the comments of this make me sick

I'm a Moderate Communist

@Arkras "Moderate". You are communist. But ***ashamed*** of it?

No?

I like state, but people still need freedom
And fairly much of it
But we still need state
much state and much freedom

That's my view

@Arkras Most will agree we won't see communism in our lifetime. So everyone agrees on the state, yes?

@Heiro No not the Ancoms.

@Arkras They are pretty much being useless anyway. It is impossible to get rid of the state at this stage or any time soon. It can be a socialist state or oligarchy. Our choice.

@Heiro Yeah ur left my comrade.

I stopped being an anarchist

@Blebleh Great!

Now you're 10% more realistic!

there are two trends in anarchist: the synthetist that culminates in anarchism without adjectives

and the platformist one, that seeks to establish a vanguard without a party; makhno theorized it to win over the bolsheviks

since the first keeps the bourgeois ideology allowing other trends it's an obstacle and the second one looks like a leninist party but without elections

without a transitory phase

and with revolutionary unionism

so why not using a party if it's the same vanguard?

@Blebleh Makhno was so far the most successful anarchist. But he listened to Lenin and assisted him. Not sure why Western anarchists can't into cooperation.

they are both corruptible and they try to remove bourgeois ideology from the consent

I just think Anarchism, is really unstable in it's philosophy.

Only when people are educated and there's a culture of revision can anarchy exist

@Arkras why?

@Blebleh Well because I think a State goes a long way, about making a Country stable. Without it there would be no roads, fire department healthcare and so on.

And laws also insure safty, on some level

@Arkras Anarchists can do this; also not all anarchists reject law

@Arkras That is misconception, brother. Some anarchists are able into organization.

they rotate, delegate, get into agreements, etc

@Blebleh we have to add that only small amount of anarchists are able into organization of infrastructure.

But the same goes with communists this days.

😂

*Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.* -Bakunin.

@Blebleh I just think it is much esaier trough a state to do such things.

@Blebleh Bakunin thought is different from 15 yo random anarchist thought.

And faster

The state means violence for both trends

What is the State has no way too inforce it's rules?

the state is to act for a class or another one

the state holds the monopoly of violence; anarchists propose decentralizing this

What if it only serves as a way of making somethings public and not owned by that Comune or that other one?

a confederation of areas and delegates

That would be a state

@Blebleh Anarchists use violence the very same way. Only without authority.

the state means monopoly of violence, anarchists reject it Arkras, not a centralized authority

they believe in self-management, freedom of association

and an union (confederation) to manage affairs with delegates when they need to unite

like diplomatic affairs

@Blebleh Anarchists reject monopoly but not violence.

these delegates are recallable, maybe rotative and emerged from the assemblies of the bottom

yes

@Blebleh violence of the anarchists is not different or any better than the violence of any other sort.

so the difference with leninists is that they put an emphasis on horizontal organization, all the laws emerge from the bottom so they don't rely on a party of a few

but the problem is that the masses retain bourgeois ideology and educating them on the vanguard is utopic as I consider

@Blebleh sounds more like trotkiesm to me

Violence of the anarchists like attacking the fascist trashcans, lol antifa

so I'd do it after a generation

@Heiro violence is imposed by imperialists to change society

Yes that's more like it @Blebleh, but why not a tax system which will destribute wealth between communes?

Trotskyists believe in permanent revolution

And they use a party

@Blebleh It is different, yes. But Similar.

@Arkras Why are you going to tax and what are you going to distribute?; maybe federations can enter in a common agreement on public services

@Blebleh Because a Commune can be richer than it's neighbour

@Heiro Why is it similar? Anarchists reject a transitory stage

Because they can be better at business.

Or be more lucky

@Arkras There's no exploitation like in capitalism, what you earn is worth it, redistribution loses its sense

Business would be only for mutualists

@Blebleh Similar in a sense of the need to separate from the authority of the leaders.

@Blebleh No I mean in trade, because there is still gonna be trade, just not on the same level we see today.

In the organizational sense.

@Heiro I don't think so, who went against the black army was trotsky

Nomade people without a commune are gonna be merchants, and live of the trade.

@Arkras I doubt there would be trade in libertarian socialism or libertarian communism; if something only between the federations

@Blebleh He was propagating disconnection from the party leadership just like anarchists/syndicalists.

Divide and conquer tactics.

@Heiro Yes but because he didn't like the brand of marxism-leninism of the party, not because he was an anarchist

he wanted to replace the content with his content, not remove it all

@Blebleh His content is to not follow the leadership of the party.

We need strong leaders on the left.

That's the proplem federations are weak. If people want coffee in a Anarchist society in England, it is gonna be a luxury, because it would go from hand to hand many times. You can't stop trade if you, do not have authority, and thereby people are gonna buy expensive coffee.

@Heiro I think this is vague; I don't think marxist-leninists are going to follow revisionists even if they're leaders

Global trade are needed

is*?

@Arkras I agree that it's a flaw of free association, that they'll allow mutualist federations arising and they'd undermine the socialist society with capitalism

Maybe others say they wouldn't because they're platformists

and they want theoretical unity

@Blebleh MLs propagate a need to follow the leadership. Anarchits, Syndicalists, Trotskiest do not follow leaders and do not know the beauty of the authoritarian organization. Trotskie propagated the need to follow him only, not the organization leadership.

Anarchists don't reject leadership, they reject following leaders with blind faith; they're focused in consensus in contrast with the democratic centralism of the party

MLs don't follow leaders blindly, democratic centralism... as the word says... is democratic

@Blebleh I just think we need a little state atleast, if just to regulate trade.

Trotskysts follow democratic centralism like the ML

@Blebleh Faith is necessary in the organization.

@Lune Not all MLs are democratic.

@Arkras What you call state they call it a confederation with delegates

@Blebleh how do you follow leaders without a faith in them?

@Heiro You read them, you compare them and recognize them as the holders of these ideas; therefore you can say you follow them

you like their brand of anarchism/communism