I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
Marxist analysis points towards full collectivization of production and distribution globally, it isn’t about communalization and decentralization. When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
You are oversimplifying anarchism when you suggest that communalization necessarily leads to new classes or states. Anarchists don’t reject global cooperation, they want it to be based on free association, not authority.
I’m simplifying for the sake of a Lemmy comment, sure, but just because anarchists say they don’t reject global cooperation doesn’t mean the decentralized and communalist nature of anarchism works well with that. Collectivized and planned production and distribution works because it has administration and the advantages large-scale industry and logistics brings. Trying to have a bunch of decentralized communes create, say, a smartphone, would be a nightmare.
anarchism is definitely left. however, this Left right spectrum is bs and definitely cant handle things like the differences between categorically different leftists ideologies.
that’s like having a scale of solid to gas, putting water and milk in the middle because they are both liquid,. but arguing which one is more liquid or gas of the two.
not denying it, just that it is very oversimplified.
Like if you can only compare things by big and small and you are trying to differentiate things by weight or shape. it’s a good rule of thumb in general, just very oversimplified.
Bruh
Anarchy is the left at its apex, read a book pls
I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
Communism wants to achieve anarchy.
Marxist analysis points towards full collectivization of production and distribution globally, it isn’t about communalization and decentralization. When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
You are oversimplifying anarchism when you suggest that communalization necessarily leads to new classes or states. Anarchists don’t reject global cooperation, they want it to be based on free association, not authority.
I’m simplifying for the sake of a Lemmy comment, sure, but just because anarchists say they don’t reject global cooperation doesn’t mean the decentralized and communalist nature of anarchism works well with that. Collectivized and planned production and distribution works because it has administration and the advantages large-scale industry and logistics brings. Trying to have a bunch of decentralized communes create, say, a smartphone, would be a nightmare.
anarchism is definitely left. however, this Left right spectrum is bs and definitely cant handle things like the differences between categorically different leftists ideologies.
that’s like having a scale of solid to gas, putting water and milk in the middle because they are both liquid,. but arguing which one is more liquid or gas of the two.
I’m curious to read your arguments about the denial of the political spectrum.
not denying it, just that it is very oversimplified.
Like if you can only compare things by big and small and you are trying to differentiate things by weight or shape. it’s a good rule of thumb in general, just very oversimplified.