A couple of questions because I’m still uneducated on these things:
- Why do anarchists hate Marxists?
- Are anarchists and ultras the same thing?
- Are Trotskyists ultras and do they dislike Marxists?
- What are the differences between Trotskyists, Maoists and Hoxhaists? Are any of them comrades?
1- Anarchists start from the individual whereas marxists start from the class as a whole. This is the major, starting theoretical difference between the two. Accordingly anarchists take an individualist position. Some anarchists may rightly point out that these hyper-individualist anarchists are not real anarchists or not representative, but they still exist and still claim anarchism, because anarchism has no platform and single coherent body of theory because, again, anarchism is individualist. Platformism, which was an attempt around the time of the october revolution to rally anarchists under a political platform (with a programme and everything), failed as quickly as it started.
In my experience anarchists also tend to take a contradictory position on everything just so they can stick it to the man. I know an anarchist IRL and he’s insufferable, his whole thing is just saying the opposite of whatever a political group promotes. This includes the neoliberal state but also the marxists.
As for hate, depends what you mean by hate specifically but because of this individualist position they go against any form of authority that is not their own 🤷♂️
2- they can be yes. ultra-leftism is a label used to mean dogmatism or adventurism, there’s a little more history to it but that’s how it’s mostly used today. Ultra is broader though, for example leftcoms (leftcoms are usually Bordigists if you want to get into it) are ultras too. Ultra generally means unwilling to budge on the theory (i.e. the dogmatism).
If you’re asking because of how we have !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml and !shitultrassay@lemmygrad.ml on lemmygrad, this was mostly to make a difference between right-wingers/centrists and left-wingers in two different communities that already existed, that’s why it’s named shit ultras say.
3- Trotskyists are out there doing their own weird thing lol. Some of them could be considered ultras but I mainly see them as a cult I’m not gonna lie. So much weirdness around trots, like how many of them became neocons. They usually appeal to academics (seriously look in trot parties it’s mostly academics), I guess because in a way it allows them to claim marxism without the baggage surrounding it. they’re not necessarily always wrong, I’ve appreciated some historical writings of trotskyists. But as soon as it gets a little bit too close to the 20th century and beyond, it’s just brainworms lol.
Do they dislike marxists? Not necessarily, but they have this entire thing about stalinism and the purity of lenin and trotsky had completely nonsensical theory mired in his petty bouge upbringing and point of view. Permanent revolution was dumb, it would have destroyed the revolution, and it’s a good thing the party did not listen to him (he wanted to repress the peasantry instead of allying with them on the off-chance that the german workers, who were close to having their own revolution at the time but was put down by the proto-nazis, would come to their help during the repression). So clearly with a theory so wrong you have to wonder why people would still claim his legacy - it’s clearly not for the theory.
They also just have trotsky on their mouth and no one else it’s weird. Sometimes they might bring up Marx, Engels or even Lenin (because of the split between Trotsky and Stalin that they tie back to Lenin and the faked “will”) and they don’t necessarily handle them wrong, it’s just you can tell it’s sort of an after-thought or quote mining instead of putting Marx back as a whole person who lived and wrote in a certain context. They really just want to talk about Trotsky all the time when the guy was a huge failson. They claim it was stalinist repression to purge him from the party when Stalin was obviously not the only one deciding this lol. Everyone hated him by that point in the CPSU. Pass.
4- Maoism was invented by Gonzalo of the Shining Path in the 80s, which he envisioned as the next stage of communist theory just like we had Stalin synthesize marxism-leninism with the advances made by Lenin. This is highly disputed because an exhaustive reading of Mao will show he did not do things sufficiently differently from Lenin and the bolsheviks to warrant his praxis being considered a universal, settled advancement over marxism-leninism. A lot of what Mao operated on was already done by the Bolsheviks (e.g. organizing the peasantry as we saw), he just pushed it a little bit deeper and according to China’s material conditions. So the point of promoting MLM was clearly different than the stated objective. Some can be placed back to the Sino-Soviet split, according to Andréo Matias the CIA distributed Mao’s Quotations in south american universities back at the time of the split. A lot of maoists I know seem to exist entirely online and are very disturbed individuals, wanting to commit violence for the slightest perceived offense on them. Jose Sison, of the CPP (Philippines) and the NPA later softly distanced himself from maoism without saying it as such, and this got him the ire of the maoists who denounced him – reminder that maoism as gonzalo synthesized it has not yet produced a successful revolution, and has only existed since the 80s. It’s kinda putting the cart before the horse. You could call them adventurists.
Like I don’t deny protracted warfare exists (it happened in China and in Vietnam for two examples), I just don’t think that it’s something you provoke but rather something you are dealt.
But yeah Sison explained that in the west because of the military apparatus our protracted war would first begin with our protests and marches before being armed etc. this is just normal lenin stuff. Whether you want to consider that part of the struggle protracted people’s war is up to you. But that’s one thing that got other (western) maoists to denounce him despite that he was the only one out there actually waging revolution. Or, well, Sison had been living in ‘exile’ the Netherlands for decades while the NPA continued its operations in the Philippines, so I don’t know if I would say he was actually out there doing stuff lol. But regardless, Losurdo was right: in the west our marxism is mostly theoretical and becomes concerned with our theoretical purity and adherence to the “rules”. You have Swedish maoists, who have probably never once held a gun in their hands, giving lessons to Sison on how to conduct protracted warfare lol. They may be right theoretically but theory is meant to be applied.
Hoxhaists are ultras in a similar way as trots. Quote-mining a lot and dogmatic on their “anti-revisionism” because hoxha kept talking about being “anti-revisionist” because he was salty about stuff. China stops sending him money aid, he calls them revisionist. Stalin dies, he calls USSR revisionist. Once again refusing to place it back in the context in which Hoxha and his writings existed. That’s a problem of depending too much on a single figure imo, but it’s obviously also deeper than just that. Like all I ever see them do is rant about revisionism and basing it all entirely on one single figure – not even a person, because I never see them talk about Hoxha as a person like where he came from, how he came to lead Albania and what he did there etc – just the safety of having an authority figure give them justification to call everyone else revisionist. Well I’m against revisionism too, I just think that China isn’t revisionist lol.
We follow Lenin because he fucking succeeded, that’s what it boils down to. So clearly he knows a thing or two about making socialism happen.
Everything stated here is spot on, though I respectfully disagree with the Hoxha portion.
Hoxha called the USSR revisionist after Stalin because not only did Khrushchev denounce Stalin and undo much of the progress he made, but he made reforms that shifted their economy back towards a market oriented economy. He and subsequently leaders continued this trend and bourgeois influence wormed it’s way back into the state. This contributed significantly in it’s eventual downfall. This line of thinking began with Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” not immediately flowing Stalin’s death.
China he considered revisionist due to the Three Worlds Theory, their embrace of bourgeois nationalism, and their alliance with the US and other capitalist states under the US’s sway. Rather than committing to anti-imperialist solidarity, they chose to align with imperialist interests. Deng’s reforms further supported this claim. Hoxha criticized China’s revisionist tendencies before they stopped providing aid. To say he did this in reaction to the end of aid being sent from China is just false.
Again with respect, in this area the arguments you made are rather misleading. I don’t consider myself a Hoxhaist, but I believe he made great contributions towards continuing ML theory rather than making concessions to the bourgeoisie class like many others have.
What contributions did he make towards Marxism? I honestly do not know much about him beyond something about dogmatism and not supporting many post-Stalin figures. Also, what is your opinion on actually existing socialist countries?
He wrote about organisational tasks. My organisation has some of his works in high regard, but I haven’t got there yet.
Hoxha defended the legacy of Stalin when the rest of the world was eating up propaganda against him, exposing the anti-communist and anti-Leninist deviations of Khrushchev and the Warsaw Pact countries
His works help refine the importance of the Party as vanguard of proletarian revolution
Exposed Titoism as the first manifestation of modern revisionism or revisionism in power
Deepened the revolution at home through a genuine cultural revolution
Supported the development of new Leninist Parties across the world
This site contains good information:
https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism/enver-hoxha-page/
I agree with critical support for AES states. But I do not agree with dogmatically supporting all of their choices. We can do better and should strive to.
No one mentioned dogmatically supporting AES states, so bringing up that is weird. Also, do you mean a cultural revolution like the one in the PRC?
Any time I bring up a viewpoint that runs counter to the CPC, I typically get a lot of flak in this comm. I apologize for assuming in this instance.
The Albanian cultural revolution was inspired by the cultural revolution in the PRC, but was implemented differently and yielded much more positive results.
What is an example of a viewpoint you hold that runs counter to the CPC? Also do you support the Cultural Revolution that happened in the PRC?
The last one was disagreeing with their trading with Israel. Another was saying certain actions of theirs were imperialistic.
I think the idea behind the cultural revolution was sound, but it’s implementation was incredibly flawed. Students were often pitted against workers, sowing chaos that led to the government having to send in troops to restore order against a movement they themselves initiated.
“China he considered revisionist due to the Three Worlds Theory, their embrace of bourgeois nationalism, and their alliance with the US and other capitalist states under the US’s sway. Rather than committing to anti-imperialist solidarity, they chose to align with imperialist interests. Deng’s reforms further supported this claim. Hoxha criticized China’s revisionist tendencies before they stopped providing aid. To say he did this in reaction to the end of aid being sent from China is just false.”
China famously was not in a alliance with the US, but unaligned after the split.
China he considered revisionist due to the Three Worlds Theory, their embrace of bourgeois nationalism, and their alliance with the US and other capitalist states under the US’s sway. Rather than committing to anti-imperialist solidarity, they chose to align with imperialist interests. Deng’s reforms further supported this claim.
the Three Worlds Theory
From what I can find on this, I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with being revisionist.
their embrace of bourgeois nationalism
What does this even mean.
their alliance with the US and other capitalist states under the US’s sway
When has CPC-run China ever been in alliance with the US? Trading with them is one thing, having an alliance based on shared interests is a whole other thing and in the case of China of the Deng era interacting with the US, an alliance would have to mean bowing to imperialism and helping further it in some way. There is no other way you ally with an empire like that.
Rather than committing to anti-imperialist solidarity, they chose to align with imperialist interests.
Again, what have they done that aligns with imperialist interests.
Bourgeois nationalism is essentially utilizing nationalism to distract from class struggle.
I answer this first because the Three World Theory serves a similar purpose. In part due to this, China began prioritizing Chinese national interests over global revolution. It abandoned class analysis and led to China supporting only revolutions that supported it’s own interests. Examples include the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the FNLA in Angola, and trying to get North Vietnam to capitulate to a ceasefire leaving a divided country like Korea during the Vietnam War.
I meant alliance in more of a figurative sense. Perhaps in alignment with would be better phrasing. Rather than remain in the global struggle against imperialism, which was primarily perpetrated by the US, China began collaborating with the US. Against the USSR in many cases. The examples above apply to this as well. The Three Worlds Theory worked to position China as a leader of the “third world” and rather than unite against imperialism and capitalist exploitation, they facilitated it in many ways.
Class struggle defines proletarian revolution. Overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat is the goal.
The crux of your criticism seems to be claiming that China has prioritized its own interests at the cost of the international working class, but your closing statement contradicts this outright. If the most important goal is the proletarian revolution, then it stands to reason that the most important action on China’s part is developing and reinforcing the revolution that they do have (rather than a hypothetical one in another country that they don’t have), and that if anything, the USSR fell because it tried to do too much in other countries and prioritized its internal state too little.
There are other points we could go over, but that seems to be the most pressing.
Other points:
It abandoned class analysis
Pure nonsense that does not hold up to scrutiny.
Examples include the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the FNLA in Angola, and trying to get North Vietnam to capitulate to a ceasefire leaving a divided country like Korea during the Vietnam War.
The USSR also made geopolitical blunders and misjudgements in post-WWII. A mistake is not the same thing as being revisionist.
China began collaborating with the US. Against the USSR in many cases.
rather than unite against imperialism and capitalist exploitation, they facilitated it in many ways.
Citations desperately needed. Again, this is little different than saying allied with. It is also in contradiction with implying that China prioritized its own interests, as allying with imperialism would not further its interests.
Were China an ally of imperialism, it would be praised by the empire, not vilified constantly. It is precisely because China is a threat to the empire that it gets vilified from both left and right, in ongoing attempts to reduce it to nothing more than a caricature of “power gone wrong”, whether from the perspective of “evil commies” or “used to be commie and got lost to revisionism”. This reductionist perspective is two sides of the same shitty coin.
It is tiresome, this song and dance about how China (or any socialist project) should bend over backward to support any and all revolutionary efforts in other countries, but at the same time, imply that those efforts are justified in throwing it under the bus as being revisionist if it doesn’t support them in particular, especially in the precise way that they want. China is not a superhero. It is a complex entity made up of over a billion people. It’s not a savior or villain. It’s neither revisionist nor is it without fault. When it comes to difficult decisions on the global stage, there is plenty of blame to go around and in recent history (recent as in last hundreds of years or so), most of that blame lands squarely on the shoulders of colonialism and its development into imperialism. Something China has staunchly avoided engaging in, no matter the accusations that get levied its way (for example, the claims pushed by the empire itself that China is bad for helping other countries develop infrastructure, as if that’s inherently the same as making them a dependent) and China was even a victim of colonialism when dealing with Japan’s aggression. The least people can do is give them credit for not being another arm of genociding humankind.
China did not abandon class analysis. That claim misreads the post-split line. The errors in China’s foreign policy after the Sino-Soviet split were real, but they did not emerge from a rejection of proletarian internationalism. They emerged from a concrete contradiction: Moscow’s attempt to subordinate the Chinese revolution to its own state interests. Pressure on the Taiwan Strait, blocking independent nuclear development, demanding strategic compliance. These were great-power maneuvers that forced a rupture. China’s response contained serious mistakes, yet those mistakes were made while still operating within a framework of class struggle, not outside it.
You cite the Khmer Rouge, the FNLA in Angola, and pressure on North Vietnam as proof China prioritized national interests over revolution. These were errors. Supporting forces with reactionary domestic programs carried political costs and often misjudged the balance of class forces on the ground. But these choices were not made in a vacuum of nationalist deviation. They were made under the pressure of a global split in the socialist camp. When Moscow backed one faction in a liberation struggle, China often backed another, not because it abandoned class analysis, but because it saw Moscow’s alignment as serving Soviet state interests rather than revolutionary ones. The method was materialist even when the conclusions were wrong.
The charge that China collaborated with the US against the USSR needs precision. Tactical engagement with an imperialist power tin the hopes of countering a more immediate threat is not class collaborationism when the aim is to preserve the base area of world revolution. This is the same logic that guided Lenin at Brest-Litovsk. China’s opening to the US was not an alliance with imperialism but a strategic effort to fragment the offensive capacity of a hegemon that was actively constraining revolutionary movements. The Three Worlds analysis had real problems. Elevating state-to-state relations risked blurring the line between proletarian internationalism and diplomatic maneuvering. But it was not bourgeois nationalism. Bourgeois nationalism dissolves class struggle into abstract national unity. The Chinese line, even at its worst, never abandoned the dictatorship of the proletariat at home or the stated goal of world revolution.
Class struggle remains the engine. Overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat worldwide is the goal. But that struggle unfolds in a world of real contradictions. When Moscow prioritized its foreign policy over revolutionary solidarity, it created a rupture that rippled through the entire camp. China’s push for independent revolutionary practice, its support for forces resisting Soviet dominance, was an attempt to prevent the anti-imperialist front from being absorbed into a new hierarchy. The errors of that period should be criticized sharply. But they should be criticized as errors of strategy made under siege, not as proof of nationalist betrayal. To judge that period by the standard of pure principle is to ignore the dialectic that makes revolutionary strategy possible: you act on the principal contradiction as it exists, not as you wish it to be.
I will consider this with an open mind. Thank you for this response comrade.
Anarchists start from the individual whereas marxists start from the class as a whole. This is the major, starting theoretical difference between the two.
This really clarified it thank you.
If you’re asking because of how we have !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml and !shitultrassay@lemmygrad.ml on lemmygrad, this was mostly to make a difference between right-wingers/centrists and left-wingers in two different communities that already existed, that’s why it’s named shit ultras say.
Yes this was partly the reason and also because I need the knowledge to explain to people the differences between all of these groups.
We follow Lenin because he fucking succeeded, that’s what it boils down to. So clearly he knows a thing or two about making socialism happen.
Really good quote, I’ll be stealing this if it’s okay with you <3
Thanks for the write up, answered all the questions!
I hope I was helpful too (though I admit that I really should have left it to others more informed peeps).
You were! I just now got done reading all of the comments/responses and haven’t had proper time to respond to everyone (mostly due to not knowing what to say/being uneducated or because I don’t have time/brain space to properly type out a response). But thank you too of course!
Nah bro, you should write out your answer as best as you can (maybe preemptively tell OP that you are not as secure in your answer as you want to be though) and then other, more informed peeps, can correct you if necessary or you just compare their answers to yours.
There is only one way to get better at writing out information.
🤗🫡
One Maoist I used to talk with supported the Khmer Rouge and refused to explain why. Also, is there a habit with Maoists calling people or countries fascist at a much higher rate than Marxist-Leninists? I think I remember the program for the Peruvian Maoists or whatever calling the Soviet Union fascist (…what?).
I would be veering into armchair psychology trying to decipher maoists lol. but I remember one thing the Shining Path did was hang dead dogs from lam posts in Lima when Deng was elected… in China. Gives you an idea of who they are.
Doesn’t help that there’s also maoism, marxism-leninism-maoism, and marxism-leninism-maoism principally maoism (that last one is what gonzalo claimed iirc). maoism also existed in china as what we call mao zedong thought, note that the CPC is not claiming maoism anymore (i.e. MZT) but is officially following socialism with chinese characteristics.
I’m lucky enough that I don’t know any maoists irl (conversely I know of at least one hoxhaist in my old party), for my safety I would never want to be around anyone calling themselves MLM. Not even as a sectarian thing just literally would not trust these people whatsoever.
Me neither. I am not sure what would happen if I met a Maoist in real life (I might explode from the awkwardness lol).
I haven’t met a Trotskyist, Maoist or Hoxhaist ever, not that they would necessary identify themselves as that. But I have met plenty of “anarchists”, mostly punks with no clear ideology, they were nice and kind, probably because they didn’t have a clear ideology of anarchism lol.
Maoists are probably the least outwardly weird… until you get to know them, and then their weirdness comes out (like being weirdly fond of Gonzalo).
The left and their goddamned labels and tribalism. We seem to have created our own odd form of ideological bigotry. It’s no wonder we can’t coalesce around the singular goal of rule by the proletariat, we’re too busy arguing about methodology and tripping over our egos. I am a communist, that’s it, no additional descriptor required.
??? Labels are necessary when distinguishing what path to follow and what not to. If we did not have a way to designate certain groups in a certain way (like opportunists being a danger to the proletariat’s liberation movement), then it would simply make combating erroneous tendencies much more of a hassle.
It is fine if you do not want to use additional descriptors, but people will continue to label themselves because they fine the labels useful. Also, while communist as a descriptor is useful for general contexts (when specific details are not as important), when we have to look at what communists we should tell the proletariat to follow, saying that they should merely follow what is “communist” would group people with clear and sharp differences (anarchists vs. Marxists) under one umbrella when only one is correct, which would weaken the proletarian liberation movement not only by confusing the workers in regards to what way forward is correct, but it would also cause much grating to occur between communist camps attempting to accomplish different goals (imagine Marxists trying to come up with a functional state apparatus for workers while anarchists are fighting against the very idea of a state; meanwhile, also imagine that the proletariat on the sidelines are confused by the two communist camps fighting when they are both “communist”).
In defense of labels and tribalism. Let’s do nothing while we sort out which books to read and figureheads to follow. Makes us no better than a religion fracturing into sects.
…(imagine Marxists trying to come up with a functional state apparatus for workers while anarchists are fighting against the very idea of a state; meanwhile, also imagine that the proletariat on the sidelines are confused by the two communist camps fighting when they are both “communist”). Lenin and Trotsky managed to do it. The function of the state apparatus is a moot point until the current system is destroyed, which will take all of us momentarily acting as one.
Lenin labeling the communists that were telling the leaders to follow the workers instead of leading them (in “What is to be Done?”) as those following tailism was an example of labeling that was useful; it allowed Lenin to point out a tendency that was harmful to the worker’s movement and criticize it under a name. This is why labeling is important, and how it is not tribalism (criticizing an erroneous tendency is not tribalism).
I never disagreed with the final sentence about communist divisions not being as important before the establishment of a worker’s state, but to ignore the time that will necessarily exist after they replace the capitalist system is to ignore the fact that communists cannot lead them under a unified set of goals when communists are not a homogenous group in the first place (terms in terms of methods of achieving communism and who they support). What then? The time after the momentary united front is important as well.
Your criticism of so-called tribalism is like the liberals arguing against violent action because it will “alienates those that are against violence”; it comes across as compromising principles for the sake of weak unity under the guise of not falling to tribalism. My argument does not support inaction, nor designating certain figureheads to follow; I merely say that this aversion to labels is an aversion to clearly criticizing wrong ideological trends and other things.
Lenin waged fierce ideological struggles against all manner of leftist strains that he considered to be wrong. He would 100% be accused of being sectarian today. But Lenin says (and Stalin agrees) that it was precisely that ideological struggle and refusal of the Bolsheviks to compromise on their Marxist principles or fall to opportunism that honed the Bolshevik line, steeled their party discipline, and let the Bolsheviks succeed where other more ideologically lax socialists in Europe failed.
Hell, that is basically what my former conservative professor criticized Lenin for: no freedom of speech within the party and a inability to agree with others. They would rather have him be some lazy person that did nothing to prevent the degradation of the party’s values (which makes sense because they were conservative).
Two common and intertwined tactics used are the heightening of every weakness a communist figure has alongside the twisting of every strength the same figure has into sharp points to criticize.
alongside the twisting of every strength the same figure has into sharp points to criticize.
This part is especially insidious because it pushes aspiring revolutionaries to self-sabotage and choose ineffectual weakness over strength because they have been tricked into believing that strength is morally reprehensible.
Every time that anti-communists throw accusations of “authoritarianism” at communists and at socialist states they do so in order to dissuade aspiring communists from emulating strategies that are exceptionally dangerous to capital because they have a track record of success. The more successful a socialist state is, the more its methods must be denounced as authoritarian and dictatorial. Ideological laxity, opportunism, revisionism are instead praised under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom of speech”.
Socialists must not fall for this tactic and must not accept the framing pushed onto them by reactionaries, we must not apologize for or be quick to disavow the actions of socialist states under public pressure as soon as some shallow accusations are leveled at them and say things like “if we were in charge, we would be much better, we would not do all those terrible things”, because that is already in itself an ideological retreat, a concession and capitulation to anti-communist narratives.
Yes, sometimes being “dictatorial” is exactly what is needed.
“You are dictatorial.” My dear sirs, you are right, that is just what we are. All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the people’s democratic dictatorship, that is, to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.
Mao Zedong, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship”
Mindless unity and unprincipled compromise is not for the best:
Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.
And we must ask everyone who talks about unity: unity with whom? With the liquidators? If so, we have nothing to do with each other.
Anti-communists will always seek to use liberal ideological-rhetorical weapons to deceive people:
He who recognises the class struggle must also recognise that in a bourgeois republic, even in the freest and most democratic bourgeois republic, “freedom” and “equality” never were, and never could be, anything but an expression of the equality and freedom of the commodity owners, the equality and freedom of capital. Marx, in all of his writings and especially in his Capital (which you all recognise in words ), made this clear thousands of times; […]
Under the bourgeois system (i.e., as long as private property in land and in the means of production persists) and under bourgeois democracy, “freedom and equality” remain purely formal, signifying in practice wage-slavery for the workers (who are formally free and equal) and the undivided rule of capital, the oppression of labour by capital.
Vladimir Lenin, “Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and Equality”
Well said, comrade. It is just disappointing to see communists that understand how capitalism is an exploitative system that does not benefit the oppressed strata of society, yet end up bending to the will of capitalist propaganda and doing exactly what you said: self-sabotaging to appeal to those that do not even appreciate them beyond being useful obstacle to principled application of communism. It is honestly like seeing a civil rights protestor listening to what a white supremacist has to say about the Civil Rights Movement in general and going: “Oh, you are right, I am not like those people that want to inflict violence against those that want to expel me from this country illegally, nor am I the type to desire taking over the entire country and establishing non-white supremacy” (the pattern here is that they are forced to keel to falsities like what the white supremacist would say about them so that they become “acceptable” propaganda to be used against their potential allies).
The disregard for actually existing socialist states by the compatible left is what bothers me the most. They are usually always in western countries and are therefore in favour of the status quo whether directly or indirectly.
This is a very important point. Others have already said about what distinguishes all those different tendencies from each other, but what they largely have in common is the rejection of Actually Existing Socialism.
Yeah I’ve noticed this common trend among them of being against AES.
Doesn’t quite answer your question, but it looks like it’s very well covered already. This article is a good general starting point for learning about Marxism vs the other general theories.
Anarchists typically do not self identify as ultras. Those that tend to use that label are those on the Italian Left, Council Communists, Situationists, and Communizers.
Revisionists don’t self-identify as revisionists either but they are nonetheless revisionist. Many ultra-leftists don’t identify as ultra but they still are.
I don’t think most people on here understand that there are *people who self identify as “ultra leftist.” Those people have arguments of varying strength that most folks here are completely ignorant of.
Anarchists don’t hate Marxists, almost all schools of anarchy adopt some of Marxist theory in understanding the world and the relations of power.
The internet isn’t real life. Lemmy is especially stupid.
In general anarchists are sceptical of the idea of a transitional state, and dictatorships of the proletariat, believing that these structures are unlikely to yield to a stateless moneiless and classless society. Many schools of anarchy propose building mutual aid networks inside a state, and adopting direct action to solve problems. The long term idea being that this undermines the state and will be ready to fill the gaps as the state fails.
Anarchists have historically been anti communist and actively fought against marxists for over a century. I’ve seen anarchists flip Marxist tables at book events, push them out of community coalition for being “tankies”, cop jacket, etc.
Wow you saw a group of people doing dumb shit once? Better revaluate everything
I provided three different examples I’ve personally seen from totally unaffiliated people and/or groupings of people but go off. I referenced a century of history vaguely which implies notorious examples beyond my personal experiences as well.
What are the characteristics of those networks? What makes them different from the dual power that MLs build (that is, the building of the embryo of the future Dictatorship of the proletariat)?
Edit: How do these networks protect themselves and expand once the burgeois state acts to destroy them?
I also wanted to add this: wouldn’t those networks be much more effective after the proletarian revolution, since the proletarian state would openly cooperate in its own withering away?
tired convos, uninteresting really. there’s so much ink spilled on both sides by people smarter than us
Anarchists do not support a transitionary state between capitalism and communism, while Marxists do. You can describe the relationship between them as hatred in certain scenarios, but to answer you question more clearly, it is more accurate to say that anarchists might view Marxists as “authoritarians” (yet they are willing to believe the myths conjured by “authoritarian” capitalists).
So they don’t support socialism or just the transitionary state?
Basically, they reject the transitionary state, and want to speed run right to Communism
They support a stateless, classless, moneyless society which is a shared end goal in the broad sense. The primary difference is that they believe than can establish that sort of society without building a transitionary state to defend against counterrevolution.
They don’t support the same end goal, anarchism is about communalization while Marxists point towards gradual collectivization. It isn’t just the transition, but the end goal, where anarchists want decentralized communes and not a unified, stateless system based on a common plan. The terms “stateless, classless, and moneyless” both apply to Marxism and anarchism from their own perspectives, but not towards each other.
Which makes no sense to me, but I have not read anarchist theory so who knows.
The theory usually ranges from “no state, no hierarchy ever!” To “no state, no unjustified hierarchy! (no hierarchy is justified tho)” and finally “no state, no hierarchy, but explains functions of state and hierarchy”
Could you elaborate on the final point? What do you mean by that?
They act like they don’t want a state and hierarchy but then the world they want to make are still functionally hierarchical states. Kind of like anarchists point to rojava or the EZLN as examples of successful “anarchists” but those are both states with hierarchy
OH ok I get it now, that definitely seems very hypocritical. Anarchism feels pretty shallow if you are a Marxist-Leninist, yeah?
I am not sure on the exact details, but I know they do not support socialism because socialism is a transitionary state between capitalism and communism.
Edit: I should have clarified better, but the person with shark in the name gave a better definition.
Anarchists are idealists who believe that you can willpower communism into existence. Marxists understand that the transition to communism is a material process. Anarchists are ideologically opposed to the state. Marxists understand that the state is a tool.
Anarchists can be called ultras in a broader sense because all ultra-leftists share an ideological belief in the power of mind over matter. In Marxist terms, they are idealists. They do not engage in material analysis and believe that dogmatic purity is more important than a scientific outlook on reality.
Trotskyism is an ultra-left deviation of Marxism. Trotskyists call themselves Marxists and Leninists, and they claim to agree with Marx and Lenin in theory, but they reject the application of Marxism-Leninism as it has been practiced so far in every socialist state.
Maoism (which is distinct from and not the same thing as Mao Zendong Thought, which is what the Communist Party of China adheres to) and Hoxhaism are also ultra-leftist deviations. Both are opposed to what they see as revisionism, but which MLs see as practical and pragmatic reforms or tactical maneuvers.
Trotskyists, Maoists and Hoxhaists can be comrades in certain circumstances, as can anarchists, while not being comrades in other circumstances. It depends on the specific cause or activity that you are engaged in. For example, a United Front can sometimes be formed with them for anti-fascist protests.
Marxist-Leninists should work together, even temporarily, with any leftist group in cases where our goals align. Unfortunately, many ultras do not share this same viewpoint, are much more dogmatic and will go to great lengths to sabotage Marxist-Leninists, even if it means sabotaging themselves.
Speaking of trots, since trot orgs are very common in Brazil, I think their stance on things is very different. There are some trots that command certain unions and are in touch with actual working class people, so I wouldn’t say it’s focused only in academics. I think this approach of Marxist academics thing is more of a Western thing than a ML x Trot thing. And not all trots delve too much on Trotsky, many are good readers of Marx and Lenin as well.
The thing which actually pisses me off on Trots is that they regard every existing socialist experience a failure and a degeneration. For me this is about throwing reality in the garbage while claiming some sort of ideal Marxism (or Leninism) that only exist in their heads. This kind of thinking just makes a socialism revolution impossible and when you propagandize other working people who aren’t Marxists with this rhetoric, the logical conclusion that many people take is “Hey, if revolution never worked before, why the hell will it work in the future?”. So, basically this ends up being a defeatist discourse that even makes Trots themselves fight a lot and abandon their previous parties to now create a new party with the right line because every other line is Stalinist/degeneration.
Now regarding dogmatism, I think this is a disease that is spread out in the whole Marxist field, and it’s hard to fight. People like to cite Marx as if it is some kind of sacred text, that needs to be interpreted literally and everyone that makes a deviation of the perceived “main” interpretation is a revisionist degeneration. It’s kinda like every author following Marx, Engels and Lenin never said any contradictory stuff and even if reality does not match theory then it’s revisionism. It’s not as if Marx himself changed his mind of the revolution starting in Europe vs the rest of the world, given that he had much more experience and actual praxis when he was older, when he could do a better analysis with more data and experience. So this leaves many Marxist orgs with the habit of splitting and denouncing each other over very minor differences in tactics.
The thing which actually pisses me off on Trots is that they regard every existing socialist experience a failure and a degeneration. For me this is about throwing reality in the garbage while claiming some sort of ideal Marxism (or Leninism) that only exist in their heads. This kind of thinking just makes a socialism revolution impossible and when you propagandize other working people who aren’t Marxists with this rhetoric, the logical conclusion that many people take is “Hey, if revolution never worked before, why the hell will it work in the future?”. So, basically this ends up being a defeatist discourse that even makes Trots themselves fight a lot and abandon their previous parties to now create a new party with the right line because every other line is Stalinist/degeneration.
I completely agree.
Trotskyism is an ultra-left deviation of Marxism.
I’ve also seen: Trotskyism is a right deviation that disguises itself as a left deviation.
I would like an explanation of this.
