a prole can be an agent of the bourgeoisie, declasé

we can set up theoretical unity in the platform agreeing on revolutionary themes

no reformism allowed

but we have to attract the people there, revolution is done by the masses not by a few

Sure, you can talk about it. It seems all they do. This is a great inefficiency. The masses cannot, by definition, lead themselves.

lenin wasn't a blanquist doing a coup d'etat

he has to work with the masses, the party had

the platform can lead them

The platform, you mean like as an authority?

I wouldn't call it an authority

I disagree with Engels in that a revolution is the most authoritarian thing

because they're the original authoritarians, not us; and we're just liberating ourselves from their state

That's cute semantics, but if your platform is not arrived at through direct democracy and consultation of every single individual it represents, it is authoritarian.

I think there are some people that don't have the time to be in the platform or unions; but we can get massive support through the unions

some anarchists call this semilibertarianism

or anarcho-leninism

Is this something you support?

yes

I also could support a party as an extension

Then our positions are not so different. You want a 'representative' Party based on consensus, I see a better alternative based on competency.

the platform is independent from the party

parties are hierarchic

I think you are deluding yourself. If the platform is arrived at via a minority of representatives, then there is a hierarchy.

I don't think they should arrive with a minority of representatives

it's just for promoting ideas or getting the ground prepared

You just said that people don't have time to be in the platform?

Who decides the ideas?

I said that not all

but it can be massive

Not unless every individual has equal intellect and involved. Practically it is not massive in content.

we'd have to select texts from bakunin, marx, etc.

Basically you just want 'consent'.

@Deleted User It can with the unions

the unions are revolutionary in that they explain the ideology

appart from getting improvements

otherwise they can't be revolutionary, they have a final objective

My objection is that not all union members have an active role. Basically you give them the memo and then they just sign off on it. That is your idea of non-hierarchy, which is pretty deceptive.

Yes they have an active role

How so?

By holding your banner?

Unions are based in direct action