That’s part of it, yea. The next mode of production is built on the foundations of the existing mode of production, this has happened every time a change in mode of production has occured. The modern era of mass manufacturing has built the bedrock of socialism, of a coordinated and collectivized system of production and distribution with the working classes on top of society.
Anarchism has no such basis in modern society, and every time it has been attempted it has either been extremely small, extremely short-lived, or both. We cannot simply build a society by imagining it, we have to examine historical trajectory. This is what turned socialism from utopian to scientific, and enabled the establishment of long-lasting socialist states that dramatically improved the world.
I don’t really think you can, my problems with anarchism are multi-layered and comprehensive, not something simple to be summarized into a single line. I’ve given more than enough to work off of if you want a discussion on that, I feel.
Anarchists necessarily reject historical materialism. There is no basis for anarchism as it arises from capitalism, as I explained earlier. When I say scientific socialism, I do not merely mean a scientific case for socialism. That’s why I linked the articles for terms, so that I can be more clear in my point without having to explain what I mean by each line.
That’s part of it, yea. The next mode of production is built on the foundations of the existing mode of production, this has happened every time a change in mode of production has occured. The modern era of mass manufacturing has built the bedrock of socialism, of a coordinated and collectivized system of production and distribution with the working classes on top of society.
Anarchism has no such basis in modern society, and every time it has been attempted it has either been extremely small, extremely short-lived, or both. We cannot simply build a society by imagining it, we have to examine historical trajectory. This is what turned socialism from utopian to scientific, and enabled the establishment of long-lasting socialist states that dramatically improved the world.
I’m trying to summarize your primary criticism into one line here.
I don’t really think you can, my problems with anarchism are multi-layered and comprehensive, not something simple to be summarized into a single line. I’ve given more than enough to work off of if you want a discussion on that, I feel.
I’m not trying to unravel your entire outlook, just respond to your best argument. Is there one you’d put at top?
To put it in the simplest terms possible, and in a single sentence:
Anarchists reject historical materialism, and this rejection leads anarchists to idealist analysis that manifests in the form of utopianism, whereas Marxist advancements in philosophy led to the development of dialectical materialism and its application forming the aforementioned historical materialism and modern scientific socialism.
…Anarchists don’t reject historical materialism? Historical/scientific cases for anarchism exist.
Anarchists necessarily reject historical materialism. There is no basis for anarchism as it arises from capitalism, as I explained earlier. When I say scientific socialism, I do not merely mean a scientific case for socialism. That’s why I linked the articles for terms, so that I can be more clear in my point without having to explain what I mean by each line.
From a communist standpoint, sure.
Elaborate, my standpoint is generally the communist standpoint, with the communist critique. Can you refute my point?