If you think anarchists are controllwd by the cia and designed to split the left. Why, instead of playing to there cards, dont we work with them for the parts we agree on e.g. a revolution.
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
-7 points (44.8% liked)
Memes
53324 readers
1529 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Guys stop killing eachother while we still do have a common enemy.
The meme Is correct since that Isnt anarchism, there Is a real anarchism wich Is very good.
Ik this Is a marxist instance but real communists dont fight anarchists, since actual anarchist have the same goals as them
Anarchists and Marxists may share the imperialists and capitalists as a common class enemy, but take their practice in different directions. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
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.
Yeah
What Is the right choice...well depends
Sincerely idk, both work and have worked without a problem, on different scales of course
In general, Marxism-Leninism has been the most successful in establisbing socialist states and uplifting the lives of the people. On top of that, its theoretical groundings have been most consistently affirmed by testing in reality.
Yes marxism Is more common and i know that in marxism there isnt a sudden change so It does appeal to more people
It's not about being common, it's about being tested in reality and affirmed by it.
Well they both have been tested and affirmed but marxism has done a Mich bigger impact
Yes, anarchists have had some degree of localized success, but the scale and longevity of Marxist projects speaks more to its own successes over anarchism, not simply the popularity of ideas.
Btw saw your post on theory and thank you very much since i really Needed something like that
Ty :)
Thank you so much! I hope you enjoy!
;3
Anarchists both:
- Oppose all authority.
- Are also CIA agents.
Another solid piece of logic from the red fascists.
Its because anarchism isn’t seen as a valid threat or opposition to the US empire and because of it’s ineffectiveness against capitalism, the CIA/FBI can use the promotion of anarchism to split the left, silence revolutionary activity, and attack Marxist-Leninism, an actual working ideology. People that claim to be anarchists who take it upon themselves either in real life or online to bash “tankies”, AES states, etc are doing the current state’s work for free.
red fascists
Deeply unserious term and proves my point lmao
I appreciate your response mate, I read through what you linked and I'm disappointed by its lack of depth and missing historical analysis but I enjoyed how it was written. What's your take on Rojava today? Seems like a good, real life, counter point.
Here’s an article with an analysis on Rojava that shows its not a good, real life, counter point.
That was a much better read, still very much digesting it so I wont share my opinion yet. Thanks for the link 😁 got any foundational books that better asserts the necessities of a Vanguard party? I suppose anarchism is an easy punching bag but I'm yet to be fully convinced of the political side of marxist-leninism despite being fully commie-pilled economically.
I know this is a tankie instance so I didn't downvote but I'm surprised again and again how ignorant tankies are about the concept of prefiguration or "unity of means and ends" or "building the new in the shell of the old" or what ever you want to call it. It's not about the state vanishing over night but about building a dual power that will fight the authority of the state. It's the same type of people who say anarchists can't read that have no idea about actual anarchist theory. Do better. Leave this strawman behind. It never was true and didn't age well.
Marxists aren't ignorant of prefiguration, we agree with some of it, such as building dual power. We don't agree that doing so erases the basis of class, and thus doesn't also erase the basis od the state. Marxists in general take the opposite approach to solving class struggle, believing in collectivization of all production and distribution to suit the needs of all, rather than creating loosely organized communalist cells, and this is because of analysis of class struggle being different for Marxists (and I believe more correct).
Sorry, I was overgeneralizating. I wasn't talking about Marxist Leninists or Marxists in general or all tankies but I encounter this attitude OP shows far too often. People read Engels's On Authority and think they know stuff which is frustrating.
I think having a shallow understanding of theory even within our own tendencies is a common problem that just comes with trying to study dense topics that are deliberately hidden from us. It isn't a fun problem, but it's one that comes with the territory. I try to do my best with it, that's why I made my intro Marxist-Leninist reading list for those that want one.
This right here. The problem is tankies don't like to admit there's other philosophies WITHIN communism (council communism, anarcho-communism (which are basically the same fucking thing but no one realizes cause they only read the first page of das Kapital and nothing else)).
I should also distinguish between tankies and MLs before this instance dogpiles me calling me a liberal. Literally every ML I've met in real life understands the theory behind anarchism and I've had some great talks with them. It's just this theory of leaderlessness comes off shaky to most. Meanwhile online ML who do no organizing, attend no protests and spend all their lives complaining online are the ones thinking this meme is the most hilarious shit. I believe this kind of behaviour to be exclusively online.
So building a rival state?
Build a stateless, hierarchy-critical, egalitarian society that rivals the hegemony of states
Where?
Take Rojava as an example: they built a system of councils that didn't yield any real power until their day came (2011 if I'm not mistaken) and after the revolution, there was no power vacuum but this decentralized system took over. Same idea is anarcho syndicalism: they do union work now but are ready to run the factory/company when the opportunity is there.
Take [irrelevant microstate with same interests in the region as the USA] as an example:
Would you say the same about the Zapatistas? Or the Makhnovshchina. They fought against the Bolsheviks so in your black white thinking, they are evil, right? But back to West Asia: the common interest they share with the USA is to fight the IS or Islamism in general. The USA supported islamists when they fought against communists. Isn't this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic that made the US support Islamists until they didn't and now Rojava got a little support but that doesn't mean any ideological alignment as you seemed to imply.
Also, it's not a state but I don't expect tankies to get that.
For the Zapatistas, not so much (though they explicitly reject being labeled as anarchist), for Makhnovschina, absolutely, they were glorified bandits correctly seen through by anarchist Lucy Parsons.
As for Rojava being a state, it still has private property and class struggle, and as such does have a state:
Private property is still constitutionally protected by article 70 of the DAANES constitution: "Private property is protected and may not be taken away except for the public interest. It must be compensated fairly, and this is regulated by law."
Would you say the same about the Zapatistas?
Not sure, to be honest, I would have to read more about the Zapatistas. They absolutely are a micronation with no geopolitical power whatsoever, though.
Or the Makhnovshchina. They fought against the Bolsheviks so in your black white thinking, they are evil, right?
I never called Rojava evil, and I don't think they're evil, so don't put those words in my mouth. Regarding Makhnovshchina: if they weren't capable of enduring a civil war-destroyed red army, how were they supposed to survive Nazi genocide? How is a loose set of preindustrial farmers going to stand a chance against total extermination by an industrial power? And no, Vietnam isn't an example because Vietnam was well funded and armed by the Soviets. No Soviet weapons, no Vietnam.
don’t put those words in my mouth.
Well, I would read less into your comment if it was clearer. I explained the concept of prefiguration with Rojava as an example and you brought up that they have the same interests as the USA. So what is the implication or relevance here? Are you saying they wouldn't have made it without the USA, that the USA helped them build the structures before the revolution or during or after? Or that it's a USA backed coup? Which is it? You can't write obscure comments and whine for being misunderstood.
My implication was simply that they are allowed to exist because they happen to align with geopolitical US interests in the region, and otherwise would have likely disappeared.
You didn't respond to my comments on the Machnovschina
So your comments had nothing to do with the topic I was talking about, yet you expect me to engage with every detail of your offtopic comments, I see.
If you are interested: Gelderloos argues in Worshiping Power (worth a read and you find it on theanarchistlibrary.org) that decentralized guerrilla tactics are very good at defending, while being bad at conquering. If this would be enough to withstand between two imperial powers is very doubtful. I never said that anarchist movements in the broader sense are stronger, I would say tho they are worth fighting for. But you are aware that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore either, right? And other Bolshevik adjacent movements were crushed by the USA. The line of argument you are using against anarchism can be used by liberals against Marxism Leninism. If you want to join the winning team, it isn't any kind of socialism.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted by the tankies.
I didn't expect otherwise but thanks for your empathy
Jesus Christ, get a grip. They're just down votes.
Naive idealism is sweet but not productive.
NERD FIGHT!
Anarchist in their most pure form lmao
In what way is anarchism effectively different in 2025 than neoliberalism or libertarianism, the ideologies of the two existing duopoly parties? We ALREADY live in a do nothing state, where private and foreign interests just YOLO across us with no state to advocate for us.
We ALREADY live in a do nothing state, where private and foreign interests just YOLO across us with no state to advocate for us.
This is wrong. We have a strong police force. Take squatting for example. The anarchist view would be, if you don't use a house in any form, it isn't yours anymore and someone else can take it. The neoliberal police state will force you out of it. The state enforces private and foreign interests. You can't tell me that ICE is a sign of a do nothing state to take another example.
This is already effectively a private police force, intended to profit private prison concerns, not benefit the state, ICE more than anything.
What is your understanding of what a state is? Because correct me if I'm wrong, I don't live in the US, but ICE and police in general is funded by tax money, right?
What tankies and anarchists will agree on is that liberal states, like the US, work in the interest in the ruling class which is capitalists. It's always about the rich, always has been.
What anarchists want isn't the abolition of the state – period – but the abolition of all hierarchies, including capitalism and private firms (and obviously all states, including Bolshevik ones). Anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron.
@bubblybubbles "...in the Russia of to-day it is not at all necessary to express your dissension in word or act to become subject to arrest; the mere holding of opposing views makes you the legitimate prey of the de facto supreme power of the land, the Tcheka, that almighty Bolshevik Okhrana, whose will knows neither law nor responsibility."
1922
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1922/bolsheviks-shooting-anarchists.html
Goldman is a horribly biased source for the Russian Civil War. She lived in Russia during the Civil War, 1920-1921, wrote that piece in '22 from Stockholm, and then the Civil War concluded in '23. She grew up with anti-Russian biases common of western Europeans (still continues today), spoke relatively broken Russian, and chiefly was entirely wrong about the anarchist movement in Russia.
The anarchists, who were faced with a dillema between supporting the bolsheviks and the Whites, majority decided to support the bolsheviks and were comrades in arms. Bandits like Makhno's faction that were slaughtering villagers and stealing soviet supplies were killed, but the overwhelming majority of anarchists joined the Red Army, called "soviet-anarchists." Goldman is primarily pointing to the minority of anarchists that denied the bolsheviks as the only anarchists.
Goldman was also contested by other anarchists at the time. Kropotkin, while displeased that the revolution wasn't an anarchist one, supported the revolution nonetheless. Lucy Parsons was another principled anarchist that nonetheless supported the bolsheviks, and also agreed with labelling Makhno a bandit. Goldman, however, was a friend of Makhno, showing the real allegiances Goldman had.
Goldman's anti-communism was ultimately based in unprincipled chauvanism. Her writings on anarchist theory are valuable, but we should not take her as any sort of authority on actually existing socialism, which she had denounced before it even finished fighting for its own existence.
@bubblybubbles Tankies do hate anarchists.
Yeah it’s pretty obvious with how even the most basic of pro-anarchist comments in here are downvoted by them.
Can’t expect anything else from people who will shoot you in the back during a revolution
Marxists and anarchists get along far more often than not, the problems arise when one group takes up arms against the other and fighting ensues. Given that Marxists have had more success establishing systems, there are more examples of those minority of anarchists taking up arms against the Marxists. Marxists and anarchists may take opposite approaches, ie collectivization instead of communalization, but history proves that the two groups can and do work together far more often than not.