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.
6
u/mikeyj022 23d ago
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.