To date, nobody has shown a more effective approach to organizing that I’m aware of. All the successful movements follow roughly the same formula. The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century, so there’s no reason to think that methods of organization need to drastically change as well. Just look at MAS in Bolivia as a very recent example.
Is your definition of success the establishment of a socialist state? Because anarchists are never going to do that.
My definition is the ability to defend the revolution and prevent a counter revolution. Marxists have been able to do this, but Anarchists have not. Incidentally, Zapatistas have actually started creating more central system now as well. Anarchists are free to demonstrate a working alternative to that though.
You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.
You can’t actually address what I said without making a straw man can you?
All of the examples I listed should meet your definition of success, right?
You said:
The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century, so there’s no reason to think that methods of organization need to drastically change as well.
I said:
You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.
How is that a straw man? It’s literally what you said.
The examples you listed are either small scale, unable to challenge the overarching capitalist system they exist in, or they no longer exist at all. If you consider that a success then I really don’t know what else to say.
How is that a straw man? It’s literally what you said.
It’s literally not what I said. What I actually said is that the nature of human relations did not fundamentally change in the past century, not that there haven’t been any changes. If you claim there has been some fundamental change in society, that would invalidate ML approach to organization, then do articulate what you think that was.
To date, nobody has shown a more effective approach to organizing that I’m aware of. All the successful movements follow roughly the same formula. The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century, so there’s no reason to think that methods of organization need to drastically change as well. Just look at MAS in Bolivia as a very recent example.
Makhnovshchina, CNT, Rojava, Zapatistas…
Is your definition of success the establishment of a socialist state? Because anarchists are never going to do that.
You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.
My definition is the ability to defend the revolution and prevent a counter revolution. Marxists have been able to do this, but Anarchists have not. Incidentally, Zapatistas have actually started creating more central system now as well. Anarchists are free to demonstrate a working alternative to that though.
You can’t actually address what I said without making a straw man can you?
All of the examples I listed should meet your definition of success, right?
You said:
I said:
How is that a straw man? It’s literally what you said.
The examples you listed are either small scale, unable to challenge the overarching capitalist system they exist in, or they no longer exist at all. If you consider that a success then I really don’t know what else to say.
It’s literally not what I said. What I actually said is that the nature of human relations did not fundamentally change in the past century, not that there haven’t been any changes. If you claim there has been some fundamental change in society, that would invalidate ML approach to organization, then do articulate what you think that was.