I find it’s more meaningful to talks about specific flavors of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism. I can definitely see the appeal of what they want such as structuring businesses as worker owned coops. I just don’t think they have an actual workable plan of how to get there. A lot of anarchists I’ve talked to though, do have infantile notion of society where they basically just expect everyone to just get along and be nice to each other.
Yeah basically, hence why I think a lot of anarcho-syndicalist ideas are entirely compatible. The part they miss though is the role the state needs to play both in politics and in the economy.
Anarcho-syndicalism seems pretty compatible with MLism, like they’re just missing the complete picture and focusing on one specific part. The flavor of anarchism that’s basically “we will abolish all hierarchies, governments, exploitation, wage labor, and currency in one fell stroke and create a post-scarcity society without a vanguard party or any transition period” seems wholly at odds with Marxism or even common sense.
Right, I suspect it comes down to how much education people have. The most extreme forms of anarchism are basically naive ideas of how human society works, and as people become educated their ideas start getting more nuanced, and eventually it starts looking a lot like Marxism because that’s the only workable approach in the end.
Indeed, the strains that want something slightly more realistic (like worker co-ops) are a lot easier to speak to. As you say they tend to lack a practical means of implementing their desired society, or if they have ideas, they seem to just ‘reinvent’ MLism with different terminology (cue the Engels quote).
Yeah basically, I think the really sad part is just how much pointless bickering is happening when a lot of people want essentially the same thing. Arguing about what specific flavor of communism we’re gonna be focusing on when majority of people can’t even define communism is putting the cart before the horse.
I find it’s more meaningful to talks about specific flavors of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism. I can definitely see the appeal of what they want such as structuring businesses as worker owned coops. I just don’t think they have an actual workable plan of how to get there. A lot of anarchists I’ve talked to though, do have infantile notion of society where they basically just expect everyone to just get along and be nice to each other.
I mean isn’t that a soviet, or am I missing something?
Yeah basically, hence why I think a lot of anarcho-syndicalist ideas are entirely compatible. The part they miss though is the role the state needs to play both in politics and in the economy.
Anarcho-syndicalism seems pretty compatible with MLism, like they’re just missing the complete picture and focusing on one specific part. The flavor of anarchism that’s basically “we will abolish all hierarchies, governments, exploitation, wage labor, and currency in one fell stroke and create a post-scarcity society without a vanguard party or any transition period” seems wholly at odds with Marxism or even common sense.
Right, I suspect it comes down to how much education people have. The most extreme forms of anarchism are basically naive ideas of how human society works, and as people become educated their ideas start getting more nuanced, and eventually it starts looking a lot like Marxism because that’s the only workable approach in the end.
Indeed, the strains that want something slightly more realistic (like worker co-ops) are a lot easier to speak to. As you say they tend to lack a practical means of implementing their desired society, or if they have ideas, they seem to just ‘reinvent’ MLism with different terminology (cue the Engels quote).
Yeah basically, I think the really sad part is just how much pointless bickering is happening when a lot of people want essentially the same thing. Arguing about what specific flavor of communism we’re gonna be focusing on when majority of people can’t even define communism is putting the cart before the horse.