INTERVIEW WITH A SIBERIAN GIRL [2\2]

Read from the start...

Next, we asked her opinion about the key principles of communism. It turned out that she would not object to large enterprises being owned by the state and the products produced by them being distributed among all members of society. “Right now the state leaves us with only crumbs when many do not have enough even for ordinary entertainment, vacations, and some don't even have enough for the most basic needs”.

We also asked how she would feel about the idea if, for example, instead of prices for bread or sausage there were indexes of time spent on their production, and people instead of salaries would receive time vouchers depending on how much they have worked for the benefit of society, taking into account some tax deductions. And she liked the idea: “Yes, it would be easier. It would get more people involved because they'd know they're doing something that will specifically benefit them and they're getting the things they need in return. It would be cool to have something like that.”

She also wouldn't mind if all able-bodied people were equally involved in productive labor and had the opportunity to pursue education, science, and management: “Well that, by the way, would be really interesting if you worked in one place for a while and then switched to other occupations in different fields. It would be a useful experience that would give you more knowledge and make it easier to work at your main place. It would make life easier, because people could do what they like to do rather than what they had to do in society.”

Her views on abolishing borders between states could also be described as quite communist: “I think it would be an interesting experience to be able to go to any country where the only restriction is the ticket cost. It would allow people to discover themselves. Of course, there are many nuances, but it would make life easier. The same rules for everyone, the same rights, although of course there would still be language barriers. That would be great.”

She herself would like to work as either a nanny or a teacher, and in her spare time she would like to study musical instruments. She also does not support the idea of persecuting people for their views, appearance or sexual orientation. As she puts it, “No, no, no. I don't treat people badly. I would never repress them for who they are, for being themselves.”

Through her example we see another wage worker who, while not a communist, holds views that are quite in line with communist ideas. This Russian girl considers people of other nationalities equal to herself, she does not support wars and dreams of all people being happy and living in prosperity.

So who is dividing us? Who benefits from the current predatory order in this world? Surely not those who today are forced to sell their labor just to meet their needs.

Translated by @AnaStasiA1q

#INCORR

ABOUT COMMUNISM

The material conditions dictating the necessity of transition to the communist mode of production are emerging in the depths of capitalism. Capital, in the pursuit of profit, has transformed the individual labor process of a handicraftsman into a social labor process in which the production of any object of utility involves the labor of millions of people. This is the historical merit of capitalism. Social processes of labor on creation of objects of utility form the interconnection and interdependence of all participants of social production, which requires a different way how production is organized.

Capital, by introducing the division of labor in the manufacture, transformed the individual labor process of a handicraftsman into a social, collective one. As a result, a new type of labor organization, namely, the planned organization of labor, had to be created. The very practice of collective labor generates certain proportions of labor costs between different types of work performed by different members of the labor collective. This is a technical law of production; it is only through experience that these proportions can be grasped in order to rationally distribute the total collective labor among the various specific types of labor within the manufacture. But under capitalism, planning is limited by the size of private property. Yes, today it has gone beyond an individual enterprise; enterprises that are technologically connected within a modern monopolistic concern, but are covered by a single shareholding, have been subjected to planned organization. The planned organization of all social production under capitalism is impossible, due to the fact that the social processes of labor are torn between different owners-participants of these very processes. Therefore, every step towards the planned organization of social production comes into conflict with private property.

Thus, the first step to the establishment of the communist mode of production is for the proletariat to win political domination in order to use the power of the state to eliminate private property and put the means of production into common use. Initially, the communization of the means of production is carried out in the form of state ownership, because at first the state will inevitably continue to exist. And only after the establishment of common ownership of the means of production does the formation of the production relations of the new mode of production, and thus the socialist society, begin.

Marx explored the two phases of communist society in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme."

Since socialism and communism are two phases of the same mode of production, there are certain common features between them: 1) the elimination of private property and the transfer of the means of production into common ownership; 2) the elimination of the isolation of the participants in social production through the elimination of the exchange of the results of labor, thus labor is not transformed into value; 3) individual labor initially appears as direct social labor, which is possible only under the planned organization of social production.

However, they are still two phases of the same mode of production, which implies differences between them, which lie in the terms of distribution. The created means of production are common property; only objects of utility are to be distributed among the workers of social production. In the first phase, distribution by labor is carried out, based on the same principle as in the exchange of commodities as equal values: a given quantity of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal quantity of labor in another form. In the highest phase of communism, distribution will be under the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Thus, one can conclude that the relations on production of material goods are common for both phases, the differences are expressed in the relations on distribution of created material goods.

#Ivan_Potapenkov #Fulcrum_communism

Comrades, we are conducting a social research about the views and working conditions of employees in different countries. Our interviews take the form of verbal questions and answers. In order to process and analyze them we need to transcribe them into text and fill out a google form for more convenience. Therefore, we are asking for your help: who can listen to the interviews and transcribe them? If you can help, please text to @AFulcrum

KARL MARX. ABOUT COMMUNISM.

The published excerpt from Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme explains what the first and highest phases of communist society have in common and how they differ from each other.

As Marx explains, what is common to both phases of communism is the planned organization of social production according to the labor time, while the difference is that during the period of socialism there will still be remnants of bourgeois law and distribution will be mainly according to labor.

Also, at the very beginning of this text you will learn that the workers under socialism will also have to work part of the time for the maintenance of public funds and what these funds may be.

We recommend reading this work to all supporters of commodity-planned socialism who consider their utopian views to be Marxist.

https://telegra.ph/Karl-Marx-About-Communism-Critique-of-the-Gotha-Programme-10-03

Read also:
About communism in Karl Marx's economic manuscripts
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Distribution
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Production
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Simple and compound labour

#Fulcrum_communism #Classics_on_Communism

KARL MARX. ABOUT COMMUNISM.

This is an excerpt from Karl Marx's economic manuscripts of 1857-1859, and the Russian edition formulates its topic as follows: the development of the monetary form of value as a result of the development of exchange. The social character of production in bourgeois society as opposed to the social character of production under communism.

This text explores what the monetary form of value is, how it is related to the labor time, and what is the difference between activity exchange and commodity exchange, and between monetary accounting and direct accounting of labor time.

https://telegra.ph/Karl-Marx-About-Communism-Grundrisse-Notebook-I--The-Chapter-on-Money-10-03

Read also:
About communism in Critique of the Gotha Programme
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Distribution
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Production
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Simple and compound labour

#Fulcrum_communism #Classics_on_Communism

Comrades, we are launching Fulcrum channel on Tiktok and we invite you to collaborate. We need ideas for left videos that are targeted at a general audience. We also need help in the realization of these ideas. Write in private messages or leave a comment below if you are willing to participate in this project.

This is the fourth essay on the Soviet economy, which focuses on the origin of the commodity plan. The analysis reveals the weakness of the commodity form of the plan — it completely lacks the use value of commodities. All commodities are abstract objects, as if congelations of various quantities of human labour.

Translated by @AnaStasiA1q

Link: https://telegra.ph/Ivan-Potapenkov-Essay-4-The-Commodity-Form-of-the-Plan-11-06

Preface | Essay 1 | Essay 2 |Essay 3 | Chat |

#Ivan_Potapenkov #Soviet_economy

Today, November 7, marks the anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. This historic day reminds us that under the leadership of the Communist Party, the working masses are capable not only of dismantling the state machinery of oppression but also of organizing social production without the rich, without capitalists. The achievements of October became a model of successful struggle for the interests of the proletariat worldwide: the right to work, an eight-hour workday, paid vacations, the prohibition of fines and child labor, maternity leave, the right to abortion, universal education, and healthcare — all of these were gained by the workers through their own efforts.

Today, we understand that the economic successes of the Soviet Union were made possible through the planned organization of social production. However, the preservation of the commodity nature of the economy led to the alienation of the state from society and workers from management. The dominance of value over people’s interests created economic absurdities, forcing actions against people’s needs. This ultimately led to the inevitability of Perestroika.

Nevertheless, the struggle of the Bolsheviks paved the way toward the final overthrow of capitalism and brought us closer to the establishment of the World Commune. Happy October Revolution Day, comrades! May the legacy of the Bolsheviks be our foundation on this path!

FRIEDRICH ENGELS. ABOUT COMMUNISM.
ANTI-DÜHRING - SOCIALISM - DISTRIBUTION.

This chapter focuses on distribution, and not only on the distribution of produced articles of consumption, but even more so on the distribution of common labor under the planned organization of production.

Initially Engels criticizes Dühring's point of view. First, he notes that Dühring is in favor of the commodity mode of production itself, where the economic communes are the commodity producers. Secondly, Dühring wants to abolish the harm of money, which involves the appropriation of surplus value. Therefore, he abolishes the capitalist and proclaims the compulsory payment of wages to workers equal to the value created by them. Engels criticizes Dühring and shows how the very nature of money inevitably leads to recreation of the existing orders of capitalist production.

Engels then moves on to review what commodities are. Commodities are produced for exchange, so they are produced for other people, not for oneself. Commodities are created by private producers, and commodity exchange unites all private production into a common social production. And although labor is the substance of value, we do not know how much labor is actually spent on its creation. Exchange gives us only an understanding that an equal amount of time is spent on the creation of exchanged commodities, but not the amount of this time itself. Under commodity production, the labor expended is measured by the quantity of the equivalent commodities.

Engels then moves on to examine the direct social production and demonstrates that in a future society, people will calculate the amount of labor expended to produce a particular product of labor and will distribute the means of production and the people who also belong to the productive forces according to a common plan without the services of glorified value.

And in conclusion, he proceeds to argue that the preservation of money, and thus commodities, will inevitably recreate the capitalist system.

https://telegra.ph/Anti-D%C3%BChring-by-Frederick-Engels-1877-Part-III-Socialism-IV-Distribution-12-02

Read also:
About communism in Critique of the Gotha Programme
About communism in Karl Marx's economic manuscripts
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Production
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Simple and compound labour

#Fulcrum_communism #Classics_on_Communism

FRIEDRICH ENGELS. ABOUT COMMUNISM.
ANTI-DÜHRING - SOCIALISM - PRODUCTION.

This excerpt is an analysis of the socio-economic processes related to the division of labor and the dominance of the means of production over producers. Engels shows that modern society, based on the capitalist mode of production, enslaves a person by their own labor and means of production, limiting the possibilities for the all-round development of an individual.

There is a need for a radical reorganization of production relations. Taking ownership of the means of production for the socially-planned application will pave the way to the emancipation of society and each of its members. This will require the abolishment of the old division of labor, in which one-sided specialization and the mechanical performance of limited functions cripple human abilities. Instead, a new organization of labor must emerge in which participation in the production process becomes an equal responsibility of all, and labor itself becomes a means of all-round development and creativity, turning from a heavy burden into a source of enjoyment.

https://telegra.ph/Anti-D%C3%BChring-by-Frederick-Engels-1877-Part-III-Socialism-III-Production-12-02

Read also:
About communism in Critique of the Gotha Programme
About communism in Karl Marx's economic manuscripts
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Distribution
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Simple and compound labour

#Fulcrum_communism #Classics_on_Communism

Here is a list of literature for self-study of Marxism. Would you like to participate in an online club for discussion of this literature?

The principles of the online club are as follows:

1. You read a certain amount of thematic text during the week, and then make a call in the telegram group and discuss it with others.

2. One discussion group is made up of 5-10 people. There can be several such groups, depending on how many people are willing to participate. The main thing is that everyone has time to speak out and address questions regarding the text.

3. In the online club you choose a moderator who will guide the class on the material and give the right to speak to other participants, so that there is discipline during the call. On our end, we are willing to help with club organization and advise moderators on how to run classes. But we rely on your consciousness and self-organization, as we have a language barrier to fully participate in the discussions.

4. Before the meetings, it is recommended that you compile basic talking points and questions about the material that you feel are important to discuss. It is better to delegate this function to the moderator to collect all suggestions from other participants and form the agenda of the meeting.

If you are interested in participating in the online Marxist study club, we invite you to this group:
https://t.me/+Chd9PKrEbgVmZjYy.

❗️RULES OF THE MARXIST STUDY CLUB❗️

☆ Purpose of the Group

The main purpose of the study group is collective reading, analysis, and discussion of Marxist literature, as well as understanding the views of the authors being studied. Active participation is encouraged: share your thoughts, ask questions, and help your comrades understand complex ideas!

☆ Work Format

Participants read the assigned literature throughout the week according to the schedule.
At the end of the week, an audio call is held to discuss the material read.
All discussions during the calls should adhere to the topic of the text and related ideas.

☆ Rules

Respect other participants, and refrain from insults, discrimination, or harassment.

It is unacceptable to express support for private ownership of land and the means of production or to express hatred based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.

We critique ideas, not individuals!

The group meetings are not intended for imposing your personal views or beliefs. When reading and discussing an author's work, our task is to thoroughly study and analyze the perspective of that particular author. It is prohibited to replace the study of the author’s ideas with debates against the views of other participants, to criticize their understanding of the material, or to mock their difficulties. The group is a space for mutual learning and support, not for quarrels and criticism.

☆ Conflict Resolution

If conflicts arise, they will be resolved democratically. Participants should clearly outline the nature of the disagreement and propose solutions. An open vote will be conducted, and the decision will be made by the majority vote of the group.

Moderators have the right to remove messages that violate the rules, issue warnings, and exclude participants for repeated violations.

By joining the group, you agree to abide by these rules. If you disagree with these principles, you are free to leave the group.

Let’s work together to create a space for studying Marxism, mutual respect, and productive communication!

V. I. Lenin. A Liberal Professor on Equality. 1\2

Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

Read more...

#Classics_on_Communism

V. I. Lenin. A Liberal Professor on Equality. 2\2

Read from the start...

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

#Classics_on_Communism

FULCRUM INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST NETWORK

We bring together comrades from all over the world and provide them with a platform for Marxist study and discussion. Thanks to the efforts of our translators, so far we have the following projects:

Russian channel | chat | Marxist study group
English channel | chat | Marxist study group
German channel | chat
French channel | chat
Italian channel | chat
Portuguese channel | chat
Farsi channel | chat
Arabic channel | chat | Marxist study group

INCORR is a research project exploring the conditions and views of workers around the world.

We thank everyone who contributes to Fulcrum for their engagement and aspirations for a better future!

FRIEDRICH ENGELS. ABOUT COMMUNISM.
ANTI-DÜHRING - SIMPLE AND COMPOUND LABOUR

This chapter is a critique of Dühring's views on Karl Marx's theory of value presented in "Das Kapital". The main message behind it is to debunk the idea that labor itself has value, since labor is the source of value.

Speaking of distribution in a socialist society, Engels explains that effective distribution must be driven by the interests of production, and the greatest development of the productive forces is achieved through a method of distribution that promotes the all-round development and realization of the abilities of each member of society. The idea of fixed professions, like Dühring suggests, is regarded as an archaism that does not correspond to the requirements of production. In the future society, professional distinctions will be erased: a person will be able to combine intellectual labor, such as that of an architect, with physical labor, thus promoting both equality and the development of society.

Engels also addresses the issue of wages for compound labor. In the capitalist society, education is paid for by private individuals, which leads to a higher price for skilled labor. In a socialist society, the cost of training will be taken care of by the society, so the value created as a result of compound labor belongs to the society and not to some individual workers. This questions the slogan of “the full proceeds of labour”, showing its limitations in a socialist economy.

https://telegra.ph/Anti-D%C3%BChring-by-Frederick-Engels-1877-Part-II-Political-Economy-Simple-and-Compound-Labour-12-05

Read also:
About communism in Critique of the Gotha Programme
About communism in Karl Marx's economic manuscripts
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Distribution
About communism in Anti-Dühring. Socialism - Production

#Fulcrum_communism #Classics_on_Communism

GERMAN ANARCHIST ON THE LEFT MOVEMENT [1/3]

This is an excerpt of our new article about German workers. During our conversation with the Anarchist, we couldn’t help but mention the topic of the Left Movement in Germany and the collaboration between Anarchists and Communists. The discussion turned out to be interesting, and we would like to share the original part of this interview with our readers.

How would you describe your political views?

"Mainly radical left, closer to anarcho-communism."

Can you share how you came to hold these views?

"I think it all started in childhood when I began questioning authority and state structures. Most people believe that these authorities should be in place and that they must be protected, just like the state, even if it is flawed. But I thought about how state power is not always used for good. We need to ask why there is abuse of power by the government, police, soldiers who threaten other countries, invade them, and so on.

I came to believe that people should have more freedom to pursue their life goals rather than live under constant control by authorities who tell them what to do and limit their goals based on their social status. I felt it would be better if people could grow in an environment with free education that doesn’t depend on their social position, and their achievements in life shouldn’t be limited by that status.

I spent a lot of time reflecting on these ideas, and one day I met local like-minded individuals. We started thinking about creating a political group to read materials together, discuss our goals, and decide where to focus our efforts. We had different ideas: some leaned toward social-democratic views, others were closer to radical communist or anarchist ideas. But we tried to find common goals, determine why we were working together, what we wanted to achieve, and how to interact with other groups, participate in initiatives, and attend protests as a united front.The main focus was on anti-fascist and anti-capitalist activities. However, over time, disagreements and conflicts arose, and I began working on other projects that seemed more suitable to me."

Are you currently part of any political organization?

"No, I am not engaged in active politics at the moment. I decided to take a break during the pandemic to rethink my views and strengthen my mental health. Previously, political activism was quite stressful. I witnessed violence and aggression and participated in dozens of protests. Sometimes it’s important to take a pause, recover, and gain more knowledge and theoretical preparation to return to activism later."

How would you describe the current political situation in Germany? You mentioned the rise of right-wing parties, and what about the left?

"The left movement is quite weak and split up; they have almost no political power, practically nothing. Many people aren’t interested in politics and don’t strive for change. They might have opinions or views on something, but they’re not ready to fight for them or start political activism.

At the same time, fascism is growing. The rhetoric has become more aggressive, and there’s increasing violence against politicians. For example, there have been several attacks on politicians, and a few years ago, a conservative politician from the CDU was killed. He was murdered for opposing the right-wing and stating that migrants are welcome in this country. Some fascists planned his assassination, and he was shot.

This moment was a signal to many politicians that the threats are growing. However, despite this murder, conservatives and liberals have only increased their hatred toward migrants, blaming them for economic problems and other changes in the country."

Read more...

GERMAN ANARCHIST ON THE LEFT MOVEMENT [2/3]

Read from the start...

How would you describe the anarchist or communist movement in Germany today?

"They are going through tough times. The movement is fragmented and divided on several issues, such as the conflict in Palestine and Israel. There’s little communication between groups and many internal conflicts. While there are plenty of people who share these views, most of them are not involved in any activity."

Is it becoming more dangerous to be a communist or anarchist in Germany?

"Yes, due to the rise of the right. Every time fascism is mentioned, conservatives and liberals argue that leftists must also be fought. They try to equate the threat from the left and the right, but this rhetoric is dangerous because the right is often armed and ready to kill."

Do you think communists and anarchists should also learn to defend themselves like the right does?

"Yes, definitely. I think it’s very important to know how to protect yourself."

When people think of Marxists, they often picture someone who is sitting and reading books all day.

"No, that’s not true. Training is very important. It doesn’t have to be martial arts or something like that. Some people might want to do that, but I think it’s helpful to conduct at least some training before protests to know how to act in certain situations."

What do you think could help the leftist movement today?

"More communication and mobilization. There needs to be dialogue with other organizations, the creation of initiatives, finding common goals, and supporting each other. People often don’t participate because of repression. If a few groups bear the full weight of repression, they weaken. We need to involve more people to distribute the burden and protect each other."

Do you think anarchists can cooperate with communists?

"I think so. Not everyone will agree with me, but I believe there’s no major problem with it. Their ultimate goal might be roughly the same. The methods of achieving it may differ, but it’s also important to unite to be stronger in the fight against large groups of opponents, including state structures, right-wing organizations, fascism, and so on. If these groups ally with corporations and receive support from capital, they have much more power. We need to be more united to defend each other and only then discuss disagreements."

What are the main differences and obstacles preventing communists and anarchists from uniting and cooperating?

"I think the main problem is that anarchists don’t want leaders or authorities over them telling them what to do. Some communists want political parties, while anarchists usually don’t. They don’t like party flags, for example. There are other issues, but they need more detailed discussion."

How can anarchists build a new society without a state or government?

"Through decentralization and the creation of communities that collaborate with one another."

And how can they fight capitalists while remaining decentralized?

"There needs to be many small groups attacking them in different places. They won’t be able to defend themselves everywhere at once. This requires prior organization to coordinate actions."

Since most of our readers are communists, is there anything you, as an anarchist, would like to convey to them? Any remarks or suggestions?

"I think there needs to be more communication between the sides. Some communists might think anarchists don’t respect communist leaders. But many anarchists respect communists like Lenin or Marx for their ideas and theories. Of course, Stalin is respected less. But it’s important for both sides to compromise. Sometimes people are too radical in their views and unwilling to find common ground. Compromise can mean achieving shared goals by working with those you don’t agree with 100%."

Read more...

GERMAN ANARCHIST ON THE LEFT MOVEMENT [3/3]

Read from the start...

We, the authors of the channel, also believe that, in theory, anarchists and communists can collaborate. Ideological disagreements about the future society and the ways to build it do not mean we cannot work together within a common framework where paths intersect. However, the question remains: which specific groups will participate in this collaboration, and under what conditions?

Are there any organized, mass, or even ideologically driven movements among anarchists and communists that engage in practical activities and are interested in cooperation? In a situation where some anarchists focus solely on opposing the police while some communists delve deeply into studying Hegel, it is difficult to speak of meaningful collaboration.

For us, as Communists, the question of possible partnership is linked to the struggle of the working class for its basic interests, and we do not intend to compromise this struggle for anything else. Therefore, we consider all aspects of cooperation exclusively within the context of this struggle and movement.