What do you mean when you say we are on a “short timeline” for reaching statelessness and classless society? Such a society can only be achieved gradually through a long period of Socialism. Revolution is necessary, but afterwards we must build towards it.
Our capitalistic tendencies is our killing our planet. I’d estimate we have about 200 years to change or risk real extinction. I’m firmly in the anarchist camp but we don’t have the time to gradually fit a form we’re not naturally attributed to.
Climate change is addressible through Socialism, we don’t need to reach full statelessness and classless society to consider Climate Change conquered. Look to the PRC, which appears to be leading the charge in tackling Climate Change, it’s still Socialist and yet is making major strides.
I didn’t say we need communism now. I’m saying we need a strong cohesive collective to address most of our sociological problems. It would be a form or socialism by name.
You imply that we need strong and oppressive measures to get there. For the bourgeoisie, yes, but not for the proletariat. I think that’s a bit odd to come from a supposed Anarchist.
What do you mean when you say we are on a “short timeline” for reaching statelessness and classless society? Such a society can only be achieved gradually through a long period of Socialism. Revolution is necessary, but afterwards we must build towards it.
Our capitalistic tendencies is our killing our planet. I’d estimate we have about 200 years to change or risk real extinction. I’m firmly in the anarchist camp but we don’t have the time to gradually fit a form we’re not naturally attributed to.
Climate change is addressible through Socialism, we don’t need to reach full statelessness and classless society to consider Climate Change conquered. Look to the PRC, which appears to be leading the charge in tackling Climate Change, it’s still Socialist and yet is making major strides.
I didn’t say we need communism now. I’m saying we need a strong cohesive collective to address most of our sociological problems. It would be a form or socialism by name.
You imply that we need strong and oppressive measures to get there. For the bourgeoisie, yes, but not for the proletariat. I think that’s a bit odd to come from a supposed Anarchist.