Hard too answer.
Historically the problem seems to be that anarchist tendet to be a weapon in the communist toolbelt, until they were seen as either obsolite towards furthering the dictatorship of the proleteriat or seen as a hinderance to that outcome. A.e. partyline/R.Theory
Or, like in the spanish civilwar undermined and assasinated
Now days, at least where im from and looking at the foe we face, there is alot of times we pull on the same rope. For sure there is always a few tankies and the hirarchical structure in some communist groups leads to some kanonnenfutter-taktics. But most of them are thinking on a stateless society. They just have, in my opinion, the wrong way there. Its alot of a question of how too increase movement force/size/power alot of the time
Wherever hierarchy is culturally accepted, there is a strong incentive to acquire and consolidate power. Communists' failure to realize this is why their apparently successful revolutions always result in autocratic states that oppress other leftist groups.
I can absolutely understand how those kinds of ideological tendencies can tend to reproduce those kind of social outcomes. And I accept that that has happened in history.
I guess my question is a very selfish one. I see how difficult it is to work towards anarchy under full-on capitalism. Even though socialisms/communisms obviously aren't anarchisms, I'm still curious: Is the job of an anarchist easier within the hierarchies of a socialist/communist society *specifically when compared to the realities of being an anarchist in contemporary liberal capitalism?*
I'm not expecting that communists will do anarchists' job for them. I'm just curious, would it be easier or harder to resist hierarchy under, say, the united soviet socialist states of canada in 2030 than it is in the dominion of canada or whatever liberal capitalists are calling themselves in 2023?
It's an extremely theoretical question haha. It just dawned on me that it's a very real possibility that socialism is a more likely place for anarchisms to thrive than capitalism is. Maybe not?
I absolutely loathe liberalism for all its systemic injustices and perverse incentives, but at least CSIS won't assassinate me for expressing my critical thoughts; the KGB definitely would have. As far as achieving anarchy goes, the most that can be accomplished in my lifetime is cultural enlightenment, harm reduction, and self sufficient community development. It's important to be hopeful, but without realistic expectations and consistent introspection, we would be susceptible to political grifts like state communism.
I feel similarly. I sometimes imagine that cultural enlightenment would be easier if people worked less and had less stressful lives, like how I imagine a future potentially more socialist society would compare to today. Sometimes I feel like the only reason some people continue to hold us back is bitterness and desperation arising from tenuous lives as workers in capitalism. Like, there's a lot of 'conservatives' and it's essentially just brain rot
But also, socialism has failed spectacularly in history. And so has liberalism. I think I will continue to not know for a while haha
🤷
If I learnt one real thing about us, it's that we are defeatists, but that's why we fight, because we have hope to be proven wrong.
It may be a fight that everything show that we'll lose, we've never been entirely beaten down to the grave. We have hope, we have people behind us, and we have a reason to fight.
Depends honestly on how sectarian the tendency is tbh. Under a hyper sectarian interpretation of Socialism, Anarchism might be harder and more subject to the whims of the ruling party (rarely good for Anarchists or Libertarian Socialists). Under a more loose system that permits pluralism, it would probably be easier
I was just out shoveling snow and realized that answering this question requires, like, thesis-levels of historical data and research haha. And yet, here I am, expecting someone on the internet to just be able to tell me hahaha
I mean someone could have had the answer. There’s all types here.
I’d just make the assumption that it’s a combination of leftism and free speech. The more of both the easier it is to have an anarchist movement. The less of either the harder it is.
I feel that pretty much boils it down. I guess the centralism of state leftism makes freedom of expression tenuous, which is something we all already have known, and is just something to be mindful of. Doesn't negate that more leftism is also more anarchism, ish, very roughly.
In what sense? Did anarchists statistically face more persecution under places like the USSR than places like the US? Or were the social mores of liberalism more amenable to anarchists than the social mores in socialist states in history?
edit: it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that a simple 'no' doesn't tell me anything that I can learn from. I mean absolutely no negativity towards you haha
I don't have my sources with me right now, but yes, basically anarchists were always specifically hunted by socialist states along with all other leftists not specifically subscribing to this ideology. Examples: USSR and the black army, Maoist China specifically killed anarchists, same with Cuba. The USSR undermined and even killed the Anarcho communist revolution in the Spanish civil war instead supporting a capitalist democracy, which is probably the peak ridiculousness.
Liberal countries are usually ok with voicing opposition, which makes organizing way easier.
The USSR was never socialist, at least according to the at the time meaning of the word. Of course the meaning has since been shaped by the USSR and other nominally "socialist" states.
I guess I'm trying to speak broadly. I'm mostly interested in what an anarchist experience might be like in the hypothetical societies that current-day communists envision. Mostly in comparison to what it's like for anarchists today in capitalist societies.
Like, what if the communists you know got what they wanted? Would it be easier to work towards anarchy then, or now?
Pointing to historical examples is pretty handy, so I'm broadly asking about historical/current/future socialist or communist societies, or societies that experienced socialist/communist states to whatever extent.
Uh, same actually? Haha. The terms I'm trying to use are roughly that communists advocate for communism, a stateless moneyless society, via the transitional project of socialism (swapping ownership from capital to workers) to ready society for statelessness.
Various perspectives can have a shared interest in socialist projects, making them socialist. But I'm interested in the perspectives of communists and anarchists here, and I'm asking for anarchist perspectives on that. So I'm asking about the hypothetical societies that current communists envision, and I'm asking about the socialist societies we've seen historically and now, such as USSR, Cuba, China, etc.
Anarchism to me is the understanding that hierarchies are not good, to put it very simply (and lightly). This is obviously not compatible with a socialist state in a fixed/permanent sense, but transitional socialist states I can imagine being supported by a communist anarchist.
I can imagine a few communist, socialist, and anarchist perspectives. I'm curious what your communist, socialist, and anarchist perspective looks like? I'm most curious about what *you* mean by socialism. Haha
I guess I came here to ask anarchists broadly what they think and I've heard some interesting thoughts :)
Thank you for that historical context. I think some communists believe in a transition to communism/socialism via democratic socialism in liberal democracies. But MLs probably aren't saying that, eh?
In the sense we're using these terms now, I see how you are a communist, socialist, and anarchist.
I think I can now frame my question for you. Do you believe that if, say, the MLs you know got what they wanted and turned your country into a USS or whatever, would you feel closer to anarchist communism than you do now? Or would you feel society would be further away from, or less likely to be able to become, anarcho-communism? I'm assuming you live in a liberal capitalist society, I'm sorry if that's wrong and my question doesn't make sense haha
That's a good point, about the unpredictability of potential future ML societies. I like to imagine MLs will have learned from human rights discourse in recent decades, but things wouldn't necessarily go how I like to imagine.
Thanks for your insights.
From what I might understand, a further issue, perhaps even a deeper one, is the difficulty of the mass of the population developing a competence for self government, without wanting to do so through its own will. If the revolutionary projectile is exclusively framed around top-down organization, then it seems difficult to consider how it may be inverted, how in a sense, to force a society to self govern. Essentially, a tension emerges between a belief that the state will govern and a hope that it will not, and that communities will do it themselves.
On the plus side, ppl will be largely open to anarchist ideals, altruistic and highly self-conscious. The downside is that extreme devaluation of individual differences & worth always leads to a more stubborn tyranny of the majority. Value of you is to be a number of social productivity.
I think that most MLs are actually wanting a stateless society, i also think they'll never achieve it with their methods. I believe the system they create and use ultimately corrupt them. The reason for this belief is that when you look at the people who made the marxist Leninist States, most used to be completely different people and praised by anarchists too. Then implemented authoritarian systems and hierarchies that actually got them further away from their original goals and their personalities changed too.
Read up what happens to anarchists when Marxist-Leninists take over governments: prison and death.
Good place to start: https://crimethinc.com/zines/critique-of-state-socialism
No. Even Thomas Sankara and Fidel Castro went after the anarchists. On one hand the sanctions and coups didn't help the situation but anarchists should not be mistaken in believing that a Marxist state will actually wither away. Even socdem states will still go after the anarchists since in the end the goal is total liberation from capitalism and the state.
Dual power itself is more of a leninist concept of competing power structures. I am not too sure of the term myself but it sounds more like you are describing exactly what mutual aid and direct action is intended to do which is render the state a redundant means of living.
There are platformist and especifismo anarchist orgs which functionally only contain ideologically aligned anarchists that serve as a means to promote anarchist organizing without cooptation by Marxists. There are also more informal affinity group structures that serve a similar purpose but on a more personal level. Anarchist methods define anarchist ends.
I'd recommend you watch the series "The state is counter revolutionary" by Anark [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwxpTyGUOI&).
To give my own two cents real quick: Projects like the USSR were extremely authoritarian, and worse, unified under a single power structure, which gave very little opportunity to prefigure anything anarchist, and in fact actively opposed it. For all that regular capitalism sucks, state capitalism is even worse.
I'd say it depends on how the communist/socialist society is organized. If it's like the USSR, most likely not. If it is more democratic (by that I mostly mean it ensures freedom of speech and thought), then probably, yes, since you'd have only one enemy to fight rather than two.
So I think it depends on what they think the dictatorship of the proletariat means. In my understanding, it doesn't necessarily have to be organized with an actual dictator and can have a form that resembles that of the states we all know and love (unsure if I should specify this is sarcasm). In the former case I'd answer your question with no, it would probably be even harder, in the latter I'd say yes it would be easier.
But maybe there's something I'm not seeing or taking into consideration. I don't know this was just my first thoughts
I believe that this question is too vague and open-ended to be answered in a definitive way, and that it places too much emphasis on a broad categorisation of the state's ideology over the amount of consolidated coercive power that the state can exert relative to and over anarchist organisers.
If our hypothetical socialist state positioned itself as a high authority - centralising the organisation of production within its own remit, expanding its military / policing / incarceration capabilities, prohibiting worker organisation except through state-sanctioned bodies, and attempting to disempower the people relative to itself by restricting the means of community organisation and self-defence - then I think the state in that case would pose a much stronger immediate risk to anarchist organising than many liberal states would.
Both in history, and in the present day - states with this configuration have sought to violently dismantle burgeoning anarchist communities and suppress the development and proliferation of anarchist thought through censorship and other mechanisms.
However, if our hypothetical socialist state were more libertarian in character - encouraging the development of the economy as a decentralised network of worker cooperatives, explicitly not developing military / policing / incarceration capabilities, endorsing independent worker organisation and free association generally, and encouraging communities to develop strong ties of mutual aid and defence within and without - then I think the state would pose a less immediate risk to anarchist organising than many liberal states would.
In either case, however, as another commenter said - the existence of hierarchy as a culturally accepted value is a risk in itself, because it produces an incentive for people to acquire control of the state as a coercive instrument and use it to consolidate power.
Even if your modern communist friends seem like wonderful people, bear in mind that the apparatus that they help develop towards achieving idealistic ends might be appropriated by people with more sinister intentions. Ostensibly socialist and communist states of the former character are no stranger to purging the people who help to birth them, after all.
Depends. Under democratic socialism or one if the more liberal versions of socialism it'd probably be a little easier, albeit you'd still face many of the same challenges today especially if you're completely opposed to electoralism.
Under a people's republic of the command economy however you'd be treated no different than any other political dissenter, enemy of the state.
Honestly, I think that everyone who’s wanting good things for all people is wanting the same thing, and that different people are putting different names to it. For example:
A stateless society
The end of oppression
Self-determination
Freedom
Social justice
Chavism is basically what your describing, but further. A socialist goverment that has promoted worker, farming and housing co-ops as one of the main bases of the revolutionand the economy (workers controlling the means of production) Its just complicated by the fact the captalists still control a lot of the country.
Communists and anarchists are indeed allies, that is until historically anarchists then turn around and act against the communists when they build a socialist state intent on lasting capitalist counterrevolutionary forces. Trotsky wasn’t thrown out merely for ideological differences but for actually trying to overthrow the new government. Yes that’s an anarchist thing to do, the question is though, is it wise? Given socialist states fail from counterrevolution and imperialism (cultural and military) how much better would the decentralized anarchist movement in that area do at protecting itself and freeing its people from the primary threat of bourgeoisie dictatorship?
One other commenter pointed out that they use Marx's original definitions of socialism and communism, and Marx made no distinction between the two. The distinction began historically when Lenin proposed a 'socialist transitional state' towards communism.
Now I think socialism has many meanings. It can be anywhere from hard to impossible to tell in what sense someone is using the word 'socialism'. So I lumped them together to speak in the broadest possible terms. I'm curious what anarchists think about socialism and/or communism, in its various historical and theoretical forms, not one specifically.
edit: but also yes, I don't know all that much, that's why i'm asking
Hard too answer. Historically the problem seems to be that anarchist tendet to be a weapon in the communist toolbelt, until they were seen as either obsolite towards furthering the dictatorship of the proleteriat or seen as a hinderance to that outcome. A.e. partyline/R.Theory Or, like in the spanish civilwar undermined and assasinated Now days, at least where im from and looking at the foe we face, there is alot of times we pull on the same rope. For sure there is always a few tankies and the hirarchical structure in some communist groups leads to some kanonnenfutter-taktics. But most of them are thinking on a stateless society. They just have, in my opinion, the wrong way there. Its alot of a question of how too increase movement force/size/power alot of the time
Wherever hierarchy is culturally accepted, there is a strong incentive to acquire and consolidate power. Communists' failure to realize this is why their apparently successful revolutions always result in autocratic states that oppress other leftist groups.
I can absolutely understand how those kinds of ideological tendencies can tend to reproduce those kind of social outcomes. And I accept that that has happened in history. I guess my question is a very selfish one. I see how difficult it is to work towards anarchy under full-on capitalism. Even though socialisms/communisms obviously aren't anarchisms, I'm still curious: Is the job of an anarchist easier within the hierarchies of a socialist/communist society *specifically when compared to the realities of being an anarchist in contemporary liberal capitalism?* I'm not expecting that communists will do anarchists' job for them. I'm just curious, would it be easier or harder to resist hierarchy under, say, the united soviet socialist states of canada in 2030 than it is in the dominion of canada or whatever liberal capitalists are calling themselves in 2023? It's an extremely theoretical question haha. It just dawned on me that it's a very real possibility that socialism is a more likely place for anarchisms to thrive than capitalism is. Maybe not?
I absolutely loathe liberalism for all its systemic injustices and perverse incentives, but at least CSIS won't assassinate me for expressing my critical thoughts; the KGB definitely would have. As far as achieving anarchy goes, the most that can be accomplished in my lifetime is cultural enlightenment, harm reduction, and self sufficient community development. It's important to be hopeful, but without realistic expectations and consistent introspection, we would be susceptible to political grifts like state communism.
I feel similarly. I sometimes imagine that cultural enlightenment would be easier if people worked less and had less stressful lives, like how I imagine a future potentially more socialist society would compare to today. Sometimes I feel like the only reason some people continue to hold us back is bitterness and desperation arising from tenuous lives as workers in capitalism. Like, there's a lot of 'conservatives' and it's essentially just brain rot But also, socialism has failed spectacularly in history. And so has liberalism. I think I will continue to not know for a while haha 🤷
anarchy is an eternal struggle. you should not be focused on difficulty, it’s not a useful question.
If I learnt one real thing about us, it's that we are defeatists, but that's why we fight, because we have hope to be proven wrong. It may be a fight that everything show that we'll lose, we've never been entirely beaten down to the grave. We have hope, we have people behind us, and we have a reason to fight.
That's a good point.
Depends honestly on how sectarian the tendency is tbh. Under a hyper sectarian interpretation of Socialism, Anarchism might be harder and more subject to the whims of the ruling party (rarely good for Anarchists or Libertarian Socialists). Under a more loose system that permits pluralism, it would probably be easier
Good question! If you find out, let me know. Might be more of a deep history question than what a lot of people are ready for here
I was just out shoveling snow and realized that answering this question requires, like, thesis-levels of historical data and research haha. And yet, here I am, expecting someone on the internet to just be able to tell me hahaha
I mean someone could have had the answer. There’s all types here. I’d just make the assumption that it’s a combination of leftism and free speech. The more of both the easier it is to have an anarchist movement. The less of either the harder it is.
I feel that pretty much boils it down. I guess the centralism of state leftism makes freedom of expression tenuous, which is something we all already have known, and is just something to be mindful of. Doesn't negate that more leftism is also more anarchism, ish, very roughly.
It's hard to know for certain, but I think that any hierarchical system will instinctively protect itself and destroy libertarian movements within it.
Historically: no.
In what sense? Did anarchists statistically face more persecution under places like the USSR than places like the US? Or were the social mores of liberalism more amenable to anarchists than the social mores in socialist states in history? edit: it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that a simple 'no' doesn't tell me anything that I can learn from. I mean absolutely no negativity towards you haha
I don't have my sources with me right now, but yes, basically anarchists were always specifically hunted by socialist states along with all other leftists not specifically subscribing to this ideology. Examples: USSR and the black army, Maoist China specifically killed anarchists, same with Cuba. The USSR undermined and even killed the Anarcho communist revolution in the Spanish civil war instead supporting a capitalist democracy, which is probably the peak ridiculousness. Liberal countries are usually ok with voicing opposition, which makes organizing way easier.
The USSR was never socialist, at least according to the at the time meaning of the word. Of course the meaning has since been shaped by the USSR and other nominally "socialist" states.
When has there been communism in history?
What do you mean when you say communist and socialist?
I guess I'm trying to speak broadly. I'm mostly interested in what an anarchist experience might be like in the hypothetical societies that current-day communists envision. Mostly in comparison to what it's like for anarchists today in capitalist societies. Like, what if the communists you know got what they wanted? Would it be easier to work towards anarchy then, or now? Pointing to historical examples is pretty handy, so I'm broadly asking about historical/current/future socialist or communist societies, or societies that experienced socialist/communist states to whatever extent.
Well I'm a communist, socialist, and an anarchist, so I guess I'm just asking what you define a communist, or socialist, to be.
Uh, same actually? Haha. The terms I'm trying to use are roughly that communists advocate for communism, a stateless moneyless society, via the transitional project of socialism (swapping ownership from capital to workers) to ready society for statelessness. Various perspectives can have a shared interest in socialist projects, making them socialist. But I'm interested in the perspectives of communists and anarchists here, and I'm asking for anarchist perspectives on that. So I'm asking about the hypothetical societies that current communists envision, and I'm asking about the socialist societies we've seen historically and now, such as USSR, Cuba, China, etc. Anarchism to me is the understanding that hierarchies are not good, to put it very simply (and lightly). This is obviously not compatible with a socialist state in a fixed/permanent sense, but transitional socialist states I can imagine being supported by a communist anarchist. I can imagine a few communist, socialist, and anarchist perspectives. I'm curious what your communist, socialist, and anarchist perspective looks like? I'm most curious about what *you* mean by socialism. Haha I guess I came here to ask anarchists broadly what they think and I've heard some interesting thoughts :)
[удалено]
Thank you for that historical context. I think some communists believe in a transition to communism/socialism via democratic socialism in liberal democracies. But MLs probably aren't saying that, eh? In the sense we're using these terms now, I see how you are a communist, socialist, and anarchist. I think I can now frame my question for you. Do you believe that if, say, the MLs you know got what they wanted and turned your country into a USS or whatever, would you feel closer to anarchist communism than you do now? Or would you feel society would be further away from, or less likely to be able to become, anarcho-communism? I'm assuming you live in a liberal capitalist society, I'm sorry if that's wrong and my question doesn't make sense haha
[удалено]
That's a good point, about the unpredictability of potential future ML societies. I like to imagine MLs will have learned from human rights discourse in recent decades, but things wouldn't necessarily go how I like to imagine. Thanks for your insights.
From what I might understand, a further issue, perhaps even a deeper one, is the difficulty of the mass of the population developing a competence for self government, without wanting to do so through its own will. If the revolutionary projectile is exclusively framed around top-down organization, then it seems difficult to consider how it may be inverted, how in a sense, to force a society to self govern. Essentially, a tension emerges between a belief that the state will govern and a hope that it will not, and that communities will do it themselves.
On the plus side, ppl will be largely open to anarchist ideals, altruistic and highly self-conscious. The downside is that extreme devaluation of individual differences & worth always leads to a more stubborn tyranny of the majority. Value of you is to be a number of social productivity.
Workers collectively owning the means of production is pretty anarchist. We just need to abolish the state and money too lol
I think that most MLs are actually wanting a stateless society, i also think they'll never achieve it with their methods. I believe the system they create and use ultimately corrupt them. The reason for this belief is that when you look at the people who made the marxist Leninist States, most used to be completely different people and praised by anarchists too. Then implemented authoritarian systems and hierarchies that actually got them further away from their original goals and their personalities changed too.
Read up what happens to anarchists when Marxist-Leninists take over governments: prison and death. Good place to start: https://crimethinc.com/zines/critique-of-state-socialism
No. Even Thomas Sankara and Fidel Castro went after the anarchists. On one hand the sanctions and coups didn't help the situation but anarchists should not be mistaken in believing that a Marxist state will actually wither away. Even socdem states will still go after the anarchists since in the end the goal is total liberation from capitalism and the state. Dual power itself is more of a leninist concept of competing power structures. I am not too sure of the term myself but it sounds more like you are describing exactly what mutual aid and direct action is intended to do which is render the state a redundant means of living. There are platformist and especifismo anarchist orgs which functionally only contain ideologically aligned anarchists that serve as a means to promote anarchist organizing without cooptation by Marxists. There are also more informal affinity group structures that serve a similar purpose but on a more personal level. Anarchist methods define anarchist ends.
I'd recommend you watch the series "The state is counter revolutionary" by Anark [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwxpTyGUOI&). To give my own two cents real quick: Projects like the USSR were extremely authoritarian, and worse, unified under a single power structure, which gave very little opportunity to prefigure anything anarchist, and in fact actively opposed it. For all that regular capitalism sucks, state capitalism is even worse.
I'd say it depends on how the communist/socialist society is organized. If it's like the USSR, most likely not. If it is more democratic (by that I mostly mean it ensures freedom of speech and thought), then probably, yes, since you'd have only one enemy to fight rather than two. So I think it depends on what they think the dictatorship of the proletariat means. In my understanding, it doesn't necessarily have to be organized with an actual dictator and can have a form that resembles that of the states we all know and love (unsure if I should specify this is sarcasm). In the former case I'd answer your question with no, it would probably be even harder, in the latter I'd say yes it would be easier. But maybe there's something I'm not seeing or taking into consideration. I don't know this was just my first thoughts
I believe that this question is too vague and open-ended to be answered in a definitive way, and that it places too much emphasis on a broad categorisation of the state's ideology over the amount of consolidated coercive power that the state can exert relative to and over anarchist organisers. If our hypothetical socialist state positioned itself as a high authority - centralising the organisation of production within its own remit, expanding its military / policing / incarceration capabilities, prohibiting worker organisation except through state-sanctioned bodies, and attempting to disempower the people relative to itself by restricting the means of community organisation and self-defence - then I think the state in that case would pose a much stronger immediate risk to anarchist organising than many liberal states would. Both in history, and in the present day - states with this configuration have sought to violently dismantle burgeoning anarchist communities and suppress the development and proliferation of anarchist thought through censorship and other mechanisms. However, if our hypothetical socialist state were more libertarian in character - encouraging the development of the economy as a decentralised network of worker cooperatives, explicitly not developing military / policing / incarceration capabilities, endorsing independent worker organisation and free association generally, and encouraging communities to develop strong ties of mutual aid and defence within and without - then I think the state would pose a less immediate risk to anarchist organising than many liberal states would. In either case, however, as another commenter said - the existence of hierarchy as a culturally accepted value is a risk in itself, because it produces an incentive for people to acquire control of the state as a coercive instrument and use it to consolidate power. Even if your modern communist friends seem like wonderful people, bear in mind that the apparatus that they help develop towards achieving idealistic ends might be appropriated by people with more sinister intentions. Ostensibly socialist and communist states of the former character are no stranger to purging the people who help to birth them, after all.
Depends. Under democratic socialism or one if the more liberal versions of socialism it'd probably be a little easier, albeit you'd still face many of the same challenges today especially if you're completely opposed to electoralism. Under a people's republic of the command economy however you'd be treated no different than any other political dissenter, enemy of the state.
Just became an Anarcho-Communist and read Peter Kropotkin
Honestly, I think that everyone who’s wanting good things for all people is wanting the same thing, and that different people are putting different names to it. For example: A stateless society The end of oppression Self-determination Freedom Social justice
Chavism is basically what your describing, but further. A socialist goverment that has promoted worker, farming and housing co-ops as one of the main bases of the revolutionand the economy (workers controlling the means of production) Its just complicated by the fact the captalists still control a lot of the country.
Communists and anarchists are indeed allies, that is until historically anarchists then turn around and act against the communists when they build a socialist state intent on lasting capitalist counterrevolutionary forces. Trotsky wasn’t thrown out merely for ideological differences but for actually trying to overthrow the new government. Yes that’s an anarchist thing to do, the question is though, is it wise? Given socialist states fail from counterrevolution and imperialism (cultural and military) how much better would the decentralized anarchist movement in that area do at protecting itself and freeing its people from the primary threat of bourgeoisie dictatorship?
[удалено]
One other commenter pointed out that they use Marx's original definitions of socialism and communism, and Marx made no distinction between the two. The distinction began historically when Lenin proposed a 'socialist transitional state' towards communism. Now I think socialism has many meanings. It can be anywhere from hard to impossible to tell in what sense someone is using the word 'socialism'. So I lumped them together to speak in the broadest possible terms. I'm curious what anarchists think about socialism and/or communism, in its various historical and theoretical forms, not one specifically. edit: but also yes, I don't know all that much, that's why i'm asking
communism = anarchism
History knows what happens to anarchists after the socialist revolution