I stopped being an anarchist

@Blebleh Great!

Now you're 10% more realistic!

there are two trends in anarchist: the synthetist that culminates in anarchism without adjectives

and the platformist one, that seeks to establish a vanguard without a party; makhno theorized it to win over the bolsheviks

since the first keeps the bourgeois ideology allowing other trends it's an obstacle and the second one looks like a leninist party but without elections

without a transitory phase

and with revolutionary unionism

so why not using a party if it's the same vanguard?

@Blebleh Makhno was so far the most successful anarchist. But he listened to Lenin and assisted him. Not sure why Western anarchists can't into cooperation.

they are both corruptible and they try to remove bourgeois ideology from the consent

I just think Anarchism, is really unstable in it's philosophy.

Only when people are educated and there's a culture of revision can anarchy exist

@Arkras why?

@Blebleh Well because I think a State goes a long way, about making a Country stable. Without it there would be no roads, fire department healthcare and so on.

And laws also insure safty, on some level

@Arkras Anarchists can do this; also not all anarchists reject law

@Arkras That is misconception, brother. Some anarchists are able into organization.

they rotate, delegate, get into agreements, etc

@Blebleh we have to add that only small amount of anarchists are able into organization of infrastructure.

But the same goes with communists this days.

😂

*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

@Blebleh Anarchists reject monopoly but not violence.

these delegates are recallable, maybe rotative and emerged from the assemblies of the bottom

yes