Anarchism vs. Marxism
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is an undogmatic, constructive and good-faith environment for Anarchists and Marxists (and communists of all stripes rly) to discuss the merits, differences, and similarities between Anarchism and Marxism.
A certain knowledge of Anarchism and/or Marxism is expected, if you are new to this/interested in learning, please visit c/Socialism101 and c/Communism101 respectively, before participating here. The 101 communities will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.
Memes go in c/Lefty Memes and c/Commie Memes respectively.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!
Rules
0. Don't just post memes, images, or videos. This is a place for text-based discussion
Relevant images and documentaries related to your question or prompt are welcome to be linked, however.
Also refrain from low-effort posts and intentionally provoking/baiting people.
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith discussion is enforced here.
This entails:
- Not strawmanning
- Refraining from adhominems
- Not spreading baseless assertions
- Not basing your argument on [Person X] said [Y]. Not everything Lenin or Kropotkin wrote is automatically correct bc it was written by this or that personality. Arguments should stand by themselves without appealing to a personality/authority
And just generally trying to keep an open mind. Remember: other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet.
Please also feel encouraged to include context and resources/sources in your posts and comments. Provide those things if you are asked in good faith.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,
as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Noble Numbat" when answering question 2)
6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I'm not well versed enough in this topic to understand, but I'm having trouble following this person's argument. First they define materialism, then they talk about how change for the better doesn't come only once the conditions are perfect, it evolves from a confluence of factors. I get that much. Then they talk about opportunism and how stooping to the lowest common denominator to build a movement leads socialists to fascism how Mussolini rose to power, and compromising their own values voting for the lesser evil (e.g. Hillary Clinton) would lead to fascism. I was confused for the rest of it.
Where I stand on what I think is the discussion is this: I feel that everyone ideologically should never lose sight of what they want, but to achieve it, it requires a proper transition path to help counter knee-jerk reactions and talking points. Coming at people with uncompromising and very specific jargon and dismissing attempts to dumb down things won't get you far... simplifying your plan when explaining it isn't opportunism.
More of my words on specific cases
Look at Mamdani, his term so far is described as "sewer socialism", it's rooted in socialist ideals but at the end of the day, people want to hear stuff like when New York's potholes will be filled, and as Mayor he is delivering on that. People don't care as much about the ideology behind the plan, but that's how you get them on board with socialism.
In contrast, Clinton and centrist Democrats want to co-opt the idealistic language but have little interest in following through for the common person and didn't bother to describe what good it will mean for them. Calling out billionaire/AIPAC backers reduces their influence and should be done, always. However, given a choice between that and a alt-right candidate, it's clear the internal reform must be done after choosing the lesser evil, and the building toward a revolution has to be done all the time, not just in the months before a general election.
Another example is Peter Magyar in Hungary. Left parties and voters voted for him, despite still being right-wing, to reverse the corruption and reform the constitution so that a democratic left or socialist party can have a chance in any future Hungarian election, which was virtually impossible before.