I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to ‘achieve anarchism’.
I don’t need to.
It’s ya’ll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
…
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described ‘Communist’ states/societies haven’t ever really come close to Marx’s utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial ‘end’ of Communism…
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation…
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc… these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
…
And those’re pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into… well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them…
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant… and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
…
I don’t have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of … assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because… that isn’t really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
…
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists… hold please, will update with source.
This person’s works also include Burn the Bread Book, an anti-Anarcho-Communist screed in which they advocate for the end of civilization, and return to each person producing all their own food, an idea that is openly ecofascist and would kill billions, first and foremost a large number of disabled and chronically ill people.
I think you should carefully consider where your ideas are coming from.
but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin’s conception/phrasing of “socialism” as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable “communism”.
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism… what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don’t think perhaps it was the word “utopian,” a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for ‘left-unity’… is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a ‘left-unity’ broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
You’ve been talking down to me this entire time and you claim to have degrees in both economics and political science, and you’re now complaining that I’m being elitist for pointing out that you’re not actually familiar with my ideology in any depth?
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don’t spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
Ah yes, the evidence of history. Like all the successful anarchist revolutions?
I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to ‘achieve anarchism’.
I don’t need to.
It’s ya’ll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
…
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described ‘Communist’ states/societies haven’t ever really come close to Marx’s utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial ‘end’ of Communism…
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation…
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc… these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
…
And those’re pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into… well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them…
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant… and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
…
I don’t have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of … assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because… that isn’t really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
…
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists… hold please, will update with source.
EDIT:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam
There it is!
No sense in me retyping all of this myself.
EDIT 2:
Or maybe its this one:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-always-against-the-tanks/
This person’s works also include Burn the Bread Book, an anti-Anarcho-Communist screed in which they advocate for the end of civilization, and return to each person producing all their own food, an idea that is openly ecofascist and would kill billions, first and foremost a large number of disabled and chronically ill people.
I think you should carefully consider where your ideas are coming from.
People can can have some ideas or writings that are good, and some ideas or writings that are bad.
Other people can use their own brains to pick through those ideas on their own and formulate their own worldviews.
Which other genocidal anti-communist, anti-anarchist authors do you suggest have “some good ideas?”
Tell me you don’t understand Marx without telling me you don’t understand Marx
Edit: LMFAO YOU CITED ZIQ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin’s conception/phrasing of “socialism” as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable “communism”.
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism… what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don’t think perhaps it was the word “utopian,” a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
(Which anyone with a decent understanding of Marx would know, and therefore avoid using the word in a description of Marxist goals.)
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for ‘left-unity’… is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a ‘left-unity’ broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
So you also don’t know what “esoteric” means? Interesting.
-an anarchist btw
You’ve been talking down to me this entire time and you claim to have degrees in both economics and political science, and you’re now complaining that I’m being elitist for pointing out that you’re not actually familiar with my ideology in any depth?
I would expect someone trying to criticize something to have the most basic familiarity with it, yes.
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don’t spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
Two faced dishonest hypocrite.
Note: this isn’t an ad hominem because I’m not trying to dismiss an idea here, just point out that you’re a contemptible person