I have to ask, as someone who has only a basic understanding of the philosophies, how are the end goals of Anarchists and Marxists different? I understood them as only having different methods of arriving to the same state of society without class, states and money - communism.
By my understanding, Anarchists go bottom up by propping up a parallel system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, to the point where the state is no longer needed for anything, and Marxists (or rather Marxist-Leninists) go top down by seizing control of the state in the name of the workers, and then gradually give the workers more and more direct control until the state is no longer needed ("The withering of the state").
Assuming what I just wrote is wrong, what faults would Anarchists and Marxists find in each other's end goals, assuming they succeed in establishing their ideal societies?
Yeah, someone made a joke about how our president is a master of diplomacy: he managed to build a bridge between Serbs and Croats (as we all despise him), and also make the US, Russia and China agree on something (all 3 have dismissed the student-led protests).
Not directly related to the anti-corruption protests, but Croats started boycotting their local supermarkets due to high prices, and the whole region soon followed suit. It's honestly almost bizarre that while most of the world is looking bleak, the Balkans are now engaging in optimism and mutal support. This is the first time since I developed self-consciousness that I can say that Serbs are optimistic about the future, as many believe that this might very well be the end for the current regime, and that a new system with an emphasis on direct democracy will take its place.