8 ms·

Orwell was actually fighting FOR communism. Specifically anarcho-communist Catalonia. What you call Communism is actually ideology called Marxism-Leninism, ther

Orwell was actually fighting FOR communism. Specifically anarcho-communist Catalonia. What you call Communism is actually ideology called Marxism-Leninism, there are libertarian variants of communists too, for example anarcho-communism or council communism. Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless society so you can ask yourself a question. Was USSR state communist? It was a state. That ideology postulated that it can impose communism top-down, which was always criticised by anarchist thought which operates on horizontalism and not hierarchy. Orwell was a democratic socialist till the end of his life, which a lot of people don't know. He was not a liberal or social democrat.

goatlover 3y ago
But that kind of state Marxism happened in other countries as well. The state Marxists might ask the anarchists how they expect to accomplish a sateless, classless, moneyless society. The state Marxists didn't succeed, but it does still pose a question toward anarchists. How do you get rid of the state? To that I'd add, what makes you think people want a classless, moneyless society? Or another question would be, how do you have a revolution to overthrow the state and not just replace it with another state setup by whoever ends up leading the revolution?
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  You can read about Zapatistas, who ideologically are the closest to anarchist territory in practice. They have quite a bit higher standard of living then the rest of Chiapas, so it seems the experiment is successful. A lot of people don't like liberalism anymore and because they think the only alternative on the left was Marxist-Leninism they slowly go in the direction of fascism. Anarchism is another direction. Anarchist revolution wouldn't have leaders and it in theory wouldn't have to be violent - anarcho-syndycalists postulate that a general strike would be enough. Probably some violence would happen, especially from the state or fascist paramilitary groups but who knows. Anarchist main strategy is prefiguration, so create spaces that are anarchist in nature and grow them from there, show as many people they don't need a state or private property or if you are a communist a money too.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Zapatistas" If they practice anarchism, it is of a kind where everyone must work and they do seem to have clear power structures as far as I understand. So they sound more socialist than anarchist to me with authoritian tendencies in reality. But it is hard to tell, as they are very closed up and not very open to outsiders. But for context, they do fight for survival in a hostile environment and that probably does not help with nice and clean solutions. Still, there seems to me a big discrepancy between their writings and their actions, so I would be careful with choosing them as a role model. But their slogan I very much like "The world we want is one where many worlds fit".
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      I've read they try two find consensus which doesn't seem authoritarian, do you have any sources for that?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        And what happens if they don't find a consensus? And it has been a while that I tried to find out more about them, but I mainly found it hard to get neutral sources at all. They are very closed up and you cannot just visit them. Or in some ways you can, but you won't get to see the inside structures. How they actually make decisions. At least that's what the people I read reported. (But there is a study I just stumbled on, I will read later, maybe there is sonething more concrete inside: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073805931100143X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073805931...) All in all it sounds more like tribalism. A indigenous culture that is trying to survive with some autonomy in a world of nation states.
        TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        >And what happens if they don't find a consensus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities#Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Mun... They strive to reach consensus, if they cannot find it they make decisions through majority and they are federation composed of popular assemblies of around 300 families each. Zapatistas are indigenous Americans whose culture was almost completely destroyed, but calling them tribalist is unfair I would say, given that e.g they promote sexual equality.
- simonh 3y ago
  The core problem is how to have redistributive system, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, without a dictatorship. Someone has to determine what the needs are and do the redistributing.
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    Some variant of decentralized planning.
    - simonh 3y ago
      That can work at a local level, I have a friend who was born into a Kibbutz, but what happens at the national level? Most Kibbutzim are agricultural, but there are some that operate capital intensive high tech manufacturing, including one that makes advanced military products, with huge revenue relative to the number of members. Somebody needs to allocate and manage strategic resources for big projects, and have the power to make it stick. The problem with communism has always been accountability. This is why in the 1860s Bakunin was arguing that Marxist regimes would be one-party dictatorships unrepresentative of the actual proletariat, and that it would lead to the worst tyranny the world had ever known. He was saying this before Lenin was even born. Marx eventually kicked him out of the International for it. IMHO it's one of the most stunningly prescient political predictions of all time.
      - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        Zapatistas falsified your statement, Rojava is too argument against scaling issues. We can arbitrary move scales from these hundreds thousands or a few million for Zapatistas and Rojava, but I would argue that if these structures work on that scale then they should on scale of tens of million too. The trick is to add some federational or confederational structure where locals can easily undelegate chosen delegates. Currently in federational states its usually impossible or very hard to undelegate representatives and so they do what they want for a few years.
        3y ago
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless society so you can ask yourself a question. Communism is a specific historic movement. As Nietzsche famously said, “all ideas, in which a whole process is promiscuously comprehended, elude definition; it is only that which has no history, which can be defined.” It also rhymes nicely with what Marx said, “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” > What you call Communism is actually ideology called Marxism-Leninism Well, why what you call it is how it’s actually called and what someone else calls it is wrong? Language is arbitrary. I think it is a purely political question. Just like deciding whether to define racism as racial prejudice or as racial prejudice with power. It’s all about rhetoric, not about what’s something “actually called”.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  Ok, so can you call it how I want from now, ok? Why am I supposed to submit to your newspeak that is just to attack all leftist as authoritarians and to ommit anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist movements? Imprecise vocabulary is great tool for authoritarian, that's why I write about these other meanings and ideologies.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    > Why am I supposed to submit to your newspeak that is just to attack all leftist as authoritarians and to ommit anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist movements? Well, it is simply a fact that in public discourse both left and right mainly associate communism with Marx and Lenin because of the early influence of Marx on communist movements and of later Bolshevization of the Comintern in 1920s. I don’t see what is newspeak-y about it, it is a natural linguistic and cultural development. > Imprecise vocabulary is great tool for authoritarian, that's why I write about these other meanings and ideologies. Yeah, that’s why I always look at “anarchists” with suspicion. They seem to consistently support measures that empower the government.
tgv 3y ago
1. At the time, Orwell was a socialist, not a communist, and perhaps even more importantly, he was fighting against fascism, rather than for communism. You really should distinguish your 2nd and 3rd Internationals. 2. The USSR was definitely founded by Bolsheviks, the leaders of the 3rd "Communist" International. They even went so far as to put the word "communist" in the party's name, and kill dissidents. 3. Anarchism leads to a lawless society in which the strongest will rule. It leads to Dark Ages, as it has done before. It may be moneyless, but it will have very clear class and ownership concepts. 4. "It wasn't true communism". Just like China, North-Korea, the GDR, etc. Sure. If it wasn't true communism, you can draw the historical dialectic conclusion that we cannot reach true communism.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  > 3. Anarchism leads to a lawless society in which the strongest will rule. It leads to Dark Ages, as it has done before. It may be moneyless, but it will have very clear class and ownership concepts. Why? Because of one sentence quote from a book published in 1651? Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about?
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    If nobody feels like organizing social power structures I’d probably just go ahead and do it myself. What are you gonna do when there’s ten of us and one of you?
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Generally anarchists accept power structures are inevitable and want different power structures, organized on the basis of mutual cooperation and collective decision making rather than a hierarchical system where a small number of people (usually the people furthest from the "facts on the ground") deliberate and decide. More like direct democracy than a power vacuum.
      - TotalCrackpot 3y ago

goatlover 3y ago

But that kind of state Marxism happened in other countries as well. The state Marxists might ask the anarchists how they expect to accomplish a sateless, classless, moneyless society. The state Marxists didn't succeed, but it does still pose a question toward anarchists. How do you get rid of the state? To that I'd add, what makes you think people want a classless, moneyless society? Or another question would be, how do you have a revolution to overthrow the state and not just replace it with another state setup by whoever ends up leading the revolution?

TotalCrackpot 3y ago
You can read about Zapatistas, who ideologically are the closest to anarchist territory in practice. They have quite a bit higher standard of living then the rest of Chiapas, so it seems the experiment is successful. A lot of people don't like liberalism anymore and because they think the only alternative on the left was Marxist-Leninism they slowly go in the direction of fascism. Anarchism is another direction. Anarchist revolution wouldn't have leaders and it in theory wouldn't have to be violent - anarcho-syndycalists postulate that a general strike would be enough. Probably some violence would happen, especially from the state or fascist paramilitary groups but who knows. Anarchist main strategy is prefiguration, so create spaces that are anarchist in nature and grow them from there, show as many people they don't need a state or private property or if you are a communist a money too.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Zapatistas" If they practice anarchism, it is of a kind where everyone must work and they do seem to have clear power structures as far as I understand. So they sound more socialist than anarchist to me with authoritian tendencies in reality. But it is hard to tell, as they are very closed up and not very open to outsiders. But for context, they do fight for survival in a hostile environment and that probably does not help with nice and clean solutions. Still, there seems to me a big discrepancy between their writings and their actions, so I would be careful with choosing them as a role model. But their slogan I very much like "The world we want is one where many worlds fit".
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    I've read they try two find consensus which doesn't seem authoritarian, do you have any sources for that?
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      And what happens if they don't find a consensus? And it has been a while that I tried to find out more about them, but I mainly found it hard to get neutral sources at all. They are very closed up and you cannot just visit them. Or in some ways you can, but you won't get to see the inside structures. How they actually make decisions. At least that's what the people I read reported. (But there is a study I just stumbled on, I will read later, maybe there is sonething more concrete inside: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073805931100143X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073805931...) All in all it sounds more like tribalism. A indigenous culture that is trying to survive with some autonomy in a world of nation states.
      - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
        >And what happens if they don't find a consensus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities#Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Mun... They strive to reach consensus, if they cannot find it they make decisions through majority and they are federation composed of popular assemblies of around 300 families each. Zapatistas are indigenous Americans whose culture was almost completely destroyed, but calling them tribalist is unfair I would say, given that e.g they promote sexual equality.
simonh 3y ago
The core problem is how to have redistributive system, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, without a dictatorship. Someone has to determine what the needs are and do the redistributing.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  Some variant of decentralized planning.
  - simonh 3y ago
    That can work at a local level, I have a friend who was born into a Kibbutz, but what happens at the national level? Most Kibbutzim are agricultural, but there are some that operate capital intensive high tech manufacturing, including one that makes advanced military products, with huge revenue relative to the number of members. Somebody needs to allocate and manage strategic resources for big projects, and have the power to make it stick. The problem with communism has always been accountability. This is why in the 1860s Bakunin was arguing that Marxist regimes would be one-party dictatorships unrepresentative of the actual proletariat, and that it would lead to the worst tyranny the world had ever known. He was saying this before Lenin was even born. Marx eventually kicked him out of the International for it. IMHO it's one of the most stunningly prescient political predictions of all time.
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      Zapatistas falsified your statement, Rojava is too argument against scaling issues. We can arbitrary move scales from these hundreds thousands or a few million for Zapatistas and Rojava, but I would argue that if these structures work on that scale then they should on scale of tens of million too. The trick is to add some federational or confederational structure where locals can easily undelegate chosen delegates. Currently in federational states its usually impossible or very hard to undelegate representatives and so they do what they want for a few years.
      - 3y ago

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless society so you can ask yourself a question. Communism is a specific historic movement. As Nietzsche famously said, “all ideas, in which a whole process is promiscuously comprehended, elude definition; it is only that which has no history, which can be defined.” It also rhymes nicely with what Marx said, “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” > What you call Communism is actually ideology called Marxism-Leninism Well, why what you call it is how it’s actually called and what someone else calls it is wrong? Language is arbitrary. I think it is a purely political question. Just like deciding whether to define racism as racial prejudice or as racial prejudice with power. It’s all about rhetoric, not about what’s something “actually called”.

TotalCrackpot 3y ago
Ok, so can you call it how I want from now, ok? Why am I supposed to submit to your newspeak that is just to attack all leftist as authoritarians and to ommit anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist movements? Imprecise vocabulary is great tool for authoritarian, that's why I write about these other meanings and ideologies.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > Why am I supposed to submit to your newspeak that is just to attack all leftist as authoritarians and to ommit anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist movements? Well, it is simply a fact that in public discourse both left and right mainly associate communism with Marx and Lenin because of the early influence of Marx on communist movements and of later Bolshevization of the Comintern in 1920s. I don’t see what is newspeak-y about it, it is a natural linguistic and cultural development. > Imprecise vocabulary is great tool for authoritarian, that's why I write about these other meanings and ideologies. Yeah, that’s why I always look at “anarchists” with suspicion. They seem to consistently support measures that empower the government.

tgv 3y ago

1. At the time, Orwell was a socialist, not a communist, and perhaps even more importantly, he was fighting against fascism, rather than for communism. You really should distinguish your 2nd and 3rd Internationals. 2. The USSR was definitely founded by Bolsheviks, the leaders of the 3rd "Communist" International. They even went so far as to put the word "communist" in the party's name, and kill dissidents. 3. Anarchism leads to a lawless society in which the strongest will rule. It leads to Dark Ages, as it has done before. It may be moneyless, but it will have very clear class and ownership concepts. 4. "It wasn't true communism". Just like China, North-Korea, the GDR, etc. Sure. If it wasn't true communism, you can draw the historical dialectic conclusion that we cannot reach true communism.

TotalCrackpot 3y ago
> 3. Anarchism leads to a lawless society in which the strongest will rule. It leads to Dark Ages, as it has done before. It may be moneyless, but it will have very clear class and ownership concepts. Why? Because of one sentence quote from a book published in 1651? Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  If nobody feels like organizing social power structures I’d probably just go ahead and do it myself. What are you gonna do when there’s ten of us and one of you?
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Generally anarchists accept power structures are inevitable and want different power structures, organized on the basis of mutual cooperation and collective decision making rather than a hierarchical system where a small number of people (usually the people furthest from the "facts on the ground") deliberate and decide. More like direct democracy than a power vacuum.
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago