lololol

@Blebleh >I think this breaks the myth that we need a strong leader and party to get the power.
The USSR made many mistakes but learned and adapted using what worked, accumulating with Stalin in the 5 year plans, which was highly centralised. From my perspective, to say that we do not need this or that is being too dogmatic. We can learn from history and many paths have already been trodden. Practically I do not see where any anarchist 'structure' proved successful to such a degree.

@Deleted User It needs to be built yet on such scale. But I say that in a dogmatic form because we have to take a path and I want to avoid corruptibility as possible, which I think could prevent too authoritarianism but more important deviationism and the restoration of capitalism

It doesn't mean that I reject collaborating with people that support the USSR or want to help us

@Blebleh Your concern towards corruption may be warranted or it may be paranoia. The way to tell the different is to observe authority which is grounded in material reality. Intellectually it will be easy to determine whether an authority is corrupt or not, depending on its adherence to scientific principals. When you can prove that an authority is not doing what is in the best interests of the collective, only then are your concerns merited. However, having resistance right from the beginning is not rational.

I put a special focus on emerging truly representative structures

Your assumption is that authoritarianism is always corrupt. An adage I have only heard from reactionaries who do not like a particular kind.

I don't say that it's always corrupt, but corruptible

I'd prevent it from the beginning as possible

By 'representative' structures, do you mean democracy?

yes, but not this one

not bourgeois democracy

Isn't democracy also corruptible?

no if the delegates are watched closely, recallable and totally delegated

a proliteriat one is much less corruptable too

but yeah there should be a state regulating it

and guns

because kulak

@Blebleh Let me clarify, you are saying, democracy is incorruptible?

democracy in your phrase is ambiguous

I think a consensus democracy with a culture of revision is good

combined with a delegative democracy (liquid democracy) for irreconciliable factions

Well, anyone can say 'a very specific kind of X is perfect'

Look how the USSR was disolved

against the will of the people

I want to make in such a way that people will be alert for that

or they'd be fired

not from the top to the bottom

What happens when the people are wrong?

They face it and learn next time

What if they do not learn?

Then they chose to act against their own interests for something, it'd mean that the majority and the minority is irrational

this is prevented from the platform anyways, it's not that we pull democracy out of thin air

the previous development pulled the theory, which could shape the constitution; example: putting that all exploitation is banned because it's a right and studying in the academia how it works

self-managed media, etc. this can't be done now

in bourgeois democracy the media is controlled by hierarchies and capitalists in their own interests, parties depend on funding (with an advantage to capitalists) and to change the whole system you need to face the external imperialism and opposition

so it's like a dictatorship

'Acting against their own interests' can be avoided with authority that is grounded in material reality, that is, when intellectual superiors have higher authority to the average

also, education serves capital with terms like totalitarianism and mainstream economics

that's assuming there are intellectual superiors