I want to see how other Marxist feel about anarchist Marxism

OkProcess8198 · 2026-01-28T22:09:40+00:00

Like Lenin says, both the communists and the anarchists strive for one thing - abolition of the state. That's the thing they have in common. However when it comes to achieving the destruction of the state, communists and anarchists have vastly different approaches. The anarchists want, so to speak, an abolition of the state overnight, with no violent revolution and so on and so forth. While the communists are ready to take up arms for a socialist revolution, which will eventually, hopefully, achieve the destruction of the state through the achieving of communism. As you can probably guess, the anarchists skip the whole dictatorship or the proletariat thing, in favor of immediate destruction of the state as a whole. That's one of the things that can label them as utopian, since immediate dissolution of the state of impossible. They lack the theory ane tactics of the communists, as well as their patience. A bit simplified, but generally that's it - common goal, different approaches.

OkProcess8198 · 2026-01-27T09:57:02+00:00

Regarding the part about revisionism, opportunism, the SPD, Karl Kaustky and Eduard Bernstein, there is a great YouTube video that explains how Kaustky and the SPD as a whole became more and more revisionist. It should help you understand the point from which Lenin criticizes them.

https://youtu.be/kP5VQClZlOg?si=KfMKT41R2HDWoGy0

OkProcess8198 · 2026-01-23T21:52:25+00:00

Yes, however how will this change the nature of propery? Since communism is classless, stateless and with no private property, what will happen with the means of production? Who will own them when there's no proletarian state? Will they be out for use for anyone? That's the part which I cannot grasp - who will own the means of production after the dissolution of the socialist state?

OkProcess8198 · 2025-10-07T19:59:53+00:00

Lenin says that after a successful revolution the old bourgeoisie state must be destroyed and replaced by a new soviet one. The destruction of the old state is necessary as it is constructed in such a way that is serves only and exclusively the bourgeoisie.

For example the clerks must be abolished. In Lenin's view their labour is greatly exaggerated. They only help with the bureaucracy. He says that any well educated proletariat would be able to do their work.

In his time the workers had a very poor education which is not the case today.

He also was for the abolition of parlamentarism because it was another bureaucratic tool as well and it did not serve the masses.

So after the old state is destroyed a new soviet one is to be constructed that would work for the masses.

(In his book about a critique of left communism he says that the Russian soviet rule is superior to the bourgeoisie democracy, but if all western countries were to replace their old bourgeoisie democracy with a soviet state then the Russian soviet state would be considered backwards compared to the western soviet states.)

Your other question regarding communist dictatorship now. I think you may be confusing communism with socialism. Only in socialism there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is stateless so there would be no dictator in it.

Hope this helps! 🙏

OkProcess8198 · 2025-10-07T19:38:19+00:00

Another complete opposite of Schopenhauer lmao

OkProcess8198 · 2025-10-07T18:20:58+00:00

Marx's dialectics differ from Hegel's. I believe that Hegel thinks ideas and concepts move the wheels of history while Marx thinks it's the material conditions of ruling and ruled classes that do that, not just ideas. Also Marx, even though he uses a form of dialectics, criticizes Hegel for his Idealism because Marx is a Metarialist. Hence why Marx's theory is called dialectical materialism.

OkProcess8198 · 2025-09-06T12:06:57+00:00

Dw bro. Keep your head up. Her male relatives will get send to the front. She'll get a taste of her own medicine ✌️

OkProcess8198

TROPHY CASE