I've read the sentence about anarchists ten times and I have no idea WTF he is on about. Btw the nerd's name is Peter Hudis.
Edit: FFS Tankies and anarchists stop shitting on each other here. Take your struggle session elsewhere. You're both my comrades.
The sentence about anarchists is a pretty standard Marxist critique of anarchists. E.g. where is the successful anarchist revolution? How can anarchist praxis take on capitalism systemically and internationally?
We're still in the waiting room of history. The question of "socialism or barbarism" could go either way. The Marxist-Leninists, Social Democrats and Anarchists did not definitively answered that question. It's hard to look at the end of the 20th century and not see it as a defeat of the left.
There's points of light in the 21st century, but the struggle is uphill. It is unclear if China or any other project/formation will being able to move past the capitalist mode of production and capitalist social relations globally. That sucks, but it's truth.
This may be true but you are being a bit generous in assuming thats all the writter is saying.
Both using the narrative of "revolutionary 19th and early 20th century socialism were TAKEN OVER by Stalinism and Marxism Lenninsm " with negative connotations, pointing to it as a/the reason for the defeat and as a mistake nontheless and taking the positions of "non of them succeeded in representing a viable alternative and all degraded into capitalism" are positions less nuanced and neutral historicaly compared to the ones you describe
Please no pooping on anarchists here
Idk much about this but apparently the Chinese revolution included a strong current of anarchism? I feel like the whole ideas of decentralization, horizontal/nonhierarchical organizing, dual systems of power, etc make a lot of sense in the context of peasants taking the lead in the revolution as opposed to the proletariat. And I think there was generally an attitude of cooperation because the reactionary nationalists and liberals and so on had to be defeated.
Seems like we should learn from that. But again idk much there historically speaking so maybe someone could post some recommendations.
Yeah, and Mao studied the anarchists. It shows up in ideas like mass line, some of the pluralistic political bodies the CPC experimented with in the early years, and especially the great proletarian cultural revolution.
I know it's popular to shit of the GPCR and it was, for sure, a fucking mess, but it tried to put into practice things everyone here would support: the city as a classroom, practical education, worker self management, and more. A lot of those were probably directly related to anarchist ideas present in the progressive milieu that supported the revolution.
I'm not. I was stating what the author's point probably was.
Every squat, every FNB, every bubble of anarchy that exists, whether for days or years, is a successful anarchist revolution. You have different measures of success.
That's just reducing the word "revolution" to nothing. Those structures just exists (temporarily) within capitalism.
Those structures provide alternatives within capitalism, just as China or literally every ML led state provides an alternative within capitalism.
deleted by creator
They're not equivalent. They are both successful in their own categories.
deleted by creator
Sure, i don't doubt that. I acknowledge what they have done up until now, what i wrote wasn't a value judgment either (or at least i didn't intend it as one, if it came across like that, sorry). I just wanted to show that the two ideologies have different (valid imo) standards of success, that, if projected over each other, always lead to sectarian dick measuring contests. Marxists want a robust state in order to protect themselves for prolonged periods. Anarchists, obviously, don't want that, they want the people to be able to protect themselves autonomously and whatnot. Both standards have their own successes, for Marxists it's China, for anarchists it's Exarcheia, it's community centers in Chile, it's long running mutual aid programs in the US.
deleted by creator
Do it.
deleted by creator
You fell for my trap reported for sectarianism
JK.
"Carving out little enclaves of personal freedom" is way underselling it. It's about creating spaces where notions of capitalism are rejected that, if spread, can subvert capitalist institutes as happened multiple times throughout history. In Greece anarchists are clashing with the state for decades. At the end of the 90's/start of the 00's anarchists were at the forefront of the antiglobalist movement.
It's no use comparing third world liberation movements with first world anarchist ones, since the former a lot of times had state backing, while anarchists - especially in the first world - don't. Anticolonial struggles have much bigger backing regardless of ideology.
deleted by creator
It's not just popular in the imperial core, South America is full of anarchists.
deleted by creator
I dont know if Greece isnt a proper example. Despite doing some good work and having greater numbers per capita compared to other countries anarchist clashes and spaces in Greece have neither spread nor subverted any capitalist institutions to any meaningful degree .Their movement and their spaces and projects arent viewed positively by even 0.5% of the Greek population by this point and for decades plus now. Didnt get any boost from the complete colapse of the economy and institutions and at almost any aspect of political organizing and action they are often matched or outpaced in scale or success by combinations of secondary communist and socialist parties , the youth wing of one of the most ossified ML parties on the planet and let alone the party itself . Especialy in Unionism/syndicalism and in anything oustide the 2 Major cities (Athina, Thessaloniki) they are close to nonexistant. They were in the forefront of leftist anti-status quo dissent in the mid to late 90s a but that was mostly a result of the communist movement emerging in the mid-late 70s from 30+ years of state killings, purges,exiles and illegal status comparable to Latam or eastasian nations, having an OK decade and then meeting both the fall of the ussr and a couple of horrible decisions . But anarchists never politicaly capitalized on that beyond solidifying a hold on preexisting enclaves and in niche music and art scenes because of rampant anti-organizationalism beyond street clashes at the time and propaganda of the deed dumbasses everywhere giving a chance for public opinion to rapidly turn against them . I have a lot of friends and even relatives that went through that period both both in the anacrhist and communist left and a lot that still organize in various places
"If spread"
While I certainly agree with the principle of these spaces and am supportive of anarchist projects as I am socialist ones, I simply cannot see an anarchist movement fomenting revolution in the imperial core. The state would exterminate such a movement long before ever even considering accepting it in any way. The level of collective organization needed to oppose the state in this scenario would go far beyond what anarchists have ever executed, and even that may not be enough.
I think anarchist spaces are important and can make an immediate difference for individuals benefiting from them, which is huge and actual praxis, but I simply cannot see it as a tool for revolution unless it was part of some sort of united left front.
They are facing the same kind of oppression as any kind of leftist movement. The FBI went and straight up murdered Fred Hampton. Everyone is vulnerable.
Absolutely, that's why I think collaboration between leftists would be key in any sort of succesful western left movement, not that this guarantees safety from the state in any way. I think there is a lot of strategic potential in collaborating that we tend to overlook due to disagreements on theory of the state.
I like this. The transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries in Europe and the two modes of production lived side by side in various proportions and forms that whole time. Creating those spaces you describe to me actually feels like like buds of socialism developing within the capitalist mode of production.
Compared to the end of the 19th century where the entire world has been almost completely colonized by Europe and the US, the end of the 20th century is paradise. 1990s India, with all its problems, is orders of magnitude better than 1890s India where the UK was free to starve millions of Indians to death. 1990s China was better than 1890s China where millions of Chinese were transformed by the UK into junkies. 1990s Zaire, despite being ruled by some Western-backed dictator, was better than 1890s Congo Free State where millions of Congolian hands were paid as tribute to Leopold. I could go on and on.
Yes, the 1990s was a low point compared with the 1950s and 1960s, but the path towards the end of exploitation and class society is not smooth. There's going to be setbacks and retreats. One must not be coy about the achievements of socialism while completely dismissing the socialist project with the appearance of a single setback.