[crossposted from c/anarchism]

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.

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.
  • In Mexico, the Zapatistas currently control a sizeable territory, 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:

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    I think there's an enduring conflation between Anarchy and Chaos, wherein Anarchists are simply people who reject organization and loathe the idea of division-of-labor or specialized expertise.

    I also see a lot of Libertarians and AnCaps and Free Market Weirdos adopt the pastiche of anarchism, because it looks cooler than the No Step On Snek flag and Neo-Confederate flare, in their neighborhood full of liberal yuppies.

    People who present as Anarchist - particularly in the United States - can be a lot of things IRL that I probably don't want to associate with. On the flip side, there are more serious Anarchists who are incredibly cool, intelligent, organized, and involved in their communities. It's just hard to pick them out on the internet, because they aren't chronically online as much as the PCM loser types.

    • Dyno [he/him]
      hexagon
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      I feel often that this is the source of many people's problems - for me, these 'aesthetic anarchists' are not even worth discussing - maybe they will truly join the foray eventually, maybe they won't - it doesn't matter.
      I don't consider people that larp as Stalin and send their friends to the gulag, or random folk that spray hammers and sickles on walls to be representative of Marxist-Leninism, that would be disingenuous.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 years ago

        for me, these ‘aesthetic anarchists’ are not even worth discussing

        Ideologically, sure. But they're like sugar in your gas tank. Any conversation about anarchism inevitably has Murray Rothbard gumming up the works.

        I don’t consider people that larp as Stalin and send their friends to the gulag, or random folk that spray hammers and sickles on walls to be representative of Marxist-Leninism, that would be disingenuous.

        The US doesn't have a rich movement of LARPer Stalinists that ran around in the upper echelons of DC influencing public policy and Beltway media. Right-Libs, on the other hand, really did hijack anarchism as an idea and turn it into some bizarro neo-confederate spin on Coolidge capitalism.

        American Anarchism is when you scream "I do what I want!" at the big mean liberal fun policeman telling you to snort less cocaine, save the whales, and be nice to black people.

        • Rodentsteak [he/him]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          Any conversation about anarchism inevitably has Murray Rothbard gumming up the works.

          No it bloody well doesn't, for the same reason that when we discuss Marxism anyone who brings up Otto Strasser is quiclky told to shut his gob.

          • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I see "Actually it's national SOCIALISM!" brought up constantly. Not on this sub, obviously, but anywhere leftists aren't exclusive to the conversation.

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

            You're missing his point. There are people in the US that think of themselves as anarchist, or are seen as anarchist by the media and the general population, that any anarchist here would never associate with. That isn't really the case with MLs and tankies beyond Republican TV ads calling people dirty commies. Otto Strasser is a non-existent type of person in America.

            Obviously you can and should reject these people, but you also have to recognize that they are part of the reason that anarchism is one of the most misunderstood ideologies on the planet. The better you understand them, the better you can educate people as to why they're wrong.

    • Rodentsteak [he/him]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      Anarchists are simply people who reject organization and loathe the idea of division-of-labor or specialized expertise.

      I have never, ever, heard of anarchists rejecting the idea of expertise.

      • sysgen [none/use name,they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        “Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests.”

        -Mikhail Bakunin