Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it’s funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for “anti-authoritarian,” I’m not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn’t a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it’s less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as “authoritarian” and Anarchism as “more likely” to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it’s funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for “anti-authoritarian,” I’m not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Why do you believe Anarchism is better at solving this problem than Marxism?
Marxism already proved itself corruptable.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn’t a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it’s less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as “authoritarian” and Anarchism as “more likely” to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
We don’t have to debate, but I do think you should give this more thought. If you want to learn more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist reading list you can check out. Open for feedback!
Anarchists have yet to murder millions, unlike communists who seem to need a state to become stateless