/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Is the administration of things no different from anarchism?
The claim that anarchists "wouldn't let a person be the captain of the ship" allegedly "because that's a hierarchy to them" is reductionist and wrong. In anarchism freedom means to have take responsibility for one's own actions, therefore they allow people to take up such positions on the condition that they do not use them against the interests of other people. If the captain of a ship is to use his role to take the passengers hostage then the passengers must act accordingly. That applies for any sort of society. The point is that they would in fact allow a person to be in "charge". There have even been Anarchist Federations (are there likely still are) with a general secretariat. If it is to be considered a "hierarchy" then the idea of only being opposed towards oppressive hierarchies would allow it.
Anarchists in general want society to play a part of the managerial role, rather than a selected few - because it seen as a guarantee of incompetence and disconnect from the working class by solely being the managerial forces. If the working class themselves take up the managerial role, then that is fine by anarchist standards. The only criticism that anarchists should accept is that commodity production cannot and should not exist. If there is commodity production, if there is trade, barter - that leads to a market. Markets eventually lead to the accumulation of commodities which reinstates capitalism. Bordiga correctly points out that capitalism is inherently connected to commodity production. It is therefore the task of anarcho-communists to abolish commodity production and instead adapt decentralized planning, such as participatory economics and exterminate all reactionary elements of society.
I think that leftcoms generally misunderstand anarchists, especially with the fact that so many of the self-proclaimed "anarchists" nowadays are not anarchists at all - they are just liberals engaged in identity politics. The principled anarchists will only engage in class struggle. It is as Malatesta wrote over a hundred years ago in the text - Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles.
I am a part of an Anarchist Federation myself, I encourage my comrades to read Marx, Engels, Lenin and above all - Bordiga. Our AF also does dialogue with the leftcoms of the group "Lotta comunista". We can find ourselves agreeing on everything except the demand for a party established on the proposed managerial structure. That is not to say we are against organizations with a purpose and a plan - the aspect of organic centralism is significantly better and more coherent than wild democracy. Despite that its disgusting to witness modern LeftComs endorsing Trotskyists and Trotsky himself - who stands against their very basis.
On the subject of the DOTP, it should be noted that anarchists don't oppose it for the defense of the bourgouisie, but the centralization of power which is to repress the reactionary elements in society (that inherently suggests an elite propped up from bottom-up), we feel that such cases can only lead to incompetence and eventually to revisionism and opportunism due to the bourgouisie state apparatus being held by the few from above. Gilles Dauvé already wrote a criticism of the use of bourgouisie instruments, writing that the state is not inherently a neutral instrument for the oppression of one class upon another - but specifically a bourgouisie instrument of oppression made for and by the bourgouisie themselves. It should be noted that we also wish to repress and eventually get rid of the reactionary elements - whether they label themselves "anarchist" or not does not matter to us. As anyone can label themselves an "anarchist" yet stand against our principles. So how do we propose to deal with them? Firing squads and labor camps. I have a lot of other ideas I'd share if they weren't confidential. But don't let the decentralized nature fool you into thinking that people would not organize to carry out these actions. The soviet model (councils) and the various types of organizations would be coordinated through the Federation to carry out these actions. They will not be acting on their own, but instead it will be a process of assemblies and direct participation in dialogue with other organizations that are either part of the Federation or part of another Federation (until sections can be united).
So would this be a dictatorship? A dictatorship for us is an inherent bureaucracy managed from above, this however, seems to be more akin to a giant mob lynch to advocates for the vanguard. But what they ignore is that within this process it is the coordinator - the Federation which consists of many organizations that functions on its rudimentary principles to prevent injustice in judgement. However, as they say, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. In the momentary revolutionary terror, it can only be expected that a lot of people would perish without a trial. That is fine. For anything else would be utopian. It is in those moments that I find great pride, not in the failures of Makhnovschina, "Revolutionary" Catalonia - which failed due to class collaborationism or Kronstadt - which was not even inherently anarchist to begin with. But in the moments like the Red Terror in Spain, where clergymen were liquidated and tortured. It is those deeds that write the history, as a warning for all who reject materialism in favor of mysticism, that their imagination will come to an end that is brought by real world struggles.
As for our authors' incompetence, racism, anti-jewish sentiments and such. There is no excuse for them, but there is no point in dismissing all of their writings. If one is to do analysis of their writings, one would easily come to the conclusion that their personal biases did not present themselves on the theoretical groundwork. In the memes of ultras, there is an image often posted with a caption "When someone tells me Marx and Engels were a bit racist, (they must be wrong because they are bad people!)" (ironic). However, it is that exact same irony and sentiment which carries onto an ad hominem critique of anarchist writers, neglecting the entire history of the movement. Especially and more so to the idea that class collaborationism is an inherent characteristic of anarchism, which replaces a historical analysis of the anarchist movement and fails to distinguish between modernizers (Pro-Ukraine, Liberal voters, Popular front Antifa) with classical and dogmatic anarchists (Internationalists, Against voting, Against Class Collaborationism). What do the twitter crowd have in common with figures such as Malatesta and Nechayev? Perhaps the only thing contemporary anarchists have in common is the name - which modernizers have butchered. "Pro-Israel, Anarcho-Egoist-Communist, Solarpunk-Communalist" label hoarders and ideology shoppers - these figures serve no purpose but to be a tool of the liberal state apparatus. They have not read a single book written by classical anarchists, since they concern themselves with identity politics. It is necessary for the anarchist movement to self-criticize and distance itself away from modernizers. It is necessary to uphold its principles. Which through theoretical groundwork have more in common with the invariant line of communism than one might admit. But fundamentally, they are incompatible with the notion that the state apparatus can be used for the emancipation of the working class. As they are incompatible with the idea of a vanguard party leading the international proletariat. It is for that reason that we must not attempt to mix and match what cannot work together, we can only admire aspects of authors such as Bordiga, but we cannot claim that they are compatible, when they do not understand our principles and our opposition towards other anarchists - as we understand their opposition towards revisionists on the groundwork of Marx and Lenin. The conflict of interests will eventually have to be settled. We may be judged by the broader and self-defined "communist" movement - but we see ourselves as part of our own. The movement which abolishes the present state of affairs. The name of which has been bothered and appropriated much like our own name. We see ourselves in it and no one else. Those who stand against it stand with the forces of reaction. Those who are sympathetic to it, must be educated to become part of it, as they are moved by it. We must research and destroy all contradictions until the abolition of class, for the development of all who demand existence in wellbeing.