Message from @Heiro
Discord ID: 319173377321336852
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
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
@Arkras What you call state they call it a confederation with delegates
@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
cult of personality was reported by Stalin and Hoxha for example
it was just allowed
@Blebleh Lenin wrote only active parts of organizations are considered communist.
soviet democracy has assemblies in it
it's not a dictatorship of a party; it's just that in the moment of the USSR they needed the vanguard and the democratic reform of Stalin came too late
I want an state which is made of a body of miniters, maybe 200 or so. They would be elected into a senate, and then they should discuss laws and stuff. A voter should could vote on 20 canditates each election which would once a year. In times of crisis the minister should be able to inforce a Dictator in the Roman sense, and avert the crisis. After that the dictator would give power back to the ministers. @Blebleh
It would be lose and flexiable, but it would work i think.
@Heiro They used soviets, in times of crisis they needed to put an emphasis on the vanguard; the conditions were harsh https://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm