I read it as such. You can't be a good anarchist without knowing the basics of Marxism, and you can't be an effective communist in the imperial core if you don't understand anarchist praxis. I love my anarchist comrades and will defend them against fellow MLs mistaking V*ush fans on reddit for anarchists any day. Communist anti-anarchism and anarchist anti-communism are equally cringe, both only serve our common enemies, and we have all of our actual enemies in common.
Oversimplified, I know, but I've always felt like the state could only "wither away" when their were no more hierarchies to enforce. People in both camps get really mad at me when I say this, but the end goal of all of us is pretty much the same. Well, except for "post-left" anarchists, but we don't talk about them.
I also feel that decentralized methods of organizing just work better in the imperial core. I see from countless historical examples in the periphery that nothing beats a well-organized party, it's the most powerful revolutionary tool there is. But that also means that in the imperial core, were the Bourgeoisklasse is most aware of dissent, where it takes the most effort in pruning and manicuring the electoral system and the party system, such a party would be stamped out at the first opportunity, and this would be a moment where its centralized nature becomes a glaring weakness, as feds successfully infiltrating a centralistic party that is beginning to untite the entire left of a country can do much more damage than feds successfully infiltrating one highly specific local org that has no say over the rest of the left.
On top of that, i don't think a Union of Amerikan Soviet Republics or a Socialist European Union should take the lead in building international communism. These places have already done too much damage trying to change the world. That role belongs the the Communist Party of China, or other communist parties from the periphery.
I read it as such. You can't be a good anarchist without knowing the basics of Marxism, and you can't be an effective communist in the imperial core if you don't understand anarchist praxis. I love my anarchist comrades and will defend them against fellow MLs mistaking V*ush fans on reddit for anarchists any day. Communist anti-anarchism and anarchist anti-communism are equally cringe, both only serve our common enemies, and we have all of our actual enemies in common.
Oversimplified, I know, but I've always felt like the state could only "wither away" when their were no more hierarchies to enforce. People in both camps get really mad at me when I say this, but the end goal of all of us is pretty much the same. Well, except for "post-left" anarchists, but we don't talk about them.
I also feel that decentralized methods of organizing just work better in the imperial core. I see from countless historical examples in the periphery that nothing beats a well-organized party, it's the most powerful revolutionary tool there is. But that also means that in the imperial core, were the Bourgeoisklasse is most aware of dissent, where it takes the most effort in pruning and manicuring the electoral system and the party system, such a party would be stamped out at the first opportunity, and this would be a moment where its centralized nature becomes a glaring weakness, as feds successfully infiltrating a centralistic party that is beginning to untite the entire left of a country can do much more damage than feds successfully infiltrating one highly specific local org that has no say over the rest of the left.
On top of that, i don't think a Union of Amerikan Soviet Republics or a Socialist European Union should take the lead in building international communism. These places have already done too much damage trying to change the world. That role belongs the the Communist Party of China, or other communist parties from the periphery.
i've been trying and failing to put this clearly so thanks :left-unity-4: