Take for example the fact so many older anarchist theorists (naming them all is ridiculous) were against the dictatorship of the proletariat while, in fact, pretty much everyone now is in complete agreement that you absolutely need one. This fundamental principle by itself utterly separates old and new anarchists.
The old theorists would fight modern anarchists that believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. This core change in belief is the starting point for the reconciliation of marxists and anarchists. By itself it changes the adversarial nature of the two sides that existed during the USSR's time.
There is a massive difference between old anarchists that consider God and State to be essential to their theory and new anarchists that have moved completely away from opposition to this concept. This change in modern anarchism however is part of what gives rise to the king of the hill meme about the "anarchist state" being a wall of text.
I've rarely interacted with anarchists who don't believe some kind of transitional state is necessary. I guess I've been interacting with more of the 'modern' anarchists without realizing it, which is why I often find sectarianism so bizarre.
OK sorry I was rude earlier but could you at least say who a modern anarchist writer/activist is who says that? Dictatorship of the proletariat is, IMO, only one part of the set of ideas that could be considered to be Marxism, so it seems very imprecise to me to call a change in attitudes towards that one idea "synthesizing Marxism". Also what do you mean by "the USSR's time"? Being an anarchist in 1930 is a lot different than being an anarchist in 1980.
A lot of self-described anarchists I know would be just as confused as I am reading any of this. As a "young person?" (I mean you must have several decades on me here) nobody particularly understands the historical conflicts between ancient Leftist ideologies. God and the State is 150 years old, and spends more time talking about Christianity than it does capitalism. I don't see the need some great ideological reconciliation. We just find the tankie/anarcist discourse very alienating and weird, which is why this thread pissed me off.
I mean, we're talking about anarchists 200 years ago. Saying Bakunin and mentioning his opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat while generalising this as the belief of all anarchists of the period is not particularly untrue. I don't need to name all the others when people understand this generalisation to be correct.
Take for example the fact so many older anarchist theorists (naming them all is ridiculous) were against the dictatorship of the proletariat while, in fact, pretty much everyone now is in complete agreement that you absolutely need one. This fundamental principle by itself utterly separates old and new anarchists.
The old theorists would fight modern anarchists that believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. This core change in belief is the starting point for the reconciliation of marxists and anarchists. By itself it changes the adversarial nature of the two sides that existed during the USSR's time.
There is a massive difference between old anarchists that consider God and State to be essential to their theory and new anarchists that have moved completely away from opposition to this concept. This change in modern anarchism however is part of what gives rise to the king of the hill meme about the "anarchist state" being a wall of text.
I've rarely interacted with anarchists who don't believe some kind of transitional state is necessary. I guess I've been interacting with more of the 'modern' anarchists without realizing it, which is why I often find sectarianism so bizarre.
Kropotkin also believed in a transitionary state, it's in the conquest of bread.
Well! So not exactly 'modern' then! Hahaha
OK sorry I was rude earlier but could you at least say who a modern anarchist writer/activist is who says that? Dictatorship of the proletariat is, IMO, only one part of the set of ideas that could be considered to be Marxism, so it seems very imprecise to me to call a change in attitudes towards that one idea "synthesizing Marxism". Also what do you mean by "the USSR's time"? Being an anarchist in 1930 is a lot different than being an anarchist in 1980.
A lot of self-described anarchists I know would be just as confused as I am reading any of this. As a "young person?" (I mean you must have several decades on me here) nobody particularly understands the historical conflicts between ancient Leftist ideologies. God and the State is 150 years old, and spends more time talking about Christianity than it does capitalism. I don't see the need some great ideological reconciliation. We just find the tankie/anarcist discourse very alienating and weird, which is why this thread pissed me off.
gesturing at someone's argument without making it clear who or what you actually disagree with seems like a waste of time.
I mean, we're talking about anarchists 200 years ago. Saying Bakunin and mentioning his opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat while generalising this as the belief of all anarchists of the period is not particularly untrue. I don't need to name all the others when people understand this generalisation to be correct.
I don't. not because I don't believe you though. I just don't have the knowledge. the fact that other people agree doesn't tell me anything.
I'm not sure I understand this. i can't imagine feeling like i was capable of explaining something if this is how i would describe it.