Thanks for posting this. Actual dialectics instead of the vague analytical marxism shit that keeps getting pushed on here to try to mix anarchism with marxism. Reeks of opportunism and ignorance.
There is no centrism between having a transitionary state and anarchism.Between leninism and anarchism
Except for that the vast majority of anarchists today acknowledge the need for a transitionary state. Modern syntheses have largely been tendencies cross-polinating, dissolving old irreconcilable differences as more realistic/complete pictures are being painted than old ideologies were able to. Science has progressed.
It's happening even in non-leftist academia, as trans-disciplinary approaches reveal that a multi-perspectival approach is the most effective/accurate. Maybe you're unduly historicizing anarchists in your insistence that the differences are irreconcilable? Bookchin is another example of an 'anarchist' who also looks kinda ML, but isn't really either. I know it's all very post-modern and possibly annoying to you, but I think it's the way of things. Things aren't so firm and certain as they used to be, as we recognize that the world is complex, and that's ok imo
It seems that a lot of modern anarchists believe that a transitional state is important. You can call them not anarchist if you’d like, but that seems to be a near-consensus. There are probably differences of imagination around what that transitional state would look like, compared to an ML’s imagination, and probably more critically differences on how long it should be allowed to continue, but that just seems to be how things are.
If I had to guess, based on my limited experience with anarchist thought about this, I’d say anarchists who believe in a transitional state would be more likely to say ‘the state needs abolished at some relatively soon point’ than ‘once class is dissolved the state will wither itself away, even if it takes 500 years’.
I think you’re stuck thinking that anarchists seek only to use anarchist tactics in every moment, and want anarchy/communism precisely tomorrow. Much like classical MLs, I think that anarchists have moved well within the realm of envisioning the revolution as a multi-generational thing.
Like, it’s not ‘not anarchist’ to support universal health care or UBI or any other forms of state-based movement to the left. I think modern anarchists have largely ‘broke’ from the ‘lines’ of historical anarchists, because that’s something anarchists would be just fine doing, right?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Thanks for posting this. Actual dialectics instead of the vague analytical marxism shit that keeps getting pushed on here to try to mix anarchism with marxism. Reeks of opportunism and ignorance.
Except for that the vast majority of anarchists today acknowledge the need for a transitionary state. Modern syntheses have largely been tendencies cross-polinating, dissolving old irreconcilable differences as more realistic/complete pictures are being painted than old ideologies were able to. Science has progressed.
It's happening even in non-leftist academia, as trans-disciplinary approaches reveal that a multi-perspectival approach is the most effective/accurate. Maybe you're unduly historicizing anarchists in your insistence that the differences are irreconcilable? Bookchin is another example of an 'anarchist' who also looks kinda ML, but isn't really either. I know it's all very post-modern and possibly annoying to you, but I think it's the way of things. Things aren't so firm and certain as they used to be, as we recognize that the world is complex, and that's ok imo
deleted by creator
It seems that a lot of modern anarchists believe that a transitional state is important. You can call them not anarchist if you’d like, but that seems to be a near-consensus. There are probably differences of imagination around what that transitional state would look like, compared to an ML’s imagination, and probably more critically differences on how long it should be allowed to continue, but that just seems to be how things are.
If I had to guess, based on my limited experience with anarchist thought about this, I’d say anarchists who believe in a transitional state would be more likely to say ‘the state needs abolished at some relatively soon point’ than ‘once class is dissolved the state will wither itself away, even if it takes 500 years’.
I think you’re stuck thinking that anarchists seek only to use anarchist tactics in every moment, and want anarchy/communism precisely tomorrow. Much like classical MLs, I think that anarchists have moved well within the realm of envisioning the revolution as a multi-generational thing.
Like, it’s not ‘not anarchist’ to support universal health care or UBI or any other forms of state-based movement to the left. I think modern anarchists have largely ‘broke’ from the ‘lines’ of historical anarchists, because that’s something anarchists would be just fine doing, right?