My point isn't that what lasts longest is best, but that it needs to be able to last more than 5 minutes to accomplish anything. Between anarchists and communists, communists have been far more effective
In the US? You have no successful leftism of any kind in the US, and most leftists in America are socdems, anarchists, or weird trots anyways, why would you limit it to your own, terrible country?
I think that comes down to the timing and material conditions combining with the right theory for that situation. shit lined up right for a number of ML projects. There were good attempts from Anarchists that just did not work out. There have also been a lot of successful anarchist projects that were just smaller scale than ML ones.
Of course it comes down to material conditions and timing, that's just validating communist theory about the development of socialism. If anarchist projects are always under the wrong material conditions then maybe anarchism is just not what comes after capitalism. But shit did not just line up right for ML projects, the soviet union was invaded by multiple imperial powers immediately after its inception, and not long after was decimated by Nazi Germany, it's a cop-out to claim ML's are just lucky. Calling those anarchist projects 'smaller scale' is a bit of an understatement, none of these projects have been able to defend themselves against imperialism.
The smaller scale anarchist projects tend to not actually be anarchist, but communalist or heterogeneous, and exist at the mercy of parent/neighbor states.
Anarchists want to immediately destroy the state and move onto a classless society, whereas communists typically, due to a marxist understanding of the development to communism, want to establish a socialist state to combat the inevitable interference from capitalist powers before transitioning to a communist, classless society. Historically, there has been a sharp divide between both groups during revolutionary moments, despite their similar ultimate goal. I know on the internet a lot of people will describe themselves as anarcho-communists but they just seem to be anarchists, again wanting an immediate destruction of the state.
Like I said, historically those who consider themselves communists have a marxist understanding of class and the state while anarchists do not, that is the divide the person I was responding to was operating off. I know theoretically someone could have anarchist methods and refer to themselves as communist as they desire a communist society, but in revolutionary times the divide between both groups is as I have outlined.
Not all stateless societies are communism, I've already said this. Communism is a theorized mode of production to develop after capitalism, it is an idea of stateless, classless society developed by Marx. Developing according to a Marxist understanding is what defines Communism, as it was defined by Marx according to its development. If you hold an anarchist understanding of how to reach classless society, and try to destroy the state immediately to reach it, then you are an anarchist, not a communist, you are fighting for a classless society, but which is not communism, as it would not develop the way communism is meant to.
Yes, communism is whatever you want it to be. I'm actually an anarchist myself, that's why I want to use the state to repress the counter-revolutionaries
China is trying to use a state to transition to communism (which highlights what I've already said about not only ML's agreeing with the use of the state). If China was trying to achieve a stateless society through anarchist methods, and rejected state power in all circumstances, they wouldn't be called communist. The communist party also does use a Marxist understanding of economics, they of course don't agree with Marx on everything, but that was never required, Marxism is meant to evolve after all.
You also mentioned the linguistic usage of the term, which is what I was mainly arguing from, 1000 or so comments ago. Throughout history, those who call themselves communists have very different methods to those who call themselves anarchists, and violence has broken out between the two groups over their differences. Maybe you and some other guys online call yourselves anarcho-communists, but in any revolutionary time, there has been a stark contrast between those calling themselves communists and those calling themselves anarchists.
They would be trying to establish a classless society, but they would not be developing communism as the next mode of production after capitalism.
except those anarchists who were attempting to establish a communist society
But that's not how it goes down, historically the two groups are at odds with each other, with those calling themselves anarchists wanting an immediate stateless society and defining themselves against communists
Violence between communists and anarchists is not just between MLs and anarchists. Trotsky had pretty militant attitudes about anarchists resorting to banditry and even stealing red army supplies, and he disagreed fundamentally with ML beliefs. MLism isn't just wanting to use a state btw, there are other groups willing to use state power with serious disagreements with MLs
arbitrary hierarchy, people could decide on a democratically implemented hierarchy, continue to misrepresent and misunderstand anarchism thx
If that means no element of bureaucracy at all, no coercion of any individual to have to comply with decisions made, and the decisions being the result of a totally democratic process where everyones opinion matter, that's not state power. Decisions being made within a group in a totally democratic fashion is not state power being exercised. A state requires authority which can be exercised to oppress elements within a group.
You started off saying that anarchists are a kind of communist that don't agree with a state being established, now you're saying that anarchists actually want to establish a state.
You literally distinguished anarchists as communists who aren't like MLs, who want to establish a state. What do you think is the difference between an anarchist and an ML? I'm just curious
There isn't one, by your understanding, or at least any differences are just minor disagreements about how the state should be arranged. You literally think ML's and anarchists are both fundamentally the same, and want to establish a state. Why do you think there has been all that conflict I mentioned?
anarchism isn’t no government, it is (generally depending on ideology) about the abolition of arbitrary hierarchies and power structures, not whatever looney tune idea of total chaos you’ve got going on
Forgot to respond to this. Anarchism absolutely rejects the state, that is what has defined anarchists during revolutionary times and set them at odds with those willing to set up state power. I know anarchy isn't just chaos, there is a theoretical system of government not involving hierarchy, but anarchists have always resisted the establishment of a state.
You're going hard on that by your logic thing aren't you? I think communism is effective at opposing capitalism due to its ability to resist capitalist imperialism and even fight back, this is not a belief that what lasts is good. We've gone far from the asinine point you were trying to make that communists just theorize btw, you moved on pretty quick from that to 'actually left projects being capable is bad because capitalism can be capable too'
Remind me which of those groups have built projects that lasted for more than a month?
Capitalist projects have lasted the longest, therefore making them the best. Ok.
My point isn't that what lasts longest is best, but that it needs to be able to last more than 5 minutes to accomplish anything. Between anarchists and communists, communists have been far more effective
deleted by creator
In the US? You have no successful leftism of any kind in the US, and most leftists in America are socdems, anarchists, or weird trots anyways, why would you limit it to your own, terrible country?
deleted by creator
I think that comes down to the timing and material conditions combining with the right theory for that situation. shit lined up right for a number of ML projects. There were good attempts from Anarchists that just did not work out. There have also been a lot of successful anarchist projects that were just smaller scale than ML ones.
Of course it comes down to material conditions and timing, that's just validating communist theory about the development of socialism. If anarchist projects are always under the wrong material conditions then maybe anarchism is just not what comes after capitalism. But shit did not just line up right for ML projects, the soviet union was invaded by multiple imperial powers immediately after its inception, and not long after was decimated by Nazi Germany, it's a cop-out to claim ML's are just lucky. Calling those anarchist projects 'smaller scale' is a bit of an understatement, none of these projects have been able to defend themselves against imperialism.
deleted by creator
Sorry I have exams soon, can we do it in a couple weeks instead?
deleted by creator
sure sure i know there are caveats. back to shrekposting for me.
The smaller scale anarchist projects tend to not actually be anarchist, but communalist or heterogeneous, and exist at the mercy of parent/neighbor states.
deleted by creator
Anarchists want to immediately destroy the state and move onto a classless society, whereas communists typically, due to a marxist understanding of the development to communism, want to establish a socialist state to combat the inevitable interference from capitalist powers before transitioning to a communist, classless society. Historically, there has been a sharp divide between both groups during revolutionary moments, despite their similar ultimate goal. I know on the internet a lot of people will describe themselves as anarcho-communists but they just seem to be anarchists, again wanting an immediate destruction of the state.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Like I said, historically those who consider themselves communists have a marxist understanding of class and the state while anarchists do not, that is the divide the person I was responding to was operating off. I know theoretically someone could have anarchist methods and refer to themselves as communist as they desire a communist society, but in revolutionary times the divide between both groups is as I have outlined.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Not all stateless societies are communism, I've already said this. Communism is a theorized mode of production to develop after capitalism, it is an idea of stateless, classless society developed by Marx. Developing according to a Marxist understanding is what defines Communism, as it was defined by Marx according to its development. If you hold an anarchist understanding of how to reach classless society, and try to destroy the state immediately to reach it, then you are an anarchist, not a communist, you are fighting for a classless society, but which is not communism, as it would not develop the way communism is meant to.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You know if you don't reply, I'll have nothing to reply to
deleted by creator
But you're giving me less than no reason to do that
deleted by creator
Damn, guess our comrades who don't have English as their first language aren't welcome here
deleted by creator
Yes, communism is whatever you want it to be. I'm actually an anarchist myself, that's why I want to use the state to repress the counter-revolutionaries
deleted by creator
China is trying to use a state to transition to communism (which highlights what I've already said about not only ML's agreeing with the use of the state). If China was trying to achieve a stateless society through anarchist methods, and rejected state power in all circumstances, they wouldn't be called communist. The communist party also does use a Marxist understanding of economics, they of course don't agree with Marx on everything, but that was never required, Marxism is meant to evolve after all.
You also mentioned the linguistic usage of the term, which is what I was mainly arguing from, 1000 or so comments ago. Throughout history, those who call themselves communists have very different methods to those who call themselves anarchists, and violence has broken out between the two groups over their differences. Maybe you and some other guys online call yourselves anarcho-communists, but in any revolutionary time, there has been a stark contrast between those calling themselves communists and those calling themselves anarchists.
Removed by mod
They would be trying to establish a classless society, but they would not be developing communism as the next mode of production after capitalism.
But that's not how it goes down, historically the two groups are at odds with each other, with those calling themselves anarchists wanting an immediate stateless society and defining themselves against communists
Violence between communists and anarchists is not just between MLs and anarchists. Trotsky had pretty militant attitudes about anarchists resorting to banditry and even stealing red army supplies, and he disagreed fundamentally with ML beliefs. MLism isn't just wanting to use a state btw, there are other groups willing to use state power with serious disagreements with MLs
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
And again you disappoint.
If that means no element of bureaucracy at all, no coercion of any individual to have to comply with decisions made, and the decisions being the result of a totally democratic process where everyones opinion matter, that's not state power. Decisions being made within a group in a totally democratic fashion is not state power being exercised. A state requires authority which can be exercised to oppress elements within a group.
You started off saying that anarchists are a kind of communist that don't agree with a state being established, now you're saying that anarchists actually want to establish a state.
deleted by creator
You literally distinguished anarchists as communists who aren't like MLs, who want to establish a state. What do you think is the difference between an anarchist and an ML? I'm just curious
deleted by creator
There isn't one, by your understanding, or at least any differences are just minor disagreements about how the state should be arranged. You literally think ML's and anarchists are both fundamentally the same, and want to establish a state. Why do you think there has been all that conflict I mentioned?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Alright, goodbye, hopefully for good this time
deleted by creator
Forgot to respond to this. Anarchism absolutely rejects the state, that is what has defined anarchists during revolutionary times and set them at odds with those willing to set up state power. I know anarchy isn't just chaos, there is a theoretical system of government not involving hierarchy, but anarchists have always resisted the establishment of a state.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Because they lasted longer?
You're going hard on that by your logic thing aren't you? I think communism is effective at opposing capitalism due to its ability to resist capitalist imperialism and even fight back, this is not a belief that what lasts is good. We've gone far from the asinine point you were trying to make that communists just theorize btw, you moved on pretty quick from that to 'actually left projects being capable is bad because capitalism can be capable too'
By lasting at all.