Why do people seem to accept no middle ground between Marxism-Leninism and total anarchism?

aren't things like communalism exactly that - middle ground between ML and anarchism?

name one time marxism was successful in implementing socialism

pro tip: you cant

name one time anarchists didnt implement
socialism

pro tip: you cant

um, isn't that called Luxemburgism?

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

Name one time anarchists fought an entire continent and won

Because ML partys have the most membership and anarchists do rioting, squatting, food not bombs, and other shit.

MLs established social democracy before collapsing into capitalist states. Hardly a success story.

...

...

...

Catalonia
Ukraine
Occupy Wall Street
Greece
Baltimore, Seattle, Austin, other various trendy burger hipsters
the hippies
the punk movement

literally any time there have been large numbers of nominal anarchists, there has not been socialism.

and I repeat myself, pic related
If you think politics is as simple as "preggers vs not preggers", go back to Reddit

Yes two territories that fell in civil wars were unable to permanantly abolish wage labor. What's next, the recignition that socialism can't exist in small territories while the world is capitalist?

Out of those only Greece has militant anarchists in any decent numbers, with the rest being at best tangentially related to anarchism. Stop beating around and make your point about Anarchism and ML, I look forward to hearing you shill for social democracy.

This is exactly how I feel; I think anarchism is utopian (even Bookchin communalism is for a place like the US imo) and I think ML/Trot is a bunch of authoritarian garbage.

At the same time I also dislike milquetoast succdems…

I feel terribly lonely as a marxist who wants market socialism/demconfed as a transitional period.

I want a non authoritative state. The state has to be there to fill the void authoritarians will try to fill.

alright, so name me the anarchists that did achieve socialism.
I was trying to make a long list for your sake, but it's not my fault that there've been two significant anarchist movements ever.

I hope you feel lonely because that's absolutely retarded.

Socialism hasn't been achieved by anyone yet. A few territories or some sovdem states aren't socialism. Go on now, tell us about the wonders of social democracy.

you're the one who brought up socdem. I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but there are more positions in the world than "anarchist" "tankie" and "socdem". Get over yourself.

And you've been unable to do anything but cry about muh anarkiddies and muh tankies. So tell us about your "hierarchy with democracy" instead of whining like a bitch because others get more attention than your snowflake ideology.

fam

participatory democracy.

So.. socdem? Maybe you'd prefer ""radical"" socdem.

Come on, dude.

"everything I don't like is socdem"

Be Tito.

The world did not have to be this way.

True democracy isn't a hierarchy.

yeah okay, anarchist.

...

That's an odd definition of democracy since democracy is literally the enforcement of the dictatorship of the majority.

I don't think you understand what kind of society communism would be. It would be the reciprocal participation in production under free association.

How about you fucking read Marx?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

yeah Marx isn't the fucking messiah.

ofc not, but he still had alot of important contributions which current leftists are ignorant of. Marx is more like one of the starting points, but you cant run unless you walk first

Lesser Evilism in a nutshell

Bad way of showing any type of alternative or even in betweenism. Tito(ism) and Yugoslavia were literally just alt-Stalinism with western European neutrality:
And then there's the fact that any serious look at the mode of production reveals that it was also just like the USSR: capitalism with heavy state mediation.

This text fully shows, with a huge amount of evidence and sources, just how insane it all was: insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/.

democracy is just vote counting. libtards bawwing about muh lawful state try to replace democracy with some sort of bureaucratic blob of institutions

this. Democracy =! the state. Hierarchy =! the state. You can have either or both without forming a state. Anarcho-shits are more than free to go form their formless, atomic, impotent communities all they want but they don't get to lay exclusive claim to the concept of democracy.

how about you fuck off you troglodyte

So something both Anarchists and MLs claim to want is your grand alternative to Anarchism and ML. Can't say I expected better.

ok

...

Well that's the tricky bit, uniting the tribes.

Calling them "tribes" implies that there are merely superficial differences between the ideological groups. In reality they have fundamentally different, contradictory positions most importantly on revolutionary strategy.

And one tribe had a superior culture than the others. Doesn't stop them all from thinking they are the superior one.

Truth of the matter is, they either kill each other till there's only one standing, or unite to kill the actual enemy. Either way, there'll be only one culture/ideology left, but the latter is the better option in literally all regards, but again, the tricky bit is how to do it.

We still have it you know? Thats why trade unions stand behind us in the first place.

Ok, well as far as I can see there can only be two paths to communism either "total anarchism" or Marxism-Leninism. Plausibly, you could argue that perhaps leftcom theory could lead to communism but only in an advanced country where the law of value could be abolished immediately theoretically at least but the shitty praxis of leftcoms makes that not even worth considering.

So there are really only two choices unless you're not going in for changing the system entirely but striving for the social democratic third way.

is OP talking about minarchism? Why isn't left minarchism a thing?

The actual left has been marginalized from mainstream society for so long that more compromising, libertarian-socialist forms of theory and organization aren't well explored or fleshed out. The majority of hardcore, organized leftists remain either theory-ignorant anarchists or USSR-circlejerking M-Ls, which is why their voices are still regularly heard even though most people don't fully agree with them.

hmmmmm