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?

was it a question or a comment?

@The Special Cnut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

@Heiro Yes, I mean they had a bottom organization too

It is the "but this is done only with technology" i did not understand

@Blebleh bottom organization that opposes them?

no, if they didn't support them they wouldn't have done a revolution

they opposed leftcoms

Thank you @Blebleh

@Blebleh Soviets opposed many. They were part of the liberal socdem current before joining Bolsheviks.

@The Special Cnut Also you can search a software called LiquidFeedback, there's a book "The Principles of LiquidFeedback" that explains how it could be done; but now the page to download it is fallen, I could upload it if you wish

it's software

Okay

And while Soviets been liberal they opposed communist.

@Heiro That's what history books say like that they were the 1% and they opposed them; but then I see other version