@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

@Blebleh it is nothing to do with organization.

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

@Blebleh I'm losing contact here.

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

@Arkras We even have now liquid democracy to combine delegation with direct democracy, but this is done only with technology

@Blebleh who used soviets? Soviets supported the leadership of the communist. Before that Soviets opposed Bolsheviks.

@Blebleh I don't understand what u mean comrade...

What is liquid democracy?