Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally, anarchism is more about horizontal communalized production. They have different analysis of class and the state and thus Marxists take the position of historical materialists. To the contrary, communism absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally
quoting wiki:
A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
For me the result is among others anarchism (absence of state/money). Anarchism itself is probably not communism per se, but I consider it a part of “full communism”.
absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
I really would like that to be true, but I don’t see how…
As I said, we never had anything close to it, whereas we had/have something very close to pure capitalism (looking at you USA…), fairly stable (not a good thing, IMO, as we see especially currently with climate-change and growing inequality). Also for China: autocratic State-capitalism (mostly at least), probably better than whatever USA currently is, but still capitalism, and definitely not communism.
What I meant with “doesn’t fit in human nature” is basically described in https://lemmy.world/post/50376887/25196710
So yes for small-scale, very likely no at (especially) a global scale… The egoism and hunger of power of a few manipulative individuals will likely always prevent this unfortunately, also the “fear” of foreign stuff (like people/migrants), and the difference of global (natural) wealth, like fertile soil etc. I think having social contact with most people within such a society is almost a requirement (i.e. trusting individuals of the society), which is why I don’t see how we can achieve something like that globally, distrust and (often irrational) fear is probably the deal-breaker per se for that.
What Marxists consider to be the state and what anarchists consider to be the state are different, because both have different analysis of class. For anarchists, all hierarchy is inherently a class based distinction, but this isn’t the case for Marxists, ergo stateless society in Marxism has administration and vertical organization.
China is socialist. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the working classes control the state. It isn’t a fully collectivized society yet, but it’s on the road towards it.
Ultimately, you are applying criticisms more applicable to anarchism to Marxism, which isn’t really a developed reasoning against communism.
Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally, anarchism is more about horizontal communalized production. They have different analysis of class and the state and thus Marxists take the position of historical materialists. To the contrary, communism absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
quoting wiki:
For me the result is among others anarchism (absence of state/money). Anarchism itself is probably not communism per se, but I consider it a part of “full communism”.
I really would like that to be true, but I don’t see how… As I said, we never had anything close to it, whereas we had/have something very close to pure capitalism (looking at you USA…), fairly stable (not a good thing, IMO, as we see especially currently with climate-change and growing inequality). Also for China: autocratic State-capitalism (mostly at least), probably better than whatever USA currently is, but still capitalism, and definitely not communism.
What I meant with “doesn’t fit in human nature” is basically described in https://lemmy.world/post/50376887/25196710 So yes for small-scale, very likely no at (especially) a global scale… The egoism and hunger of power of a few manipulative individuals will likely always prevent this unfortunately, also the “fear” of foreign stuff (like people/migrants), and the difference of global (natural) wealth, like fertile soil etc. I think having social contact with most people within such a society is almost a requirement (i.e. trusting individuals of the society), which is why I don’t see how we can achieve something like that globally, distrust and (often irrational) fear is probably the deal-breaker per se for that.
What Marxists consider to be the state and what anarchists consider to be the state are different, because both have different analysis of class. For anarchists, all hierarchy is inherently a class based distinction, but this isn’t the case for Marxists, ergo stateless society in Marxism has administration and vertical organization.
China is socialist. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the working classes control the state. It isn’t a fully collectivized society yet, but it’s on the road towards it.
Ultimately, you are applying criticisms more applicable to anarchism to Marxism, which isn’t really a developed reasoning against communism.