5 ms·

It's misleading to mix up anarchism and marxism-leninism. While both are anti capitalist, ML is the one where you're just replacing one hierarchy (economic powe

It's misleading to mix up anarchism and marxism-leninism. While both are anti capitalist, ML is the one where you're just replacing one hierarchy (economic power) with another (party membership). Anarchism is fundamentally against coercive hierarchy.

kragen 5y ago
Anarchism is indeed fundamentally against coercive hierarchy, yes, and I apologize for not being clearer about that. That said, Emma Goldman and many other anarchists were delighted to be deported to Soviet Russia until their famous disillusionment; historically speaking, the mainstream of anarchism considered state communism more friend than enemy, until they saw how it worked out in practice. And my own experiences with nominally anti-hierarchical organizations have not given me great faith.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I think a lot of people had a lot of hope in the Soviet Union, especially when there were actual soviet councils involved. It didn't take long to devolve into a regular dictatorship. After all the state was supposed to be a vanguard for the implementation of socialism but power begets power and in the end it existed to serve itself. I think that's the main reason that most sane leftists* are some flavour of anarchist these days. * not including social democrats/other liberals in the "leftist" bracket.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    How can one be both anarchist and leftist? Doesn't re-allocating resources in an unprofitable way for the owner require some sort of involuntary transaction, or would you expect owners of capital will all relinquish them peacefully? It seems like capitalism is more compatible with anarchism as capitalism can be contained within voluntary transactions.
    - kragen 5y ago
      It sounds like you would benefit from reading at least the introduction section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        Oxford dictionary: noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. That sounds compatible with mere free trade amongst men without any sort of socialism. Seems like leftism wants some involuntary reallocation of capital, but maybe I'm mistaken. If they don't I'd say they're just charitable capitalists.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        Anarchism isn't just "no rules or government" as it means in common parlance; it is against coercive hierarchy in general, and capitalism is inherently coercive because it involves denial of access to means of production, and denial of access to necessary resources like food and medicine. Think of anarchism as being more akin to a modern attempt at the tribal system of humanity's prehistory, but scaled up: resources being pooled and shared instead of traded transactionally. There are other interpretations of anarchist productive organisation but that's a common one.
        notch656a 5y ago
        How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)? Or say I have a full fledged industrial scale wave soldering, mass PnP, full inventory of millions of dollars worth of components. I need it to feed my family, I'm not going to just hand it to you after I gained it through consensual trade fair and square. Doesn't that require coercion? I'm not just going to give up my goods I worked hard for, what's going to happen when the comrades see the loaded barrel of a rifle protecting that which feeds my family? I think a lot of people needing to feed there families are going to have a lot of rifles, and they're not going to be very happy about someone coming along to "open up access" to means of production of their business. When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion. This all just sounds like a violent way of less efficiently allocating capital, under the guise of non-coercion. Access to property should require consent, otherwise you have coercion. Seems to me free market trading of private property fits a lot more neatly with the oxford definition of anarchism.

kragen 5y ago

Anarchism is indeed fundamentally against coercive hierarchy, yes, and I apologize for not being clearer about that. That said, Emma Goldman and many other anarchists were delighted to be deported to Soviet Russia until their famous disillusionment; historically speaking, the mainstream of anarchism considered state communism more friend than enemy, until they saw how it worked out in practice. And my own experiences with nominally anti-hierarchical organizations have not given me great faith.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I think a lot of people had a lot of hope in the Soviet Union, especially when there were actual soviet councils involved. It didn't take long to devolve into a regular dictatorship. After all the state was supposed to be a vanguard for the implementation of socialism but power begets power and in the end it existed to serve itself. I think that's the main reason that most sane leftists* are some flavour of anarchist these days. * not including social democrats/other liberals in the "leftist" bracket.
- notch656a 5y ago
  How can one be both anarchist and leftist? Doesn't re-allocating resources in an unprofitable way for the owner require some sort of involuntary transaction, or would you expect owners of capital will all relinquish them peacefully? It seems like capitalism is more compatible with anarchism as capitalism can be contained within voluntary transactions.
  - kragen 5y ago
    It sounds like you would benefit from reading at least the introduction section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Oxford dictionary: noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. That sounds compatible with mere free trade amongst men without any sort of socialism. Seems like leftism wants some involuntary reallocation of capital, but maybe I'm mistaken. If they don't I'd say they're just charitable capitalists.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Anarchism isn't just "no rules or government" as it means in common parlance; it is against coercive hierarchy in general, and capitalism is inherently coercive because it involves denial of access to means of production, and denial of access to necessary resources like food and medicine. Think of anarchism as being more akin to a modern attempt at the tribal system of humanity's prehistory, but scaled up: resources being pooled and shared instead of traded transactionally. There are other interpretations of anarchist productive organisation but that's a common one.
        notch656a 5y ago
        How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)? Or say I have a full fledged industrial scale wave soldering, mass PnP, full inventory of millions of dollars worth of components. I need it to feed my family, I'm not going to just hand it to you after I gained it through consensual trade fair and square. Doesn't that require coercion? I'm not just going to give up my goods I worked hard for, what's going to happen when the comrades see the loaded barrel of a rifle protecting that which feeds my family? I think a lot of people needing to feed there families are going to have a lot of rifles, and they're not going to be very happy about someone coming along to "open up access" to means of production of their business. When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion. This all just sounds like a violent way of less efficiently allocating capital, under the guise of non-coercion. Access to property should require consent, otherwise you have coercion. Seems to me free market trading of private property fits a lot more neatly with the oxford definition of anarchism.