The contradictions and some irreconcilable disagreements are on the principles of getting to the "utopia" , not the end state itself. The "utopian" end result of ML approach and historical progression would be just as "utopian" for an anarchist as the end result of the anarchist approach would be for an ML. There is no reason form either side to assume only by "incorporating/synthesizing" both principles you will increase the probability and success of the end result being reached or make it more of a "utopia". The left unity is about the practicality of on the ground alliance and cooperation not about assuming that we have to "combine" the philosophies/approaches into something thats BOTH and NEITHER ,to have a better chance of succeeding and that somehow thats not something that the most brilliant of brilliant revolutionary and theoretical minds in these philosophic tendencies havent considered in the last 200 years
Also as an ML i find that this line of thought framing seems unfair and biased against anarchists. Any "incorporation of both principles" into a "new" approach to revolutionary and party organization and transition to communism will foundementaly end up non anarchist and antitethical to anarchist analysis and thought but it can and will still be and fit within the communist tradition.Just as a more decentralized,less hierarchical/less statist version of it, one that probably exists already and has existed for decades like council communism or variations of Mao Zedong thought. The midway between a statist and nonstatist approach to post revolutionary transition to socialism will still be statist, the midway between bolshevic democratic centralism and complete non hierarchical horizontal direct democratic party organization would of course break from anarchist tradition much more than it would break from the general communist tradition.
We are comrades and allies but we shouldnt have wishfull thinking of some new magical combination/synthesis of strategies that will work better and be more succesfull on practice and have everyone one a similar page just because it would be nice if it existed. IF Communists through analysing the mistakes of their praxis and AES innovate ,evolve and adjust some their strategies and approach into more decentralized or less state or party dominated ones and that makes it relatively more "anarchist friendly" great. And such things have happened within the communist and ML tradition, but aspects also went to the opposite direction. But that "shift" shouldnt be done because of some motivation to "incorporate/synthesize principles and practices" or that that is in and of it self desirable and logical to produrce better results just because. And similarly if anarchists in some situations find themselves developing somewhat more demcentral or vanguardist or "state in all but name" practices and adjustments to conditions that arise to make their practice more efficient and succesfull, then again great! But it still wouldnt be from chasing the "synthesizing of practices" for the shake of a utopian vision of left unity on a philosophical level and it would still be far far far far removed from any actual bridging or something that applies as a general rule
The contradiction will be only resolved on a personal or regional level for anarchist and MLs under the pressure of practice in a project dominated by the other approach, but not in a project wide scale. How you chose to engage with it and its organs, what stance you keep while the project is under danger and siege, how you chose to try and influence it to act towards your ideal in the level you participate in, do you even chose to participate in it and the structures that arose even though they arent what your ideology planed or would do in a similar situation ?
Do you think being an anarchist presupposes organizing against and undermining ,often violently, any non anarchist structure that would come out of a non anarchist revolution. If you think that being an Anarchist after a non anarchist revolution or project gets going means that you will either have to organize against the new state and structures on principle no matter what they are or to fully abandon anarchism to particpate in them and supporting them then too bad for anarchists. Same thing with MLs in a similar situation. Will it be the dichotomy of either trying to infiltrate turn every structure into a Demcentralist one and organize against the very structures of the anarchist/anarchist leaning project or completely abandon their beliefs in order to not get thrown into horizontaly organized labor camps? Too bad for you.
If you present all that as a given then yeah you will face consequences and be supressed in one way or another. The solution shouldnt be from the DotP and party in one case or the Anarchist federation of communes or whatever on the other case to change their structure and approach just so that anarchists/MLs can participate in it while feeling like they are still acting productively based on their ideology. Such changes should only be and can only be implemented and developed if they actualy help to defend and develop the project towards communism and if on practice they work better. If Anarchists are a sizable minority of politicaly active people after a non anarchist revolution or under a non anarchist state then yes, it is to the best interests of the project as far as success of the project goes to incorporate their practices and solutions into "middle of the road stuff" just in order for the project to run smoothly, but
A. Historicaly this has never been even remotely the case. Anarchism, despite what people like Chomsky would say, never had strong popular backing or support in revolutionary societies before and after ,other than regionaly, and was suppressed when both they took concrete actions against existing structure after the revolution and when "meeting them in the middle" would mean change in policies determinal to the project at large taht would have put it at risk economicaly or geopoliticaly. In other cases like with regional anarchist popular movements in smaller parts of China or Korea pre or during revolution that didnt actively clashed with the project, they werent suppressed in even a remote similar degree and there was regional incorporations of both practices and philosophies of the communist party and state and the anarchist tradition ,even if it was to varying degrees of success and longlivety.
B. This "compromise" would still be what i described in the initial comment. A "middle ground" that would fall inside the communist tradition but outside and as break from anarchism . It wouldnt be non hierarchical or non statist. And if you think that still the majority of anarchists will operate against that on principle, act and organize against it or turn it into their ideal structure then again too bad for a lot of people. And again same with the other way around
Tbh forced labor camps for reactionaries and criminals did exist in for example revolutionary catalonia, which in and of itself is something i would never judge and hold against them or against any project trying to opperate and survive in a civil war and under such pressure and undermining
Socialists (I'm gonna interpret that as "Marxists and Marxism-adjacent ideologies") and anarchists want almost the same end goal in a society. The only disagreement is how we get there. Lenin said so in The State and Revolution:
To prevent the true meaning of his struggle against anarchism from being distorted, Marx expressly emphasized the "revolutionary and transient form" of the state which the proletariat needs. The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes.
Umm, (Many) Anarchists, but you're switching the meaning of Utopian from Colloquial "Wants a world as perfect as possible" to Marxist "Has a fixed Ideological vision of that world and seeks to implement it, rather than starting from Material conditions."
The goal is. But when people critique Anarchists or pre-Marxist Communists as "Utopian" they aren't meaning "Anarchists want a utopia"
can you ground that in a material analysist that isnt a metaphor. Communism isnt utopianism, Marxists use it to describe the society that comes after capitalism, abolishment of private property. Even after that there will be obvious problems in a human society. I agree, marxists and anarchists have the same goals, but their shared goal is overcoming the principle contradiction in society we call capitalism. It has little to do with building a perfect utopia
what comes after that? We can speculate over what comes next forever. I dont speculate though, only capitalists speculate with the wellbeing of others
i dont really see a point besides coming up with more mantras and fantasy worlds to wring our hands over. You'll be dead for whatever comes next next next next
if you are a communist/anarchist because you want "utopia", you are delusional.
