I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because […]
For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of anarchists hold to that view, especially given stalin’s view of anarchists (see below).
We are not the kind of people who, when the word “anarchism” is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: “Why waste time on that, it’s not worth talking about!” We think that such cheap “criticism” is undignified and useless.
Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists “have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous.” It is not who has a larger or smaller “mass” following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the “doctrine” of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.
Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.
This is a great mistake.
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the “doctrine” of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.
So if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation? It makes no sense. But sure, keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.
For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence.
Do they not know of how the western leaders enabled the Nazis to carve up Czechoslovakia and opposed USSR’s call for a united front against Nazis?
The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came together to allow the Nazis and Poland to annex Czechoslovakia.
And the next para from the text you quoted goes into the reasons, right? Searched with the text you shared and got this:
The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”
How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
I don’t have much experience with literature on Anarchism(or Marxism, but relatively better there), so would be cool to know your opinions on it
How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
I don’t think it’s accurate. And yes, definitely. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.
keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.
To be clear, those weren’t the folks I was referring to in my comment. But:
if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation?
Absolutely welcome to ask, and I’ll give it a shot nonetheless.
I would ask the anarchist (and the modern day ML too) if they agree with this part of Stalin’s theory.
I don’t, and would venture to say a modern day ML may also disagree with Stalin in this but even also have a penchant for his rehabilitation, for other reasons.
More tangentally I think anarchism and marxism are not fundamentally enemies, (so, in disagreement with Stalin here), and would suggest they primarily diverge on the role a state plays in mediating conflicts of private and public interests.
But if I were to try and find common ground with the bit from Stalin you’re citing, just for argument’s sake, it would be that this divergence is a fundamental relationship between the two, but I’d still maintain the differences are not incompatible or irreconcileable.
But again, for the record, I was being more snarky about people who pivot from talking about how Hitler could’ve won to how Stalin could’ve lost.
I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because anyone else would have let the USSR capitulate to the wehrmacht invasion.
You joke but there is legit someone calling themselves anarchist who said that the 27 million soviets the nazis killed deserved it because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
They’re a power mod on their instance too
Regardless I don’t think they’re lamenting Germany’s defeat.
They’re not that happy about it either
For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of anarchists hold to that view, especially given stalin’s view of anarchists (see below).
So if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation? It makes no sense. But sure, keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.
Do they not know of how the western leaders enabled the Nazis to carve up Czechoslovakia and opposed USSR’s call for a united front against Nazis?
The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came together to allow the Nazis and Poland to annex Czechoslovakia.
And if you think there were no agreements before:
1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
1935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
And the next para from the text you quoted goes into the reasons, right? Searched with the text you shared and got this:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
I don’t have much experience with literature on Anarchism(or Marxism, but relatively better there), so would be cool to know your opinions on it
I don’t think it’s accurate. And yes, definitely. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.
To be clear, those weren’t the folks I was referring to in my comment. But:
Absolutely welcome to ask, and I’ll give it a shot nonetheless.
I would ask the anarchist (and the modern day ML too) if they agree with this part of Stalin’s theory.
I don’t, and would venture to say a modern day ML may also disagree with Stalin in this but even also have a penchant for his rehabilitation, for other reasons.
More tangentally I think anarchism and marxism are not fundamentally enemies, (so, in disagreement with Stalin here), and would suggest they primarily diverge on the role a state plays in mediating conflicts of private and public interests.
But if I were to try and find common ground with the bit from Stalin you’re citing, just for argument’s sake, it would be that this divergence is a fundamental relationship between the two, but I’d still maintain the differences are not incompatible or irreconcileable.
But again, for the record, I was being more snarky about people who pivot from talking about how Hitler could’ve won to how Stalin could’ve lost.