“Why do you think only ownership can be a ‘material anchor’? When someone can ‘own’ something they’ve never been within a thousand miles of, why couldn’t another form of institutionally enforced authority over that object fulfill that same role?”
Ownership isn’t about physical proximity. It’s about the right to exclude, to appropriate surplus, to transfer control. That’s what makes it a material anchor. Institutional authority without that right is conditional. A manager can direct labour, but if they can’t sell the factory, bequeath it, or pocket the profit, they aren’t a capitalist. That distinction, as has been pointed out already, is the difference between a function and a class.
“You reformist! ;) Why would regulation offer any more resistance against the pressure of material relations between authority and worker within state communism than in liberal capitalism?”
Mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms aren’t liberal reforms. They’re tools to keep proletarian authority tied to the class it serves. The AES have used them, imperfectly but materially, to prevent bureaucratic ossification. That’s not reformism. It’s simply recognizing that contradiction doesn’t disappear after revolution. It has to be managed through practice, not wished away. And let’s be clear: these tools work because the dictatorship of the proletariat has an objective interest in aligning leadership with the masses. The dictatorship of capital has the opposite aim. Its core function is to reproduce exploitation. No amount of “recall mechanisms” will make a bourgeois state serve workers, because its class character is defined by serving capital. You can’t reform a class enemy into an ally.
“It’s natural that functions converge when pursuing the same goals, especially when the pressure is on.”
Exactly. Material conditions demand certain forms. That’s proof that strategy must be grounded in reality, not moral preference. If anarchists end up adopting ML positions when faced with real tasks (smashing the state, defending the revolution, coordinating production) that says something about those ML positions. They are proven correct by practice.
“One of the nice things of anarchy is that other people can exercise their better ideas, so even if I give a bad answer they are free to give a good answer and people can go with that instead. That’s how you prevent beginner mistakes like the four pests campaign or the holodomor from killing millions of people.”
This is historical illiteracy. First, the “beginner mistakes” line erases the material conditions those revolutions faced: invasion, embargo, sabotage, famine imposed from outside. Second, it ignores that anarchist experiments have their own body counts when they fail to coordinate defense or production. Third, it pretends the AES didn’t learn, adapt, and save hundreds of millions from imperial predation. The PRC lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, built world-class infrastructure, and broke imperial dependency. That’s a historical achievement under nearly impossible conditions not to mind the USSR going from illiterate peasants to space faring in under 50 years.
And the “let others try their better ideas” approach sounds open but is functionally irresponsible. Revolution isn’t a laboratory. People die when strategy fails. The mass line isn’t about letting everyone do their own thing. It’s about synthesizing mass experience into coherent strategy through disciplined practice.
“You can’t break imperial chains with sociocracy. Why couldn’t you?”
Show me where it has shown even the slightest potential to. Imperialism doesn’t care about your decision-making model. It bombs, sanctions, coups. Breaking imperial chains requires coordinated political power, economic planning, and military defense. That requires authority. Decentralization without central coordination isn’t a strength. If anything it’s a massive weakness begging to be exploited.
“Shaping the material conditions towards decentralization and voluntary association, so there is nothing for the counterrevolution to seize.”
This is magical thinking. Counter-revolution doesn’t need a central office to seize. It needs discontent, scarcity, external backing. Imperial invasion doesn’t require a capital city to target. It requires weakness to exploit. Defense requires logistics, intelligence, strategy. That means coordination, discipline, authority.
“Everyone, with those who can’t communicate effectively being assisted to have a say.”
Abstract universalism ignores concrete contradictions. Who decides what “effective communication” means? How are conflicting interests adjudicated? How is surplus allocated when not everyone’s needs can be met equally?
“Decentralized local production. Long-lasting repairable goods. Living within your ecological means.”
All good things in theory. But imperialism doesn’t respect local autarky. It enforces dependency through debt, trade, force. Breaking that requires collective power at scale. And let’s be concrete: decentralized, uncoordinated production cannot manufacture modern technology. Computer chips, phones, advanced medicine, modern weapons, none of it happens in isolated communes. Kneecapping yourself technologically in the face of a hegemonic aggressor is suicidal at best. And we’re back to fuck the ill and disabled if your model can’t produce the medicine and equipment they need to survive.
“Perhaps to help make these ideas more concrete we could have drills/competitions where different communes or federations showcase the strategies they think work best so groups can share and learn empirically.”
Prefigurative practice has value. But revolution isn’t a showcase. It’s a life-and-death struggle against a ruthless enemy.
The core disagreement remains simple. You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy. But to be blunt: your “anarchist” vision is idealist fantasy in the face of hegemonic violence. Imperialism doesn’t negotiate with your decision-making model. It crushes what it can’t co-opt. Material conditions don’t care about your preferences. They only respond to power which you fear rather than understand.
Ownership isn’t about physical proximity. It’s about the right to exclude, to appropriate surplus, to transfer control. That’s what makes it a material anchor. Institutional authority without that right is conditional. A manager can direct labour, but if they can’t sell the factory, bequeath it, or pocket the profit, they aren’t a capitalist. That distinction, as has been pointed out already, is the difference between a function and a class.
Mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms aren’t liberal reforms. They’re tools to keep proletarian authority tied to the class it serves. The AES have used them, imperfectly but materially, to prevent bureaucratic ossification. That’s not reformism. It’s simply recognizing that contradiction doesn’t disappear after revolution. It has to be managed through practice, not wished away. And let’s be clear: these tools work because the dictatorship of the proletariat has an objective interest in aligning leadership with the masses. The dictatorship of capital has the opposite aim. Its core function is to reproduce exploitation. No amount of “recall mechanisms” will make a bourgeois state serve workers, because its class character is defined by serving capital. You can’t reform a class enemy into an ally.
Exactly. Material conditions demand certain forms. That’s proof that strategy must be grounded in reality, not moral preference. If anarchists end up adopting ML positions when faced with real tasks (smashing the state, defending the revolution, coordinating production) that says something about those ML positions. They are proven correct by practice.
This is historical illiteracy. First, the “beginner mistakes” line erases the material conditions those revolutions faced: invasion, embargo, sabotage, famine imposed from outside. Second, it ignores that anarchist experiments have their own body counts when they fail to coordinate defense or production. Third, it pretends the AES didn’t learn, adapt, and save hundreds of millions from imperial predation. The PRC lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, built world-class infrastructure, and broke imperial dependency. That’s a historical achievement under nearly impossible conditions not to mind the USSR going from illiterate peasants to space faring in under 50 years.
And the “let others try their better ideas” approach sounds open but is functionally irresponsible. Revolution isn’t a laboratory. People die when strategy fails. The mass line isn’t about letting everyone do their own thing. It’s about synthesizing mass experience into coherent strategy through disciplined practice.
Show me where it has shown even the slightest potential to. Imperialism doesn’t care about your decision-making model. It bombs, sanctions, coups. Breaking imperial chains requires coordinated political power, economic planning, and military defense. That requires authority. Decentralization without central coordination isn’t a strength. If anything it’s a massive weakness begging to be exploited.
This is magical thinking. Counter-revolution doesn’t need a central office to seize. It needs discontent, scarcity, external backing. Imperial invasion doesn’t require a capital city to target. It requires weakness to exploit. Defense requires logistics, intelligence, strategy. That means coordination, discipline, authority.
Abstract universalism ignores concrete contradictions. Who decides what “effective communication” means? How are conflicting interests adjudicated? How is surplus allocated when not everyone’s needs can be met equally?
All good things in theory. But imperialism doesn’t respect local autarky. It enforces dependency through debt, trade, force. Breaking that requires collective power at scale. And let’s be concrete: decentralized, uncoordinated production cannot manufacture modern technology. Computer chips, phones, advanced medicine, modern weapons, none of it happens in isolated communes. Kneecapping yourself technologically in the face of a hegemonic aggressor is suicidal at best. And we’re back to fuck the ill and disabled if your model can’t produce the medicine and equipment they need to survive.
Prefigurative practice has value. But revolution isn’t a showcase. It’s a life-and-death struggle against a ruthless enemy.
The core disagreement remains simple. You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy. But to be blunt: your “anarchist” vision is idealist fantasy in the face of hegemonic violence. Imperialism doesn’t negotiate with your decision-making model. It crushes what it can’t co-opt. Material conditions don’t care about your preferences. They only respond to power which you fear rather than understand.