Ever since I got into leftism, I haven't really decided what specifical tendency I identify with, more specifically in this case, marxism or anarchism. You might say then that I'm just a reformist. And for the longest time, I did consider myself to be a reformist, but I've become pretty dissilusioned with reformism, and began thinking that a revolution is probably the most realistic chance we have to achieve socialism.
Anyway, now I'm uncertain which would be a better way of achieving socialism. Because I see the arguments of both sides. For marxism, yes it may be necessary to have a state for a certain period of time, but I think most people will agree that the longer a DotP stays a DotP, the more chances it has of reverting back to capitalism.
And for anarchism, same thing. Just destroying the state as is is probably not the best way to go. And if you thought historical example of socialism were in danger because of being surrounded by capitalist states, then imagine how vulnerable stateless societies would be.
I suppose you could say that, but personally I've actually gotten some pretty nice responses here (amidst all the bullshit ofc)
David Barnes
So what? Almost everyone here is misrepresenting things and forgetting important shit that is present in all the original political pamphlets. How do you know someone's not bullshitting unless you know the context? Just go to the source and read a book.
Alexander Ward
Read Posadas
Evan Hall
What makes you think this? Is "I think most people will agree" the only reason?
Jayden Turner
The lit is free and easy to find, I suggest you read to make up your mind. Your problems seem a little too general to give a satisfactory response.
Absolutely undialectical The current movement which abolishes the current state of affairs, and so on.
Luis Powell
Late response, but looking at history will pretty much give you the answer. For example, most MLs agree the USSR became revisionist in 1953, when Kruschev came to power. That's 31 years after the creation of the SU. And it only got worse as time went by
Jeremiah Walker
Don't tie yourself down with ideology. Be flexible and adapt to the current situation. Ideological purity can hinder our efforts.
Jacob Harris
That' what I've been doing for pretty much ever since I got into politics. I consider myself pretty non sectarian, bjt still thought I'd ask
Parker Diaz
read State and Revolution and draw your own conclusions. I think his analysis of the state holds up and basically accounts for the collapse.
Ethan Nelson
Google Bookchin
Justin Green
Being a non ML state socialist is suffering
Stalin a shit
Bentley Perry
yeah your special snowflake ideology is gonna grip the minds of the masses.
Lincoln Bell
You don't have the numbers, you don't have the guns and you don't have the minds of average people. Get this out of your head.
Have you met a Stalinist who claimed to be anti-Democratic?
William Hernandez
Read Bordiga then tell all those opportunists to get screwed
Juan Lopez
admit it you haven't even read cockshott
Hunter Baker
Yes, you need to have Socialist state for it to become Revisionist.
How did you get to conclusion that not having Socialist state is a solution?
It's 1956 and I doubt you should use the term "ML" to refer to those who support "great man theory" and deal with exact dates when it comes to such things.
Gavin Watson
You do realise "Stalinism" is a strawman nobody actually argued for?
Adam Allen
Lol, anarchism isn't leftism. Nothing even close to it. I think there's been this misunderstanding ever since the Bush administration. True anarchism (as opposed to minarchism) is the elimination of the state ENTIRELY. The left is promoting the opposite. They want to expand the government. I haven't seen many true anarchist in years, now days "anarchist" are just a bunch of soyboy punks using it for the identity.
It really doesn't matter what year it was ok? That's irrelevant. My point still stands
Jason Thompson
You are retarded
Cameron Williams
What point? If you don't have Revolution, it cannot be resisted?
Charles Ortiz
That the loger a DotP goes on for, the more chances it has of becoming corrupted. Look, I know material conditions will affect how long a DotP needs to be, but history will give you the answer on this one. Things become stagnant after no progress for so long and then achieving communism isn't even a goal at that point
Thomas Thompson
thing is that there wasn't a sudden entry of revisionism into the party just because Stalin died. and event taking 1956 as the end of socialism and the final takeover by revisionism is a very odd thing to do. i don't know how to explain this but the struggle against revisionism is a constant development and it declaring its victory by smearing the latest antirevisionist leader in this struggle just doesn't make it so either. the problem wasn't that Stalin died but that nobody took up this fight after him persistent enough and let the party be purged of MLs in the years later.
Sebastian Fisher
What answer? You are not making any sense.
What is your point? Have Capitalism until we spontaneously transition to Communism?
Cooper Watson
Since your reading comprehension is so awful, I suggest you stop attempting to refute my argument
