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.