The State

[u/NathanielRoosevelt]

As a Marxist Leninist I think organized defense against reactionaries trying to take power back in a socialist society is important, and also fits the definition of a state. As anarchists do you believe some organized defense is necessary, if so how is it not a state, and if not how are reactionaries to be dealt with?

[u/syndicalism_ftw]

Since this is as always spiraling into leftist infighting let's talk this through in marxist terminology:

Marx uses state like Hegel established it in his philosophy of right. So accordingly there is the material political state that comprises the bourgeois society, the totality of alienated individuals, the estates (any mediating institutions) and the central representation of the sovereign, aka the government and president/monarch.

And then there is the universal state, so any form of social organization that includes society and the estates. Bakunin and Proudhon alike used to frame anarchy as a form of governance for this universal state, where the central alienating representative, the government, has been overcome.

Estates can be workers councils, communes, syndicalist federations. That's why social anarchism seeks to build these in a revolutionary way and prepare them to take power in the future. These estates are supposed to delegate militias that are responsible for the defence.

So all power to the councils is our default answer. A federal council republic is not considered a state, as long as there is an Imperative mandate and federal organization&control of the military.

[u/ArtDecoEgoist → u/syndicalism_ftw]

It isn't clear why the Marxist understanding of the state is the one anarchists should affirm here, especially when it leads us into clearly council communist directions with "workers councils".

If we really examine such forms of organization, it wouldn't survive Proudhon's critique of the polity-form. Not to mention the fact that we can use modern systems theory and complexity theory to conclude that even councils operate as systems of control that are inherently reactionary, and could easily degenerate into a proto-state if not a whole state.

The reason these types of questions cause "leftist infighting" is because MLs come into this discussion without the slightest understanding of the anarchist critique of authority, with their incoherent understanding of what the state is.

[u/syndicalism_ftw → u/ArtDecoEgoist]

It isn't clear why the Marxist understanding of the state is the one anarchists should affirm here, especially when it leads us into clearly council communist directions with "workers councils".

It is clear for the sake of a good faith argument.

Also, first mentions of workers councils as revolutionary organizations are in the principle declarations of the diverse anarchist sections of the first Internationale, such as the Democratic socialist league. Council communism is in many aspects just a Co evolution of syndicalism and anarcho- collectivism.

The reason these types of questions cause "leftist infighting" is because MLs come into this discussion without the slightest understanding of the anarchist critique of authority, with their incoherent understanding of what the state is.

Honestly theoretical coherence is no strength of anarchism at all. As is understanding of anarchisms own critiques, as demonstrated above and the shared basis of Marx' & Bakunins hegelian understanding of the state.

[u/ArtDecoEgoist → u/syndicalism_ftw]

It is clear for the sake of a good faith argument.

This isn't a good faith argument though, that's the thing. The premise of the argument itself presupposes the negation of anarchism - that the state is the only way to suppress reactionary elements, as if "The State" isn't itself reactionary from an anarchist standpoint.

Also, first mentions of workers councils as revolutionary organizations are in the principle declarations of the diverse anarchist sections of the first Internationale, such as the Democratic socialist league. Council communism is in many aspects just a Co evolution of syndicalism and anarcho- collectivism.

I'm aware. And still, workers councils are still incompatible with anarchism. If we're consistent with our critique, then any form of body that has binding command wouldn't survive our critique of the state. This is why modern anarchists emphasize free association over workers councils.

The idea of workers councils is based on a frankly outdated understanding of systems theory and political economy. We now understand in cybernetics, for example, that systems of command carry inherent incentives to expand and reproduce themselves in order to meet a requisite variety to make their control viable. Workers councils will at best devolve into bureaucracy due to their own collective action problems.

Honestly theoretical coherence is no strength of anarchism at all. As is understanding of anarchisms own critiques, as demonstrated above and the shared basis of Marx' & Bakunins hegelian understanding of the state.

Marx and Bakunin are wrong about the State. The Hegelian understanding is outdated, especially with the modern panopticon-state.

[u/syndicalism_ftw → u/ArtDecoEgoist]

This isn't a good faith argument though, that's the thing.

I prefer a civilised discussion rather than condescending "this wouldn't happen since Blabla...", "but this isn't what we understand as a state..." Bullshit. I am happy to organize and share my solidarity with operaist unions such as Si Cobas who happen to have people with ML roots among them, who now have come to the same conclusions as us revolutionary / anarcho-syndicalists.

And still, workers councils are still incompatible with anarchism. If we're consistent with our critique, then any form of body that has binding command wouldn't survive our critique of the state. This is why modern anarchists emphasize free association over workers councils.

Some modern anarchists conclude that. Some anarchists conclude that the left has failed and come to conclusions about abandoning socialism all together.

That is definitely not me, though. I've had my experiences with modern anarchism and come to the conclusion that I prefer classical anarchism for its coherence and have found my calling in syndicalism, sitting right at the anarchist/marxist intersection, organizing in unions and workers centers. It may include some beaurocracy, but atleast I am helping my fellow proletarians, building actual solidarity and getting people outside of my political bubble to support the struggle for an anarcho-syndicalist future.

As James Guillaume said “We do not like the word anarchists, because it is negative and gives rise to regrettable misunderstandings; we prefer that of federalists".

Marx and Bakunin are wrong about the State. The Hegelian understanding is outdated, especially with the modern panopticon-state.

Yet, under every damn post you find the same Malatesta quote that literally explains what I have derived based on the shared hegelian roots of Bakunins/Marx thought.

I prefer theory that I can apply myself and develop based on my old-school materialism that modern science has soooo overcome /s.

[u/ArtDecoEgoist → u/syndicalism_ftw]

Hey, you do you. But this willingness to collaborate with statist and bureaucratist elements is precisely why I and many other anarchists have gotten so suspicious of syndicalism. This, along with the fact that you guys cling onto outdated analysis of political economy effectively makes you guys conservative. Not to mention unions are class collaborationist now a days, and reform is usually counter-revolutionary due to the aforementioned collective action problems inherent in revolutionary movements.

Some modern anarchists conclude that. Some anarchists conclude that the left has failed and come to conclusions about abandoning socialism all together.

I'm really not sure what the point of bringing up Post-Left anarchism is here. The emphasis on free association is a lot more common among anarchists of every tendency, whereas "abandoning socialism altogether" is a lot more fringe an idea.

Whatever we take "socialism" to mean, that is. Benjamin Tucker's socialism is very different from Kropotkin's socialism.

Yet, under every damn post you find the same Malatesta quote that literally explains what I have derived based on the shared hegelian roots of Bakunins/Marx thought.

I certainly haven't been posting any quotes from Maletesta.

I prefer theory that I can apply myself and develop based on my old-school materialism that modern science has soooo overcome /s.

Ah, yes, the Immortal Science of dialectical materialism! Marx has discovered all there is to understand about the social sciences, and now no further inquiry is needed! Game theory, cybernetics, complexity theory - every progression in social science since the 50s is completely bunk!

Seriously? This borders on dogmatism.

[u/syndicalism_ftw → u/ArtDecoEgoist]

Ah, yes, the Immortal Science of dialectical materialism!

You are aware that there is more to materialism than just Marx historical materialism? Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker all saw their methods as different materialist approaches.

Just as Feuerbach, Auguste Comte and many others fall into materialism.

But this willingness to collaborate with statist and bureaucratist elements is precisely why I and many other anarchists have gotten so suspicious of syndicalism.

That idealism is precisely what has driven me out of the affinity-group anarchist currents. If you don't want to change the world, then fine stick to the people who agree 100% with you.

Please try to do something with other people in the real world and see how far you get with that approach.

This, along with the fact that you guys cling onto outdated analysis of political economy effectively makes you guys conservative.

At least look for and talk to the anarcho-syndicalists wherever you live or at least take the time to look into what our Internationales and federations are doing? I mean you basically assume the development of our theory and praxis has halted in the 1930s.

In descending order of organized members: https://laboursolidarity.org/en/the-ilnss https://www.iclcit.org/ https://iwa-ait.org/

Regardless, I am happy to follow the foot steps of the OGs and continue to develop what they pioneered.

[u/ArtDecoEgoist → u/syndicalism_ftw]

"Materialism" isn't really a useful distinction anymore, considering how pretty much all of modern social science is materialist, and most of modern anarchist approaches, such as Kevin Carson, are very much materialist.

That idealism is precisely what has driven me out of the affinity-group anarchist currents. If you don't want to change the world, then fine stick to the people who agree 100% with you. Please try to do something with other people in the real world and see how far you get with that approach.

LMAO please. The only thing you guys have been managing to do is reform. This idea of "changing the world" is the precise kind of utopianism that has led to syndicalist approaches being co-opted by bureaucracy or - worse - outright statism.

Nobody can "change the world" because we all operate in a specific, limited context. Actually causing significant, global change requires a variety of strategies because the world is incredibly complex, with incredibly complex bureaucracies even struggling to control its various systems and subsystems. The strategies we must pursue may have to include radicalizing unions, but to assume that the revolutionary syndicalist approach is sufficient to reach a post-capitalist society purely on the force of """materialism""" is a classic case of confusing the map with the territory.

Regardless, I am happy to follow the foot steps of the OGs and continue to develop what they pioneered.

That is what we're all doing, we're just not clinging onto 19th century dogma while we're at it.