@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.

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.