This has been a topic on my mind a lot recently, but I've been afraid of asking it here since I thought I would be being accused of/banned for being sectarian. While I am more on the ML side of things, I really have no qualms or issues with Anarchists and mostly consider our political differences insignificant in the face of global capitalism as it is now. In my eyes, we're a long way off from the reality of needing to debate how a new society will be structured/governed, so, at the end of the day, whether someone is anarchist or ML is not really a major issue to me. As long as they're against the current status quo and understand the need from change, they're cool by me.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that feels like the prevailing belief, in so many words, I've seen other MLs express as well. However, it feels like the majority of sectarianism I've seen pop up is always Anarchist accusing MLs and communists of being as bad as fascists, or supporting genocide, or being evil, etc. I feel I never see it the other way around. At the most, MLs just tease and rib anarchists, but don't view them as evil or reactionary, as some Anarchists see to view MLs. I'm basing this off of things I've seen/experienced online, and from IRL friends who consider themselves anarchists, but who've recently started espousing anti-communist talking points (ie: using the word tankie, saying communist dictators are/were as bad as fascists, etc.)
So why does it seem to come to this most of the time: Anarchists more often being unwilling to work with MLs and accusing them of being fascists, and not the other way around? Is this just a flawed perception on my part? A bias or point of propaganda I've had seep in and need to try and overcome? Is it a valid observation? If so, why does it play out like this?
I'm really sorry if this is still considered sectarian. I really just wanted to express these feelings/observations and seek input/correction from others on them, rather than bottle them up and potentially form prejudices. As mentioned, I personally don't have issues with others having different beliefs among the left, as long as they're fighting capitalism and imperialism, and being supportive of their fellow, diverse comrades.
EDIT: I just wanted to thank everyone who's commented for their thoughtful responses. You've given me a lot to think about, both in challenges to my bias observations/experiences, and in explanations more clearly articulated and knowledgeable than what I understood. Thanks for understanding my intent and keeping it civil.
The anarchist-to-ML pipeline is real, and as someone who went through it, I'll say that anti-structure Reaction is also real. A lot of anarchists (at least in my experience) are young and full of piss and vinegar and distrustful of any kind of hierarchy that could constrain their individual actions. It's a form of liberalism that many outgrow and many don't.
Then there's the fact that in the U.S. at least, anarchism is far more tolerated by the state than is any kind of organized ML movement. Other comments have already addressed this, but it bears repeating: when you spend your whole life immersed in anti-communist propaganada, it's easy to take at face value that ML governments / orgs are "just as bad" as the capitalists.
The anarchist vision is definitely the long-term goal for any socialist project worth its salt, no doubt. But as you said, none of us will live to see that goal play out, so MLs argue that it has to take a back seat to just meaningfully challenging capital.
For that same reason, many MLs also say that sectarian divisions really don't matter at this point. I think that's true, and will continue to be true for maybe another decade or so. But as the empire's collapse accelerates, the need for an organized response - and viable alternative institutions - will only grow more urgent. Eventually the ML/Anarchist differences will come to a head and need to be meaningfully addressed.
I'm using "ML" in a very broad way here; to describe people I know who believe some form of proletarian-controlled state is a necessary step on the road to communism, and those who believe that the best way to establish such a state would be through working-class institutions operating under the sponsorship of a (or several allied) working-class parties.
But you're right, no one should dogmatically cling to political labels or specific ideological tendencies. We need to do whatever works.
I'm not saying all hierarchy is desirable, or that any should go unchallenged. But not all hierarchies are unjustified "random old power structures," and it's naive to think that the hierarchies that may be necessary to organize a working-class movement are the same hierarchies that actively work to oppress LGBTQ+ people.
We need some way to maintain culture and meaning while removing attachment to old ways of thinking.
Of course, but those ideological changes will only arise en masse when conditions allow them to. We won't go from cisheteronormative mysoginist white supremacist carnist hellhole to post-gender, post-racial vegan utopia overnight, especially not with so many people having their material interests tied up in maintaining oppressive power structures.
Leaving aside my personal opinion of what post-1920s anarchism stands for today...
Its very likely the radlib entryism that has only accelerated. Speaking as someone who went through that cycle myself, when you first begin explicitly identifying as an American leftist, you'll almost always start first as a "democratic socialist" or "anarchist" and learn the typical early shibboleths like "the USSR wasn't real socialism it was state capitalism" or "i oppose all hierarchy thus I oppose all states including ones that identify as socialist" or w/e. It becomes very easy to internalize and uncritically repeat anti-communist and pro-imperialist propaganda, punching left against "tankies", because you don't yet have a coherent understanding of the nature of imperialism and as a result try to fence-sit by saying shit like "i oppose both sides because they're both bad/both states"
Some who go through this phase will eventually graduate to a more radical, Marxist level, but not many. These tendencies become especially bad as more radlibs start explicitly identifying as more left than merely "progressive"; you get "anarchist" online spaces ever-more-disproportionately stacked with radlibs; an echo chamber forms and these people start mutually reinforcing each others' shit takes and exchanging anti-communist propaganda to own the "tankies"; this becomes especially bad in online spaces because it substitutes for actually reading theory and history
IMO just ignore them, they're irrelevant. If you meet some in real life its easier to sway people in person through repeated interaction.
What you see online is mostly western groups. Western and specificaly american anarchists have defined themselves and their ideology around being anti-marxist lenninist and anti-whatever ML projects much more than western MLs defined themselves by being anti-anarchist. This mainly stems and is further strengthened by that with the fact that
A. Absolute anti ML psotions were stroked, encouraged and propagandized at a massive degree through the red scare in the west having deep deep cultural and social impact while no one powerfull gave a shit about anti-anarchism
B. Groups that practiced pro ML states internationalism and admiration were hunted down,infiltrated and destroyed with the most furious and focused cointelpro and state repression worldwide and especially in the west cause they were the biggest threats success wise and they were the most active on the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial front even from inside western countries
And yeah you end up with way more modern leftists (cause its not just anarchists) being foundementaly anti-ML than MLs that are anti anarchist or anti demsoc or whatever
Lenin's grand vision of internationalism was something that could only ever happen by military conquest, and that era has passed with the advent of weapons of mass destruction . During WWII both the Axis and Allies entertained using chemical weapons. The US stockpiled enough chemical munitions in Europe to kill half of Germany's population, and they fucked up its handling more than a few times .
Anarchists on the left range from individualist to communist, but it is mostly the individualist anarchist throwing shade at MLism. The more stridently individualistic anarchists are adamantly against globalism/internationalism. This shutting off of the political world outside the self may also be lefties reacting to the present seeming impossibility of a worldwide revolution overthrowing capitalism. The reality is that achievieving an international socialist revolution today is orders of magnitude harder than in the past. Transformative bottom-up social progress of any kind is hard work in any era, but especially true now.
Folks give up, become doomers, become liberals, become socdems, and a few become anarchists. At the absolute batshit side of the anarchist spectrum we have authors like the very, very problematic Hakim Bey who doesn't just want no government, but no way to punish those who commit even serious crimes. The idea of even a centralized minarchist libertarian-style state is abhorrent to them. Communism is antithetical to individualism. BTW, Hakim Bey still has a following among anarcho-primitivists in the Pacific NW and rave kids, and I'll never understand why. He is a super creep.
I think for the terminally online, calling yourself an anarchist is a way to be a leftist without doing the legwork and lifting of reading and understanding theory, but knowing that the system is fucked up. And MLs can come off as exclusionary know it alls because they can't go thirty seconds without mentioning Lenin. Unfortunately, the baby leftist with an attitude is susceptible to lib shit masquerading as radical
because they can’t go thirty seconds without mentioning Lenin
Can you please not start attacking me in this thread.
you know Lenin was constantly attacking his contemporaries in the (actually meaningful and informative) posting wars of the 20th century
Lol. I know, right? I've read much of those critical works of Lenin books, and like 1/3 is just him arguing with some socialist I've never heard of. I almost wish someone could update Lenin for 2021. CTRL-F "Kautsky", CTRL-V "Zizek".
also, it's easy to be an anarchist. you just say you are one and then bam you're anarchy. to be an ML you have to read (or claim to read) both M and L
meanwhile i remember people yelling at each other to "read the bread book"
Non-commital Communist here, but the bread book is great because its basically just a big encyclopedia of questions and answers of how to do full communism, why it is possible, and why it is just, but it never really tackles the sheer power of the forces and violence that a "modern" state like America or other bourgeois industrialized nations can bring against a revolution. I read it twice and the idea of government is shockingly out of place for the cultural momentum of most countries today and theres some but not enough materialism.
There's no membership cards being issued, you can claim to be an ML because you saw some memes just the same as you can claim to be an anarchist.
This is a real post. No the domestic terrorist ecofascist isn't sound theory. This Zerzan guy also seems like an unhinged return to monke weirdo. This ain't it chief.
You also said that reading them and Kropotkin will give you a more materialist worldview than reading ML writers. That's fucking ridiculous. Kropotkin never had any revolutionary theory and filling the gaps with eco fascists isn't gonna do much for you. Primitivism is dumb and literally the one ideology of 'but you have iPhone's actually applies. No one is stopping you from dying in the woods.
I think gentle ribbing is not so gentle as you may perceive it. (baby) mls also react really sharply to critiques of lenin/stalin, honestly don't know why :shrug-outta-hecks:
Also general propaganda/scare of communism result in easy fall back into old frameworks.
Also general propaganda/scare of communism result in easy fall back into old frameworks.
Probably the biggest factor, honestly. The United States didn't wage a half-century cold war against an anarchist superpower, so the propaganda everyone's been swimming in for generations isn't fine-tuned against them.
A lot of these responses kind of boil down to 'anarchists aren't good leftists yet' which is an attitude that contributes to resentment from a lot of anarchists online. As much as you see complaints about calling people tankies, you'd think anarkiddy wouldn't be a respectable argument but that's what some vocal MLs think.
‘anarchists aren’t good leftists yet’
I mean a lot of anarchist takes seem to be “MLs aren’t leftist at all”. At least “yet” implies there’s room for growth and progress.
Yeah, a lot of bad anarchist takes are like that, but that take isn't even remotely acceptable here. This thread is full of MLs doing the other thing, not anarchists do that thing.
oh maybe i misread you, and yeah i agree there's no connection between shit getting done by any people (ml or anarchist) and shit being said on the internet by any people of any flavor. I don't ask the people in my local org what their personal positions are, we have an org we vote in and steer collectively.
:meow-hug:
Yeah that seems the be the overwhelming thought in this thread, if you read theory you wouldn't be an anarchist. No wonder we get a little salty we people start digging at us.
The difference is the anti-ML takes dumb online anarchists have aren't acceptable here, but these "anarchists are all fresh out of the ideology oven and aren't quite ready yet" takes are pretty accepted here.
In fact, if you check the modlog, all the recent sectarian posts that were removed were MLs talking shit on Anarchists. Come down off your cross.
Which doesn't really negate my point that it's pretty prevalent here despite the intents of the mods.
if you read theory you wouldn’t be an anarchist
I think this comes from the difference in meme politics (where someone doesn't have a good understanding of the underlying ideas and counterpoints, but loves the aesthetics) vs. informed politics (where someone does understand those underlying ideas and has considered many of the counterpoints). It's legitimate to view people with meme politics of any stripe as uninformed, but it's patronizing when one calls someone that even though they have informed politics.
People aren't saying that all anarchists are meme anarchists -- they're saying (and sure, this is debatable) that it's easier to be a meme anarchist than meme ML. The idea is that anarchism is not demonized the same way Stalin or Mao has been demonized, so it's easier for someone to just wake up one day and call themselves an anarchist.
I think a lot of liberal-left people call themselves anarchists. Partly, this is a gateway (I think left liberalism more easily flows to anarchism), but part of it is also overstating their radical politics.
That's not to say that anarchism isn't a rich and diverse political philosophy with its own victories and arguments, but a lot of people calling themselves anarchists think of MLs as a bridge too far. "I'm a socialist, but I'm not like the USSR", sort of thing.
Assuming, of course, that the question is correct in its assumptions. I find myself taking the contrarian ML position just because a lot of people in my social circles first move into socialism through anarchism before branching out (again, this isn't bad or a critique, and hopefully isn't calling anarchists babby leftists or something).
i mean practice it has been a problem but also hasnt. Especially with maoism a shitton of domestic anarchists supported and participated in maoist party led people's wars
Yeah, Mao and the KPAM were pretty tight until the Japanese overran them. Unfortunately Mao had is own issues at the time and couldn't help out.
The simplest answer is there's nothing stopping a lib/SocDem (but I repeat myself) from calling themselves "anarchist"; which is in itself a series of defined political ideologies which are grounded in their own solid theory and not some reckless idealism. If you meet an anarchist that claims one should actively participate in bourgeois politics, be extremely wary.
Anarchists are fine, you should do some work with them - join in on your local Food Not Bombs for example. Anarchist's committment to direct action is enviable and it does work.
My brother is an "anarchist" and he insists anarchism is actually just about the elimination of the state. I'm not sectarian so I suggested he read some anarchist lit like the bread book so he can better explain his positions (he was talking to some of his crew mates and just wasn't quite able to articulate why he thinks healthcare should be free). He insists he doesn't have to read anything in order to be an anarchist, lol, true but it's so much easier once you start actually reading.
I feel like a lot of online sectarian anarchists are like my brother. Just, unorganized in thinking and not able to make real material analysis on why things are fucked or what to do. But they feel capitalism's faults in a very real undeniable way and they are usually willing to take some level of action, even something as non-committal as arguing online.
Either way, we don't have a vanguard right now - we have about a billion tiny little not-mass orgs that might make a good nucleus one day - and there isn't much difference in how we should organize at this very early stage. So help out with anarchist projects and get to know some irl ones.
I'm an anarchist and yes I've read theory. Other then the history of ML's purging anarchist there is the basic issue that anarchist don't want any type of dictatorship be it of the proletariat or not. So I'm perfectly happy to work towards revolution with all my ML comrades but honestly after the revolution I'd basically have to fuck off. As much as I'm an idealist and want an anarchist society ML's have the numbers by far so I'm sure they'll shape the society leaving anarchist to keep their heads down and hope not to get purged or start a second revolution, which as long as things don't evolve into Stalinisum, would essentially be pissing in the wind.
I have literally never met an ML in person in America. I've came across some Trots, but never an ML. Their numbers might be exaggerated in America.
No one came out of the Spanish Civil War looking good. Or the shitstorm around Makhno either. But we have worked together in the past. The KPAM was the largest and most successful anarchist territory, and it got along with Mao Just Fine.
MLs, maybe don't treat Anarchists as either an incompetent weakness on your flank disrupting your economy and diplomacy or a bunch of peasant bandits.
Anarchists, maybe raiding ML's troop supply trains is not a super great plan.
Don't want to be treated like bandits? Don't act like one. You're comparing condescention to being an active counter revolutionary.
i've been personally fucked over by cadres of MLs secretly trying to subvert a coalition of groups organized against capitalist projects. they tried to change the org structure from direct democracy to a committee-run decision making process that they were in charge of. fucking insane people. they got punched in the face eventually by POC organizers from the hood sick of their fuckery.
this paints a weird picture of (M)Lenninists pretending to be pals with anarchists to use them for the revolution and then dispose them afterwards. This literally never happened. Just because violent conflicts after the revolution happened (and i do believe in a lot of cases the (M)L side held the big majority of the blame) and just because anarchist participated in ml revolution , it doesnt make the first assertion true. Like take the october revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were openly anti-anarchist in their structure and approach and tried to distance themselves constantly from anarchist groups, actions and ideas at every point. Never approached or tried to pander anarchists or lie about their psoitions to use them . Many such instances in Lenin or bolshevik writtings. "We arent anarchists,have nothing to do with them, think their actions and approach is stupid and even counterproductive and we wanna do the revolution in such and such way" . In the end the time came of "A revolution is happening and we are in a position and manpower/resources to lead it and try to built socialism afterwards, things are gonna be done through the party line and demcentralism. Any and all revolutionaries that wanna join and help fro inside and through those avenues are welcome ".
