- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
I agree that anarchists are often conceited, but do we really have to take the exact opposite position to them, and decree that because an oppressive proletarian State is in the interest of the proletariat, that we should not try and dissolve the state at all? Is limiting ourselves to the short-term desires of the proletarian class, not even considering what kind of class structures that could form in the future, really the best way forward?
This reads a strange form of vulgar Marxism to me, a kind of reaction to the idea of anarchism that arises when you criticize it from gut opposition at their “arrogance” rather than the actual issues with it. I’m not saying the article is actually saying this, but what it is saying is dangerously compatible with such a viewpoint.
I am a Marxist because I believe that the struggle of the proletariat has the greatest chance to end the constant class struggle of human society, not because I think that the state is a necessary or even remotely “ok” methods of human organization. It is only justifiable as a form of self-defense for the proletariat (which the dictatorship of the proletariat should fundamentally be viewed as). Anything more than that isn’t just bad from some abstract moral opinion, but because it’s completely pointless to the revolutionary struggle.
Marx was very clear regarding the fact that a proletarian state under the dictatorship of the proletariat would be necessary to replace the existing capitalist state. Marxist idea is not that the state can be dissolved spontaneously, but rather that the state withers away as society internalizes new socialist relations. It’s also quite obviously not possible to do away with the state while capitalism is the dominant ideology in the world and capitalist states actively work to destroy socialist ones.
But that is what I am saying.
The article seems to miss the fact that the ultimate point of instating a dictatorship of the proletariat is to protect the creation of a mode of production that doesn’t need a State at all.
If the Anarchist says they are against the existence of the State, then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production. The flaw of anarchist ideology seems to be this idea that the State is not justifiable even if it’s purpose is to destroy itself, which seems like a simple example of not reading about the tolerance paradox to me.
The arguments in the article just seem inefficient.
The article focuses on the immediate task of organizing the working class to carry out a revolution. That’s a pretty important context that you’re ignoring. In order for a socialist state to wither away, it actually has to be created first. That’s the task the article is discussing, and that’s the task before the western left today. Only after a socialist state has been established is there any point to discuss how it will evolve and whether it will wither away.
That’s not how convincing people works, though. Their concern might be silly in the short term but telling them it’s stupid is going to get people rightfully angry at you
When you point out that the goal is to have the state wither away, it’s a lot easier to convince someone to side with you then just going “states good actually 4head”
My experience is that focusing on convincing anarchists of anything is a waste of time. Anarchists are difficult to convince because they’ve already formed strongly held beliefs, and they’re typically actively antagonistic towards communists. Meanwhile, both anarchists and communists combined represent a tiny fraction of the population.
The real focus should be on convincing people in the mainstream who are becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system, but haven’t yet formed strong political opinions. These people are much easier to convince and there are a lot more of them. This is the demographic that the messaging needs to be tailored to.
What Gramsci argues might not be terribly helpful for convincing anarchists, but it is a useful argument to explain why communist approach is the one that can achieve tangible results to people who haven’t yet formed strong opinions of their own.
I think, as with most things, you have to know your audience. I find a lot of anarchist, especially those who are new to anti-capitalist ways of thinking can certainly have it explained to them and convinced.
Sure, that’s an important point as well. It’s always important to recognize where the person you’re talking with at and to tailor the messaging accordingly. I’m mainly just cautioning against spending a lot of time on trying to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. It’s easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with them endlessly while that time can be spent better talking to people who are actually receptive to what you’re saying.
In my experience, young anarchists in person can be reasoned with, but if you’re a full on adult and still believe in anarchism, you’re probably too far gone.
pretty much yeah
If the Anarchist says they are against the existence of the State, then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production.
They don’t want what we want. We want a highly efficient, industrialized, centrally administered society, but without “special bodies of armed men” and without class oppression.
I want bullet trains, I don’t want to barter for dubious insulin.
I want bullet trains
The first word, I, is wrong, when the preceeding sentence is we. Why is a fast train preferred over a slow train, why the rush? Ask your average sporty cyclist, above 16kph(10mph) the effort needed to maintain speed or accelerate increases exponentially due to wind resistance. Same for any vehicle, land, sea, air. On whose clock are you running? The capitalist clock where time is money and money is time?
What you want and what society needs may be in contradiction. Who decides what society needs? Popular vote, majority rule, experts, politicans, scientists, … everyone?
We most definitely do not need fast trains, planes, or automobiles. The reason they are available is because they are profitable to someone(s).
The world better slow down or it is burning itself up
Hold on. Fuck you. You skipped the meat of the comment to snip at my use of “I” in the end.
Argue against the argument or fuck off.
you have spoken like a true “communist” … ??
And what the fuck have you spoken like? Does dithering about my use of “I” make you a true idealist?
I love this line:
The bourgeois will become an anarchist again after the proletarian revolution: he will once again become aware of the existence of a State; of the existence of laws foreign to his will, hostile to his interests, to his habits, to his freedom. He will realize that “State” is synonymous with “compulsion” because the workers’ State will take away the bourgeoisie’s freedom to exploit the proletariat, because the workers’ State will be the bulwark of a new mode of production which, as it develops, will destroy every trace of capitalist ownership and any possibility of its revival.
This is exactly the crux of the failure of ideological “Freedom Now” maximalism. That maximalist freedom they want includes the freedom to exploit and take away the freedom of others. The paradox that needs to be accepted and synthesised is that Freedom necessarily must be imposed at this stage.
Precisely, without the dictatorship of the proletariat there is no path towards stopping exploitation.
