Anarchism or Socialism? & Trotskyism or Leninism

by Joseph Stalin

Library of Marxist-Leninist Classics

Workers Of All Countries Unite!

CONTENTS

I The Dialectical Method... 13
II The Materialist Theory... 29
III Proletarian Socialism ... 52
Notes . . . . . 105

This translation of J. V. Stalin's Anarchism or Socialism? has been made from the text given in the collected works of J. V. Stalin, Vol. 1, Russian edition, prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (Gospolitizdat, Moscow, 1946).

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Genres: Politics, Theory, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Soviet Union

152 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1946

About the author

Joseph Stalin, originally Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, was a Soviet revolutionary, politician and statesman who became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953).

Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.

Reviews

[h · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great little pamphlet describing the real differences that exist between anarchism and Marxism. The title of the work is intentionally provocative: Stalin is implying that anarchists are not really socialists and the tone of the rest of the work follows this.

Due to the existence of different classes and their different material interests, classes are guided by different ideologies. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology: liberalism, which can be subdivided into great many other ideologies representing the different strata of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat also has its own ideology: socialism, which can be subdivided into reformism (think Bernstein), anarchism, and Marxism. Reformism is not taken seriously as a socialist tendency by most socialists so Stalin spends his time explaining the differences and their roots between anarchism and Marxism.

The differences rise due to anarchism's roots in individualism and Marxism's insistence on classes. Stalin then goes over the dialectical materialist method and socialist revolution. He explains the anarchist criticism of both, the Marxist response, and the Marxist criticism of anarchism. The anarchists grossly misunderstand, misinterpret, and outright lie about Marxism (Stalin quotes a great deal of anarchist writings on Marxism). This is evident in their understanding of the dialectical method or the dictatorship of the proletariat, if it can be called an understanding at all. Sadly, anarchists of today still follow this great tradition.

Even the famous anarchist Peter Kropotkin had an understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would make a novice Marxist feel embarrassed. Like most anarchists, he interprets the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the dictatorship of a small group of individuals. This is obviously false and is not the way Marxists have been using this term. It's amusing to see that even back then Marxists had to explain these simple concepts in great detail because anarchists just would not understand. Besides this, anarchists tried to disprove Marxism by "exposing" that Hegel was an idealist or that Feuerbach's materialism left much to be desired. These are laughable criticisms of Marxism. Marxism is not based on the idealism of Hegel and or on the type of materialism Feuerbach espoused. This is basic stuff that Engels went over in almost every book he wrote on the dialectical method. But anarchists still thought it'd be a great idea to refute Marxism by refuting Hegel or Feuerbach.

So why does this matter? Why can't anarchists and Marxists just get along? Why does Stalin despise anarchists so much that he calls them the "real enemies of Marxism" in the very beginning of the pamphlet? Because anarchism has petty-bourgeois, individualist roots in its ideology that prevents it from truly being a weapon of the proletariat. Without truly revolutionary theory, anarchism fails to serve a revolutionary purpose. It is no wonder then that all of the successful, long lasting socialist revolutions of the past have been Marxist-Leninist while anarchists are still teary-eyed about Revolutionary Catalonia

[Princess · Rating 1 out of 5]

This review was initially significantly longer, contained quotes and hurled insults, but instead I'm going to post this as a warning: this document is only spectacular if you've never read anything written by an Anarchist, and have zero knowledge of real philosophy. For if you know anything about 'dialectics' (which is never actually defined, but merely described through pap slogans and meaningless catch-phrases such as "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity"), then this is fundamentally unreadable. I do not mean it's merely 'dumb', I mean you cannot read it. In order to make heads or tales, I had to 'forget' momentarily pretty much everything I knew about philosophy and indulge in the fantasy-world Stalin has built in his head. Anarchists are not the best political thinkers themselves and perhaps Stalin's greatest point is that Kropotkin, for instance, does not understand, for instance, Hegel's method. But this point is submerged within a mountain of incoherent non-writing which essentially comes down to this once the pap, circular reasoning, and slogans are removed:
Anarchists present themselves as scientific critics of authority, this criticism is idealist, embrace diamat instead.

Calling it antiphilosophy would be too kind, this would function well as parody if you'd never known the man was serious. Little understanding is presented of Anarchist points of view, or even Marx's points of view. Engels has some representation, but even then, not in an accurate manner. Marxist-Leninists frequently recommend Stalin as, while not a great theoretician, a great expounder of theory. My revisiting has taught me the opposite: the man understands almost nothing, contradicts himself at each turn, and I hope his writing gets forgotten.

[kz · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be honest, “Anarchism or Socialism?” isn’t my favorite Stalin text, especially after reading Mark Bray’s “Antifa: the Antifascist handbook”. The historical context of this book is set on the stage of Stalin roasting some Georgian Anarchists (Cherkezishvili mostly) with clarification of what the dialectical method, historical materialism and dictatorship of the proletarian mean. Which is great because, compared to Lenin, Stalin is even more fiery with his expressions. Entertaining now, thinking back to that time, they could’ve definitely spent their time trying to crush reactionary bourgeois elements (I.e tsarists, liberals) instead of let these Anarchists under their skin.

Stalin did have interesting things to say about the role of trade unions and co-ops in the socialist revolution and the differences between vulgar materialism and monist materialism.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some read this as a polemic against anarchists; while of course, this was the original purpose of the work, the specific authors (aside from, say, P. Kropotkin) and especially the Georgian anarchists which this work is addressing are hardly relevant in the modern era.

Instead, the real value of this work is in Stalin's exposition of the dialectical method, and the materialist theory. Stalin formulates in simple terms the two forms of dialectical movement (evolutionary and revolutionary), and its relationship to quantitative and qualitative change. Similarly, Stalin explains the difference between material content and ideal form in stunningly easy terms, and explains the basis of Marxism in the social content of capitalist production.

[noam · Rating 4 out of 5]

.

[rmj · Rating 1 out of 5]

In the early 20th century, a Georgian social-democrat wrote a polemic condemning the anarchists in his country & fiercely defending social democracy against their attacks. In it, the social-democrat welcomed electoralism as just one of the many potential weapons of class struggle (not as desirable as revolution, of course) and rejected the idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat would inevitably degrade into the dictatorship of a new ruling class over the proletariat, claiming that Marxists (including social-democrats like him) fought the rise of such dictatorships "far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly" than "noisy" anarchists.

This is that tract. Years later, our social-democrat would drastically change his position on the ideology he so fervently defended in Anarchism or Socialism? and condemn it as "objectively the moderate wing of Fascism." (edit: although, to be fair, social-democracy had by that point changed as well) For this alone it's bewildering why, in the 21st century, more than 110 years later, people are holding this text up as a sound refutation of anarchist ideas - all else aside, would the people singing this polemic's praises even pick up one written by any other social-democrat, even if it attacked the same enemy?

On that "all else" - of course, I have to give the young Stalin credit; within this text is a good simple run-down of dialectical materialism, and some of the anti-Marxist arguments he picks apart here are, admittedly, embarrassing! But this would carry more water as an argument against anarchism if Stalin had quoted more anarchists than those who wrote in Georgian periodicals (whose views were, as is hinted out in this text itself, far from monolithic), and if the Kropotkin quotes on state capitalism and dictatorship Stalin included just to ridicule were not (arguably) vindicated by the latter's own rule over the Soviet Union decades later.

[João Nunes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stalin manages to turn a kind of Marxism for dummies into a slugfest. And that's no easy feat.

[Jd Lancaster · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the outset I think the reader needs to come in with two understandings: 1) Stalin was a principled revolutionary whose character has been utterly mutilated by the west. 2) You really have to go in with good faith, and understand that Stalin is not going in with good faith.

Anarchism or Socialism is a incredible text that shows off Stalin's knowledge and humour. If you are an anarchist I recommend this book with caution, as you should understand that Stalin is only going to defend Socialism, and attack anarchism. However, I believe there are a multitude of great resources within this book, my favourite is Stalin's explanation of the dialectical method that socialists employ. To this day it is still my favourite. Trotskyism or Leninism, was in my opinion a lot weaker, and especially outdated, however I still recommend it.

[Maia Olive · Rating 5 out of 5]

for those who wish to read about anarchists getting absolutely destroyed. ♡( ◡‿◡ )

‘Strikes, boycott, parliamentarism, meetings and demonstrations are all good forms of struggle as means for preparing and organising the proletariat. But not one of these means is capable of abolishing existing inequality. All these means must be concentrated in one principal and decisive means; the proletariat must rise and launch a determined attack upon the bourgeoisie in order to destroy capitalism to its foundations. This principal and decisive means is the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution must not be conceived as a sudden and short blow, it is a prolonged struggle waged by the proletarian masses, who inflict defeat upon the bourgeoisie and capture its positions.’

[dante]

Stalin is a good writer and it's a shame Anarchism or Socialism? was never fully finished.
While the texts included in this didn't offer me much I didn't already know, his breakdowns of the dialectical method and materialist theory are precise and easy to follow and to internalize, on that basis alone I recommend at least reading those chapters.
And who doesn't enjoy a good Trotsky takedown.

"[...] and the proletariat needs class consciousness and organisation as much as it needs air."

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anarchism remains one of the most pervasive, if erroneous, trends in the workers’ movement. Not without reason did Lenin assert “anarchism was often a sort of punishment for the opportunist sins of the working class movement” (“‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder”, p. 18, International Publishers 1940), and we are certainly paying for such sins today with how prevalent anarchism continues to be.

But in this short and, unfortunately, uncompleted work, Stalin offers what is undoubtedly the best polemic against anarchism since Marx’s Poverty of Philosophy or Engels’ On Authority. For in it is offered a comprehensive account of the differences between anarchism and Marxism, namely anarchism’s wholesale rejection of dialectical materialism, and Stalin demonstrates clearly that the differences between anarchism and Marxism are not simply trivial “differences of tactics” but fundamental ones born out of contradicting world views since “Marxism is not only the theory of Socialism, it is an integral world outlook, a philosophical system, from which Marx’s proletarian Socialism logically follows” (p. 13).

By elucidating the Marxist conception of socialism and how to arrive there, Stalin shatters the slanders to the effect that Marxism is a reformist ideology or that it aspires to a “dictatorship over the proletariat” still beloved by anarchists to this day. This elucidation also offers a good summary outline of socialist society and the programme of reaching it adopted by the Bolshevik Party since, in addition to a defence of Marxism, this work is also a defence of the Marxist programme of the Bolshevik Party. That this summary can be seen in practice in the Soviet Union during the time of Lenin and Stalin reveals the correctness of this programme and shatters anarchist illusions about the “insincerity” of Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks.

One by one, Stalin refutes the attacks levied by anarchism, namely from Kropotkin and his Georgian followers, relying chiefly on the words of Marx and Engels (since said anarchist attacks almost always amount to strawmans) and the scientific unsoundness of anarchism’s own counter-proposals, revealing the utter futility of anarchism and why it, like the ideologies of the Narodniks and S-Rs, is doomed to constant defeat.

But beyond serving as a polemic of anarchism, Anarchism or Socialism? also offers one of the best introductions to the philosophy of Marxism. By disclosing the actual laws of Marxist dialectical materialism and how they fundamentally differ from the metaphysical philosophy of anarchism, Stalin here offers a first-rate demonstration both of what dialectical materialism actually means and how it is used as a method of analysis in practice through his analysis of class relations in capitalist society or the demand for a democratic republic which was part of the minimum programme of the communists in those days.

In this respect, Anarchism or Socialism? can be likened to a prequel for Stalin’s later piece on dialectical and historical materialism written for the book History of the CPSU(B) (Short Course) and throughout the pages of the first two sections of this work, from his analysis of the demand for a democratic republic to his words on the theories of Darwin and Lamarck, the reader is given a glimpse of the living use of dialectical materialism as a method of analysis.

Hence, far from just being a fatal salvo against the rotten views of anarchism, we find here one of the best introductions for beginners to Marxism, alongside the manifesto itself and Lenin’s Three Sources and The Teachings of Karl Marx. In this book is elucidated in brilliant detail and in easily understandable language, the philosophy of Marxism, its scientific method of analysis, as well as the conclusion of this method of analysis, i.e. a description of what a socialist society looks like and the means by which it will be realised, making this work an extremely important and elementary work of Marxism beyond its obvious critique of anarchism.

[Michael’ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stalin’s reasoning g is inherently unconducive for purposes of teaching or debating. People say he wasn’t a theorist but not being a theorist is an understatement for the unending barrage of nonsensicalness in this monstrosity of a morass of a text.

[George Jones]

This was worse than The Road to Serfdom. I didn't think that was possible.

[Three Years · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tough but fair

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Belongs to the tradition of popular Marxist polemics which present a very fine synopsis of Marxist theory and method in the process of battling their contemporanous foils. And as with Herr Duhring, nobody today remembers or cares about the Glup Shittos of fin de siècle Georgian anarchism.* I particularly appreciated the exposition of dialectics (felt like an extended application of Engels' commentary on Hegel) and the materialist discussion of form and content (a great exegesis of that famous preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) + there is also a theory of the self smuggled in like one line. Also, Stalin's writing is very fun and whimsy here.

This Foreign Languages Press (Paris) edition comes with some much later bonus material, 1924’s “Trotskyism or Leninism?” and 1927’s “The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now”. Mostly of historical interest, Trotsky being more interesting than the Georgian followers of Kropotkin. (That letter to Chkheidze really came to bite back Trotsky in the ass, lol.) Recommended for those looking for a simple but thoughtful rundown of the building blocks and longtime hardcore Stalinists alike.

* Anarchists contend against this text that anarchism is more complex than Stalin represents it, that Stalin's disagreements are irrelevant, i.e. that anarchists today don't base themselves on Nobati in translation (in fact, they self-avowedly possess no coherent body of theory that can be subject to critique). But from the very start, Stalin gets at the essence: “The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body.” The ideological basis of anarchism is liberalism, in particular the liberalism of the petite-bourgeoisie as Chomsky explains. While our anarchists now are not consciously wont to admit as such, the same can’t be said of its more honest nineteenth-century exponents. Of course, the petit-bourgeois is always in constant historical evolution, and always characteristic of their given historical moment. Unity in ideological inheritance is only the form of appearance of many different given types. So anarchists in the settler-colony of Amerika are correct in a sense to dismiss the relevance of the Georgian anarchists, for better or for worse.

[Jack Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

wish he could've finished it!

[dănuț]

so true

[Alex Utopium · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having only read bits and pieces of Stalin's work before, I was recommended this book by a person on Reddit after a discussion - He thought I should read it to get a better understanding of why "true communists" oppose anarchism and a simple, efficient introduction to materialistic dialectics (wow, is that word a mouthful).

On the first part: The divide between the "reds and the blacks" is spelled out with plenty of examples and is well-constructed in argumentation from Stalin, although he is a little bit nitpicky in his approach at times.

On the second part: This book taught me plenty I didn't know before about the dialectics of Marxism, getting introduced through Stalin using it as one of his tools to explain the difference in approach to the world between anarchists and socialists. Teaching through comparison really resonates with how I absorb knowledge.

So why only 3 star? I wasn't entirely convinced by Stalins arguments against anarchism and they where clearly his biases shining through, both in the method used and examples presented - Writing something well is important, but pretty word esthetics has nothing on solid arguments when we get down to business. This book had promise but ultimately didn't deliver the full payload promised.

To read a bit more on my thoughts and some of my favorite quotes, head on to my review on Utopium.blog

[Violet Jabayeva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Marksizmi güzel bir şekilde özetlemiş, proleterya diktatörlüğünü ve bunun gibi diğer meseleleri Marx ve Engels'ten alıntılar yaparak güzelce açıklamış, fakat "anarşistlerin görüşü" derken sadece Gürcüstan anarşistlerinin ve P.Kropotkin'in düşüncelerini ele almış olması bana biraz yetersiz gibi geldi. Açıklamalar gerçekten güzeldi ama anarşistlerin fikirlerine karşı savaşmak için yeterli değildi. Ve de sadece üç-dört Gürcü anarşistin lafı ile tüm anarşistleri ele almış olması üzücüydü. Bunun dışında Marksizm ile ilgili bilgiler edinmek için iyi bir yapıt olduğunu düşünüyorum, Komünist Manifesto'dan daha sade ve akıcı bir dile sahip. Hatta Komünist Manifesto'yu okumadan önce bu kitabı okursanız, Marx'ın Manifesto'sunu okumak sizin için kolay olur, diyebilirim.

[Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

It would have been great to read this book at the start of my political journey, however it's still a great read. This man, is great at explaining complex theory to those that might not have heard the arguments before. Also this text, is quite humorous.

Please ignore western propaganda, and check this book out, to understand the differences of anarchism and socialism.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stalin is always a joy to read. So clear, concise and easy to understand.

[rrroman · Rating 1 out of 5]

Vissarionovich's interpretation of anarchism, based on a misunderstanding or oversimplification of the ideology, is a common misconception. Anarchism is not solely focused on personal freedom, but rather seeks to create a society that is free from oppressive hierarchies and institutions. Anarchist thinkers believe in the importance of collective action and community organization, as well as the need to challenge and dismantle systems of power that perpetuate inequality and exploitation.


Stalin's portrayal of anarchists as ignoring the role of collective action is also misleading. While some individualist anarchists may prioritize personal freedom and autonomy, many anarchists recognize the importance of collective struggle and organization in achieving social change. Anarchist movements have a long history of organizing in communities and workplaces, and advocating for collective action and solidarity in the face of oppression.


It seems that Stalin's oversimplification of anarchism was intentional, as he sought to discredit and undermine the ideology. By portraying anarchists as only concerned with personal freedom, Stalin ignored the more complex and nuanced aspects of anarchist thought, which emphasize the importance of collective action and community organization in achieving social change.


In conclusion, Stalin's characterization of anarchism is simplistic and inaccurate. Anarchism is a complex and multifaceted ideology that seeks to create a more just and equitable society through collective action and community organization.

[Ammar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joseph Stalin is a very talented writer that knows how to easily get his point across, with some added sharp humour that the anarchists become the victims of, in this polemical pamphlet.

Stalin critiques anarchism for its individualistic approach:​

The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses.

In contrast, he presents Marxism as prioritising the collective:​

The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual....

Accordingly, its [anarchism's] slogan is: 'Everything for the individual.'... Accordingly, its [Marxism's] slogan is: 'Everything for the masses.'

Stalin's sharp wit and humour does make this pamphlet an easy and engaging read.

As you see, Messieurs the Anarchists know as much about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Paris Commune, and Marxism, which they so often "criticise," as you and I, dear reader, know about the Chinese language.

However, what is really valuable in Anarchism Or Socialism ? is its simple and effective way in presenting the dialectical method and materialist theory and the practical conclusions that can be drawn from this doctrine and its practical application.

[Jean Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Revolutionary class struggle is the culmination of both the theory and method of dialectical materialism. Out with the old (bourgeois private property ownership) and in with the new (collective ownership). In this way, the proletariat seize the means of production that secure the hegemony of the capitalist in society by forcing the proletariat into the position of the wage slave.

The revolutionary class struggle, perhaps more crucially, also liberates the labour power of the proletariat. The proletariat seize themselves, seize their freedom from the capitalist. Production, in the hands of the people, is no longer solely interested in profit. Rather, the productive forces of society, which are already social (the factory floor, the sweatshop, the mine), begins to serve the peoples needs.

“…the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses…here, everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings - because it is the dictatorship of the streets, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors” (pg 71).

The dictatorship of the streets.

[Anthony Santiago · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps because Stalin never finished the work, Anarchism or Socialism? is more useful as an exposition of dialectical materialism than a fully realized confutation of anarchist thought.

The crux of Stalin's argument is that a socialist state (a dictatorship of the proletariat) is necessary after workers seize power from the capitalist class. This necessity stems from the cultural, legal, religious, and philosophical institutions of the erstwhile bourgeoise society, that society's ideological form. Under a monistic materialist framework, existing ideological form definitionally lags behind a society's existing material content, even after a major (material) revolution. Counter-revolutionary beliefs and tendencies, those which champion the continued supremacy of the capitalist class, can be best reduced by a centralized movement of proletarians. In time, the tension between form and content irons itself out, inevitably, and the state withers away.

In essence, Stalin expounds all that intermediate stuff which, in his view, anarchists fail to consider, with a little wit along the way.

Thanks for sharing, Joseph <3

[jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

“dialectics tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change, conceptions of justice change, truth itself changes- that is why dialectics regards everything critically; that is why it denies the existence of a once-and-for-all established truth” ♥️

this is a great short essay that defends marx’s proletarian socialism, dialectics, and materialism while it argues against anarchism as falling under a communist umbrella. stalins little jabs at anarchists in this provide some humor in what can be a super dry topic to read, but even as this is already short, it couldve been shorter. stalin rlly knows how to say the same thing multiple times, although i appreciate the examples and thoroughness in some areas. altogether could be a good intro for someone who wants to understand proletarian socialism and how it differs from anarchism

[Khazziro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite being incomplete due to the last part being lost, Stalin's Anarchism or Socialism offers a solid and, from my perspective, compelling argument for socialism over anarchism, being a good starting point for anyone new to these ideologies.

Additionally, we read about "Proletarian Socialism" (Scientific Socialism) understanding materialist view of history and class struggle. He compares this with anarchism, which he critiques for their idealism and unworkability in the long goal of a classless society.

Additionally, the book has a lot of Marx and Engels references and it's written good and clear so everyone understands the information presented. (Stalin repeats himself often but it repeats as a way of learning and hoping it sticks with you)

Even in this incomplete state, the book serves is a great primer for understanding the fundamental disagreements between revolutionary socialists and anarchists on the path to liberation and the role of the state.

[Loki Mole · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mostly irrelevant today.

Each chapter is split up into two sections. The first explains a certain aspect of Marxist philosophy and the second addresses Anarchist critiques of these aspects of Marxist philosophy.

The first section of each chapter (save chapter 3) is irrelevant because other books (ex. Lenin's Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism) do a better job of explaining Marxist philosophy. The second section of each chapter is irrelevant because they address counter arguments by Anarchists that aren't used by Anarchists anymore in this day and age.

The best chapter by far was Chapter 3, as the first section at least gives some insight into Stalin's conception of the construction of Socialism at this time.

[Eve · Rating 4 out of 5]

i read this via one of those public domain audiobooks on youtube today. while i will probably have to reread this due to the fact the speed i had it on went thru it in 70 minutes. besides his conciseness, i appreciated how he used "origins of family". i see why some of my friends like stalin's writings it also basically described how I came to choose leftist politics for my goals, that we're interconnected. surprisingly that's what the propaganda of ayn rand's works taught me & further. there's a work in the 1980s called "Kropotkin wasn't a crackpot" that i think would help here, tho stalin would've likely known that discourse although 1907 Georgia might be different from 1907 russia, idk.

[mariana ૮₍˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა (perrito lector) · Rating 3 out of 5]

me dio mucha risa su roasteo a los anarquistas jsjs a veces parecían tuits de wokescold twitter tmb explicó muy concisamente el materialismo histórico y creí entenderlo por unos minutos jaja peeeero así como él se queja q los anarquistas están pendejos porq simplifican el pensamiento marxista y q lo malentienden, es obvio q él hace lo mismo con ellos tmb es muy interesante leerlo en retrospectiva porq estos apuntes los escribió cuando estaba jovencillo y en el libro dice que la dictadura del proletariado implementada se vería como la paris commune de 1871 pero luego ves el experimento soviético bajo stalin y ,,, clown emoji