He’s representing the green party. The green party sees itself as being “left”. The green party is more popular than the social democratic “die Linke” or any other party that styles itself as “left”. The right “realpolitik” wing of the green party has consistently dominated the party line almost since it’s inception. So yes, he does indeed represent a big part of what passes as left in german media discourse and in parliament. Truly left movements in Germany have to look outside their leftist bubbles and acknowledge the poor state of class consciousness and organizing in Germany, if they want any hope to improve it.

This again. In real life, almost every anarchist is communist.

Yeah, I remember a while back I introduced a friend to some simple basic facts about capitalism and it just made him really sad to the point of passivity and not wanting to learn any more. I guess my approach was wrong at the time. I have more success now, but I’m not sure what I do differently. Maybe contradictions have just increased.

The slogan “oppose all equally” may sound revolutionary in its refusal to compromise, but detached from dialectical and historical materialism it collapses into abstract moralism that objectively serves the very hegemony it claims to reject.

Yes! Say it louder for the people in the back. Even some well meaning western marxists really struggle with this, because it touches on their privilege.

Sounds like you seek to be compatible with capitalist oppression while you wait for something that will never simply arise on it’s own without a fierce revolutionary struggle. I’m sure the material conditions will be right any decade now. Surely before the climate catastrophe becomes unbearable or the imperialist war machine steamrolls us all.

Because I said most anarchists are communists? Anarchists want a stateless classless society. That’s the textbook definition of communism. Have you ever heard of the anarchists Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Makhno? None of them were marxists, but they were, all of them, communists. And they said so. You should try learning some basics about the movement you identify with.

Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class

That’s not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce “compatible leftists”. The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.

A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.

It’s not absurd, it’s just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.

Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others

No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That’s the point.

And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it.

Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn’t always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project. For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman’s liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn’t work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again. Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it’s much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.

Not if these decentralized militias are able to defend themselves against reactionaries. Then it precisely fits the definition that marxists use: they violently force their will (to survive and to defend the anarchist project) on to another class (usually fascist capitalists).

I know, that’s a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.

Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it’s rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It’s a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.

Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.

The only words that are not vague in this definition are “structures”, “with” and “of”. What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn’t it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren’t anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What’s a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The “checks and balances” and “control instances” and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What’s violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?

The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.

No, that’s just a misunderstanding about the definition of a state. Anarchists often define it as a monopoly to violence in a territory. This definition has its flaws. Marxists define it differently as anything that can suppress a class.

Anarchism has real enemies. Marxists generally want to work together with Anarchists. Those enemies do not. Their interests are fundamentally opposed to anarchism and Marxism. They constitute a class, because they are defined by their control over exploitative production. Defending against them is suppressing their class interests. Many Marxists are open about an how this struggle is fought. Anarchists will have to fight it too and they will use their own strategies. Whatever those are, if they are effective, than they constitute a state in the eyes of marxists.

Every time I think communists can’t get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong

Almost all real life Anarchists are communists too. Did you just insult basically all anarchists that aren’t terminally online?

Yes, and actually achieving their main goal in real life: establishing a stateless classless society.

That’s idealist and defeatist. Prefiguring the future society in our organizing is only one of our goals and not an end in itself.

It’s the opposite: anarchism will never be achieved without ML. Whatever method an “anarchist” society uses to defend against fascism and capitalism is by definition a state. Because any means of oppressing class interests (like capitalist class interests) is by definition a state. You can call it grassroots militias or community defense, but it’s still a state. Whatever we use to defend from reaction will only be needed until the threat is over.

A sufficiently advanced, socialist, ML state will then allow anarchist communes to grow and connect to facilitate the transition to full, stateless communism. Left unity is necessary not just before, but also after the revolution.

Soon: school shooters use drones for shootings

That’s funny, cause it just proves the point

If Dems win next election, things will get even worse than they are now. Much, much worse in fact. That’s just the inevitable trajectory capitalism is on. Things would just get worse a bit slower than they would under Trump, at least for the privileged labor aristocracy in the imperial core. The evil empire would simply be run into the ground by slightly more competent genociders. Revolutionary change is the only way out.

If Dems were in power now, they’d do fascism too. The economic contradictions have simply increased to a point where fascism is necessary for capitalism to remain profitable for the ultra rich.

Those are good toads. Somehow one can tell

It means this metastudy is less of a study and more of an advertisement. The outcome of a metastudy depends even more on who does it, especially if they make up the criteria for which research is “good” enough to include.

The navigation, technically. Building a compass and using it.