• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 days ago

    Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn’t a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.

    Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor

    Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.

    Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.

    Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it’s less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as “authoritarian” and Anarchism as “more likely” to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.

    We don’t have to debate, but I do think you should give this more thought. If you want to learn more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist reading list you can check out. Open for feedback!