Stageism is an excessively formalism view of the development of economic systems that puts too much importance on the pre-existence of fully developed capitalist relations to begin the transition to socialism, now it’s not that relevant (although there are other, modern forms of stageism*) because feudal relations really aren’t relevant in any country in the planet afaik, beyond the occasional remnant. In Russia, this was a view that used to be dominant even in the Social-democratic party before the 1905 revolution and Lenin used to hold the position of the necessary development of capitalism, this was also related to the Russian utopians of the 19th century who, before the writings of Marx made it though censorship, were the predominant movement.

As far as I’m aware and the conversations I’ve had with multiple people about this, the Mensheviks weren’t really stageists. Their mistakes went more along the line of the theory of the State and how to approach it, as well as to the theory of the Party wrt centralism, discipline, who could be members of the party and the intervention in trade unions.

* One of the more relevant stageists in Spain nowadays are the reconstructionists, who believe the triumph of the counterrevolution in the USSR marked the beginning of the era, period, etc. of the defeat, as opposed to the period of revolutions and advance of socialism in the USSR’s time. The conclusion they draw from this is that, in the stage of defeat, the existence of the Communist Party is impossible, and must be reconstructed (hence the name), until the end of this stage. This is not only miopic and USSR-centric (eurocentric I’d say), but also completely ignores that it’s the development of capitalist relations that condition the possibility of communist revolutions, instead fetishizing the weakness of Communists in the imperial core into its own period; the CP can’t exist because there are no CPs in Europe, it’s a tautology and overly simplistic, they condemn themselves to their own weakness by believing that weakness to be a factor completely out of their control.

Stageism is an excessively formalism view of the development of economic systems that puts too much importance on the pre-existence of fully developed capitalist relations to begin the transition to socialism, now it’s not that relevant (although there are other, modern forms of stageism*) because feudal relations really aren’t relevant in any country in the planet afaik, beyond the occasional remnant. In Russia, this was a view that used to be dominant even in the Social-democratic party before the 1905 revolution and Lenin used to hold the position of the necessary development of capitalism, this was also related to the Russian utopians of the 19th century who, before the writings of Marx made it though censorship, were the predominant movement.

As far as I’m aware and the conversations I’ve had with multiple people about this, the Mensheviks weren’t really stageists. Their mistakes went more along the line of the theory of the State and how to approach it, as well as to the theory of the Party wrt centralism, discipline, who could be members of the party and the intervention in trade unions.

* One of the more relevant stageists in Spain nowadays are the reconstructionists, who believe the triumph of the counterrevolution in the USSR marked the beginning of the era, period, etc. of the defeat, as opposed to the period of revolutions and advance of socialism in the USSR’s time. The conclusion they draw from this is that, in the stage of defeat, the existence of the Communist Party is impossible, and must be reconstructed (hence the name), until the end of this stage. This is not only miopic and USSR-centric (eurocentric I’d say), but also completely ignores that it’s the development of capitalist relations that condition the possibility of communist revolutions, instead fetishizing the weakness of Communists in the imperial core into its own period; the CP can’t exist because there are no CPs in Europe, it’s a tautology and overly simplistic, they condemn themselves to their own weakness by believing that weakness to be a factor completely out of their control.

Apart from taxation, which cannot be discounted, industry creates derivated and dependent economic activity around it, or compliments the pre-existing activity if it meshes well. Logistics, further uses for the products created by that industry, if it’s decently integrated in its territory it can also maintain a population. For instance, in depopulated areas, the implantation of industry or agroindustry, can fix the system employed population to a place that would otherwise not have it, impacting the entire area because that’s a population that needs services and other kinds of economic activity to live, and spend their salaries. Of course some types of industry and with enough deregulation can also be quite harmful, and the effect of that industry is heavily determined by territorial ordinance and how well thought-out it is.

No org I’ve ever come across formally requires having read theory? even for bolshevik parties, they’re a school of Communists as much as they’re organizers of the working class. Education of members should be one or the functions of any org pretending to be serious, and if that’s something they formally and explicitly require I’d be really suspicious of sectarianism ngl.

yeah! read it last year and I remember it was very well done, the diagrams/drawings were very helpful

I feel like much more qualified theorists than myself have answered this question in much, much better words than I could ever manage, not the least of which being the esteemed comrade, kind Vladimir Lenin. But still, perhaps out of a bit of haughtiness, I can try to answer this effectively and briefly. (I will try very hard to focus on Briefly, unfortunately that means I may be a bit less thorough than I would Like, or Could Be. Alas. If only all things were possible in an instant…)

Why is Anarchism “Bad”?

What do we mean here by “bad”? When I say I have issues with Anarchism, they are never on any “moral” grounds, on the basis of the fact that I don’t really care about that – moralisms are always intrinsically relativist – they cannot be proven or disproven – they can be argued for or against, but at the end of the day, there is no such thing as an “objective” morality, and there isn’t even such a thing as a “coherent cultural morality” within a village, let alone a country or a planet.

So when we say “anarchism is Bad” what do we mean?

We mean a series of things, in sequence.

1. Anarchism is Not True.
2. Because of the above: Anarchism is Ineffectual.
3. Because of the above: Anarchism is Dangerous.
4. Further: Anarchism is Reactionary.
5. All of these mean that: Anarchism is a Threat to Actual Communism.

Anarchism is Not True

What distinguishes Anarchism and Marxism-Leninism? What do we mean when we say “Marxism-Leninism is a science?” You can ask forty anarchists what Anarchism is and you will get forty entirely different answers. You can ask forty Marxist-Leninists what Marxism-Leninism is and get, broadly, somewhat similar answers. (The question of “what does Marxism-Leninism mean/require” is a different question, and one which is good to have diversity of perspective on, as this is one of many methods of Marxism-Leninism’s self-correction.)

The thing is that Anarchism is not a science. It is not a theory of analysis of history from a materialist framework. It does not draw conclusions from a materialist understanding of history that have a character of actionable truth which can be used to create a change in the future. Because of this, anarchism is not true. What anarchism becomes, then, is an ideology, a set of roughly shared values and beliefs. “Certain things are bad, and certain things are good. We should do certain things, because certain things are bad and certain things are good.” This is a distinction between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Marxists-Leninist do not have to agree on “What is Good” or “What is Bad,” only on “How does the world Actually Work,” and “What does that Mean.” There have been gestures towards making Anarchism into a science, but they have failed, because if they were actually scientific, the analyses they would create would agree with what has become the analyses of Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism is amoral. It is not a set of moral values or assumptions. It does not assert what should be done on the basis of it being “Loving” or “Kind.” If anything, Marxism-Leninism is a brutally harsh mistress – telling you that she offers you nothing but the truth, with all that entails, and that the punishment for divergence from the truth is only failure to accomplish what you set out to do, which will likely result in catastrophe according to your designs, and that the success of these designs often requires extremely brutal logic. “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun” is not a “kind” thing to say. It is not “loving” or probably, frankly, even “good,” if we care to bother with those kinds of assessments. It is, however, true, whether we like it or not, and because of this, it is something that we must understand, both in the how and the why.

Marxism-Leninism doesn’t care if you’re a “good person” or a “bad person” because that question is irrelevant to the science of politics and the custodianship of Power. Politics, which is the science of power, has no need for moralisms. These are irrelevant to whether something is true or not. “Is this apple falling from this tree Good?” is an incoherent question. “Did the apple fall from the tree?” is a coherent question, and one that matters. “Why?” is also a coherent question, and one that matters. “Is the fall of the Assad Government Good?” is a question which cannot be answered because different groups have different definitions of “good.” “Why did the Assad government fall? What does this mean for my goals?” is a question that is not only actually answerable with enough investigation, but is actionable and useful for further decisions.

This is somewhat of a circuitous and abstract answer, I know, and one which is probably unsatisfying, because I’m sure the answer you were probably more looking for from me was “well, Why Is The State Ok,” or something along those lines.

I just think it’s important to understand why the things that are not true are not true, before just knowing that they are not true.

So, I could say that “The state exists to negotiate the intrinsic contradictions of Class Rule; that the State does not Have a Capitalist Character intrinsically, but the character of the Class Rule it governs; that the State is therefore a necessary tool of the Proletariat during the transitional stage of Socialism; that the State can be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat rather than a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie; etc,” but to me, it’s more important that you understand why those things are true first, before understanding that they are true. I can assert those things all day long, but it wouldn’t get you or I anywhere, because those are just assertions if you don’t understand my methodology.

I know that I spent most of this section about Anarchism talking about Marxism-Leninism; frankly, that’s the way I had to do it, from my perspective, because what Anarchism Is is mostly just Vibes, which exists in contrast to the science of Marxism-Leninism.

Why does this therefore matter?

Anarchism is Ineffectual

Anarchism is unscientific. It is not a theory of analysis nor is it a framework for understanding. It is a set of values driven by moralist idealisms. For these reasons, it draws incorrect conclusions about the world, like the nature and function of the State, most relevantly.

Because it is unscientific, and believes things which are untrue, it will inevitably fail to produce results. This is important.

There is no universe where Anarchism can ultimately succeed because Anarchism is incorrect and untrue. There are a number of examples throughout history where Anarchism has proven to be weak and powerless and utterly ineffectual.

Politics is the science of power; how to get power, and how to keep it. That is all that politics is, at its core. “Everything else is just commentary” so to speak. If you cannot acquire and hold onto power, your political ideals are meaningless. You can be opposed to “kyriarchy” or “vertical social organization” but if you are not able to actually do anything to make your designs into reality, you’re basically just jerking off, or worse, leading your supplicants blindly to their deaths.

If you cannot understand the science of politics, the science of power, and the science of revolution, you will be unable to build a political future, much in the same way that you cannot build a rocket ship without an understanding of the sciences of physics, chemistry, metallurgy, biology, etcetera. A proper scientific understanding of how things actually work is necessary to producing actual results.

Because Anarchism cannot produce results,

Anarchism is Dangerous

Anarchism redirects political energies towards methods and decisions which will not be able to accomplish the goals of political struggle. It will, inevitably, fail, and, in failing, get thousands if not millions of people killed. It is a thing which can only lead to wasteful mistakes and excesses.

Anarchism is Reactionary

Because Anarchism is idealist in nature, and because Anarchism is fundamentally opposed in interests and concerns to Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism frequently exists in violent opposition to Actual Marxism. For this reason, it lends power, often implicitly, sometimes explicitly, to the forces of political reaction, of counter-revolution. Anarchism seeks to undo the actual labor of building a socialist future, because it disagrees with it, and in this it is counter-revolutionary, which is why

Anarchism is a Threat to Actual Communism

There is no future where Anarchists and Communists can successfully collaborate because they have fundamentally oppositional interests. Communists understand that the future of socialism requires a DOTP to function. Anarchists disagree, and therefore, are opposed to the task of creating actual socialism. When these conflicting interests meet, one will either immediately give way to the other (unlikely); or, they will meet, and there will be violent conflict.

Anarchists will side against Marxist-Leninists, if they are truly ardent Anarchists. This is because Anarchism cannot co-exist with Marxism-Leninism. This makes them mutual threats which can only seek to assimilate or destroy each other. As a Marxist-Leninist, I find the outcome of Anarchism’s success in defeating Marxist-Leninist struggle to be intolerable, because that is a future where Capitalism wins, and so, when Anarchism and Marxism-Leninism clash, there can only be a war between counter-revolutionaries and revolutionaries. This is wasteful, and will kill people on both sides, weakening Marxism-Leninism in it’s more valuable struggle against imperialist capitalism. For this reason, Anarchism must be aggressively and forcefully suppressed before it’s able to constitute any kind of meaningful threat to Marxist-Leninist organization.

What does this all mean?

It means Marxism-Leninism is the only path towards actual successful change, and the victory of the working class. Anarchism is only a diverting of the flow of revolutionary energy towards actual revolution; nothing more, nothing less. It is a gash in the artery of the lifeblood of the working class. It must be addressed, clinically, scientifically, and correctly, with a complete and utter suppression against its reactionary outcomes, not because we are hateful, or because we think they are evil, but because to do anything else is to allow the artery to bleed out. Anarchism isn’t Bad because it’s Evil. Anarchism is Bad because it is a threat.

P.S. a significant part of why Anarchism is so prolific in the US, besides the fact that US Americans are imperialists chauvinists broadly, is that the United States government violently suppressed ML organizations and encouraged and supported Anarchist organizations because they correctly ascertained that Anarchism is a threat to communism and not capitalism.

[Edit: before someone yells at me about “stealing someone’s voice” or whatever about intellectual property let me preempt that by saying that, even if I cared about that, this is a TTS model trained on my own voice.]