To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
What's the difference between communism and anarchism? It seems like the end goals are similar.
Speaking as a ex-long term anarchist, anarchism is much more heterogeneous in its ideologies or political orientations. You have anarcho-communists who are, especially from the outside looking in, very similar to communists to the point of seeming identical.
Then you have tendencies like individualists, post-leftists, and egoists that are wildly different and in a lot of ways their politics can be so different that it's hard to find a common thread linking them to other anarchist tendencies.
Speaking in broad terms from here on:
Anarchists tend to give much more emphasis to hierarchies and their concept of the state whereas communists tend to emphasize class and class conflict (i.e. where you get the workers vs the bourgeoisie framing of issues and the whole "workers of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your chains!" sort of thing).
This might come off as uncharitable and it's a statement of personal opinion more than a statement of absolute fact but in my experience but, when pressed to define their position, anarchists tend to agree in the necessity of a transitional state between what we have right now and their ideal end-point (anarchism or communism, generally this is seen as interchangeable in a sort of platonic sense) however the real distinction is in their timeframes for the necessity of a transitional state; most anarchists do not believe that you can have the revolution overthrowing capitalism on Monday and achieve an anarchist society on Tuesday but they object to how long a transitional state exists under a communist party.
If I were to be more charitable here I would have said "transitional steps" but, even going by a commonly agreed-upon anarchist definition of the state, they will generally describe a transitional state.
Regardless, the overwhelming majority of Marxists see the revolution as being the first step, then the hard task of setting a course from what we have today (or what we have overthrown today) towards achieving communism begins as we transition to socialism and build up the necessary social and material preconditions (think things like how goods are produced and how the whole political economy functions) to advance towards the end goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society (i.e. communism).
To illustrate the idea of preconditions and material conditions, we can use the example of slavery. Slavery has been abolished (I think?) everywhere in the world. Yet there are more slaves in the world today than there were at the height of institutionalised slavery.
Why is that? Well, a Marxist would start from a place of analysis that the conditions that give rise to slavery have not yet been eliminated and as such all the laws in the world aren't going to be sufficient to eliminate slavery alone.
To extend this idea a little more, the program for creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society is hard to fathom. Rightly so. As is eliminating the conditions that give rise to slavery. But we can understand the "etiology" of slavery and make educated guesses about what sorts of policies and, ultimately, what kinds of societies would mitigate these conditions. We can enact changes and measure their impacts and then, using this information of whether or not it was successful (or if it had a Cobra Effect), we can then take another step forward or we can take a step backwards with the knowledge that the next step we take will actually advance towards the desired outcome. And onwards it continues until we reach that end goal eventually through a process of doing a lot of research, careful consideration, measuring outcomes, and the correcting of errors.
Anarchists don't have the same emphasis on material conditions and so they tend to expect that anarchism should be achieved in relatively short timeframes. Communists, on the other hand, see the timeframes as being far longer and, venturing a guess here, you could ask most communists if they saw a revolution today whether they'd expect to see communism achieved within their lifetime and they'd tell you no.
Thank you, that explained a lot.
I'm not an anarchist, but the problem of "more slaves in the world" today is due to the world having more people overall. So the question has nothing to do with slavery, but rather "why did the world population expand"
And the answer is that new resources (coal and oil) allowed it to
Such population expansion is a major threat against any future global communist system, and eventually any real communist government would have to implement a 2-child policy. (which would be flexible--like greater privileges for 1-child havers, and less for 3-child havers, also more of this cost would fall on the men because women inherently suffer more in the act of reproduction) Ideally you could find what level of "privileges" and "penalty" could naturally keep the human fertility rate at 2.0 through trial and error, so that you wouldn't really have to force anyone to modify their reproductive choices
I also think stuff like confiscating property during the transitional phase can be substituted to some extent with heightening inheritance taxes so that people don't "notice" their standard of living becoming less disgustingly opulent. Although some level of hyperrich could be able to have their stuff just outright taken away (Musk, etc)
I used to think this way, but probably not. Population growth is expected to peak at around 9.2 Billion which we will probably be able to handle if innovation and planning allows us to harness and recycle resources like it looks like they will. For example, recent innovation in desalination coming out of China that could make unsalted ocean water cheaper than tap water. Only the west has a significant toll on the environment per person, and that can be greatly reduced while bringing up the global south in a more ecologically sound way.
In chapter 16 of Socialism or Extinction Ted Reese shows how we are not in an overpopulation crisis today, but an underpopulation crisis. Medical advances and high cost of having children is leading to increase of "surplus" elderly population with fewer people to care for them. Africa's population may be growing, but they are far less densely populated then europe, without the same negative environmental contribution. So, it makes sense for them to grow. Rather than, say, letting immigrants in, Fascists use the myth of overpopulation and the real threat of underpopulation to their advantage. More justification to genocide the poor. Ultimately capitalism is what caused the population to grow, and certain populations to shrink. Now it is it's own problem. Contradictions everywhere.
Now, you are not talking about capitalism, because if we are to survive we need socialism. Socialism will have different population dynamics. With liberation from marriage/overall patriarchy and increasing access to contraceptives new contradictions will arise. On the one hand sexual and economic liberation will mean more partners and more kids. On the other hand if communities raise children rather than as a burden being primarily placed on an isolated monogamous couples, and can avoid unwanted pregnancies, instead raising them in community it will be different. People may feel less a need to have a ton of biological children. They can love and raise many people's children as their own.
It will probably vary from place to place, or could be completely different. We don't know. It doesn't matter today. Don't lose sleep over it. We can worry about it we actually establish socialism.
The main reason global population growth is plateauing today is because the average person is priced out. If luxury global space communism happened tomorrow, people would have more babies
I know that crackers are responsible for 95% of the environmental damage on the earth lol
Still doesn't change the fact that in a hypothetical perfect world, resources are still finite
and the smaller the world population, the bigger the cushion in case of any freak natural disasters/climate change
I addressed this in my original comment. A lot of people are also having a lot of children because they are struggling. Increased comfort, access to contraceptives, and relational liberation might likely have a depressing effect on population growth. There's no reason to worry about overpopulation today, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
keyword being "today", yes.
So, what, do you think it will be an issue in your lifetime? I don't think it's something anyone should worry about, especially as such fears lend toward ecofascism. If it becomes an issue people will deal with it. Idk why you're so worried about it. Btw, in your original comment it is wrong to characterize the existence of fossil fuels as the reason for population boom, just as it is wrong to blame the existence of humans for climate change. The laws of population in the modern era have been dictated by capitalism.
of course not
hundreds of years down the line, it could (in my opinion almost certainly would) be an issue if it were ignored. But yes you could "deal with it as it happens"
Materially, the human population spike is almost solely due to fossil fuels
The growth itself may have been necessitated by capitalism, but then the answer to the question of "why more slaves today?" would just be "because we haven't built socialism yet"
Your explanation is simple malthusianism and doesn't address my argument. People have burned coal for millenia. It was not until Capitalism that it become systematically exploited along with many other things to produce unprecedented abundance. Capitalism is the most efficient system at exploiting resources in history. That is why the population boomed, the necessity for growing the workforce and markets enabled by new innovation and exploitation.
I still don't know what kind of point you're trying to make with this. No one would explain anything by the lack of something to bring it to an end.
Anarchism is idealist, starting with an abstract principle of anti-hierarchicalism and individualism. It can be, but is not necessarily communist. Anarchists typically desire communism (a stateless and classless society) as an end state, but don't have a clear plan to get there, sense most are against all states for some reason. Scientific socialism or Marxism doesn't start from abstract ideals, it studies the material world using a dialectical understanding to come to its conclusions. It recognizes that states are not abstract oppressive entities. States are monopolies on violence legitimizing and protecting class rule. Historically the ruling class has been the exploiting class. Socialists aim to smash the current state, and make the working class the ruling class, in order to lift up the oppressed and subjugate the oppressors. When class distinctions cease the state will "wither away." Anarchists may use the Marxist method of analysis. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Anarchists don’t hate states for “no reason”, they recognize that a state will always do what it can to preserve itself, regardless of the intentions in it’s creation. This does not mean anarchists are universally right, but dismissing them out of hand is dangerous. We should at least understand why this concern isn’t the case, rather than assuming they have no reasons for their beliefs so that we may dismiss them.
Any organization is going to do its best to preserve itself. We recognize the necessity of criticism and self criticism within a socialist organization. I address the reason we all don't like states in my original comment. States are monopolies on violence. We all want to abolish the necessity for the existence of a monopoly on violence. But, as Mao said, "in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." We must abolish class before we can abolish the state.
This seems unlikely to be true, at least, to the degree of the State.
Thats just because the state is massive and controls a lot of stuff about society. Ig you're right, but only in quantitative rather than qualitative difference.
Well, no, not all organizations are actually that zealous about their own existence. There are plenty of social organizations that form naturally and break apart naturally, sometimes dozens of times a day, in terms of friendships and groups and all manner of things.
Maybe so, but we marxists can solve the problems of our states without some principle of "anti-statism." Obviously, we want an end to the state, and a smashing of the existing state. It would be revisionism to have reverence for any state as an entity more than the people. However we can solve the problems of our own states through democratic centralism and criticism and self criticism like China's doing.
At what point does an attempt to change and modify the structure of the State to alleviate it’s issues distinguish itself from a principled anarchist attempt to create a new organizational structure? This isn’t me trying to “gotcha” Marxists, especially as one myself, but it seems to be approaching the same problem from both sides?
Not in the naive sense of us “having the same goal” of liberation, that notion that Lenin himself criticized, but the much more concrete common goal of the alleviation of the state’s negative features.
As Engels said, "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves." We scientific socialists seek to smash the bourgeois state and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. That means that the interests of the majority will be guarded and workers of the state will not be payed more than anyone else, or have a prioritized existence, and so on. The most successful anarchists (like the Catalonians) establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and refuse to call it such. I encourage you to read or re-read Lenin's State and Revolution. Also, a primer on how China's socialist system actually works, like Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: a Guide for Foreigners, might be helpful.
An anarchist could easily turn this back on you: Do you really think, if you’ve successfully removed the state’s overbearing inclination towards self preservation, that you can really call it a state anymore? Surely after a certain point you’re just calling it such out of a desire to be separate.
Lenin addresses this directly. Historically states are means of oppression of the working class by the ruling class. We smash the state and create something ceases to be the same sort of state, but still is a state. For once the majority suppresses the minority that would wish to exploit. It is a very unique state, but it is still a state as such, for a state is a mechanism of class rule. When there are no longer classes there shall be no state.
This is tautological, a state is a mechanism of class rule and since it’s a mechanism of class rule, it’s a state.
Edit: My point here is that there’s more to the state than merely a mechanism of class rule, because plenty of mechanisms of class rule exist. The state is merely one obvious example.
The state is defined as the monopoly on violence. We agree, it seems.
Thank you for the explanation!
Most anarchists are communist. Communism is an end goal, anarchism and marxism/MLism/maoism/whatever are differences in strategy to reach that goal.
The shared end goal is one of the only sources of leftist unity, other than anti-fascism. Anarchists imagine a revolution that immediately jumps to a stateless society, and Marxists have concluded that it is necessary to seize state power to defeat the forces of reaction, and that the state can be dismantled only once imperialism and capitalism have been defeated on a global scale.
Confusingly, both groups are technically "communists"
I don't believe the state can ever be dismantled. Using that logic the current world shouldn't exist now, because our species arose in a stateless society.
If stateless humans fucked it up 10,000 years ago, they can do it under luxury gay space communism too
That is undialectical. All that exists shall cease to exist. States arose because agriculture enabled short term comfortability and population growth. Once the population was large enough it had to be organized some way. In a scarce world without sophisticated co-operative mechanisms it was natural for different classes to emerge, with some that controlled those resources. Then "history" as we know it was formed, driven by class struggle. This history has lead to increasing abundance from each mode of production to the next. Each mode drives the productive forces to a certain point until it becomes a hindrance. Today we have great abundance, but in the monopoly stage of capitalism we are prevented from sharing it or innovating even more. With socialism we can redistribute the abundance we have and figure out how to maintain abundance for all while healing the planet. There ceases to be class differences, as the ruling proletariat has lifted all the struggling people up to a reasonable level, and the past exploiters down. When there are no classes there is no state. When there is abundance there is no need for violence or oppression. There is still conflict, but there is no reason to believe we would "fuck it up again."
This assumes that noone is violent under conditions of abundance, which is false
There's every reason to believe that, because it's happened thousands of times over already. Human history started as roughly socialist tribes, who were intra-socialist, but inter-oppressive.
if you achieve utopian global abundance, and then dismantle the state that achieved it, it is certain that the world will devolve again into what it is now.
Even if everyone has their physical needs met, certain people want more power and control, and they'll figure out a way to "oppress their own people" to gain control of a larger amount of resources than the others, and then it's history.
keyword being maintain. You can't maintain this abundance while having no state
where did I say that? On the subject Lenin (in state and rev) says this:
spoiler
Again, there's a difference between a scarce world in which agriculture can produce new surpluses and create the possibility of private property, and one where scarcity has been surpassed.
Why? This is just the regular pessimistic overused human nature argument. Lenin also addresses the false claim that we seek to introduce Communism and abolish the state at one stroke. This is what the anarchists want to do, not us.
spoiler
From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.
Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive; as for the greatest socialists' forecast that it will arrive, it presupposes not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky's stories,[2] are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth "just for fun", and of demanding the impossible.
Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers.
The selfish defence of capitalism by the bourgeois ideologists (and their hangers-on, like the Tseretelis, Chernovs, and Co.) consists in that they substitute arguing and talk about the distant future for the vital and burning question of present-day politics, namely, the expropriation of the capitalists, the conversion of all citizens into workers and other employees of one huge “syndicate”--the whole state--and the complete subordination of the entire work of this syndicate to a genuinely democratic state, the state of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.
In fact, when a learned professor, followed by the philistine, followed in turn by the Tseretelis and Chernovs, talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind, which no one has ever promised or even thought to “introduce”, because, generally speaking, it cannot be “introduced”.
-VI Ulyanov, State and Revolution
Your issue is with the Anarchists, not the socialists. We do not seek to abolish the state, but to protractedly abolish classes resulting in the governing apparatus to be purely administrative and not a tool of oppression of anyone.
Your position is that once utopian abundance is achieved, that almost nobody will create conflict anymore bc they are satisfied by their material conditions--and that the few people who do, will be dealt with by the masses.
I reject that position, because such a self-interested individual can easily hide their motivations and trick the masses.
However, even if I were to accept your position that such a selfish individual is SOLELY the result of material conditions, and thus that they wouldn't even exist under socialism--your position still doesn't work because all it takes is a natural disaster for the system to be thrown out of whack.
Disturbances in weather can ONLY be absorbed properly if the entire system is managed by an authority--a state. Else it just devolves into what we have now. A tornado ruins the crop somewhere, now migration, now conflict, now inequality, and it's all downhill
In the presence of a state, this is a trivial-ass problem. You just take some extra from someone with a bumper crop. (Not being super highly populated also helps with this even more)
I never said I wasn't socialist. My issue was with this comment way up the chain:
I diverge from this because I don't think the state can ever be completely dismantled if you want a socialist system to continue. I think that a stateless society cannot be socialist forever. A state-run society could be.
You aren't listening. I never said anything would be dismantled. All I said is that once classes are gone it would cease to be a state. There will continue to be planning, governing, and an administative apparatus. There will just not need to be violence. Communism does not mean an end to authority.
Then there would be a state.
You don't understand the Marxist definition of a state. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/State Please read Lenin.
What am I missing here? You cannot "plan govern and administrate" a society if you do not have dominance over the society. Just because the state is benevolent and fair and maintains socialism doesn't mean it's not a state.
? It’s literally in the quote. A state is an apparatus of oppression by the ruling class. We want to be the ruling class, but our ultimate goal is the abolition of class society. When there are no classes there shall be no state. Administration and government can exist without a state.
Communism is when you play the bass boosted national anthrm in the middle of your 8th grade math class and nobody laugh
Anarchism is when you listen to weezer repeatedly and swear its ironic even after you purchase 2 copies of the blue album