Without wanting to sound like an attack, if anarchism works, why hasn’t it worked?
You might not be intending it to be this way, but this is just a tired mindless attack, the same one your average chud makes against any form of communism. If your definition of valid forms of society includes only ones which have successfully overthrown capitalism in a modern state and stayed that way to the current day, then capitalism is the only valid way to arrange society.
Are you really surprised that anarchist communities tend to be smaller in scale? My understanding of anarchist values would lead me to assume a smaller scale, less centralized existence. I think many anarchists would consider these positives.
if communism was as successful as capitalism I’d have hoped to have seen communist projects on a scale to collectively rival capitalist projects in size
The argument your making is no better than the one made by bourgeois capitalists to "disprove" communism.
Just remember, we're fighting the same fight, and there's no reason existing communist countries and existing anarchist communities can't work together. Zapatistas seem to have figured out leftist unity.
“Well ackshcullly unions were and are the most successful revolutionary group in the history”
Unions aren't a group, or an organization, or a movement. However you can look at who is organizing unions etc, and the presence of anarchists in organized labour is pretty much 0 in most European countries, unlike communists.
The most successfull revolutionary group in the history of the imperial core was a maoist vanguard party , the black panthers.
In the US, yeah, but generally many European countries had much more successful revolutionary groups than a relatively short lived movement with 8k members in a country of 300 million, and most of Europe is generally considered part of the imperial core.
I live in Europe the idea that any kind of marxist group is able to get enough power to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat is silly to me
Where in Europe do you live? Because in most European countries in the 20th century it was marxist communists who had any kind of success at all ever, as opposed to anarchists, unless you take into account Catalonia which was before the war and had nothing to do with modern anarchy, in which case you'd also have to take into account all the partisans all over Europe, the communists in Spain, and the (failed) revolutions that happened.
I favour communism over capitalism for ideological not practical reasons, but I favour marxism over anarchism for practical reasons over the ideological.
I think most anarchists favor anarchism over marxism for ideological reasons, so using practicality-based arguments might not appeal to most anarchists.
These days though I just think a marxist approach is more realistic and less utopian
I think there's room in the world for both, and perhaps each is more capable in certain places.
Well, the way I see it is that the most effective method for achieving communism in China is marxism, and the most effective method for achieving communism in Chiapas is anarchism; both evidenced by the fact that their attempts to fight back against capitalism worked, and the rest of the world's attempts have failed. I think pretending there's gonna be one blueprint that's "the most effective" everywhere is naïve.
Anarchism has a considerably stronger track record in Chiapas. Anarchism has a considerably stronger track record in Smangus. I don't understand this obsession with picking one global economic system.
I said your argument sounded like bourgeois capitalist arguments, not that it was the same exact argument. It's called a simile. Obviously capitalists use the argument to defend capitalism, not communism. Have you never encountered a capitalist using the argument that capitalism is good because it brings people out of poverty (a term defined by capitalists)?
For starters, the definition of poverty being used is $1.90 per day, which is obviously not a reasonable goal.
I'd also challenge the very idea of judging success based on measurements that are fundamentally at odds with anarchism, like how much money one has. Are people in Rojava materially better off than they were before Rojava? Yeah. Are people in Chiapas materially better off than they were before the Zapatistas? Yeah. The fact that China made people's lives materially better is the success, not raising them out of poverty.
Poverty is a definition based on a monetary system. Communism (and anarchism) hope for a moneyless future. I don't think using capitalist-defined measures like poverty is a good method for assessing the health and growth of non-capitalist societies.
Plus, it's just such a small amount of money. Personally, I'm fighting for much more lofty goals than $1.90 per day.
There's been dozens of successful Marxist-Leninist revolutions. It took the US half a century of unparalleled economic, military, diplomatic and propagandistic efforts to wear these states down, states that without exception where undeveloped, impoverished, largely illiterate backwaters either suffering under despotic monarchs, a colonial extractive economy or both before the communists came along, and not only did most of them hold out against the biggest superpower in the world for decades while making substantial headway in improving material conditions, the yanqui swine still haven't succeeded in their effort against China, the DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam. There's good, valid criticisms from the left of all of these states and how far they've actually come in building AES, but denying their successes in their entirity because they didn't immediately implement full communism, ignoring the sacking of the bourgeoise class in these countries and saying that capitalism is the only game in town and that our only alternative would be some totally different approach that just has never been tried yet, that these projects are "not actually socialism", is a form of capitalist realism. Please stop adopting chuds "socialism doesn't work" arguments. Of course socialism does work, there would have been no need for a Cold War if it wouldn't. If even the transitionary stage of socialism wasn't a massive, vital threat to capitalism, if communist revolutions would be as pointless in overcoming cpaitalism as you are stating, why would capital bother to fight tooth and nail against this?
Look, it's not really an own if you need to put words in my mouth to make your argument work. I didn't argue against anarchism at all, i was arguing for socialism, which you are dismissing in exactly the same way as some chud or neolib - by saying that there has never been a viable alternative to capitalism. But there has been, and there is.
You might not be intending it to be this way, but this is just a tired mindless attack, the same one your average chud makes against any form of communism. If your definition of valid forms of society includes only ones which have successfully overthrown capitalism in a modern state and stayed that way to the current day, then capitalism is the only valid way to arrange society.
deleted by creator
Are you really surprised that anarchist communities tend to be smaller in scale? My understanding of anarchist values would lead me to assume a smaller scale, less centralized existence. I think many anarchists would consider these positives.
deleted by creator
The argument your making is no better than the one made by bourgeois capitalists to "disprove" communism.
Just remember, we're fighting the same fight, and there's no reason existing communist countries and existing anarchist communities can't work together. Zapatistas seem to have figured out leftist unity.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Unions aren't a group, or an organization, or a movement. However you can look at who is organizing unions etc, and the presence of anarchists in organized labour is pretty much 0 in most European countries, unlike communists.
In the US, yeah, but generally many European countries had much more successful revolutionary groups than a relatively short lived movement with 8k members in a country of 300 million, and most of Europe is generally considered part of the imperial core.
Lots of anarchist groups had the same success the BPP had
Not really. Especially not in the US.
Where in Europe do you live? Because in most European countries in the 20th century it was marxist communists who had any kind of success at all ever, as opposed to anarchists, unless you take into account Catalonia which was before the war and had nothing to do with modern anarchy, in which case you'd also have to take into account all the partisans all over Europe, the communists in Spain, and the (failed) revolutions that happened.
I think most anarchists favor anarchism over marxism for ideological reasons, so using practicality-based arguments might not appeal to most anarchists.
I think there's room in the world for both, and perhaps each is more capable in certain places.
deleted by creator
Well, the way I see it is that the most effective method for achieving communism in China is marxism, and the most effective method for achieving communism in Chiapas is anarchism; both evidenced by the fact that their attempts to fight back against capitalism worked, and the rest of the world's attempts have failed. I think pretending there's gonna be one blueprint that's "the most effective" everywhere is naïve.
deleted by creator
Anarchism has a considerably stronger track record in Chiapas. Anarchism has a considerably stronger track record in Smangus. I don't understand this obsession with picking one global economic system.
deleted by creator
Smangus is a really cool indigenous, Christian anarchist community in Taiwan. I think Smangus is a great example for how we can fight against capitalism in other Christian communities; their movement toward anarchism was a spiritual one as much as an economic one.
deleted by creator
Their biggest industry is tourism. 🙂
deleted by creator
Nothing has ever seen long-term or large-scale success, if you uncharitably tweak the definitions of long-term and large-scale.
deleted by creator
Sorry, they haven't lasted long enough to be long-term, and they're not big enough to be large-scale.
I, too, can use meaningless filler terms with definitions only I know while insisting I'm arguing in good faith.
deleted by creator
You sound like Matthew Yglesias.
deleted by creator
It means your arguments sound like those made by bourgeois capitalists.
deleted by creator
😑
I said your argument sounded like bourgeois capitalist arguments, not that it was the same exact argument. It's called a simile. Obviously capitalists use the argument to defend capitalism, not communism. Have you never encountered a capitalist using the argument that capitalism is good because it brings people out of poverty (a term defined by capitalists)?
deleted by creator
For starters, the definition of poverty being used is $1.90 per day, which is obviously not a reasonable goal.
I'd also challenge the very idea of judging success based on measurements that are fundamentally at odds with anarchism, like how much money one has. Are people in Rojava materially better off than they were before Rojava? Yeah. Are people in Chiapas materially better off than they were before the Zapatistas? Yeah. The fact that China made people's lives materially better is the success, not raising them out of poverty.
deleted by creator
Poverty is a definition based on a monetary system. Communism (and anarchism) hope for a moneyless future. I don't think using capitalist-defined measures like poverty is a good method for assessing the health and growth of non-capitalist societies.
Plus, it's just such a small amount of money. Personally, I'm fighting for much more lofty goals than $1.90 per day.
There's been dozens of successful Marxist-Leninist revolutions. It took the US half a century of unparalleled economic, military, diplomatic and propagandistic efforts to wear these states down, states that without exception where undeveloped, impoverished, largely illiterate backwaters either suffering under despotic monarchs, a colonial extractive economy or both before the communists came along, and not only did most of them hold out against the biggest superpower in the world for decades while making substantial headway in improving material conditions, the yanqui swine still haven't succeeded in their effort against China, the DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam. There's good, valid criticisms from the left of all of these states and how far they've actually come in building AES, but denying their successes in their entirity because they didn't immediately implement full communism, ignoring the sacking of the bourgeoise class in these countries and saying that capitalism is the only game in town and that our only alternative would be some totally different approach that just has never been tried yet, that these projects are "not actually socialism", is a form of capitalist realism. Please stop adopting chuds "socialism doesn't work" arguments. Of course socialism does work, there would have been no need for a Cold War if it wouldn't. If even the transitionary stage of socialism wasn't a massive, vital threat to capitalism, if communist revolutions would be as pointless in overcoming cpaitalism as you are stating, why would capital bother to fight tooth and nail against this?
please take a step back and appreciate the irony
Look, it's not really an own if you need to put words in my mouth to make your argument work. I didn't argue against anarchism at all, i was arguing for socialism, which you are dismissing in exactly the same way as some chud or neolib - by saying that there has never been a viable alternative to capitalism. But there has been, and there is.
yes you did
no im not
i fully, unironically support the DPRK you fucking clown
take your disingenuous bullshit somewhere else. your arguments are chud-tier, your walls of text hurt my eyes.
Dude, wtf? Are you always like this?
impatient toward disingenuous sectarian bullshit by extremely online debate nerds? yes. thats a good thing.