Guess we are, considering I don't think "each time there's another despot."

Those systems that I described came from the 20th century at the earliest, and are regularly iterated upon to better meet the demands of the people. I'm not saying your focus on communication is wrong, but that you shouldn't attack others if you aren't aware of their actual history or developed theory, as you casually tossed aside frequently in this very conversation. Even with China, Western companies spy to an even greater degree and yet China was specifically singled out, I think this method is entirely unproductive and further alienating.

That the book exists?

What do you mean "no one has been successful?" Every AES state has had myriad successes, the dissolution of the USSR had less to do with Socialism and more to do with separation from the global economy. Either way, though, Capital is an analysis of Capitalism, not Socialism, and very clearly explains the mechanical issues with Capitalism in the long term and how it develops, which is why I brought it up.

If you're confused by something, you can feel free to ask for further elaboration, though I can't just recite Capital in Lemmy comments.

Yes, we can't "undevelop" Capitalism to a point of no regulation just like we can't go back to feudalism. Modes of Production are historical stages of development alongside the progression of technology, they aren't "ideas" people adopt because they sound nice.

I have claimed that, and explained why. You never pushed back on that.

Participating in the electoral system also perpetuates it, the Capitalists don't care who wins because they already approve of both major parties.

Then what's your point? If we can't attempt it and it can't exist to begin with, what's your point?

Oh lol of course not, that contextualizes your confusion lol

We can't try unregulated Capitalism either way, that's like suggesting we try feudalism. We can't go back and keep the technological progress we have.

Ah, gotcha! I've seen way too many people making jabs at Marxists these days so I got defensive. I apologize, I got ahead of myself. I agree entirely that at this stage it makes no sense whatsoever to engage in hostile relations between Anarchists and Marxists, the goal remains a more equitable society and liberation of the working class, and are more useful to each other than non-useful.