You misspelled utopia. Not sure what reality you'd expect humans to create a stateless and classless "communism" outside the hippie commune out in the woods.

The comment you replied to even said "at a national scale." That's the rub, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well of course, there would be no nation ideally, so the concept of a national scale is a bit incompatible in a way, isn't it? As you pointed out in another comment, the existence of nations only threatens progress and equity! They can and do disrupt any such attempt. I mean, look what happened to the Spanish anarchists, and what the US has done every time a remotely leftist movement has taken hold in Latin America.

I don't agree with the Marxist-Leninists, but even for them the end goal is (at least in theory) to advance to statelessness and classlessness. We anarchists don't agree that such a thing can be achieved via a state. A state will never offload its power. Its whole shtick is coercion and control, and it will hold onto that at all costs.

utopia

Very few anarchists would use this term. The concept of a utopia is rather antithetical to anarchism, by most people's assessment. "Utopia" implies a perfect society with no room to progress. I doubt such a thing is possible, and I think it might be rather harmful to imagine we've arrived at perfection. It would stifle progress, now wouldn't it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well I won't fault you for being an optimist.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Every great movement in history was started by optimists ;)

But hey, calling the anarchist an "optimist" is progress in itself! "Optimist" wasn't the word they used for people like Emma Goldman.