I don't mean to call anyone out - I despise conflict, especially of the sectarian variety.
I wrote the following in response to someone's assertion that all anarchism is, amounts solely to fighting in the streets, but it is a more general response to how I feel about the community in general - vis-a-vis Marxist-Leninists in particular. Since this comm. is fairly quiet, I figured I'd put it here as I spent a lot of time writing it and it would be a shame if no one saw it. 😑

I am becoming more and more convinced that the ML crowds that are the loudest proponents of 'read history' and 'read theory' do absolutely neither.
Anarchism is one of the prestige forms of socialism - it was half of the First International, and, just like Marxism, was disseminated and adopted throughout the world during the 19th and 20th centuries.

  • Even during Marx's time, one of the most informative experiences of the era was that of the Paris Commune - heavily contributed to by anarchists.
  • The Russian revolution was not undertaken solely by a cadre of intellectual vanguardists - it was facilitated by the formation of the proletariat and peasantry into trade unions, factory committees and worker's soviets - at this time, Lenin et al weren't even in the country due to exile.
  • Even Lenin on his deathbed spoke of 'witnessing the resurrection of the tsarist bureaucracy to which the Bolsheviks had only given a Soviet veneer'; after the civil war rejecting the popular demand for socialism via worker-control and disbanding organisations like parties, committees and soviets - not to mention utilising force when necessary such as at Kronstadt. This is not a blunt stab at the Bolsheviks - it is important to note the Marxist Contradiction: That the Bolshevik state was established to achieve socialism and to represent the interests of the proletariat - yet, at the opportunistic post-Civil War moment to do so, they declined, instead favouring the opposite.
  • Mao himself read anarchist theory and was inspired by it - beyond being a passing interest as a young man, it likely fed the basis of his later departures from Marxist-Leninism and criticisms of state bureaucracy.
  • In Korea, anarchists established the Korean People's Association - an autonomous confederation of 2 million people, operating on a mutual aid based economy.
  • It would be folly to discount entirely the efforts of the Spanish anarchists in establishing 'actually existing socialism' in Catalonia and Andalusia - money was abolished, productivity increased, and thousands took up arms in horizontal armies to fight the fascists. Putting aside issues of ideological supremacy, these are real, material impacts that in some cases have lasting effects - even today the municipality of Marinaleda maintains a system of mutual aid, collective ownership and autonomy.
  • In Cuba, anarchists lent their support to the revolution wholeheartedly - joining the guerilla groups fighting Batista directly.
  • Edit: Of course, how could I forget the Zapatistas? They currently control a sizeable territory in Mexico, and have been directly addressing the needs of their largely rural and underprivileged citizens for over 25 years.
    etc.

In many of these cases, anarchists have repeatedly facilitated revolution, and even established instances of real, tangible socialism. That they did not survive suppression and encirclement is not proof of their lack of capacity for success - if such a thing was true, the Soviet Union would never have been established (on the basis of historical revolutionary suppression and exile) nor should there be Marxist-Leninists left now that it has been dismantled.

The assertion that anarchist movements are prone to corruption and co-option by reactionaries is also flawed - the same applies to Marxist-Leninist parties too. There is no shortage of ML parties in various countries extolling reactionary views today, and the conditions that led to the dismantling of the USSR can be seen as exactly this phenomenon - the undermining of public trust in the party by propaganda and the infiltration of the party itself by opportunists and yes-men for the purpose of usurping it.
How can Marxist-Leninists say with confidence that their method is the only scientific application of Marxism; lambasting others for their perceived vulnerabilities to Western capital; when not even their prestige test-case itself was immune? How can we be expected to fall in line with the logic "The Marxist-Leninist state was undermined and dismantled. The solution is Marxist-Leninism."

Finally, why is it that calls for 'Left Unity' apply solely to Marxist-Leninism - that we should overlook our differences in their favour in the interest of the bigger picture, yet you will find nothing in kind from them?
I have spent years carrying water for ML ideologies - for the USSR, for China, etc. - against my personal beliefs and better judgment in the interest of internationalism and anti-imperialism. The least I expect, is to be treated like a communistic equal, fighting in the same struggle. Instead, our communities are filled with Marxist-Leninists quotebombing dissenters with Lenin and stamping on anarchists at every possible opportunity - only occasionally moderating themselves with a token "I have many anarchist friends, but..." or "I support left unity, but..."

Put aside your wretched egos for once in your lives. Consider the fundamentals of our theory and praxis - that material conditions around the world and throughout history are not uniform. There may indeed be cases where Marxist-Leninism is the most effective - I claim that in earnest.
Will you be able to acknowledge the possibility of cases where anarchism is the most viable? Especially when anarchism spans such a range of approaches and theories - from syndicalism to mutualism to synthesism.
You need to be aware, that for many people, the barrier to the adoption of Marxist-Leninism is not simply the influence of Western propaganda, or the the lack of 'reading theory' - it is our diametric opposition to hierarchy in any form. That does not preclude our contributions to your causes - it means that they are done voluntarily.

The truest demonstration of Left Unity for me, will be when I don't feel like an outsider, as a communist within the communist community.
:left-unity-2:

  • Dyno [he/him]
    hexagon
    M
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    Zoe Baker had an excellent point in a recent podcast:

    So, I think there is a problem within the Left, which you might call 'Left Wing Conservativism", which essentially is: they relate to historic socialist literature the way that a lot of religious fundamentalists do to religious texts - which is, rule 1 is you don't actually read the text, you just pretend to, but then rule 2 is that there's some kind of authority figure who will decode the text for you and tell you its true meaning, and then you attack other people for not subscribing to the 'correct' interpretation as established by, say, the leader of the central committee, and what this results in is this vulgar Marxism where they're not grappling with Marx and understanding him, but also where they're not doing what a good Marxist should do, which is, you analyse the contemporary social situation, you develop an in-depth understanding of the processes by which it operates, and then work out a way in which you as a political group can intervene in order to push the class struggle forward, building on the already on-going class struggle that's occurring in response to these systems of oppression.

    I think there's a need to 'read the classics', and actually read them - not just pretend to - or skim the Communist Manifesto and then interpret it through how your party's told you to understand it. [...]
    We have to go beyond and do what they did for their time (Luxemburg, Malatesta, Marx) for our time, and we have to continue the thing that they began but not merely repeat them.

    • NeoAnabaptist [any]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      I resonate with this so much. Like, Capital is fascinating! It's an incredibly important piece of theory that really helps crack open the way you see political economy.

      But if someone pulled it out at a meeting and said, "I think we should focus our resources on the wage campaign instead of the housing campaign, because in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of Capital Marx points out that..." I'd have a hard time taking them seriously. It's like quoting a Bible verse or something, and I think it's the complete wrong approach to theory.

      There's also confusion around the blurry line between the political theorizing of the day and the political pamphleteering of the day .

    • kleeon [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      damn, I really like Zoe. I've been watching her since probably 2013 and her takes are consistently good