bottom text
Imagine everything you've been agreeing with in other people's posts, but in a book.
spoiler: can't bolish the CIA and global Capitalism without Communist Party
Basically Marxism says there needs to be an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.
My personal belief is that to break exploitation entirely a powerful state beholden to the people must first exist and then slowly be dismantled as it becomes obsolete.
Tangentially related but the political compass is fucking poison because it falls flat on its face trying to represent basically all leftist ideology and Marxism is a great example of how
Gonna just assume you're an anarcho-communist and not some other strand of anarchist for this. Did bourgeois capitalist society emerge from feudal society immediately or did it take centuries to do so? How about feudalism from the great empires of old? Is the state a tool of oppression for one class of another or does it oppress all classes equally?
Marxist thought posits that though there will be violent ruptures in capitalist society, but the struggle towards socialism will be long and hard fought as though it were the evolution of Homo Sapiens from our chimpanzee ancestors. It also posits that socialism will be the class dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the proletariat will wield the power of a proletarian state built for proletarian needs to oppress the bourgeois capitalist elements in all aspects of of our society and rapidly advance us towards communism through the rapid division of labor not in service of profit, but in service of the necessity of human life, the earth's ecology, and all other aspects which capitalism disregards.
Anarchist communism rejects the idea that we must recondition people towards a communist world and destroy the overwhelming bourgeois ideology which infects so many, and instead believes that by some measure, we can all quickly establish communism if we (just get along, remove the capitalists, something else?). It is idealistic in it's belief that all humanity as it stands has at its core the ability to achieve communism and it still lacks any scientific explanation for the engines of history and human society. It is not based in science and it is not a science.
All these replies are technically theory so you won't read them. This is a great bit and I wish I thought of it.
Understand, this is extremely tentative and I'm willing to be told I'm completely off base, but it seems to me that the theories of anarchism are useful for planning what communism may look like, but MLs are much more concerned with the realities of getting there from our current hellstate, and I speculate that the acrimony between the two stems from the anarchist view that to it's counter productive to behave in ways contrary to the way you would act within communism, whereas MLs believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the use of state power to enforce the will of the workers over the bourgeoisie in the inevitable transitional struggle to get to FALGSC. In my opinion, we all want the same thing in the end.
