Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
That being said, there’s merit to the idea that lockstep dogmatism to a 175 year old definition of a political model isn’t necessarily a successful model for any given present day era.
This is why I’m wary of “read theory.” Sure, read theory, but don’t treat it like a Bible. Expand, adapt, update, adjust.
Besides, like all science, theory should be reproducible without need for the text. Theory after all means “best guess,” and it’s supposed to be vulnerable to new realities and discoveries.
Every communist should be familiar with the core philosophy and principles of Marxist analysis. That information and methodology is very hard to just naturally luck into without reading the theory – especially if you grew up in a sea of liberalism.
Our adherance to past principles of organizing needs to be dynamic and not dogmatic though.
deleted by creator
True, there is a great danger in dogmatism. That’s why Marxists emphasize the scientific and changing nature of our worldview. “Read theory” shouldn’t mean “just read Marx and Lenin” it means you should also read Mao, Amin, Horne, and so on. Read it critically, notice changes, notice contradictions and consider different perspectives.
Bookchin argues we toss out Marxism as a whole because not everything Marx says can have held up. However, Marxists recognize that and critique and change the theory. We adapt to our conditions. Bookchin denies the method of proletarian revolution which we still uphold because we see it worked. He does not see it worked because he accepts the anti-communist alternative history.