[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / chemo / fa / flutter / hydrus / mde / tingles ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: f64a4bf7ea48ae8⋯.jpg (99.91 KB, 850x850, 1:1, 15635fa068c399dbc31b5bf6ca….jpg)


If after revolution, both anarchists and Marxists make functioning societies, would it be possible to coexist?


There were numerous anarchists who joined the Red Army, most famously Anatoly Zhelezniakov who earlier had given the order for his fellow sailors to disperse the Constituent Assembly in agreement with the Bolsheviks.

Trotsky wrote that during the Civil War he discussed with Lenin "the possibility of allotting the anarchists certain territories where, with the consent of the local population, they would carry out their stateless experiment." But the development of the war, the bandit activities of Makhno, and the resort to terrorism on the part of many Russian anarchists against the Bolsheviks, left no room for that.

Leaving that aside, the big problem is determining the relationship between a planned socialist economy and the activities of a bunch of anarchist communes. Unless the latter were tiny and of marginal economic importance, disputes would quickly break out between the two forms of economy over handling of resources, manpower, transport, etc.




>making a functioning society

Memeing aside though, I do think it should theoretically be possible, granted no capitalist powers exist anymore that would pose an imperialist threat.



>What is Catalonia?



Yeah, I like how that existed for decades on end without ever being interrupted by any outside powers!



Now move the goalpost again.

Also functional socialism > functional state-capitalism any day.



I don't think anarchist control over a city and some outlying rural areas for about a year is enough to describe it as "functional."

And there are criticisms of how things actually operated during that short period, e.g. see pages 323-333 of the following work: https://archive.org/stream/SpainTheUnfinishedRevolution/Spain%20The%20Unfinished%20Revolution#page/n168/mode/1up


If an anarchist or socialist society ever materialised, how would it coexist with a group of people that history has proven to not be able to coexist, but instead intends to overthrow the current state and replace it with a brutal dark-ages theology?



What is that worth though, when it immediately collapses due to foreign involvement? Clearly, the anarchists were unable to hold onto power. Is that a worthy historical example to uphold? Compare Soviet successes and accomplishments to the anarchists.



So basically the Bolsheviks / CPSU stance would have been to essentially allot ASSR's for Anarchists to have communes within? (Likely largely Agricultural?)



Answered this here: >>10648

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / chemo / fa / flutter / hydrus / mde / tingles ]