That’s pretty much like the norm for Anti-Tankies and Left Anti-Communists, they will almost always side with US-NATO and condemn the BRICS+ almost all the time when it comes about world politics and geopolitical issues…

  • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    it functionally boils down to the same as being governed by an HOA

    Yes. And that is one of the most tyrannical and dystopian things imaginable…

    I believe that government must play a role in dismantling coercive power structures

    So you acknowledge the need for a state to guide society through the transitional period of socialism from capitalism to communism. Good. Then we are on the same page.

    the government must be accountable to the people it governs

    The government must be accountable to the class it represents. Again, the keyword here is class. A state is an instrument of class rule. It upholds and enforces the power of one class over another. And as you have acknowledged already the need for a state, the only question that remains is what kind of state: a bourgeois or a proletarian one?

    Of course we all know that socialism can only be built under the dictatorship of the proletariat. And because the proletarian state represents the collective interests of the working class that is the class which it is accountable to. As all proletarian states are and have been throughout history, with the power to elect and recall representatives being given to every layer of the system over the one above it.

    This is what Mao called the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, what China today calls “Whole Process People’s Democracy”, or as it was known in the USSR, Soviet Democracy.

    Anarchists may use violence, but targeted assassination and thrown sticks of dynamite cannot remotely compare

    That’s hardly all the violence anarchists have done throughout history. Pogroms and banditry by the Makhnovites come to mind, as well as the CNT/FAI who called themselves anarchist and rejected the Bolshevik model while paradoxically themselves setting up what was essentially a state…with prisons, a criminal justice system and executions.

    It turns out that in practice you don’t need to call it a state to do large scale, organized or semi-organized violence.

    You might argue that your preferred violence is for a good cause, but you’ve got a bit of a trap on your hands, because every bad guy out there convinced themselves that theirs was the right choice to make at the time.

    And that is why there can be no revolutionary praxis without revolutionary theory. Only through rigorous dialectical materialist analysis of the world and by studying the objective conditions that exist do we learn to set correct goals and implement correct policy.

    On the other hand, if you shun theory, if you shun study of material conditions and class analysis, then of course you will be unable to distinguish between when tools such as the application of violence are used to further the liberation of the working class and when they hinder it. Then all you can do is look at how something looks superficially and not at what it actually is and does, in other words you are stuck thinking in terms of form over content, which is one of the main indicators of residual liberalism that you have yet to unlearn.

    And it’s not like anarchism is this pacifist ideology that rejects violence on principle. Anarchism acknowledges the need to employ violence to defend against aggressors like fascists, imperialists and other counter-revolutionary forces.

    In other words, the problem is that all organized violence is self-assured and self-justified

    Which is why we must identify when it is actually justified and when it is not. And here we come to the crux of the issue. It is not that you reject violence but rather you have a problem with organized violence. Yet anarchic, decentralized and disorganized violence is both less disciplined (and thus more prone to abuses) and less effective as there is no unified command that sets a clear goal, develops a plan and organizes its implementation.

    Small scale groups each acting on their own are by nature parochial and will often be myopic to the larger picture, and because of this will lack the understanding that is needed to take the right actions at the right time. Ideological heterogeneity which is bound to take hold in the absence of an ideological vanguard further exacerbates this chaos. And the forces of reaction will gladly take advantage of any disunity or lack of discipline to subvert and then crush all that you have achieved. Then all your lofty ideals count for nothing.

    I appreciate that you are making an effort to engage in good faith so i have tried to do the same and not immediately be as dismissive as some of the other comrades here, but in general i highly advise that you read and learn more on these subjects to correct your misconceptions, not just on Marxist-Leninist theory, but also on socialist states where you seem to have fallen for certain anti-communist tropes spread by western and liberal propaganda.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Absolutely stellar response. Thank you for taking the time to write this. In a world where I had more free time, I would love to take the time to research and make an equally well composed rebuttal. As it stands, your response is very informative, and it has helped me to understand the point of view better.

      • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re welcome to stay and learn from the lemmygrad community. If you do i think you will find we are generally quite welcoming and willing to take the time to explain our point of view and answer questions politely (and hopefully competently, though that is for others to judge) when approached in good faith. It is only low effort trolling that we tend to react quite allergically to.

        That being said most of these questions have already been addressed before, and much more thoroughly than i ever could, be it in exceptionally well researched and sourced posts by other comrades or in the classic theory texts. So if some of the responses you get are somewhat terse, it might have to do with the frustration at having to deal with the same misconceptions over and over.

        Although we do try, as Sankara said, to never stop explaining, we are only human…