I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here. The Anarchist conception of Communism and the Marxist conception are similar sounding, but fundamentally entirely different. This is due to Anarchists seeking to abolish hierarchy, while Marxists seek to abolish class. What does that look like?
For Anarchists, this path generally takes the form of a horizontalist network of communes, or other such unit. Communes have equal ownership within themselves, and trade with other communes via systems of Mutual Aid. The general Marxist critique is that this turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie, all interested in the success of their own commune over the entire system the way a Capitalist is more interested in their own profits than those in their supply chain, even if they depend on each other. This can lead to inefficiency and a resurgence of Capitalism.
For Marxists, this path takes the form of collectivizing all industry into full public ownership and planning in a global republic. This requires administration, government, etc, though many of these functions become less necessary when moving beyond class society. The Anarchist critique is that this retains hierarchy.
So, in a way, Marxism is the only path to what Marxists describe as Communism, and is absolutely not a path to Anarchism.
Except countries that have existing socialism aren’t doing that. In fact, China very openly says that their system is a product of their history, culture, and material conditions. Unlike western libs, they’re not trying to franchise and remodel other countries into their own image. Neither does Cuba or Vietnam last I checked.
This is also why the CPC names their system Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. They want a multi-polar world, where hundreds of different socialisms can bloom on their own without fear of intervention, and especially being attacked by the US:
“Socialism with [insert any country here] characteristics”
Would be pretty wonderful, they could be as far along as the PRC, but in the western hemisphere. The US could never tolerate the threat of a good example so close to its borders though of course.
China is only looking for military solutions to expsnd their systen where it is not a product of history : Taiwan, Philippines, bits of India, entire Tibet … scratch that. Tibet is already a product of Chinese “… history, culture, and material conditions.”
Should I make one of these that has all the Auth left countries telling the free thinker that “this is the only way to communism”?
I think there’s a bit of a disconnect here. The Anarchist conception of Communism and the Marxist conception are similar sounding, but fundamentally entirely different. This is due to Anarchists seeking to abolish hierarchy, while Marxists seek to abolish class. What does that look like?
For Anarchists, this path generally takes the form of a horizontalist network of communes, or other such unit. Communes have equal ownership within themselves, and trade with other communes via systems of Mutual Aid. The general Marxist critique is that this turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie, all interested in the success of their own commune over the entire system the way a Capitalist is more interested in their own profits than those in their supply chain, even if they depend on each other. This can lead to inefficiency and a resurgence of Capitalism.
For Marxists, this path takes the form of collectivizing all industry into full public ownership and planning in a global republic. This requires administration, government, etc, though many of these functions become less necessary when moving beyond class society. The Anarchist critique is that this retains hierarchy.
So, in a way, Marxism is the only path to what Marxists describe as Communism, and is absolutely not a path to Anarchism.
Just one more Paris Commune bro. It’ll work this time I swear.
Hot take: I do think Communard sounds cooler than Communist, so the Paris Commune does have that going for them at least.
Except countries that have existing socialism aren’t doing that. In fact, China very openly says that their system is a product of their history, culture, and material conditions. Unlike western libs, they’re not trying to franchise and remodel other countries into their own image. Neither does Cuba or Vietnam last I checked.
This is also why the CPC names their system Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. They want a multi-polar world, where hundreds of different socialisms can bloom on their own without fear of intervention, and especially being attacked by the US:
“Socialism with [insert any country here] characteristics”
Can you imagine a Cuba without the embargo?
Would be pretty wonderful, they could be as far along as the PRC, but in the western hemisphere. The US could never tolerate the threat of a good example so close to its borders though of course.
They already have to deal with Cuban healthcare and doctors.
China is only looking for military solutions to expsnd their systen where it is not a product of history : Taiwan, Philippines, bits of India, entire Tibet … scratch that. Tibet is already a product of Chinese “… history, culture, and material conditions.”
🤡