this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
120 points (96.2% liked)
Memes
55380 readers
1495 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Finally, something anarchists and communists can agree on
Anarchists refused to seize the banks during the Paris Commune.
Source? If that's the case then yeah, that's a mistake on my ideological ancestors' part.
Source: any place anyone writes anything about the Paris commune. It was a major thing. You can read about it in Marx writing, or you know, just Wikipedia or any history book about the timeframe.
Okay, here's the Wikipedia article:
The only source cited in this subsection is Marx.
So no evidence of anarchist concerns dominating the maintenance of the Bank of France so far. Let's dig a bit deeper: from page 56 of Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune of 1871 by Merriman (2014), as recommended by the Wikipedia authors:
Now we're getting somewhere. Varlin was a Proudhon enjoyer, and Proudhon was a market enjoyer. Frankly, there are definitely Proudhon enjoyers in the modern anarchist movement (mutualists), but most anarchists these days would consider Proudhon a reformist and disagree with a lot of his ideas on economics...and frankly, this is a perfect example of why I disagree with mutualists about market economics. So certainly an anarchist refused to seize the Bank of France.
Which, I 1000% agree with Marx in his later writings on this (but from an anarcho-communist perspective) that this was an error in judgement on the Communards' part, e.g. in Marx to Domela-Nieuwenhuis, 22 Feb. 1881 (Karl Marx Selected Writings page 642, same reference as Wikipedia): "The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to put an end with terror to the vaunt of the Versailles people, etc., etc...."
But unless someone has a source that goes into more detail than that, which by the way is why I asked the person I replied to instead of searching for it myself, we don't have enough evidence on hand to conclude that the anarchists (or even the Proudhonist faction as a whole) collectively were responsible for this error in judgement.
All the books I referenced are available on LibGen 🏴☠️. Also anyone who replies to this, feel free to tag my SDF account because SDF is taking a dive for a few hours.
The source is the history of the Paris Commune and the French Civil War.
Idk there's a few users who call them selves anarchists that will rage against this
Goddamn right, we want everything, not just the banks
🍴😁🏴
Yes, we're comrades who share a common struggle. But do you mean anarchists and marxists? Cause every single anarchist I know in real life is also a communist. And ever anarchist movement or org or squatting place or whatever too. Only online do I ever find anarchists who distance themselves from the idea of a stateless classless society (the universally accepted definition of communism). Like I assume you're okay with society being stateless. So you want it to have classes? Not really, right? Marxists and anarchists have different strategies for how to get there, but clearly every anarchists who wants a classless stateless society (i.e. communism) is also a communist.
When I made this comment its because on Lemmy you'd think communists and anarchists are completely opposing ideologies with how much the users fight each other. Seems kinda strange if you ask me cause my experience is your's in real life. The anarchists and communists I know in person happily get along with each other and provide aide in the same ways. I assume it stems from an examination of the past instead of a focus on the changes occuring now. I think today communists and anarchists have more reasons than ever to unite.
I'm new to the space and align more with Marcus thought but my understanding of the disagreements are that we disagree on the path to take to get to the final goal given the material conditions in the way (imperial states trying to destroy us, etc) I'm also probably oversimplifying the hell out of this.
Sounds about right, same goal, differing paths, and a lot of mistrust. Which historically I get, but I guess just do good with those around you or whatever.