You attacked the person instead of the argument by stating wrong things about him, aka slander.
No, I did not. I gave my assessment of Anark’s theoretical positions and then addressed the argument directly. Saying someone is a phrase-monger with a poor understanding of Marxism is not slander when it’s true. If someone’s categories erase class content, state form, property relations, imperialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, then their understanding of Marxism is directly relevant to the discussion. Calling that “slander” is just a way to avoid answering the critique.
Also, what Marx said and what Lenin said are two distinct things. You shouldn’t throw them together.
Marx and Lenin are obviously different people writing in different periods. But their analysis is not sealed off into unrelated compartments. Lenin develops Marxism under the conditions of imperialism and proletarian revolution; he does not abandon Marx. On anarchism, their criticisms are fundamentally linked and lead to the same core conclusion: anarchism expresses a petty-bourgeois individualist hostility to the political struggle, proletarian state power, and the transitional dictatorship of the proletariat.
As Lenin put it:
“Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.”
Or:
“The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism.”
The rejection of being dominated is rooted in biology.
This is pseudoscientific hand-waving at best. Humans and animals have formed hierarchies since the dawn of cooperation. Parent and child, teacher and student, doctor and patient, experienced worker and apprentice, commander and militia member: hierarchy and authority emerge for concrete reasons, and they sure as shit are not simply “rejected by biology.” The serious question is not whether authority exists. It is what kind of authority, rooted in what social relation, serving what purpose, and accountable to whom. A parent stopping a child from running into traffic is not the same thing as a landlord extracting rent, and neither is the same thing as a workers’ state suppressing counter-revolution.
So, do the workers of state-owned means of production keep all the value they create, or is the surplus value taken by its owner, the party?
I am genuinely speechless that you spent so much time braying about anarchism not being petty-bourgeois or individualist, only to end with an almost parody-level petty-bourgeois individualist misunderstanding of socialism.
Socialism does not mean every individual worker directly owns “their” means of production and receives “their” full individual value like a little proprietor. That is petty bourgeois nonsense. Socialism means the proletariat as a class owns the means of production through socialized forms and redirects surplus toward the needs of the proletariat as a whole, instead of having that surplus privately appropriated by capitalists.
Your formulation exposes exactly the individualist petty-bourgeois premise you just spent paragraphs denying. You treat socialism as if it should mean each worker or each workplace immediately pockets its own product. That is a fantasy of decentralized proprietorship, not proletarian social ownership. The proletariat does not abolish capitalism by turning every worker into a tiny owner guarding their own little share. It abolishes capitalism by taking hold of production as a class and subordinating surplus to collective development.
Again it is remarkable how perfectly your ending demonstrates the critique. You deny that anarchism is petty-bourgeois individualism, then immediately judge socialist ownership from the standpoint of the isolated producer asking, “Where is my individual product?” That is the petty-bourgeois horizon in its purest form: hostile to the capitalist, but incapable of grasping the proletariat acting as a class through socialized property, central planning, and state power.
Why bring him up, then? Does your assessment of anark have anything to do with the definition? Would you have deduced that this definition must come from a person, which insert your false assumptions about Anark here?
Saying someone is a phrase-monger with a poor understanding of Marxism is not slander when it’s true.
Ok. It’s not true, though.
If someone’s categories erase class content, state form, property relations, imperialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, then their understanding of Marxism is directly relevant to the discussion.
Anark’s work erases none of those things.
Calling that “slander” is just a way to avoid answering the critique.
Correctly classyfying it as slander is a protection against Brandolini’s law.
Leninism is not a correct logical development of marxism. His theory of the bourgeois state as an agent of the bourgeoisie is blatantly incorrect.
Your Lenin quotes, where he dismisses anarchist collectivism is another example of how he had some serious bullshit takes.
Name one animal where a hierarchy exists that starves other members of their species from the things they require to live. Name one animal where the hierarchies persist in a form after the individual at the top dies. Name one animal where the upper rungs of the hierarchies can punish the lower ones.
Is your doctor your boss? Can they take away your liver as punishment? Do parents regularly enact their position to starve their children? Is it a healthy parent-child relationship when the parent continuosly takes away the child’s decision making power?
You don’t understand the anarchist definition of hierarchy. That’s a prerequisite to be able to understand any anarchist position. You’re like an intelligent designer arguing against mitosis.
neither is the same thing as a workers’ state suppressing counter-revolution.
Explain how workers defending against counter-revolution is authoritarian, according to the above definition.
You continuously conflate the party with the workers. That’s the same BS as conflating the Ukranian people with the Selensky regime (or “government”, if you prefer the less loaded term).
Your formulation exposes exactly the individualist petty-bourgeois premise you just spent paragraphs denying. You treat socialism as if it should mean each worker or each workplace immediately pockets its own product.
No, in socialism, every worker should have a say in how the surplus value (or the MOP, or whatever) is employed, in addition with the consumers, ideally in decentralized soviets.
Name one animal where a hierarchy exists that starves other members of their species from the things they require to live. Name one animal where the hierarchies persist in a form after the individual at the top dies. Name one animal where the upper rungs of the hierarchies can punish the lower ones.
No, I did not. I gave my assessment of Anark’s theoretical positions and then addressed the argument directly. Saying someone is a phrase-monger with a poor understanding of Marxism is not slander when it’s true. If someone’s categories erase class content, state form, property relations, imperialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, then their understanding of Marxism is directly relevant to the discussion. Calling that “slander” is just a way to avoid answering the critique.
Marx and Lenin are obviously different people writing in different periods. But their analysis is not sealed off into unrelated compartments. Lenin develops Marxism under the conditions of imperialism and proletarian revolution; he does not abandon Marx. On anarchism, their criticisms are fundamentally linked and lead to the same core conclusion: anarchism expresses a petty-bourgeois individualist hostility to the political struggle, proletarian state power, and the transitional dictatorship of the proletariat.
As Lenin put it:
Or:
This is pseudoscientific hand-waving at best. Humans and animals have formed hierarchies since the dawn of cooperation. Parent and child, teacher and student, doctor and patient, experienced worker and apprentice, commander and militia member: hierarchy and authority emerge for concrete reasons, and they sure as shit are not simply “rejected by biology.” The serious question is not whether authority exists. It is what kind of authority, rooted in what social relation, serving what purpose, and accountable to whom. A parent stopping a child from running into traffic is not the same thing as a landlord extracting rent, and neither is the same thing as a workers’ state suppressing counter-revolution.
I am genuinely speechless that you spent so much time braying about anarchism not being petty-bourgeois or individualist, only to end with an almost parody-level petty-bourgeois individualist misunderstanding of socialism.
Socialism does not mean every individual worker directly owns “their” means of production and receives “their” full individual value like a little proprietor. That is petty bourgeois nonsense. Socialism means the proletariat as a class owns the means of production through socialized forms and redirects surplus toward the needs of the proletariat as a whole, instead of having that surplus privately appropriated by capitalists.
Your formulation exposes exactly the individualist petty-bourgeois premise you just spent paragraphs denying. You treat socialism as if it should mean each worker or each workplace immediately pockets its own product. That is a fantasy of decentralized proprietorship, not proletarian social ownership. The proletariat does not abolish capitalism by turning every worker into a tiny owner guarding their own little share. It abolishes capitalism by taking hold of production as a class and subordinating surplus to collective development.
Again it is remarkable how perfectly your ending demonstrates the critique. You deny that anarchism is petty-bourgeois individualism, then immediately judge socialist ownership from the standpoint of the isolated producer asking, “Where is my individual product?” That is the petty-bourgeois horizon in its purest form: hostile to the capitalist, but incapable of grasping the proletariat acting as a class through socialized property, central planning, and state power.
Why bring him up, then? Does your assessment of anark have anything to do with the definition? Would you have deduced that this definition must come from a person, which insert your false assumptions about Anark here?
Ok. It’s not true, though.
Anark’s work erases none of those things.
Correctly classyfying it as slander is a protection against Brandolini’s law.
Leninism is not a correct logical development of marxism. His theory of the bourgeois state as an agent of the bourgeoisie is blatantly incorrect.
Your Lenin quotes, where he dismisses anarchist collectivism is another example of how he had some serious bullshit takes.
Name one animal where a hierarchy exists that starves other members of their species from the things they require to live. Name one animal where the hierarchies persist in a form after the individual at the top dies. Name one animal where the upper rungs of the hierarchies can punish the lower ones.
Is your doctor your boss? Can they take away your liver as punishment? Do parents regularly enact their position to starve their children? Is it a healthy parent-child relationship when the parent continuosly takes away the child’s decision making power?
You don’t understand the anarchist definition of hierarchy. That’s a prerequisite to be able to understand any anarchist position. You’re like an intelligent designer arguing against mitosis.
Explain how workers defending against counter-revolution is authoritarian, according to the above definition.
You continuously conflate the party with the workers. That’s the same BS as conflating the Ukranian people with the Selensky regime (or “government”, if you prefer the less loaded term).
No, in socialism, every worker should have a say in how the surplus value (or the MOP, or whatever) is employed, in addition with the consumers, ideally in decentralized soviets.
I don’t want to return to monke.
You must tho