That doesn't make the ideology coherent or desirable.
And yeah, if you intend to just abolish the state locally and not account for global capitalism, not only is that anti left petite bourgeois aspirationalism, you won't even succeed! Because fucking of course they'll come crush you.
I'm not saying anarchism is the way to go. I'm saying "anarchists are worthless" is an objectively shit take, especially if you're of the opinion that it will take revolutionary street violence to end capitalism.
But it is really annoying how not rigorous the ideology is.
Oh, 100%. The way I describe it is that:
Marxists and anarchists share the same high-level goals and fundamental values, but
While anarchists are some of the people most down to do Steps A, B, and C to achieve those goals, and while we're in agreement on the ideal endgame (Steps X, Y, an Z), I don't see their plan for anything in between as workable.
Meanwhile there are a bunch of ML states that have made huge (if incomplete or derailed) progress towards those goals -- stuff that goes far beyond Steps A, B, and C.
He's not an Anarchist, he's a Social Democrat who incorporates very basic anarchist theory into his outlook. He constantly tries and fails to square the circle of being an Anarchist and Social Democrat at the same time, and it produces arrogant idiocy.
Removed by mod
Anarchists are always some of the first to go out and take direct action.
That doesn't make the ideology coherent or desirable.
And yeah, if you intend to just abolish the state locally and not account for global capitalism, not only is that anti left petite bourgeois aspirationalism, you won't even succeed! Because fucking of course they'll come crush you.
I'm not saying anarchism is the way to go. I'm saying "anarchists are worthless" is an objectively shit take, especially if you're of the opinion that it will take revolutionary street violence to end capitalism.
Yes, that's fair.
But it is really annoying how not rigorous the ideology is.
You cannot critique the state based tendencies if your ideology isn't less violent and can't account for historical forces.
Like I'm fine with left unity. But if you're gonna start left punching, you better come with something substantive.
Oh, 100%. The way I describe it is that:
Meanwhile there are a bunch of ML states that have made huge (if incomplete or derailed) progress towards those goals -- stuff that goes far beyond Steps A, B, and C.
He's not an Anarchist, he's a Social Democrat who incorporates very basic anarchist theory into his outlook. He constantly tries and fails to square the circle of being an Anarchist and Social Democrat at the same time, and it produces arrogant idiocy.