Cut to that one flat earther that spent 20 years building his own legitimate space-grade rocket, only to ultimately blow himself up on the maiden voyage.
You’re pretty much correct, though the rocket launch was certified by the FAA, as shooting something of that caliber isn’t taken lightly, so it seems like they thought that he “might” make it lol
This also applies to any other ambitious projects like intercontinental railway, nuclear power plant, hydropower plant, a cargo ship, a big airplane, roads, airports and most of technical civilization actually. How anarchism can be taken seriously? Oh, there is also a cancer version of it, ancap
We are not arguing about what is subjectively valuable according to some people. These things are materially necessary for our society to function. It doesn't matter what someone says is important or not. What matters is the material reality of the situation.
Just hop on top of your roof, shove grandma into a shopping cart, get the propane tanks lit beneath her and get ready for Blast off! Oh, and give her a helmet and goggles. Safety first😉
There is such a severe misunderstanding of anarchism among socialists that not even self described anarchists know what anarchism is.
I’ve always been under the impression that the difference between Marxists and anarchists was in the need for a transitory dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent reaction. Any issues an anarchist’s ideology would face besides reaction are issues Marxists will have to deal with anyways if they’re successful.
I don't think there is that much widespread misunderstanding of anarchism among Marxists. The differences aren't just in the tactics to achieve communism but are fundamental philosophical differences that are present at the very root of each movement. Anarchism is fundamentally an individualistic and idealistic ideology that is incompatible with dialectical materialist Marxism.
I don’t think that Bakunin is representative of most anarchist’s beliefs these days. Many of them would definitely be willing to push for reforms in bourgeoisie states to amass more worker power as a secondary tactic, a distinctly more Marx opinion than Bakunin.
I’m also going to commit a grievous sin, and say that Stalin is wrong in the exact same way a libertarian would be in that text. The individual and the mass have the exact same interests, the same character, as masses are made entirely of individuals. More recent schools of anarchism even emphasize this, with anarchists insisting that appreciation for and the liberation of the masses is essential to the liberation of the individual, that both struggles are truly identical. “For the masses” and “for the individual” are not irreconciliable, and if they were, it would imply that liberation of the mass hurts individuals… something that is blatantly untrue. Stalin‘s one and only mistake in that text is to assume that the two principles he listed are valid, and actually mean anything different from one another. Starting from an (understandably) faulty premise, Stalin is incapable of coming to a correct conclusion except through coincidence.
I say understandable, because with a quick skimming of the text, it seems that Stalin is fundamentally arguing against the faulty conclusions that anarchists drew from their own ideology at the time. I am convinced that Anarchism’s true flaws lie in contradictions with itself, flaws that would reveal an entirely different philosophy (possibly Marxism, true) if analyzed and reconciled.
And, finally, the post we’re literally talking on shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism. How is it some kind of own that an anarchist doesn’t have a solid plan for space travel? Why is it presumed that everyone should want to have a solid plan for space travel? Why is our desire for space travel seen as automatically more valid than a desire to just exist without oppression? Arguing that anarchists couldn’t achieve space travel doesn’t dismiss or debunk their beliefs, quite the contrary, our belief that it can highlights that we have a fundamentally maladjusted view of anarchism.
"Transitory dictatorship" is left pretty vague by Marx. But what he is talking about class dictatorship, not dictatorship in the literal sense of one person in a country having unlimited political authority. There are so so many anarchists and liberals that do not understand this because they continue to conflate the word "dictator" in the way Marx meant with how Western capitalist states weaponize the word.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is seen as a law within Marxism the same way there are laws within other scientific fields. It's the acknowledgement and observation that after political power is seized by the working class, class relations do not automatically just disappear. The working class will need to sustain and protect the revolution until those class relations from the previous mode of production wither away over generations. History has shown us this since the beginning.
A centralized vanguard party is Lenin's well-tested contribution to Marxist theory on how to achieve and protect a socialist revolution under seige by imperialism. But that doesn't exclude the possibilities of other tactics in the future.