Message from @Blebleh
Discord ID: 319170461982392324
*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
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
Violence of the anarchists like attacking the fascist trashcans, lol antifa
so I'd do it after a generation
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
@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
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.