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.
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.
I like to think of global conflict as being world people vs world governments/elites. The govs and elites just frame global conflict as being country x vs country y to divide and conquer.
Straight outta 1984, where the world is kept in perpetual world war and nobody remembers why they’re at war. Orwell writes that war is the best business (arms) because the product is destroyed instantly. War is just another way the elites suck wealth from the citizens, whose taxes involuntarily fund it.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
That thought terminating cliche doesn’t even make sense in this context
Removed by mod
I like to think of global conflict as being world people vs world governments/elites. The govs and elites just frame global conflict as being country x vs country y to divide and conquer.
Straight outta 1984, where the world is kept in perpetual world war and nobody remembers why they’re at war. Orwell writes that war is the best business (arms) because the product is destroyed instantly. War is just another way the elites suck wealth from the citizens, whose taxes involuntarily fund it.
World elites = empire of usa
World people = everyone else