/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(8.77 KB 228x221 IMG_20200404_002238.jpg)
Libertarian marxist? Comrade 04/06/2020 (Mon) 13:08:36 No. 433
I'm not sure sure where I sit on the left exactly because i am very sympathetic to alot of ansyn and mutualist anarchist models and also strongly center my belifes around the labor theory of value but I don't belive in the dissolution of the state but instead the state only existing as a democratic and transparent beuracratic entity that can mediate between potential disputes between communes and plan for projects that would involve multiple communes coperation Would it be apt to refer to this as libertarian Marxism?
>>433 I am in the same boat as you, comrade. Look into Marxist Humanism. Lukacs History and Class Consciousness is a good place to start.
>>436 Yeah, sounds like your a Libertarian Marxist/LeftCom to me bro.
>>441 >Libertarian Marxist/Leftcom Stop that! >>433 Libertarianism is incompatible with Marxism and with the concept of revolution. Sorry. Read Engels. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
>>445 How many times are you going to post this retarded ancap tier shitpost?
>>441 >cockshott is leftcom now lol
>>446 >Engels >Retarded ancap tier shitpost ????????????????
>>459 Can you please take this brain cancer back to reddit? We are here to educate ourselves, not to become even more stupid by reading your brain damaged delusions. >>460 Yes.
>>464 This. How is the concept of a marxist that isn't a full blown stalinist some how a contradiction? From my understanding marx was envisioning something kinda of like the paris commune.
>>445 >Read Engels. >https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm Have you read it? That text is compatible with Libertarian Marxism. He talks about authority inherent in technological artifacts and machinery, which is a fact. If a machine has to run 24 or 48 hours or more (stuff like lab experiments do, for example), then the people running the machine have to adjust their schedules to the machine, they can't just pause it when they have to sleep or eat. Habermas talks a lot about this "authoritarianism" inherent in machines. >combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. Jacques Ellul talks about this in his Actor-Network Theory, where technical artifacts replace action or autonomy of the individual (i.e. a traffic light tells you when to stop and go). Ellul is a "Christian anarchist", a libertarian then. >Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. Anarchists are not opposed to having competent, skilled and experienced people in leadership positions and they are certainly not opposed to making decisions in a democratic way, like voting. >Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel. Here, he is making the argument that machinery and industry necessitate an "authoritarian" arrangement, which again both Habermas and Ellul have made in the past. Engels is not talking about organisation of society outside of industry, he is talking about organising the productive forces, and yes, no anarchist is going to tell you that you can run an electrical power plant by people just showing up when they want and doing what they want. >But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one. Again, nothing new. Pirates had a Captain and a Quartermaster. The crew elected the QM and he had the same level of authority as the captain and could challenge him on decisions, except in battle, when the captain had to be obeyed. Again, this is not incompatible with Libertarian socialist thinking. And here is Engels saying that in matters other than production the State will play a custodial role snd ensure that people's needs are met while they do what they want to do. >All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. Engels is the wrong person to quote to defend "authoritarianism", lol. You know he had two girlfriends, right? He's the one who talked about complete transformation of society and people doing whatever the fuck they want once socialism arrives. You just read this quote somewhere: "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means", saw where it was sourced and without reading or understanding the source text you come here, link it and tell people to "Read Engels". Hit the books, kid, stop letting bitter MLs educate you on discord.
>>464 >take your brain cancer back to reddit lolk >become even more stupid by reading your brain damaged delusions I literally linked a text by Engels... Do you think he was brain damaged or delusional? >>466 >full blown stalinism If you actually read the text you'll see why this is a strawman of the position I'm advocating >From my understanding marx was envisioning something kinda of like the paris commune. Yes, which was about as authoritarian as you can get. >>468 >Have you read it? Yes >That text is compatible with Libertarian Marxism. No. Libertarian Marxism is an oxymoron. It's important to note that Marx and Engels do appeal to freedom as a normative value, in fact it is the only normative value they make a habit of appealing to, but this doesn't mean Marxism is compatible with "libertarianism" We can only bring about a free society through the liquidation of the ruling class. This is an unequivocally authoritarian act. >He talks about authority inherent in technological artifacts and machinery, which is a fact. If a machine has to run 24 or 48 hours or more (stuff like lab experiments do, for example), then the people running the machine have to adjust their schedules to the machine, they can't just pause it when they have to sleep or eat. Habermas talks a lot about this "authoritarianism" inherent in machines. The question to ask is "who's authority?" Marxists are opposed to the authority of the bourgeoisie and seek to establish a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. Dictatorship is not just a cheeky turn of phrase. The bourgeois state and it's instruments of class domination must be crushed, and to do this the proletariat needs to erect it's own organs of class domination. It's own instruments of authority with which it can enact it's will upon society. When Engels criticizes the authoritarianism of capital, he is not criticizing authority in general. He is criticizing bourgeois authority. The Marxist position is not an endorsement of the dissolution of authority in general. It is not libertarian although it's chief aim is the creation of a free society. There is a reason that Marx opposed the anarchists of his day. >Hit the books, kid, stop letting bitter MLs educate you on discord. I don't use discord and I'm not an ML. Why do you think I began my post by objecting to the conflation of left communism with libertarian marxism? Because left communism is the only genuinely Marxist position, and it is unequivocally OPPOSED to anarchism and libertarianism.
>>472 >No. Libertarian Marxism is an oxymoron. Yes, just like "anarcho-communism" is, right? This isn't a place for right-wing word games. >The question to ask is "who's authority?" >>"authoritarianism" inherent in machines. A physical artifact has its own physical constraints and its own logic according to which it functions. You cannot force a nuclear reactor to "take a break" when you need to take a shit. I guess you'd be under the authority of the person who built the machine, because they built it a certain way to carry out a certain purpose. In the 19th century a lot of machines were built in such a way that only children could perform some of the duties/functions around it. Is that the authority of society where child labour is allowed or is it the authority of the machine designer/builder who doesn't give a fuck about children working? That's a separate discussion, the result is the same -- people have to subject themselves to the technical aspects of the machine. >and to do this the proletariat needs to erect it's own organs of class domination. It's own instruments of authority with which it can enact it's will upon society. Anarchists in Catalonia did this. <"The courts of law were supplanted by revolutionary tribunals, which dispensed justice in their own way. 'Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself,' declared Juan Garcia Oliver, a leading Anarchist who became minister of justice in November 1936. 'Some used to call this "taking a person for a ride," [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of regular judicial bodies.'"[7] This distinction no doubt escaped the thousands of people who were murdered because they happened to have political or religious beliefs that the Anarchists did not agree with. "'We do not wish to deny,' avowed Diego Abad de Santillan, a prominent Anarchist in the region of Catalonia, 'that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction.'"[8] https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm (anti-left piece, btw) Historically, even anarchists understood the need for "class domination" and I don't know why you're here saying it as if it were something new or unknown to most posters on this board? I don't think a leftists exists that doesn't think we "must destroy the bourgeoisie as a class", and I think even less leftists think that the bourgeoisie will dissolve itself willingly. >The Marxist position is not an endorsement of the dissolution of authority in general. That's not a libertarian position either, unless you're some hard-core individualist. >It is not libertarian although it's chief aim is the creation of a free society. No one said it is libertarian, the argument was that libertarians could also be Marxists, which you haven't refuted yet. >Why do you think I began my post by objecting to the conflation of left communism with libertarian marxism? Because you don't seem to understand either. I think you were too quick to form a dichotomy where none exists and jump to a side you can defend. Libertarian Marxism isn't an ideology or a theory in and of itself, it is more of an umbrella term to describe different communist tendencies, of which left communism is a part, along with council communism and others. It is more beneficial to find ways in which different leftist theories are similar, in hopes of bridging the divide and uniting against capital.
>>472 I was talking about your epic meme. But yes, just because it was written by your prophet does not mean that it cannot be trash. Even people with a good track record sometimes write utter garbage and you shouldn't try to pretend otherwise just because you are all lovely-dovely about this guy. Grow a spine.
>>479 Literally what meme? I said... >Libertarianism is incompatible with Marxism If you read the rest of >>475 you will see that I don't agree with Engels take here just because he is Engels, I provided an argument for why it is correct. You have provided no arguments.
>>480 oh wait not >>475 I meant >>472
>>475 >Yes, just like "anarcho-communism" is, right? This isn't a place for right-wing word games. There is nothing right wing about this, and it isn't a word game. Libertarian socialism is counterproductive, anti-communist, anti-marxist, and counterrevolutionary. There are two counterexamples or places where Libertarian Socialism had an overall positive impact and those are Chiapas and Catalonia, but everywhere else in history it has only undermined and divided the communist movement. They have produced some good literature, but if you soberly consider the impact of Libertarian Socialism on the course of the communist movement there is no reasonable conclusion to draw other than that it is counterrevolutionary. >The Nechayev Affair >The breakup of the first international >Defenders of Kronstadt >Crimes of the Ukrainian Free territory >Muke The most damning evidence that contemporary Libertarian Socialism is counterproductive bullshit can be found by reading the signers of this letter begging the US state department to continue it's military intervention in Syria https://www.defendrojava.org/open-letter >I guess you'd be under the authority of the person who built the machine, because they built it a certain way to carry out a certain purpose. Bingo, and specifically what class incentives lead them to build it. Where they employed by capital or where they part of a workers movement. >That's a separate discussion, the result is the same -- people have to subject themselves to the technical aspects of the machine. What does this have to do with libertarian socialism? >Anarchists in Catalonia did this. Yeah I agree. Catalonia was pretty based. The reason that they where based is that, like you said, they understood the need for class domination. They literally had forced labor camps. How you can continue to call your movement libertarian after that is beyond me, but I won't fault them for it. They probably came the furthest out of any genuine communist revolution in history. >It is more beneficial to find ways in which different leftist theories are similar, in hopes of bridging the divide and uniting against capital. No, it is most beneficial to look at reality clearly. That doesn't mean we can't work together, but I am not going to tell you lies. I regularly organize with members of the IWW and other anarchists, but I am completely open about how retarded I think their ideology is.
>>482 the only revolutions i see that had anything close to the society that i think that leftists should work towards is those that have been done by libertarian socialist types (cuba being an exception but that seems quite rare) i cannot help but see the many flaws that democratic centralism presents and i hardly believe you could convince many people to stand up in revolution for a cause that would not allow them the ability to vote in any substantial way.
>>483 >the only revolutions i see that had anything close to the society that i think that leftists should work towards is those that have been done by libertarian socialist types (cuba being an exception but that seems quite rare) This is exactly what I mean by libertarian socialism being a non-marxist outlook. It's fine if you aren't a marxist but it bothers me when people who clearly don't agree with historical materialism pretend they do (not that that's what you are doing necessarily but some of the responses to my original post seem to come from that perspective) Revolutions punctuate changes in a nations mode of production. Every revolution in history has moved us closer to communism, and closer to a society that we should try to work towards. The French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Spanish revolution etc. The Spanish was probably the most successful communist revolution, but romantic, liberal and anti-colonial revolutions are still good.
>>441 >sounds like your a Libertarian Marxist/LeftCom to me bro. Just to get something straight - most Leftcoms respect Lenin in one way or another. By contrast anti-Leninism is pretty much a defining feature of libertarian Marxism. This is a pretty big thing that separates the two tendencies, while being an easy thing to comprehend. Most leftcom centers, or is in close proximity to Bordiga, while most libertarian Marxism centers or is in close proximity to the Situationists.
>>485 >while most libertarian Marxism centers or is in close proximity to the Situationists. Is this true, i thought the situationists mainly only influened the anarchists, or at least, part of the anarchist mileue. >>482 I have to agree, but as an nihilist/individualist/black anarchist and someone who was a red anarchist for a long time, i think red anarchism is totally incompatable with traditional Marxist/ML movements. We all seek different aims and have different means, this plays out in the real world through numerous examples, even many 'red' wouln't call her a red as we see them today, ybh. anarchists from russia lik eGoldman were also harshly critical of marxism.
>>484 perhaps then a more apt description of my leanings is libertarian socialist rather than left libertarian >Every revolution in history has moved us closer to communism, and closer to a society that we should try to work towards. The French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Spanish revolution etc. The Spanish was probably the most successful communist revolution, but romantic, liberal and anti-colonial revolutions are still good. i agree with this take also.
>>486 >Is this true Yes, along with anarcho-councilists autonomists and communization theory. The anarchists you're thinking about took more influence from Raul Vanegiem in the S.I. over Guy Debord and are associated with "post-Situ" tendencies, like either Tiqqun/TIC or post-left anarchy. The proximity is extremely close though, Vanegiem was a Stirnerite for example, while Debord always self-identified as a Marxist and was very critical of anarchist anti-organizationalism.
>>489 anarcho-councilists, autonomists*
>>489 My experience is that a lot of 'post-left- shit term. were very into lots of the SI work, including Deabord. You don't have to have someone agree with you to take some of htere ideas. The §pectacle is widely understood in the anarchist mileue, or at least this is my experience. I love Vangiem but i think Deabord has had a bigger influence on comptemporary anarchist thought.
>>482 >The most damning evidence that contemporary Libertarian Socialism is counterproductive bullshit can be found by reading the signers of this letter begging the US state department to continue it's military intervention in Syria So you take a letter from a faction in the Middle-East as representative of all libertarian socialists? Come on, tell me with a straight face you're arguing in good faith. >Where they employed by capital or where they part of a workers movement. All machines and technical artifacts have been made by people "employed by capital", because we have had global capitalism for a while now. And even though all machines have been made in capitalism, some are more useful than others for purposes of bringing down capitalism, so there has to be something more to it than just the class character of the inventors/designers/engineers. >What does this have to do with libertarian socialism? I was alluding to Habermas there (whom I mentioned in my post) who holds that there can be no true liberation as long as "technology" dominates, because regardless of what class creates a technological artifact, we are still dominated by that artifact. It doesn't matter who builds a car, you still have to refuel that car at some point because there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Therefore, the danger then is that in absence of a "ruling class", the designers and builders of technological artifacts in a technological society become that ruling class. And we see that the technocrats in Silicon Valley have no gripes about playing politics or attempting to influence how society is organised and how it operates. This is where pure, orthodox Marxism is lacking, because while class-belonging is a very big deal, it does not tell us the whole story and leaves us vulnerable to pitfalls. For example, look at the usual defense of DPRK -- they say that because there is no bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, all exploitation has ceased!, yet there is still a minority group that holds all the power and makes the decisions, whether they personally own private property is irrelevant. >No, it is most beneficial to look at reality clearly. That doesn't mean we can't work together, but I am not going to tell you lies. >I am completely open about how retarded I think their ideology is. >WE ALONE HOLD THE TRUTH, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG! Tell me, how does one "look at reality clearly"? I mean, the fact that you think you know "The Truth" and that you go around making fun of people who disagree with you like some childish know-it-all only exposes you as a dogmatist. >>484 >It's fine if you aren't a marxist but it bothers me when people who clearly don't agree with historical materialism pretend they do >Revolutions punctuate changes in a nations mode of production. Every revolution in history has moved us closer to communism, and closer to a society that we should try to work towards. And there it is. What you're talking about is Stalinist bastardisation of Marxism, I assume you read it in Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". Marx never said that history progresses towards a single goal, that's Stalin and the Bolsheviks justifying their actions. It's easier to commit acts of terror when you think you're doing it in service of "history" and can wash your hands of the deed. Here's Marx quoted directly: >In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. >The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. >At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. >Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. >No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. >In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close. Marx never made any kind of prescriptions what this future society would look like. The fact that you think that this society has to be some Marxist-Leninist state only shows how deep into the ideological rabbit hole you have fallen.
>>458 He once wrote an article about Lenin and used a observation from Bordiga of hoe Communists have little opportunity in National Politics so it isn't a fetch to say he is somewhat inspired by LeftComs. >>485 Yes, I am aware that the Italian Left was still Leninist in nature. But they are not 100% Leninists. They still reject Lenin's support for National Self Determination and Democratic Centralism. That's why I said OP sounds like a LibMarx, he's objection to Democratic Centralism. As >>475 had said, LibMarxism is more of a Umbrella Term with LeftComs failing with in that range because of their objection to the USSR and Stalin. >Most leftcom centers, or is in close proximity to Bordiga, while most libertarian Marxism centers or is in close proximity to the Situationists. The Situationists where a LeftCom group, just not the Italian Tendency. Debord himself was a follower of Pannekoek's Councilist Tendency. Also in all regards OP sounds more like a DeLeonist to me since he said he like Syndicalist models.
>>486 >>489 It's not true. Marxists like to claim Debord as their own, probably because they have failed to read his work but need something hip to appeal to the clueless. Central to the theory of the Spectacle is the claim that the LTV no longer holds, which makes Debord decidedly a non-Marxist. Sometimes he is categorized as a post-Marxist, which is like calling Marx a post-Hegelian. Debord never identified as a Marxist, as the SI viewed "Marxism" as a reification of revolutionary theory. The closest he ever got was admitting that he worked from a "Hegelian-Marxist" base: "To him, the most obviously dusty aspect is the fact that I work from a Hegelian-Marxist base. Such a base has always been badly seen, by Lenin as well as by Kautsky. Only Bakunin accepted it." [http://www.notbored.org/debord-29March1980.html] Indeed, after the dissolution of the SI, he helped Champ Libre publish the complete works of Bakunin, during this work he became a great admirer of Bakunin and his theories. It's best to just call him and his comrades Situationists. My impression of Tiqqun was that they rely heavily on Debord's work, probably due to Agamben's influence. But I don't think there's any point in separating the SI's theory into Debord and Veneigem.
>>501 Ah I see. Thanks, his late appreciation of Bakunin was something I wasn't aware of before. In whole it ties in quite interestingly from the specifically councilist federalism he was associated with. Bakunin was the originator of federalism within the scientific socialist movement, so it makes a lot of sense. >>459 What this shitpost misunderstands is that the anarchism (social) that libertarian Marxism draws on partially is all materialist, and that idealism within anarchism always was a smaller section (individualist) of modern anarchism as a real movement (the materialist anarchists are still the most active today, via platformism and anarcho-syndicalist strategies).
>>482 >Libertarian socialism is counterproductive Oh shit. Just saw this. I'm >>492. Libertarian Marxism and Libertarian Socialism refer to different things. I also used that word after you, not even thinking about it. I mentioned Catalonia as an example how even anarchists can use Marxist analysis and subsequent actions that come from that analysis. "Marxism" does not belong to any one group, just like math doesn't. If you believe Marxism is scientific and is successful in describing social processes then you cannot accuse someone of not being Marxist. You say yourself you organise with IWW and anarchists? Why don't you go organise with Marxists-Leninists? Different regions necessitate different kinds of socialism and it should be expected that they will all be based on some form of Marxism. Marxism is used to identify the problem and perhaps find a solution. Marx observed with interest the Paris Commune and amended his theories after. Just like in science, the more things we try, the more likely we are to find the best solution. If capitalism is a disease then Marxism-Leninism is one cure, with some nasty side-effects. Surely we can find a cure with milder ones?
>>498 do Italian leftcoms even have an analysis of imperialism or the national question? or is it just an attitude of "surely once the imperialist countries have their own spontaneous socialist revolutions, it won't be a problem"?
>>507 Yes. You should try reading the works.
>>492 >So you take a letter from a faction in the Middle-East as representative of all libertarian socialists? Come on, tell me with a straight face you're arguing in good faith. I said read the signers... Noam Chomsky, Debbie Bookchin, David Graeber, David Harvey. It's a who's who of the most well known living libertarian socialist writers in the United States. >some are more useful than others for purposes of bringing down capitalism, so there has to be something more to it than just the class character of the inventors/designers/engineers. Well yes there is, but only insofar as the physical character of the machine facilitates or necessitates class domination. >I was alluding to Habermas there (whom I mentioned in my post) who holds that there can be no true liberation as long as "technology" dominates, because regardless of what class creates a technological artifact, we are still dominated by that artifact. It doesn't matter who builds a car, you still have to refuel that car at some point because there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Sounds like a man after my own heart. I still don't see how this is on topic. > This is where pure, orthodox Marxism is lacking, because while class-belonging is a very big deal, it does not tell us the whole story and leaves us vulnerable to pitfalls. ???? The failing of Orthodox Marxism is that it is non-marxist. It holds that we can bring about socialism through reform. >For example, look at the usual defense of DPRK -- they say that because there is no bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, all exploitation has ceased!, yet there is still a minority group that holds all the power and makes the decisions, whether they personally own private property is irrelevant. There is a bourgeoisie in the DPRK. There is commodity production, there is value. It is capitalist. >Tell me, how does one "look at reality clearly"? I mean, the fact that you think you know "The Truth" and that you go around making fun of people who disagree with you like some childish know-it-all only exposes you as a dogmatist. You look at reality clearly by questioning your beliefs, and when they don't conform to reason or history you change them. I considered myself an anarchist from 2013 to 2016 and then some variety of libertarian marxist until 2018. I participated in black block. I read Stirner and Goldman and Chomsky and Kropotkin and Malatesta and Proudhon and Bookchin and some others. I also read Marx and some Marxist texts. Eventually, I began to see that anarchism is generally based on moral and ethical questions, where as Marxism is based on descriptive statements about class society and asks tactical questions about how we can bring about the revolution. I still thought the whole "Marxism is science" thing was very spooky, but I did appreciate that it didn't go straight to "here is why the hierarchies in our society violate ethics" For a while I was desperately looking for some kind of "libertarian Marxism" that would let me hold on to my anarchist ideals in light of what I had learned. I read DeLeon, and found that the way he is portrayed as a "libertarian" is bullshit. There is nothing libertarian in his writings, he is just a Marxist. I dug deeper into Bookchin because I had heard some frame his work could be described as a synthesis of of communism and anarchism. What I found was a reactionary anti-communist outlook which in reality pushes anarchism closer to it's liberal roots. I read Pannekoek, and I found it to be the most coherent version of "libertarian socialism" in theory, but rather detached from any contemporary movement. So, I dug into contemporary left communism, particularly Communization theory and Gilles Dauve. Communization theory felt very right. It was radical, it was new. It was connected to a contemporary movement, but also to the historical movements of anarchism and Marxism. However, as I saw the ways in which Dauve was influenced by Bordiga, I figured I should probably read Bordiga. And when I read Bordiga and learned all the secrets held within I understood that there was no going back to libertarianism, or democracy, or anti-sectarianism, or non-leninist strains of "marxism", or even to contemporary left-communism. I must sit and read Bordiga and tell other people on the internet to read Bordiga. >And there it is. What you're talking about is Stalinist bastardisation of Marxism, I assume you read it in Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". Marx never said that history progresses towards a single goal, that's Stalin and the Bolsheviks justifying their actions. It's easier to commit acts of terror when you think you're doing it in service of "history" and can wash your hands of the deed. You're right, it's Hegel who said that (sort of, still kind of a strawman for Hegel but closer) You're misunderstanding what I am saying though. Human society may stagnate, or even devolve, and it may never reach communism. A revolution still works a particular way though, and you only have to look towards history to see why every successful revolution has been good and has brought us closer to communism, whether it's the french or the Russian or the Spanish or whatever >>498 We object to democratic centralism on the grounds that it is democratic, not that it is centralist. >Not 100% Leninist Because we are 110% Leninist! I can't speak for all leftcoms but I don't reject self determination as a principle. I reject the Maoist conception of "primary and secondary" contradictions though. >The Situationists where a LeftCom group, just not the Italian Tendency. Debord himself was a follower of Pannekoek's Councilist Tendency. Also in all regards OP sounds more like a DeLeonist to me since he said he like Syndicalist models. You aren't wrong even though I resent the way people group us in with shit like the situatonists and pancake. OP just needs to read more before he jumps to a particular tendency. >>506 >Libertarian Marxism and Libertarian Socialism refer to different things Surely one is a subset of the other? >If you believe Marxism is scientific and is successful in describing social processes then you cannot accuse someone of not being Marxist. Yes I can, in the same way that I might accuse someone of being unscientific if they made silly claims about physics or biology. >You say yourself you organise with IWW and anarchists? Why don't you go organise with Marxists-Leninists? We don't have those in my country. I do work with Trots and I suppose I have a small number of comrades in the PSL but they sort of do their own thing, and are basically Trots anyways. >Different regions necessitate different kinds of socialism and it should be expected that they will all be based on some form of Marxism. Different regions require different analysis, but they don't each require their own mode of inquiry. The communist position is for a world revolution, not just regional ones. >Just like in science, the more things we try, the more likely we are to find the best solution. Yes I agree. Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend. That doesn't mean I'm not going to tell you that you when your school of thought is incoherent. >>507 Yes. >>509 Bingo.
>>433 I believe in a decentralized model as well. I usually describe myself as a libertarian socialist, more or less, to normies. But that changes when libertarian types start talking, then I become stalinist.
>>888 Your reply lacks substance. "Talk" about what? >decentralized model Presumably other things than organizing? >Stalinist I guess this is code for anger issues over something. Protip: let go of the anarchists, keep the councilcoms, Bordigists, Luxemburgists and De Leonists and you'll see yourself becoming far more level-headed.
>>435 > it relies on an idealist and non-Marxist understanding of the state *sigh*, not this meme again https://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech211
>>459 dialectical materialism is not the same as naive realist materialism. dialectical materialism is in fact a form of idealism that takes into account the social properties of idealism itself. it asserts that the social body mediates the ideas about material world by interfacing with the material world as a social body.
>>1895 > Bakunin did, of course, reject "centralised leadership" as it would be "necessarily very circumscribed, very short-sighted, and its limited perception cannot, therefore, penetrate the depth and encompass the whole complex range of popular life." >”the peasants, like the industrial city workers, should unite by federating the fighting battalions, district by district, assuring a common co-ordinated defence against internal and external enemies." Bakunin immediately contradicts himself by saying the peasants should be federated but not centrally organized. there is no such thing as this. you can’t federate but not centralize. >but he’s saying only the army should be federated! in which case they have a monopoly on violence, which means its centralized, which means there’s a state.
>>433 Honestly you're describing Roberto Unger's Democratic Experimentalism
(89.38 KB 1024x576 EPR-1024x576.jpeg)
>>435 not OP but I read both recently and that plus the history of my country made me realize anarchism wasn't viable without a global revolution still Lenin is completely wrong thinking a centralized state is ever gonna work or even if it did it would be revolutionary.
>>439 underrated post.
>>2031 what about a centralized state is necessarily flawed or reactionary to you?
>>2031 Other than Stalinists, everyone agrees that nothing is going to happen without a global revolution.
>>2237 Strange how Stalin never denied that
>>2242 What is socialism in one country?
>>2245 I don't think socialism in one country means what you think it does.
>>2250 I don't think socialism in one country means what you think it does.
>>2251 I don't think socialism in one country means what you think it does.
>tfw shitflinging is easier than reading the primary sources to see what stalin said or didn't said So much for the education board
>>2254 I keep saying it over and over, this place isn't going to attract /edu/-interested people as long as it caters to the /a/ and /v/ crowd.
>>2257 I don’t think it’s /a/ and /v/ as much as it is stupidpolyps and chapoids.

Delete
Report

no cookies?