this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
31 points (60.3% liked)
Memes
52156 readers
908 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is the end goal of communists, but you can’t really have a stateless society until all or nearly all countries are socialist unless you’re going the anarchist route.
There’s some historical examples where that may have been the case but that’s not some universal constant that can’t be changed.
Fundamentally they both want the same thing in the end so disagreements on how you get there can be resolved. If 2 different areas/groups try 2 different paths there’s no reason they can’t work together where mutually beneficial.
Would people have to get over being too overly dogmatic about their way? Yes and that may be difficult but not impossible.
I don't think that is entirely true. Marxist and Anarchist have different analyses and therefore come to different conclusions.
Yeah if you’re getting very into the weeds on it Is there some minor difference between how that classless/stateless society operates?
Sure but most of the difference in analysis and conclusions is on how to arrive at the classless/stateless society.
The differences between the vision of classless/stateless societies communists and anarchists have is minor compared to pretty much any other broad 2 political ideologies have as what visions of the perfect society is.
Pretty major differences in structure, anarchism posits full horizontalism while Marxism posits full collectivization. We both take in many ways opposite solutions to the same fundamental problem of capitalism, based on different analysis. We still can collaborate and work together, but at some point there does exist irreconcilable distinctions, and the clearer we make those for everyone the more productive the conversations around each can be had.
Cuba has sent doctors and other medical support to countries of many different ideologies. They would 100% assist an anarchist group if asked and it’s something they could provide.
Currently China and Vietnam are both willing to trade with countries of any ideology.
You’re latching on to a couple examples in the past and saying nothing else can happen besides that. If that’s going to be the extent of your argument no point in continuing this since there’s nothing left to talk about then.
That thought terminating cliche doesn't even make sense in this context
Are you just going down a list of rote lines?
You're not even trying to have a conversation though, for that you'd actually have to read what people say, rather than just going down the list of pre-prepared thought terminating cliches.
What's the next rote line on your list?
Keep going
Most Marxists do not "love" Stalin. We understand his role as the first long-term leader of the world's first long-term socialist state, appreciate his synthesizing of Marxism and Leninism into Marxism-Leninism, and uphold him as a genuine Marxist that, while not free from sin, absolutely has been systematically demonized by the west in a manner that distorts reality and erases the far worse nature of his contemporaries, such as Churchill. Mao famously gave him a final "score" of 70% good, 30% bad, a "score" that is generally orbited around by the various Marxist-Leninist orgs worldwide.
Demystifying Stalin
[8 min]
[6 min]
[30 min]
[16 min]
[42 min]
[38 min]
[9 min]
[5 hr 51 min]
[5 hr 25 min]
Stalin's Major Theoretical Contributions to Marxism
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
History of the CPSU (B)
The Foundations of Leninism
Marxism and the National Question
Rejecting any and all comparative analysis in favor of a simplistic "countries bad" stance is just a willing desire to cede decisionmaking to the status quo, recusing yourself of any genuine input or responsibility. The truth is that Churchill, Jefferson, and Washington are all whitewashed by bourgeois historians despite being far worse than Stalin and Mao.
I'll defend good actions and condemn bad ones. Defeating the Nazis? Very good. Doubling life expectancies? Very good. Tripling literacy rates, providing free, high quality healthcare, affordable housing, rapid economic development? Very good. Re-criminalizing homosexuality? Very bad.
It's incredibly easy to just say "everything is bad and I support nothing," but that just cedes all input to others.
This is basically eco-fascism. You get that, right? Not only is it wrong, but it's a vapid statement that again cedes all agency.
So open eco-fascism, got it. You do have agency, you can join an org and try to contribute to building a better world, but instead you just say everyone is evil and all deserve to die. It's nonsense.
The struggle is neither easy nor impossible, but merely very difficult. We aren't Sisyphus, the world is changing, and we can make a difference. Eco-fascism is the wrong answer.
it's a surprise anyone could take in any sort of information with a mind that tightly closed.