Anarkiddies

Marxists aren't ignorant of prefiguration, we agree with some of it, such as building dual power. We don't agree that doing so erases the basis of class, and thus doesn't also erase the basis od the state. Marxists in general take the opposite approach to solving class struggle, believing in collectivization of all production and distribution to suit the needs of all, rather than creating loosely organized communalist cells, and this is because of analysis of class struggle being different for Marxists (and I believe more correct).

This right here. The problem is tankies don't like to admit there's other philosophies WITHIN communism (council communism, anarcho-communism (which are basically the same fucking thing but no one realizes cause they only read the first page of das Kapital and nothing else)).

I should also distinguish between tankies and MLs before this instance dogpiles me calling me a liberal. Literally every ML I've met in real life understands the theory behind anarchism and I've had some great talks with them. It's just this theory of leaderlessness comes off shaky to most. Meanwhile online ML who do no organizing, attend no protests and spend all their lives complaining online are the ones thinking this meme is the most hilarious shit. I believe this kind of behaviour to be exclusively online.

So building a rival state?

Anarchists and Marxists may share the imperialists and capitalists as a common class enemy, but take their practice in different directions. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.

When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.

For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.

For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.

Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.

Yeah it’s pretty obvious with how even the most basic of pro-anarchist comments in here are downvoted by them.

Can’t expect anything else from people who will shoot you in the back during a revolution

Marxists and anarchists get along far more often than not, the problems arise when one group takes up arms against the other and fighting ensues. Given that Marxists have had more success establishing systems, there are more examples of those minority of anarchists taking up arms against the Marxists. Marxists and anarchists may take opposite approaches, ie collectivization instead of communalization, but history proves that the two groups can and do work together far more often than not.

Goldman is a horribly biased source for the Russian Civil War. She lived in Russia during the Civil War, 1920-1921, wrote that piece in '22 from Stockholm, and then the Civil War concluded in '23. She grew up with anti-Russian biases common of western Europeans (still continues today), spoke relatively broken Russian, and chiefly was entirely wrong about the anarchist movement in Russia.

The anarchists, who were faced with a dillema between supporting the bolsheviks and the Whites, majority decided to support the bolsheviks and were comrades in arms. Bandits like Makhno's faction that were slaughtering villagers and stealing soviet supplies were killed, but the overwhelming majority of anarchists joined the Red Army, called "soviet-anarchists." Goldman is primarily pointing to the minority of anarchists that denied the bolsheviks as the only anarchists.

Goldman was also contested by other anarchists at the time. Kropotkin, while displeased that the revolution wasn't an anarchist one, supported the revolution nonetheless. Lucy Parsons was another principled anarchist that nonetheless supported the bolsheviks, and also agreed with labelling Makhno a bandit. Goldman, however, was a friend of Makhno, showing the real allegiances Goldman had.

Goldman's anti-communism was ultimately based in unprincipled chauvanism. Her writings on anarchist theory are valuable, but we should not take her as any sort of authority on actually existing socialism, which she had denounced before it even finished fighting for its own existence.

Its because anarchism isn’t seen as a valid threat or opposition to the US empire and because of it’s ineffectiveness against capitalism, the CIA/FBI can use the promotion of anarchism to split the left, silence revolutionary activity, and attack Marxist-Leninism, an actual working ideology. People that claim to be anarchists who take it upon themselves either in real life or online to bash “tankies”, AES states, etc are doing the current state’s work for free.

red fascists

Deeply unserious term and proves my point lmao

We ALREADY live in a do nothing state, where private and foreign interests just YOLO across us with no state to advocate for us.

This is wrong. We have a strong police force. Take squatting for example. The anarchist view would be, if you don't use a house in any form, it isn't yours anymore and someone else can take it. The neoliberal police state will force you out of it. The state enforces private and foreign interests. You can't tell me that ICE is a sign of a do nothing state to take another example.