The main problem with that debate is that (well read) anarchists and MLs have a very different definition of success so i try to bail any of those debates as soon as i can, since i'm not here to push an agenda and it's completely unproductive.
I was under the impression that at least in the US / western imperial core, MLs and anarchists have relatively similar definition of success. What makes you think otherwise? If you're referring to colonized nations though I agree.
MLs and anarchists in the core are functionally identical right now. The only real criticism you can have is organizing style. Even then that's different from group to group regardless of "tendency". There's no reason to not work together.
Maybe IRL it's that way, i was referring to this site specifically since i'm not from the imperial core and don't experience sectarian bs irl that goes above the level of well meaning shitposts.
On this site though there are debates every week about whether anarchists ever saw success mainly started by MLs who point at the USSR as a successful ML revolution. Which is fine, even though the USSR isn't around anymore since it took over the state. On their terms this is a success and i accept that. But anarchists are looking to do away with the state right away, so they will view that as the standard of success. And on that scale for example Catalonia was a success since they ditched the government (and them reformed it, which is a heavy critique against them). Makhnovist Ukraine was a success since they abolished governments. And even squats like Exarchia or the ones in Barcelona are success since they create bubbles of autonomy where the state has no say. So both sides have their successes and projecting one's terms onto the other movement is useless, making a "my revolution lasted longer" thing out of it is basically a dick measuring contest.
Again, i meant specifically this site cause i don't know how it goes there irl.
The main problem with that debate is that (well read) anarchists and MLs have a very different definition of success so i try to bail any of those debates as soon as i can, since i'm not here to push an agenda and it's completely unproductive.
I was under the impression that at least in the US / western imperial core, MLs and anarchists have relatively similar definition of success. What makes you think otherwise? If you're referring to colonized nations though I agree.
MLs and anarchists in the core are functionally identical right now. The only real criticism you can have is organizing style. Even then that's different from group to group regardless of "tendency". There's no reason to not work together.
Yeah totally.
exactly. can't believe it needs to be said.
Maybe IRL it's that way, i was referring to this site specifically since i'm not from the imperial core and don't experience sectarian bs irl that goes above the level of well meaning shitposts.
On this site though there are debates every week about whether anarchists ever saw success mainly started by MLs who point at the USSR as a successful ML revolution. Which is fine, even though the USSR isn't around anymore since it took over the state. On their terms this is a success and i accept that. But anarchists are looking to do away with the state right away, so they will view that as the standard of success. And on that scale for example Catalonia was a success since they ditched the government (and them reformed it, which is a heavy critique against them). Makhnovist Ukraine was a success since they abolished governments. And even squats like Exarchia or the ones in Barcelona are success since they create bubbles of autonomy where the state has no say. So both sides have their successes and projecting one's terms onto the other movement is useless, making a "my revolution lasted longer" thing out of it is basically a dick measuring contest.
Again, i meant specifically this site cause i don't know how it goes there irl.