and I don't see how the USSR prevented this; a few people may realize it

What are you talking about? Don't you agree that socialism is inevitable?

yes but it needs class consciousness

and organization

even more, we need to be careful when we have a capitalist bloc that is our enemy

So how is it going to happen do you think? There are going to be revolutionary forces. Which is also why there should be a Vanguard.

the platform in combination with the anarchist unions have to improve the consciousness of the people and act

When a socialist authority gets corrupt, it becomes bourgeoisie. And a new dialectic begins.

we could add a party too, but as an extension

they don't have to become the bourgeoisie to be corrupt

@Blebleh What have anarchists unions achieved? They are hamstrung by their superstitious notions of 'consensus' and 'democracy'.

it could be just undermining the socialist roots or not making the decisions agreed by the people

they've achieved 8 labour hours in Spain

with a general strike

the IWW while not pure anarchist, the organization I think it's and it's big

this is all to improve conditions for the worker and also get a consciousness for the revolution

and as I said, in the USSR before the party, there were councils

@Blebleh A dictatorship of the proletariat that betrays the interests of the collective is a contradiction. Either the Party is objectively proletariat or they are revisionist traitors. Class consciousness will win in the end.

it looked more like an anarchist federation

a prole can be traitor to his class

@Blebleh In there beginning there were councils, but this was abandoned because it was childish and ineffectual for revolutionary purposes.

what lenin says

Lenin was wrong?

probably in this

A prole who is a traitor is not a prole, but an agent of the bourgeoisie.

@Blebleh Councils are limited to reformism. Revolution is exclusively the business of the Vanguard.

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