Anarchism: Marxism distorted

[Qhevak]

The Commie Alien bit makes sense assuming Marxist econ, tbh. The cheap energy/advanced manufacturing/AI/etc required for interstellar travel would drop the Rate of Profit to pretty much zero, necessitating economic planning for further growth (it wouldn't necessarily have to be egalitarian planning, though).

The UFOs are actively visiting Earth bit is wackier of course.

He doesn't say that they have definitely visited, but if they have, which, according to the behaviours of the US (and Soviet) government around the issue, is extremely likely.

TBH if they do exist I find Novikov self-consistency principle limited time travelers to be more likely than aliens. FTL most likely inherently implies the possibility of closed timelike curves and it'd explain the lack of other visible signs of extraterrestrial life.

[Duvniask]

If only T O R T K S E succeeded Lenin tho

If Trotsky succeeded Lenin the world would be so much worse.

Like yeah, the Soviets were bad, but if Trotsky succeded Lenin then he'd have the ruthlessness of Stalin combined with the world-domination rhetoric of Trotskyism, so it's pretty likely he'd try to take on both the West and the Nazis and then lose. Pretty hard, actually.

So yeah, be thankful we got Stalin and not Trotsky. If we got Trotsky, then the Nazis would've won.

I smell the stench of Great Man Theory.

Also, Trotsky, and the Left Opposition by association, wouldn't have looked like the Stalinist autocracy of the Great Purge. Stalin took on a much more murderous and brutal version of the platform of the Left Opposition that called for industrialization and state-directed development; it also being likely that his draconian measures ended up being counter-productive. I also do not see reason to believe the Left Opposition would have initiated a purge on the scale of Stalin's from 1936-1939, which for obvious reasons weakened the USSR by execution, deportation and removal of many innocent and competent figures in the army and administration. The extent to which Stalin let opportunism and careerism fester did not help things either (a decent example being the serial rapist/murderer, Beria, being in charge of the NKVD).

[Atheris]

If Trotsky succeeded Lenin the world would be so much worse.

Like yeah, the Soviets were bad, but if Trotsky succeded Lenin then he'd have the ruthlessness of Stalin combined with the world-domination rhetoric of Trotskyism, so it's pretty likely he'd try to take on both the West and the Nazis and then lose. Pretty hard, actually.

So yeah, be thankful we got Stalin and not Trotsky. If we got Trotsky, then the Nazis would've won.

I smell the stench of Great Man Theory.

Never heard of it.

Also, Trotsky, and the Left Opposition by association, wouldn't have looked like the Stalinist autocracy of the Great Purge. Stalin took on a much more murderous and brutal version of the platform of the Left Opposition that called for industrialization and state-directed development; it also being likely that his draconian measures ended up being counter-productive. I also do not see reason to believe the Left Opposition would have initiated a purge on the scale of Stalin's from 1936-1939, which for obvious reasons weakened Russia by execution, deportation and removal of many innocent and competent figures in the army and administration.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Trotsky likely wouldn't have purged to the same level of Stalin - I don't think he was nearly as paranoid as everyone's favorite Georgian dictator - but the industrialization and collectivization of Stalin's 5 year plans were originally Trotsky's ideas. Quote, Economic Adventurism and Its Dangers by Lev Trotsky himself:

"The opportunists have passed from passive possibilism to unbridled subjective one. The link of the business executive or worker to objective obstacles - bad equipment, lack of raw materials or their poor quality is equated with treason of the revolution. Above are required: scope, shock, offensive!

[...]

Industrial collectivization of agriculture presupposes a certain technical basis. A collective farm is, first of all, a large-scale farm. The rational size of the economy is determined, however, by the nature of the means and methods of production used by it. It is impossible to create large-scale agriculture from peasant plows and peasant nags, even if they are combined, just as a steamboat cannot be made from the sum of fishing boats. The collectivization of agriculture can only be the result of its mechanization. It follows from this that the total volume of industrialization of the country predetermines the permissible scope of collectivization of agriculture."

[Punished UMN]

I smell the stench of Great Man Theory.

Never heard of it.

How?

[Duvniask]

I smell the stench of Great Man Theory.

Never heard of it.

Let's just say this isn't the first time you attribute undue importance to the circumstances of a single individual.

Also, Trotsky, and the Left Opposition by association, wouldn't have looked like the Stalinist autocracy of the Great Purge. Stalin took on a much more murderous and brutal version of the platform of the Left Opposition that called for industrialization and state-directed development; it also being likely that his draconian measures ended up being counter-productive. I also do not see reason to believe the Left Opposition would have initiated a purge on the scale of Stalin's from 1936-1939, which for obvious reasons weakened Russia by execution, deportation and removal of many innocent and competent figures in the army and administration.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Trotsky likely wouldn't have purged to the same level of Stalin - I don't think he was nearly as paranoid as everyone's favorite Georgian dictator - but the industrialization and collectivization of Stalin's 5 year plans were originally Trotsky's ideas. Quote, Economic Adventurism and Its Dangers by Lev Trotsky himself:

"The opportunists have passed from passive possibilism to unbridled subjective one. The link of the business executive or worker to objective obstacles - bad equipment, lack of raw materials or their poor quality is equated with treason of the revolution. Above are required: scope, shock, offensive!

[...]

Industrial collectivization of agriculture presupposes a certain technical basis. A collective farm is, first of all, a large-scale farm. The rational size of the economy is determined, however, by the nature of the means and methods of production used by it. It is impossible to create large-scale agriculture from peasant plows and peasant nags, even if they are combined, just as a steamboat cannot be made from the sum of fishing boats. The collectivization of agriculture can only be the result of its mechanization. It follows from this that the total volume of industrialization of the country predetermines the permissible scope of collectivization of agriculture."

Your quote is not contrary to anything I said.

The first part of the quote seems like a critique of Stalinist growth-mania: pointing out that objective obstacles were being equated with treason.

As for the second part: yes, Trotsky called for the collectivization of agriculture, or we can more appropriately say the centralization of agriculture. Large-scaled agriculture is a common occurrence in the development of capitalism, as small plots and farms are concentrated into larger and more economically efficient ones; a development that still continues to this day. Increasing the effectiveness of agriculture was crucial to improving and enlarging the industrial base, because otherwise ~2/3 of the population would continue being stuck in primitive low-productivity farming to feed the population. It just so happened that the form that the new agriculture took in Russia, the kolkhoz, was itself inefficient and instead mirrored the needs of the state to quickly and brutally take away as much as possible (for building said industrial base) while keeping the peasant under its boot.

Also, collectivization was attempted under Stalin without enough tractors, insufficient infrastructure, electricity, etc. which also goes against what Trotsky is saying in that quote (you don't need a fully industrialized economy for these things, but the necessary components simply weren't there at the time).

[Nilokeras]

Fighting in syria and various other nations (IFB), the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) were organized in one of the largest protests in human history,

Again, I'm focusing on the Anglosphere because that's where the vast majority of us are and therefore those are the movements we can actually participate in, as opposed to cheering it on like it was a sports team and posting hashtags on twitter.

The American party of labor has been involved in several petitions, protests over these last few years and is very active (it sucks that they haven't released an official number on their size, but I could ask a friend on Instagram for it as they're apart of the party).

So again, no labour organizing? No mutual aid? No party building or even token attempts at electoralism? And less than 50 people showing up to protest Cory Booker? More people showed up to a city council meeting in my tiny Canadian hometown to protest a change to zoning laws than that.

[Kubra]

Ah yes anarchism, that political body that famously materialized around Karl Marx and definitely didn't precede him and fight incessantly with him and his followers

If you ask a lot of modern anarchists (especially anarcho-communists) they claim to be Marxists lol. I'm completely lost as to why though

Also yes, anarchism goes as far back as the ancient greeks to my knowledge

the "as to why" is because economic analysis is separate from concrete politics to a certain degree.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

As Stalin once said in Anarchism or Marxism; "We believe anarchists are the true enemies of marxism"

Classy. Nothing like a bit of Comrade Stalin to round out an argument.

Needs more democracy. The State isn't just going to go away, or retire to an apolitical administrative role. Anarchists have many bad ideas about how to obsolete the State, but Marxist don't even have that. "It will just happen"

"What's a power vacuum? Is it something for removing my brain, and if so where's the off switch?"

[Kubra]

I'm afraid you've distorted Marx's works so far they're completely incomprehensible.

If it's the argument presented to me by many Marxist-Leninists and my own interpretation over numerous readings and re-readings of the Communist Manifesto, then I fail to see how it's a distortion. It'd also do you well to refute the argument instead of using an ad hominem.

if you spent more time rereading the manifesto instead of staring at the two-department model of simple reproduction you gotta turn in ur Marxist card sry I don't make the rules

[Posadist-Communalists]

Would Democratic Confederalism be classed as Anarchist, or just Libertarian Socialist?

[Adamede]

The Commie Alien bit makes sense assuming Marxist econ, tbh. The cheap energy/advanced manufacturing/AI/etc required for interstellar travel would drop the Rate of Profit to pretty much zero, necessitating economic planning for further growth (it wouldn't necessarily have to be egalitarian planning, though).

The UFOs are actively visiting Earth bit is wackier of course.

He doesn't say that they have definitely visited, but if they have, which, according to the behaviours of the US (and Soviet) government around the issue, is extremely likely.

There’s literally no proof for it.

[Posadist-Communalists]

He doesn't say that they have definitely visited, but if they have, which, according to the behaviours of the US (and Soviet) government around the issue, is extremely likely.

There’s literally no proof for it.

No publicly disclosed proof.
Like I said, he said it is possible that they haven't visited, but it's very unlikely. We will be visited (or have been at some point) by ETs, whether that be during human history or not. I mean, humans have been on Earth for approximately 300,000 years, nothing compared to other species, so perhaps a very long time ago, an intelligent, sapient species had a civilization and left Earth to inhabit another body and either they all left or the ones left on Earth died off, and the "ETs" we claim to see are in fact just Earthlings that departed millions of years ago, hence the common depiction of humanoid reptiles. They might of cremated their dead, which would explain why we might haven't found fossils of them. Either way, it's very unlikely we are uncontacted by "something else".

[Adamede]

There’s literally no proof for it.

No publicly disclosed proof.
Like I said, he said it is possible that they haven't visited, but it's very unlikely. We will be visited (or have been at some point) by ETs, whether that be during human history or not. I mean, humans have been on Earth for approximately 300,000 years, nothing compared to other species, so perhaps a very long time ago, an intelligent, sapient species had a civilization and left Earth to inhabit another body and either they all left or the ones left on Earth died off, and the "ETs" we claim to see are in fact just Earthlings that departed millions of years ago, hence the common depiction of humanoid reptiles. They might of cremated their dead, which would explain why we might haven't found fossils of them. Either why, it's very unlikely we are uncontacted by "something else".

That’s even fucking dumber than the shit I usually hear on here and I had a guy on here tell me that Lincoln owned slaves the other day.

[Posadist-Communalists]

No publicly disclosed proof.
Like I said, he said it is possible that they haven't visited, but it's very unlikely. We will be visited (or have been at some point) by ETs, whether that be during human history or not. I mean, humans have been on Earth for approximately 300,000 years, nothing compared to other species, so perhaps a very long time ago, an intelligent, sapient species had a civilization and left Earth to inhabit another body and either they all left or the ones left on Earth died off, and the "ETs" we claim to see are in fact just Earthlings that departed millions of years ago, hence the common depiction of humanoid reptiles. They might of cremated their dead, which would explain why we might haven't found fossils of them. Either why, it's very unlikely we are uncontacted by "something else".

That’s even fucking dumber than the shit I usually hear on here and I had a guy on here tell me that Lincoln owned slaves the other day.

How is it dumb?

[Adamede]

That’s even fucking dumber than the shit I usually hear on here and I had a guy on here tell me that Lincoln owned slaves the other day.

How is it dumb?

Because it’s not even ideal speculation, it’s basically disguising your sci-finfantasies as a political ideology.
I Lena that it’s part of Posadism practically says enough about it as an actual “ideology”.

[Posadist-Communalists]

How is it dumb?

Because it’s not even ideal speculation, it’s basically disguising your sci-finfantasies as a political ideology.
I Lena that it’s part of Posadism practically says enough about it as an actual “ideology”.

It's an ideology with sci-fi beliefs. It's essentially sci-fi Trotskyism.

I'm a Communalist with Posadism's sci-fi aspects, not a full Posadist per se. But those parts of Posadism are actually more sensical than you'd think.

[Adamede]

Because it’s not even ideal speculation, it’s basically disguising your sci-finfantasies as a political ideology.
I Lena that it’s part of Posadism practically says enough about it as an actual “ideology”.

It's an ideology with sci-fi beliefs. It's essentially sci-fi Trotskyism.

I'm a Communalist with Posadism's sci-fi aspects, not a full Posadist per se. But those parts of Posadism are actually more sensical than you'd think.

And that’s exactly my point. And they’d only be sensible if this was Star Trek or something.

[Posadist-Communalists]

It's an ideology with sci-fi beliefs. It's essentially sci-fi Trotskyism.

I'm a Communalist with Posadism's sci-fi aspects, not a full Posadist per se. But those parts of Posadism are actually more sensical than you'd think.

And that’s exactly my point. And they’d only be sensible if this was Star Trek or something.

Star Trek is pretty much Posadism, and vice versa. The timeline is practically that of Posadism's ideal one.
It's much more achievable than you think.

[Adamede]

And that’s exactly my point. And they’d only be sensible if this was Star Trek or something.

Star Trek is pretty much Posadism, and vice versa. The timeline is practically that of Posadism's ideal one.
It's much more achievable than you think.

Thing is real life isn’t Star Trek. There’s no evidence for ancient aliens or aliens ever having busted earth.

Now I know that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but there’s still no evidence for aliens being hidden from the public.

[Posadist-Communalists]

Star Trek is pretty much Posadism, and vice versa. The timeline is practically that of Posadism's ideal one.
It's much more achievable than you think.

Thing is real life isn’t Star Trek. There’s no evidence for ancient aliens or aliens ever having busted earth.

Now I know that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but there’s still no evidence for aliens being hidden from the public.

Right, but you have to be critical in trusting national authorities.

Star Trek is something to aim towards, but for as long as capitalism and authoritarianism exists on a huge scale as seen presently, we'll never get there.

[Adamede]

Thing is real life isn’t Star Trek. There’s no evidence for ancient aliens or aliens ever having busted earth.

Now I know that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but there’s still no evidence for aliens being hidden from the public.

Right, but you have to be critical in trusting national authorities.

Star Trek is something to aim towards, but for as long as capitalism and authoritarianism exists on a huge scale as seen presently, we'll never get there.

I am critical of national governments. I’m also critical of conspiracy theorists.

Star Trek is pretty much a utopia, by definition those can’t exist. Not to mention that Marxism tends to breed authoritarianism itself.

[Posadist-Communalists]

Right, but you have to be critical in trusting national authorities.

Star Trek is something to aim towards, but for as long as capitalism and authoritarianism exists on a huge scale as seen presently, we'll never get there.

I am critical of national governments. I’m also critical of conspiracy theorists.

Star Trek is pretty much a utopia, by definition those can’t exist. Not to mention that Marxism tends to breed authoritarianism itself.

Just because a utopia hasn't existed, that doesn't mean it can't exist.

Marxism only turns authoritarian when certain people implement it, but if others did it, then it would be much different. Authoritarian Socialism works short-term, while Libertarian Socialism works long term, and as we know, something long-term, or gradual, will be easily sabotaged in today's society, which explains why authoritarianism was successful (to an extent), because it was, in comparison, instantaneous, therefore beating the system while it wasn't prepared.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Commie aliens would explain why the invaders in war of the worlds sprayed red weed everywhere. They were showing those capitalists that communism is unstoppable.

Then they got a case of the common cold and just keeled over and died. Press F.

[-Ra-]

I just love it when lefties eat each other up.

[Adamede]

I am critical of national governments. I’m also critical of conspiracy theorists.

Star Trek is pretty much a utopia, by definition those can’t exist. Not to mention that Marxism tends to breed authoritarianism itself.

Just because a utopia hasn't existed, that doesn't mean it can't exist.

A perfect society is so subjective that it can never exist. And even if it could it wouldn’t be under any current ideology or method that we have though of today.

Marxism only turns authoritarian when certain people implement it, but if others did it, then it would be much different

Then maybe you should stop putting those “certain people” whoever they are, in charge.
[quote\. Authoritarian Socialism works short-term, while Libertarian Socialism works long term, and as we know, something long-term, or gradual, will be easily sabotaged in today's society, which explains why authoritarianism was successful (to an extent), because it was, in comparison, instantaneous, therefore beating the system while it wasn't prepared.[/quote]
And what evidence do you base this off of?