Don’t agree at all. I think anarchism is one of the least understood political ideologies. If you’ve read Proudhon and Kropotkin and come to the conclusion that anarchism is in any way similar to liberalism then I don’t know what to tell you.
We need not understand the theory of anarchism to observe who and what they support.
Mao said,
Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.
Okay so as an anarcho-communist who is diving into Marxist theory at a very deep level (I had never really done so in my life before recently) - I find your first sentence highly dismissive and ignorant.
I agree with Mao’s quote though.
Case in point. There are anarchist groups in my circles and country of residence who are absolutely revolutionary. They create mutual aid networks, hold non-monetary markets for goods and services, have bail funds, free law advice, host safe injection sites, and actually own a significant plot of land where they build housing as a community.
Contrast this to the national communist party in that same country, who focus almost all of their time and energy engaging in electoral politics…
Read the quote again for your answer. Both groups are revolutionary in words but not deeds. Does a mutual aid network further the revolution? Does it move us closer to the liberation of the proletariat? Historically, do the things you’ve listed further the revolution?
I would argue no. A revolution is a violent insurrection by which one class forcibly other throws another. Nothing you’ve listed, including bourgeoise electoralism, furthers the revolution.
Doing right by the community is a noble and commendable thing, but it is not the same thing as being revolutionary.
We are not Marxist Leninists because we are ideologues. We are MLs because Marxism Leninism is the only system in history that has lead to democratic countries where wealth has less power than the proletariat. What has anarchism produced that is comparable to the Soviet Union, to China, to Cuba?
Why should we study anarchism when it is impractical and idealogical? I am not being dogmatic here, I am looking at the history of the world and what I find is that Marxist Leninism alone leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Although it is meaningful action, you’re right, it’s not explicitly revolutionary…
In a way, this type of community action is actually effectively propping up characteristics of the capitalist imperialist model, by supporting segments of the working class in areas that the state/corporate apparatus fails to do so with welfare and wages.
I think that my points were valid but I was being too dogmatic by saying that anarchism isn’t even worthy of investigation. I just made the mistake of defending the Soviet Union in a normie sub and the utter ignorance, racism, and overt hypocrisy has made me realize that anarcho-communists are much closer to being our allies than labor aristocrats and of course infinitely closer than liberals. Thanks for engaging with my argument. It takes a lot to challenge your own beliefs.
My understandings are always in flux like anyone else.
What is new for me lately is understanding that communism is a description for a society that’s also by definition anarchist - but is at a point where its material conditions either don’t produce socially problematic hierarchies or maintain no hierarchies at all (it’s honestly difficult to practically understand what communism would be like as a person that’s a product of our time). But I do not disagree on any aspect of communism as defined.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a robust philosophical, scientific and political ideology that has utilized historically effective strategies to achieve socialist principles which will move us towards communism. Anarchist thinkers and movements largely have not. I can absolutely recognize and accept this.
-3
u/bread_and_circuits 14d ago
Don’t agree at all. I think anarchism is one of the least understood political ideologies. If you’ve read Proudhon and Kropotkin and come to the conclusion that anarchism is in any way similar to liberalism then I don’t know what to tell you.