The only real monkey wrench when it comes to cooperating are the Leninists. Demsocs, leftcoms, anarchists, and even succdems are usually more than happy to work with each other and not stab each other in the back.
To be fair, throughout history it has been common for the two general camps of Leftists, Marxists and Anarchists, to willingly join the other and convert. The biggest problem is that it isn’t a mere disagreement with means, but on ends as well.
Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning in a democratic world republic. This is “Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless” in the Marxist sense, but not the Anarchist.
Anarchists typically seek decentralized networks of mutual aid and cooperation, in a sort of spiderweb formation, a sort of “building the new out of the shell of the old.”
Left-Unity serves a vital role in aligning in similar interests and achieving broader goals, but at some point these conflicts in desire must be rectified in some manner.
I’m not arguing against Anarchism, I’d rather people read and decide for themselves what they believe is the best course.
I wouldn’t call central planning “Marxist”, it’s just better for many things. And Marxism is about trying to find the best solutions scientifically to the issue of capitalism. Namely a revolution and a restructuring of society by the workers “in their image”. And practice of attempting that and building that new society brought new innovations and ideas.
Also, the end goal for Marxists, like for all communists, is and should be a “stateless, moneyless, classless society”. Not in any “words mean different things” way. In a “there is no more class divisions, no more commodity production and capital, and no more state or hierarchical authority. Like anarchists want as well.
Lmao! For what it’s worth, I used to consider myself an Anarchist, so I’m familiar with common tenets like “Means-Ends Unity” enough to hopefully represent Anarchists faithfully.
My personal belief is that the more people that read theory of both the Marxist and Anarchist variety and actually put theory into practice, the more data points we can have, so to speak. Theory guides practice, which affirms or denies aspects of theory to allow modification of theory to be re-applied to new practice, in an endless spiral of repeated testing.
This is actually just straight up the Marxist conception of the Dialectical Theory of Knowledge. It’s sometimes dismissed as common sense, of course, but this sense isn’t so common. It’s extremely similar to the Scientific Method.
Yeah people, including myself, tend to forget that, before dialectics/etc were explicitly articulated in writing, such methodologies absolutely weren’t common sense. The concept of hypotheticals wasn’t even widely comprehended until the last couple centuries iirc
Yep! A super interesting look at how philosophy and ideas evolved over time is Prof. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy. It’s also in my linked reading guide for Marxism, as the third work recommended in the list.
Might as well get in on the action here with an intro reading list on Anarchism then :p
Feel free! People can pick one or read both.
“Are you a communist, too?” the kangaroo asked.
“No, I’m an anarchist!”
“Great”, the kangaroo said, “then we can be friends — until after the revolution…”
The only real monkey wrench when it comes to cooperating are the Leninists. Demsocs, leftcoms, anarchists, and even succdems are usually more than happy to work with each other and not stab each other in the back.
Until the revolution…
Left-SRs didn’t fight much with the Makhnovists.
Even the Mensheviks were pretty chill with the two abovementioned groups.
The sailors of Kronstadt even had all three among them.
The Bolsheviks shot all of them.
The anarchists of Spain got along quite well with the POUM (half-demsocs, half-Trots). The Stalinists shot them both.
To be fair, throughout history it has been common for the two general camps of Leftists, Marxists and Anarchists, to willingly join the other and convert. The biggest problem is that it isn’t a mere disagreement with means, but on ends as well.
Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning in a democratic world republic. This is “Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless” in the Marxist sense, but not the Anarchist.
Anarchists typically seek decentralized networks of mutual aid and cooperation, in a sort of spiderweb formation, a sort of “building the new out of the shell of the old.”
Left-Unity serves a vital role in aligning in similar interests and achieving broader goals, but at some point these conflicts in desire must be rectified in some manner.
I’m not arguing against Anarchism, I’d rather people read and decide for themselves what they believe is the best course.
I wouldn’t call central planning “Marxist”, it’s just better for many things. And Marxism is about trying to find the best solutions scientifically to the issue of capitalism. Namely a revolution and a restructuring of society by the workers “in their image”. And practice of attempting that and building that new society brought new innovations and ideas.
Also, the end goal for Marxists, like for all communists, is and should be a “stateless, moneyless, classless society”. Not in any “words mean different things” way. In a “there is no more class divisions, no more commodity production and capital, and no more state or hierarchical authority. Like anarchists want as well.
You addressed this so neutrally that my bias took over and I assumed you were arguing in favor of anarchism lol
Lmao! For what it’s worth, I used to consider myself an Anarchist, so I’m familiar with common tenets like “Means-Ends Unity” enough to hopefully represent Anarchists faithfully.
My personal belief is that the more people that read theory of both the Marxist and Anarchist variety and actually put theory into practice, the more data points we can have, so to speak. Theory guides practice, which affirms or denies aspects of theory to allow modification of theory to be re-applied to new practice, in an endless spiral of repeated testing.
This is actually just straight up the Marxist conception of the Dialectical Theory of Knowledge. It’s sometimes dismissed as common sense, of course, but this sense isn’t so common. It’s extremely similar to the Scientific Method.
Yeah people, including myself, tend to forget that, before dialectics/etc were explicitly articulated in writing, such methodologies absolutely weren’t common sense. The concept of hypotheticals wasn’t even widely comprehended until the last couple centuries iirc
Yep! A super interesting look at how philosophy and ideas evolved over time is Prof. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy. It’s also in my linked reading guide for Marxism, as the third work recommended in the list.