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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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
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
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator