• MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    And that was a useful framework in the early 20th century (I’ve at least read the April Theses), but can we not continue to adapt our revolutionary strategy to better combat the forces who opposed us today rather than in 1917?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 minutes ago

      Marxists have continued to sharpen our practice over time, a century of revolution provides a wealth of real experience to draw from. I am unconvinced that this strategy needs to be abandoned in favor of Anarchism, mainly because I agree with Marx in how production centralizes over time and thus humanity should master that process and democratize it so that humanity can subordinate Capital, rather than the inverse.

      Anarchism on the other hand posits a totally different structute, one based on decentralization at its core, which negates the ability to collectively plan production and movement in order to abolish hierarchy in total, no matter the benefits if properly accounted for.

      I’m not anti-Anarchist, I used to be one myself, but I think just as you earlier took issue with people not engaging with Anarchist theory, I think your own admission to having read at least the April Theses means you should dig more into Marxism and Marxism-Leninism if you want to understand your Marxist comrades better.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      To date, nobody has shown a more effective approach to organizing that I’m aware of. All the successful movements follow roughly the same formula. The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century, so there’s no reason to think that methods of organization need to drastically change as well. Just look at MAS in Bolivia as a very recent example.