Stalin, makhno> khrushchev

I disagree I think Anarchism has never practically been what it claimed it is

How so

Catalonia wasn’t stateless

it was moneyless though

They were fighting the state

but also parts of China in Mao were moneyless

People in the cnt fai didn't rule over each other

The free territory was stateless and moneyless

No they didn’t but decision making in councils were relegated by cnt-fai officials not voted with consensus

but I don’t condemn it

Well what would have been regulated

material conditions

Okay

What about the free territory

Not informed enough about it I can’t comment on it

Well there was no money no private property and no state

@buyXRBpls

The used platformism

Goin sleep

I mean I will have to research but I guess

@yung yeah

Its good

Anarchism is just not convincing enough to me

Not convincing enough

and I think that sacrificing a Socialist goal just to prevent hierarchy is weird

No no

In the sense that central authority is needed for defense, for instance

Because capitalism is inherently hierarchical

Yes of course

I know it is ahahaha

I’m saying

@yung the free territory had the voluntary insurrectionary army

Yes but how much did it last?

They were destroyed by the red army

And you think the red army were the only ones capable of stopping them?

No

The red army is the strongest

which is what I mean. You can’t be attempting Socialism and not have strong means by which to protect yourself

Well the free territory was small and the red army was colossal

no no of course I get that