That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
I’d agree that idealistic (vs “idealism”) would be more accurate.
As for the bit on historical progression, it was a simplification. Russia was semi-feudal when it became socialist, China and Vietnam were colonized agrarian countries, Cuba was essentially a plantation, etc. Progression in modes of production isn’t so much a strict order but instead a natural progression, and moreover the point is that the driving factor behind their development has been class struggle and evolution in technology changing how we live, produce, and distribute.
That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
I’d agree that idealistic (vs “idealism”) would be more accurate.
As for the bit on historical progression, it was a simplification. Russia was semi-feudal when it became socialist, China and Vietnam were colonized agrarian countries, Cuba was essentially a plantation, etc. Progression in modes of production isn’t so much a strict order but instead a natural progression, and moreover the point is that the driving factor behind their development has been class struggle and evolution in technology changing how we live, produce, and distribute.