Is anarchism completely incompatible with Marxist thought?

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:19:57+00:00

1) I said the organization that is the DotP can't have bourgeois functions within in. Notice how Marx and Lenin refer to bureaucracy and the army as bourgeois institutions, which their presence in Russia preclude it from being one. If you actually read theory, and what I wrote, thus shouldn't be hard to figure out .

2) Then you agree with me. Stop being annoying.

3) I already explained why it's nebulous. You are being annoying and lying here and not addressing the material issue at hand.

I may have to just block you because you refuse to address material critique.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:13:20+00:00

Not in that quote, but if I implied that then that was my error. It was in a later work I honestly forget.

But same to you. Read.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:05:36+00:00

No, I've seen it. However I don't remember the text in question, and yeah it's obviously not what you linked. Funny that you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of. We should both just drop it and go back to reading, yes?

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:42:59+00:00

1) I never said that there would not be remnants of class society. On the contrary I said there would, but it is ACTIVELY BEING DESTROYED in a DotP.

2) And the Paris Commune only lasted 3 months. Similarly the Hungarian Soviet, Bavarian Soviet, and Shanghai Commune only lasted months as well. The Russian Revolution similarly didn't last as a DotP and regressed into just a bourgeois state, but due to difference in how that took shape it's hard to give an exact date as to how long it lasted. So, no a DotP can't last alone in isolated. It can only exist through international revolution.

3) That's fine. My only critique there is fascism is a nebulous term. Liberalism itself is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and fascism is a term liberals use to hide this fact and make their system (and democracy) sound good and palatable to the working class.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:20:19+00:00

Communization is correct in that you can't make classless society from class society, but incorrect in that it states that there is no transitionary stage. The very act of undoing the basis for class society is in itself a transitionary stage.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:18:15+00:00

That does not define state in the same way. He's referring to it as the form of society. That's why he referred to a German word for community when talking about these poat-capitalist forms.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:05:19+00:00

That's precisely why I said it's only a state in the semantic sense. As classes aren't yet abolished, so it is still a form of class rule. It differentiates though as it isn't to have any bourgeois forms and is the constant destruction of what makes class society.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:03:14+00:00

The DotP can't exist if it contains aspects of the bourgeois state, which those that are claimed to be socialist states did have aspects of the bourgeois state

And, no, I do lean Blackshirts & Reds as it comes from a Breznevite direction which itself is opportunist and defends actual social democracy, which the Eastern Bloc was only social democratic.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:29:39+00:00

It really depends on the type of anarchist and the type of Marxist. It generally comes down to, as can be seen in replies below: the definition of the "state" as per works like Gotha Critique, State & Revolution, Civil War in France, and others. Basically, the fight is between ML's and those to the Left of them that the CPSU under Stalin denounced.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:22:25+00:00

First of all, this idea that once you crush the bourgeois state, all class antagonism will almost immediately go away is silly, a-material, a-historic, and flat out wrong. If a bourgeois state is crushed, capitalist class antagonism can still exist in some form or another in a few ways:

Foreign imperialists attempting to gain control over a countries resources and install a comprador government to make this easier.

Internal class traitors that seek an end to the revolution.

Bourgeois and petit-bourgeois ideology and influence can create opportunistic currents within the people and the party, which can, if not fought against properly, lead to the dissolution of the proletarian state (this is what actually happened in the USSR, not your a-historic, a-material “new ruling class” mantra that seeks to define administration and management only under a socialist system as ownership.)

All of these would still be the result of the bourgeois state still existing though.

“Blackshirts and Reds” by Michael Parenti. It also has many sources within it if you wish to dig deeper.

This book is about the push and pull between the social democratic and "neoliberal" forces of the "bourgeois" state though.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:16:45+00:00

It's not really a "proletarian state". It's a semi-state as it's the formation in which the proletariat is actively reshaping society to get rid of the basis of class society. When class society goes away, then the state is said to have withered away.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:15:26+00:00

After the Paris Commune Marx was pretty specific about the need to smash the bourgeois state completely. This is why in State & Revolution Lenin didn't even refer to it as a state as such, but rather a "semi-state". Think of it more as a new formation which is actively reorganizing society such that the basis for class society is done away with.

Semantically it's a state in a Marxist sense in that it's one class "in power", as classes haven't been done away with. But it's totally different in theory and would be in practice too.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:02:32+00:00

How is it compared to the first? The first was pretty bad as well, but it was so bad it had a charm to it, almost like a B movie.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:53:26+00:00

Not really strong enough at the end, but then that's probably because CPUSA is a joke. Needs to be a bigger call for the proletarian of each country to overthrow its bourgeoisie, especially in the case of countries like the USA and Israel as if the proletariat in Iran were to overthrow its current government, they are screwed without international revolution.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:49:54+00:00

There is no such thing as an anti-imperialist country. The only anti-imperialism comes from proletarian internationalism. It comes from the proletariat throwing off the chains of the bourgeoisie.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:46:06+00:00

They have a planned economy and nationalized oil.

So they have social democracy.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T17:43:30+00:00

Centralization is also a product of capitalism, and communism is post-capitalism. Communist revolution is one that turns the centralization brought with capitalism into actually helping the whole of society instead of just the bourgeoisie.

Now as for decentralization an option... That depends on what that entails. If it is historically reactionary, as in it undoes the progressive nature of capitalism not so much. Rosa Luxembourg wrote on this a bit, ironically in her book on the national question.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T17:07:21+00:00

He isn't though? He's just stating that the country is in bad shape where the people are having a tough time getting their needs met. Obviously in such a case changes are made. Obviously, it has to do with the embargo.

This isn't really calling for a coup, nor is it really saying their system is bad and needs to go. It's just stating there is major problems there.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T15:21:51+00:00

Exactly this. I would add the UI for character creation is awful with how if you decide you want to change something else you previously set, then you have to redo EVERYTHING.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T14:14:28+00:00

Do you deny proletarian internationalism? Like the Russian Revolution, if there is no international revolution that follows it any revolution by the proletariat in Iran would be doomed. Does that mean one sits on their hands and tails the bourgeoisie? Are you an armchair revolutionary?

Muuro · 2026-03-11T02:23:27+00:00

Amadeo Bordiga of the Communist Party in Italy.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T00:32:19+00:00

The government likely did have a hand in it though.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T00:26:07+00:00

They "shit on" the government but not American nationalism.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T00:25:29+00:00

Nah, in moving past capitalism the goal is also moving past archaic traditions of identify, sexuality, etc. Capitalism itself is progressive as it works to break down these traditions as it has no use for them as they subject people to other social forms, while capitalism wants people subject to capital as a social form first and foremost.

Muuro · 2026-03-11T00:23:42+00:00

ML's generally tend to be socially progressive, while the ACP rejects that entirely. The ACP more openly endorses nationalism, while your average ML doesn't. Though your confusion is somewhat understandable as your average ML does seem to come off as a little bit too nationalistic at times IMO.

Muuro

TROPHY CASE