you are on desktop the side bar on the right has a section called user flair, on mobile tap the three dots and tap change user flair. If you are right-wing and are here to learn we do have a 'Learning Right Winger' flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
While this server is for everyone, including rightists to come and learn, we do not allow the glorification of any ideology, making it seem perfect. This sounds 1984-ish, but glorification is not allowed. Truth only based off historical evidence is important. This also includes the glorification of your own ideology, or past administrations and such. No ideology is perfect, so please do not glorify as it makes us seem extremely hypocritical and just like the right
This just in, ML thinks anarchists are infantile and democratic socialists are imperialist ultra nationalists. Left unity has never been bigger.
Debate ideas, not people. Calling someone names or dragging their personal life in ain’t allowed.
Yeah man, way to disrupt left unity and any sense of pluralism you claim to support. Your statement that other tendencies will “naturally” be wiped out is especially troubling. Any criticism you may have of laterally organized anarchist tendencies is immediately discredited by such a statement, and does nothing to dispel the notion that a decent portion of Marxist-Leninists have an authoritarian bent. You are hurting not only your own cause (and personal reputation as a trustworthy advocate), but the collective cause of leftist ideology, let alone feeding the fire of right wing rhetoric and propaganda surrounding leftism.
If we are somehow including anarcho-capitalists and von mises school/Larouchites in the category of Anarchism - which the majority of political theorists, or anarchists themselves (or anyone with an IQ above 40), would not - then maybe, just maybe, your whole bit about individualistic tendencies could make a single bit of sense. Crypto bro libertarians are grifters who utilize the badge of anarchism as a means to gain support from the lowest (intellectually and politically speaking) common denominator, and disingenuous fellow grifters, who are not in any way associated with the principles of anarchism.
Anarchism means free association, mutualism/mutual aid, and a foundation (and strengthening) of workers collectives - in opposition to state power and bureaucracy.
While I understand that many examples of Communism (and Marxist-Leninist/Maoist) societies have historically involved a considerable degree of bureaucracy, this is not their only form of organization, and does not place anarchism in direct conflict with socialism/communism. To speak in such absolutes, and to imply that collectivism requires bureaucratic state control, is a bit self serving to whatever biases and personal ideologies you may hold. I am beginning to develop a sneaking suspicion you may lean in the direction of ACP or “MAGA-Communism”. I am rather surprised that mods have not flagged you for factionalism, or have at very least, reminded you to keep it civil.
Collectivism, and specifically, worker empowerment and control (of production and/or economic organization) are grounding principles of both ideologies. To state that anarchism and communism are in direct opposition to one another, merely because of anarchisms opposition to state control and bureaucracy, is rather lazy, and does not display an attempt to do simple critical analysis or any reasonable effort to study theory. We have far more in common than we have differences.
The unifying goal should be to crush any existing capitalist bourgeois liberal/fascist state, thereby eliminating its power over us, both economically and socially. Particularly when it comes to labor, exerting our collective will over how, why, where, and when that labor is performed, and more specifically, its intrinsic value.
While I would love to see a world where money has little to no role in outcomes, this discussion on the empowerment of workers also involves fair and just compensation for that labor. Ideally, we would develop a society and system by which one’s economic means has little to do with quality of life, but fair compensation and living conditions are (for now) inherently linked. Whether the benefits of those improvements to quality of life are doled out by means of mutual aid, collective organization and ownership, or by a worker led democratic system of government, is up for debate, and is likely where our methodology will differ.
In the end, our goal is (or should be) the same - a liberation from systems of oppression, economic inequality, and the fascistic aims of capitalism.
[removed]
This entire subreddit is geared towards left unity and attacking other ideologies is against the rules
99% sure this person is an ACP/MAGA communist troll. Fuck em
Yeah ACP would make sense. Those people are always so... well, like this.
I just get that feeling from the fairly open authoritarian rhetoric, purity testing language, and absolutism that there is “only one way”. I don’t think it’s too outlandish to assume as much.
No, although hardcore Stalinists sometimes behave the same way, all ACP members do. So it's a safe bet.
I've encountered them in other communities and they're just consistently a complete clown.
https://i.redd.it/9wsljuswnt8g1.gif
this is literally me reading this guys comments (plural) after the first report came in, somehow each one was worse then the last 😭
Democratic processes and collective decision making that serves the common interests is liberalist nonsense?
“Practical, scientific method?” You do realize we are talking about human beings, which are complex and nuanced creatures? The methodologies must be pragmatic and adaptable to the material conditions of each community, peoples, or nation, in which we wish to pursue socialism.
Adherence to strict dogmatic thinking will not serve our goals. This rhetoric of “falsifiers”, “utopians”, and “revisionists” is, again, quite troubling. I will repeat my concern, and assert my position that this is blatantly authoritarian.
Would you say that the (unified and pluralistic) partisans of Italy were a farce? They almost singlehandedly took back their country from fascism, and successfully captured (and rendered righteous vengeance upon) its figurehead. If not for western interference, they would have quite easily held majority power in the subsequent Italian elections (operation Gladio, anyone?).
If we cease to imagine and strive towards liberation, what is the point? The old methodologies and ideas are outdated. We must adapt and improve upon our tactics if we wish to see a revolution of the proletariat. While it’s true that there are some tried and true methods, and worthwhile tactics among the various successful attempts (and even the unsuccessful ones) to realize socialism, this does not indicate that there is but one singular path. To believe such things is juvenile and shows a lack of knowledge, and I must assume, no organizational experience. Organization requires openness to the ideas of others within the community, many of which may not align perfectly with our preconceived notions and personal beliefs.
It’s rich of you to assume that I (or others who may share my views) are completely opposed to violence (in Minecraft, of course). This is akin to the right wing assumption that leftists are unarmed, or support the idea of a disarmed populace. You seem to be confusing and equating state violence with the use (or display) of force as an acceptable means of liberation. I will openly state that among my ideological influences, I count the Black Panther Party, Fred Hampton, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara (and their methods), among others.
And, excuse me? Yes, we all know that center left elements marginalized Rosa and the Spartacist movement, electorally speaking. But it was the Freikorps who executed her - the progenitors of the Nazi SA. No amount of political betrayal is equivalent to the direct efforts and actions to hunt down and murder communists by a fascist paramilitary. It’s widely understood and agreed upon that the capitulation of the centrists and center left parties to the Nazis served to accelerate their rise to power. This capitulation only temporarily delayed their demise, but it did not prevent it. Rosa warned of, and addressed this infantile mode of thinking in “Reform or Revolution?”
Trying to use Rosa as some sort of example to give credence to your claims is a weak tactic, and further proof that you have little ground to stand on. Whatever “own” or personal dig you were aiming for there was pretty silly.
Her tendencies towards, and influence on, (little “L”, French school) libertarian socialism and anarcho-communist theory are pretty well understood, and her open criticism of the missteps of the Marxist-Leninists in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War are also well documented. She generally, from my reading of her, erred on the side of council communism, and democratic processes, over bloated bureaucracy or an authoritarian state.
So, again, left unity and pluralism is possible, and in my humble opinion, Rosa supported it. To leave out the distinction of center left politics as little more than soft liberalism, rather than a genuine leftist ideology, is (yet again) pretty disingenuous. I would say that I suspect, but I am, in fact, fairly certain, you are arguing in bad faith, and are little more than a crypto-ACP authoritarian, and by that metric, leaves no doubt that you are full, to the brim, with excrement.
Have a day
This rule is related to the more right wing of the sub, as this is a leftist sub we are against a lot of the beliefs that you may have. We ask that you argue in good faith and have the intentions of learning if you plan on participating. The mod team has the discretion to remove you from the discussion if you show you are not here to learn and are only trolling or spreading capitalist liberal dogma. If you have bad post and comment history and are active in certain subs where trouble makers are
Comrade, while I understand where you're coming from. Bring it down a notch. This nettled rhetoric isn't helping.
Just matching the above user's energy 🤷
Bro was not aware of the proletaryan line of the division of one into two and not the other way around./j
"proletarian line"
Something Lenin scribbled in a notebook one time and others later turned into dogma? Lol okay
Actually I was making fun of the way Maoists repeat the dogma, along with the connection between this strange thesis of DM and the movement’s sectarianism. If you want a Lenin quote along these lines, gladly,
"The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts...is the essence (one of the 'essentials,' one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.... The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute...."
Respect the opinions of other leftists, everyone has different ideas on how things should work and be implemented, none of this are worth bashing each other over. Do not report people just because their opinion differs from yours as well.
This includes being Anti-Sectarian
Uncritical, baseless, and propaganda driven attacks against AES states of past or present is not tolerated as it can be seen as troll-y and shilling of propaganda
rofl excellent shitpost
The red and black flew again over the Free Territories of Epsteinia
Banger
All it takes is a billionaire child rapist 👍
The Fire Rises apla unitymaxxing
Leftist unity sucks, Leftist Godot is better
Me using a Time Machine to convince Stalin that Tito is based actually.
ik this is a meme but did bannon actually say he was a leninist at some point 🥀
I think it’s meant like “I’m not afraid to seek power and change” as opposed to being at all communist.
Honestly I wouldn't put it past him. Dude for sure isn't a Leninist ideologically but stupid assholes be saying shit sometimes.
He did. Also, he’s well versed in Audre Lorde. He’s one of the most confusing MFs in American politics.
10% of us really don’t understand jokes, huh (upvote ratio 90%, like every other meme I post)
So at this point, how credible is it to consider that Chomsky is in with the elites, and that some of his views (soft support for Russia etc) are because he has an agenda
Definitely/j
https://preview.redd.it/dwo27r95tr8g1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6651aafffdf6f32c72c5eee95a0c21ba19462949
(This is a joke about the vague language of the person i am replying to and not an expression of antisemitism or suggestion that they are antisemitic)
His critique of NATO is not popular within the capitalist class in America.
The revolution of little st James has come to fruition.
kittydog mentioned. oh god
He's nowhere near socialist. Closest he'll get is national socialism.
(Please tell me you know it’s a joke)