This is a continuation of a discussion I had with Mambabasa, but thought it would be interesting to discuss the topic here so that others can add their own thoughts.
As the title suggests, I'm curious to learn what aspects that proponents of communism find compelling, specifically, what would an Anarchist find useful or insightful from the various forms of Communism?
Lately, I've been watching and reading into the history of Marxist based communist attempts. After discovering What Is Politics? videos on the subject, such as his video on the history of communist revolutions, and the second part going into why the Russian Revolution failed to produce socialism (Btw, I began watching his vids thanks to your post in BreadTube, Mambabasa. So thank you for sharing! ^^)
What is Politics' reading of history seems to be inline with what I've learned in the past; I.E, that the bureaucracy and centralized nature of the various Marxist ideologies tend toward less than ideal results. This is what generally put me off delving deeply into Marxist derived theory.
However, I try to have an open mind. When Mambabasa mentioned that, had they experienced a different set of circumstances, these other forms of socialism may have been the logical choice, my curiosity was piqued.
So if you have any insight into some aspect or incident of Communism that you believe Anarchists should take note of, I'd very much like to hear it. :)
Well, the thing about Mao allying with the national bourgeoisie is that it's historically-specific to the material conditions of interwar and WW2 China. China was literally fighting against literal genocide and extermination. Like Rojava, sometimes we do have to bite the bullet to fight against our own extermination. What becomes problematic about Maoism's consistent insistence in working with the national bourgeoisie today (as in Nepal and the Philippines) is that they're not fighting against extermination, only merely despotism and Western imperialism. Even if we accept the thesis that the national bourgeoisie exist (which I have reservations against as I think the bourgeoisie has fully internationalized), the national bourgeoisie have no real material interests in fighting despotism as long as their business interests continue. Besides, imperialism today is nothing like what the Chinese national bourgeoisie experienced in China where their property and persons were plundered and executed. Rather, the national bourgeoisie no longer exist as "national" due to the truly international nature of their class and imperialism to them is merely cosmopolitanism.
I think what's useful about Maoism isn't their sketchy stuff about sketchy alliances, but rather how they are able to mobilize large sections of society for self-activity as best exemplified in the Cultural Revolution. People autonomously acted on their own initiative to expand their own degrees of freedom. With Maoism outside China, this happened as well with the Black Panther Party during their decentralized period before they imploded due to authoritarianism. We saw similar in Nepal and the Philippines. Sure, the Communist Party eventually co-opt these autonomous movements (called fellow travelers) into their apparatus, but that they existed autonomously and independently is something. That's quite valuable for any anarchist project.