I have no doubt that any MLs here are pretty based, I don’t think anyone needs to prove anything to me, but I’m curious as to why you think Marxist-Leninism is the best way forward towards liberating the working class. Personally, I lean more towards authoritorian tendencies I just don’t think anything other than anarchism is a viable path forward and I think all the theory and history I’ve read tracks with that.analysis. I suppose you could call me socially ML but fiscally anarchist, lol.
Because the only way to beat a bad guy with a state is with a good guy with a state.
can you say it without dumping on anarchists tho?
What's dumping on anarchists about "I haven't seen any anarchist plan to solve this problem, or any anarchist group do this successfully at scale"? If you have counterpoints bring them up, don't just complain that criticisms of anarchism are mean
Saying you take issue with certain aspects of anarchism isn't the same thing as telling anarchists they suck. If you can't respond to criticisms of your ideology without taking it personally or using it as an opportunity to educate, how do you expect other people to take it seriously?
No one was saying kill the anarchists, I've never seen anyone say kill the anarchists even on more ML-heavy and less left-unity boards than this one. Seriously how did you get "I haven't heard an anarchist plan for this problem I am concerned about" with "kill all the anarchists"?
Because they (this specific poster) tend to call out sectarianism even before it occurs on a thread and they believe that it is a good use of their time.
im not saying don't criticize.
im saying "is it possible to say why you're good without dumping on anyone else?" because if not, you maybe have a problem.
I've seen "kill the anarchists" said pretty frequently, it's just removed by mods pretty quick so you don't see it unless it shows up in your replies.
If you're doing a direct comparison, like the prompt in the post, it's worth mentioning why you prefer one ideology to another yes.
okay fair, even if that reply had way more anarchist dumping than was necessary, but can you?
also; great name.
i know less about spain than ukraine, but anarchist projects have existed and been stable until the communists stabbed them in the back. you are our libs.
but also, say why you're good without mentioning why anyone else sucks. I want to see if you can.
nah sorry done here. if you think the anarchists in ukraine and spain were in the wrong relative to the soviets, im not having this discussion with you.
you could always just leave out these parts:
I’ve yet to see that happen through anarchism.
...and I've yet to see how anarchists plan to handle that besides hoping they’ll realize the error of their ways.
since they don't really add anything to your point anyway
That's not even my post, it's just not mean spirited and the OP of the thread is directly comparing anarchism with MLism, and it's a huge pet peeve of mine when any critique of an ideology is met with "but you could just not critique :angery:"
yeah fair enough, i didn't mean to jump on you. i think maybe for us it doesn't always feel something like that is being said in good faith and it can be hard to tell
totally but this wasn't a critique, it was 'why is x good' 'because y is bad' which is usually a tell that the person in question doesn't actually know any virtues of x, whether they exist or not.
oh, got it. you might wnat to mention other shit so it doesn't seem so hostile and sectarian. the amount of 'kill anarchists' i see from a particular brand of stupid ml is... a lot. and there's no superficial way to tell who's who. sorry for the hair trigger.
i report pretty often, and you are better about removing it than a lot of places .it just gets under one's skin after while, because you're human and finite and have human reaction times. it feels like I can't avoid summoning a swarm if I say the C word along with anything less than glowing praise and appropriated nationalistic fervor.
also, in part because you're good at removing it, i often here people deny that it happens. which is frustrating as fuck.
Until full communism is established, a strong state is the only way to deter existing capitalist states from trying to stamp out socialist ones. Central planning is vital for responding to crises like climate change, natural disasters, food shortages and famines, and pandemics, and I don't believe that a decentralized system would be able to handle those appropriately.
Part of the reason why the us is such a clusterfuck when trying to handle anything (like the pandemic) even compared to other failing capitalist states is because of its decentralization.
And without a central party and an established party line, at scale there will be too much infighting and directionless action to seize or smash the state, and too much opportunity for reactionaries to seize or reestablish the state in the aftermath - you'd need many more anarchists to defend the new society until everyone was on board than you would need members of an organized party.
your argument is nonsense and bullshit when stalin was obviously cuter.
look, we generally nope out of team sports because they're pointlessly jingoistic bullshit. this is all we've got.
Effectiveness and the fact an ML state is clearly better than a capitalist state.
I want all hierarchy gone. But I'm not naive about anarchism's survival chances while capitalism still exists in the world.
Hierarchy will be easier to defeat in a socialist state than in a capitalist state. If we even need to "defeat" it at all. It all comes down to whether the theory of the state fading away is true or not. If it's true, that's fine. If it's not then I will join the fight to end it.
I mean, good luck to any anarchist tryingtto form a community with people that believe that fast food workers should be paid below living wage, let alone that shit like Tom hanks was replaced by a body double or whatever q shit.
We in America definitely need a vanguard party and a huge re-education effort on like 80 percent of the population.
Luckily if America ends,you probably don't need to much of a military to defend against external threats,tthough.
you need a movement with more than just educated western leftists and ML seems to work in the third world
Do I have to call myself anything? It doesn't feel like anything real. I call myself a communist and sometimes a Marxist but who really gives a shit. I want a better world.
I hate the weird internet pressure to define myself in some clique when I live in the USA without an organized nationwide left to speak of
am I being a lib or what
Honestly it sounds like we have the exact opposite reasons for approaching either: I think anarchism is an ideal and confederated autonomous but connected communes, collectives or militant unions is dope, and by temperament I have an innate opposition to authority and resent any impositions. But, I don't see that form of organization surviving out of the gate with the forces of capital arrayed against it. For its success I would have to imagine a very high level of political education and consciousness across society, and while we should strive for that I don't know how much can be achieved and in what timeframe. Leninism has the advantage of allowing a minority at a crucial juncture to exploit crises for advances in socialism. I also believe that the actions taken in defence of a successful socialist revolution out of necessity, what ensures its survival may inevitably resemble a "statist" solution.
But I'm not a secular prophet and don't know what shape anything will take, I have had crucial friendships with anarchists and think building a coalition of anti-bigotry revolutionary socialists (regardless of which dead guy's name is next to their tendency) is mutually beneficial for everyone.
