if one of the end goals of communism is too reach a stateless society, what’s the point in doing so if you guys don’t think it would be able to defend itself?

who said they thought a communist society* couldn’t defend itself

in any capacity whatsoever

Anarcho-monarchist-Trotskyism-Will Ferell Thought never killed anybody!!!!!!

I think we ought to since there is a better system than any of the ones employed today. Communism has positive aspects but is too biased towards the group rather than the individual. Capitalism has the opposite problem. The only way to create the system which is able to maximize group and individual ends is relentlessly critiquing all of those that do not, and making changes based on those criticisms.
The technological revolution will hopefully be key. As more people no longer work due to automation, there will be a fundamental change in political thought and people's desires. Unfortunately I think we'll live through the transition period, but I also thinkif we survive as a race, climate change and automation will force us to develop better forms of societal organization

arcade goon is making the argument that failed anarchist societies would have lasted longer if they had a state to defend itself with.

Read books
Not everyone has be energy to give ppl information unfortunately

i’m asking because I don’t believe it is and I want to hear your reasoning.

-will ferrell

Because right now the world is filled with capitalists and bandits who will do their best to destroy your new society

Once full communism will be achieved those societies will be able to function so well sabotage and outside threats well be countered effectively

It takes time to build such a society.

Anarchists believe you can build it within weeks or months, goofy s***.

Need I remind you of CHAZ

Once there is socialism in every state then the transition can happen

Once everyone's needs are met

Anarchist/Anarchism-influenced societies do have non-hierarchial forces and they have survived well, look at the EZLN and Rojava.

Even anarchists have also recognized the vulnerability when it comes to going against the big state, thus recommending asymmetrical insurgent tactics to defend itself

Rojava is not anarchist neither is ELZN, stop it

how would they be countered effectively?

There are literal US military bases in Rojava and this dude is calling them anarchists

I’ve never seen anarchists say you can build the society that quick on a large-scale

So what happens in those few months? The capitalists say "OK dude you get a headstart but we finna beef once you ready"?

first of all idek why u doin this with your username of all things,

second, if you’re waiting for the USSR to be explained to fit in with whatever your ideal socialism is, it’s not. the world of 1920s-and on into the 20th century does not match what it is today. what happened in history and what was needed then is different than what is necessary now in 2021.

Although many of the same issues are a problem across the world. An explanation about Soviet Russia that would be what you want to hear isn’t going to happen. I think you know this. Because as soon as someone explains it to you, you’re going to say, that’s not socialist. that’s not socialist enough. too much state involved. too much violence.

unfortunately if you have read history before you’re aware we live in a violent world

Human thought is advancing at a faster rate than ever before, it's not unreasonable to think there's better options than the ones based in 17/18/19th century thought especially given the change in societal conditions around the world (automation, climate change, space travel soon)

Dawg. You think automation isnt a part of Marxism? Even Marx himself wrote about automation while he was alive.

Capitalism still functions mostly the same. The biggest difference is that the gold standard exists. Everything else is practically the same way as 150 years ago. Do the education dawg.

New challenges are still happening but the system is the same

And people update Marxism all the time.

But would all of those socialist states need to be authoritarian in order to sustain itself? Wouldn’t that make them susceptible to human rights violations? would those in power allow the state to wither away? I just don’t see how this could work.

You’re right, it doesn’t fit my ideal socialism. I just wanna hear in your own words your argument for why I should consider them socialist.

"Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except for the ones that succeed.'

The lust for power will always oppress the people

The relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Good people or bad people at the helm will not save it from its sins.

Deep stuff, bro. I'm sure no one thought of this.

It’s not even deep, it’s just basic historical observation