Debat between anarquistes i 
Argentina Juche movement : Today youth insurgent relates is considered much more to anarchism than Marxism. Have an outdated address, shallow, based on a "Down with capitalism and, later, one way or another, everything will be wonderful." Anarchists today, as yesterday's utopian socialists, bent on ignoring the laws governing human behavior. Your imagination creates partnerships chimeric, Utopistics and impossible. Universal happiness is your phone, but the reality is not your guide. Modern anarchism is the heir to the utopian socialism: Both doctrines are based on the "dogma of eternal justice" or "social morality", ignoring that these are but expressions ideologized of existing economic conditions. Justice is on the story: While the Greeks and Romans considered "very fair" slavery, bourgeois justice from 1779 onwards looks great exploitation of the proletariat. Since anarchists attribute reality fictions born of its particular ideal of absolute justice, in reasoning rather than taking reality as a starting point, posit a social system in which individual wills dominate without limits, where everyone does what they please, without bothering to find out if economic conditions allow it. While the anarchists want to rid the social order at the whim of individual wills, supporters of dialectical materialism suggest, however, set up a social order based on reason and science. We want to implement organization and direction to all association, the production and society, as required by the reason, it is not nothing but the coordination and the generalization of the ideas suggested by the experience, and the observed facts and studied, and demand the subjection of the individual will to the will of majorities that represents the principle of authority. Individualism is the basis of both the liberal bourgeois thought and anarchism. Anarchists deny the objective role, necessary for the socialization of the means of production that has already begun under capitalism and socialism consummated through the social regulation of production. The "unlimited autonomy" would deny the historical course of history and roll back to the days of small isolated community artisans. The ideal of anarchism is the rapid revolution of the time, and then, smoothly, the installation of "society free "producientes group, which is appropriated through the violent expropriation of all of them the desire to seize and appropriate. However, such transformation of the blue does not take into account human selfishness, rooted in centuries of order bourgeois. No individual selfishness removed, any attempt at conversion or any proclamation of absolute freedom would result in social meltdown. The ideal of anarchism in which the company has obligations to the individual but not the individual owes to society, is neither more nor less absurd. There is a work of Friedrich Engels entitled "Authority" that is a case for deepening the issue raised here. The own revolutionary verbiage of the anarchists is to give instructions "ultrarevolucionarias" and launch the masses to fight without worrying whether or not the slogans under combative spirit of the masses and their state of organization. Slogans prepared without taking into account the surrounding reality, without hearing the opinions of the masses, regardless of the further development of the struggle. In the interests of the proletariat and the revolution is not at all appropriate to declare strikes without compelling reasons. The strike is a formidable weapon, but is not a road. have a point : In addition to his position on CDN i sure about other positions his, verad is that many of the comments he makes about anarchism has so many reasons. liberal individualism as the position i idelizada as utopian. Anarchists accept valid and organizations, from material i to vote the CUP in some casos.Si someone knows of Niozick anarkocapitalismo alomejor discovers that what he thinks is well represented by this model. Many anarchists, particularly those valid, they are actually Communists Marxist but who deny the USSR. That is, they really are Socialists. Comrade Kim is a fascist, but has a point ... as liberal individualism? Look even more individualistic currents of anarchism (Max Stirner, Emile Armand ...) are socialists because they accept the theory of value and criticize the exploitative capitalist system so it is not selfish individualism in the sense of legitimizing power relations that occur in the market liberals and anarchists deny ever have.
Also remember that the bourgeoisie was once revolutionary (remember Marx?) And one of the ideological legacy he left us in this period is the respect for political freedom and control State. In this regard if we are bourgeois Clearly, if, because we are heirs to the civil conversion process that gave states in Europe and that we must overcome socialism plural, horizontal and libertarian in my view, not taking us back to an absolute state which leaves no room for expression and eliminating free thought based on a strong ideological penetration in all facets of society. Certainly something that bears resemblance to the absolutist regime that ruled in Europe before the revolutionary bourgeoisie (whose ideological legacies reject both) the sweep dramatically (France) or erode slowly (to a lesser extent the Netherlands and England). Then they turned conservative classes but that does not mean we should reject the ideological legacies left in progresista.Así sense is perhaps not surprising that the regime of the DPRK has become a sort of monarchy and perhaps the English as Cao de Beno that supports them and have positions of importance in scheme is of aristocratic origin ... birds of a feather flock together ... As idealized position has nothing ideological mystification be an expression which agrees well with the practice of the new social movements (horizontal, self, rejection of the mediation parties and mistrust of government etc.). Here I leave you with some for you to see how things are done today. www.abahlali.org http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abahlali_baseMjondolo valid Anarchists accepted and organizations? "Dude you've smoked? The CNT was founded in 1910 and was an anarcho-syndicalist organization ... What's all this "now"? The same with the materialism that was already used by Bakunin and Kropotkin argued more broadly (I recommend you read the "Conquest of Bread" by the latter to get you batteries and stop saying stupid things.) On the subject of the CUP I think you mistake the word "anarchist" with "libertarian" always inevitably there are gradations in terms of membership in a certain way of thinking ... There may be libertarians who vote for the CUP as he CNT in the 30 who voted ERC or the POUM, but in the same way that they did not Faist anarchists today do not vote ... Not if you understand the difference ... on what the "anarcho" capitalism there and you've chipped all ... if you enter the website of the anarcho (put in google) you would see that the only thing that smells of anarchism is that they say are based on some of the principles of individualism and above the branch previously MODIFIED (be little shame) .. . well would do well to inform yourself better ... Finally the last sentence as well if you mean that Pannekoek and Luxemburg guai people seem (at least to me) I have nothing to say but that does not mean that we are anarchists and anarcho-communism refers to power of Kropotkin easily (in fact one of the most important communes maknovistas Ukrainian named "Rosa Luxemburg ")... And by the way, anarchism is a stream of socialism, his anti-authoritarian side so until your last tagline is unfounded. I'll do you ... Nobody has said that it denies the leftovers of the bourgeoisie, another thing is that you invent these advancements. The state constructed in the liberal era capital controls or production, so surprised to see how you intend to unify the existence of a state with liberal ideology. Still, no one said the state is forever. Hence another error that has anarchism, although you can put authors that use the material that you see on paper because it gives your practice kicking with materialism, politics or your conclusions i tell you, i error is that of utopianism. Utopianism if, for lack of analysis of reality (lack of real material, not on paper), then assume that the pattern of cognitive construction Canvi of society in a few years or a generation is completely absurd. As you know all the liberal-bourgeois process, know how long hard process, i was not initiated with the rebels but through economic control, i finally political ideologue. Some you forget all that. You believe that i soys libertarian anarchist imponeis not anything to anyone, but at the moment of truth, your model is the most authoritarian in the process, as there Canvi promomueve the infrastructure, but intends to go to the superstructure ( i political power state). The anarkocapitalismo have to like it in no set rules as limiting distribution drug (as would those raves those "anarchists" (i ponogo what quotation marks), the decision to work where i want Quando ("below the work"). If anarchist, my goal would try to unite the anarchist i left work on something serious. For now these anarchists are working towards CUP (ia me okay, i best can I do), i quedais 2, the rest are Yonker i drunk who barely reached 30 in i full mental faculty. I then also seek to remove-me i avoid identification with those "anarchists" for cold beer, the concert, the "do what I want" i much more ... what Marx nombrava as "lumpoenproletariado." Salut! something : this time that the liberal state does not control the capital, gifts because I can tell you what the Federal Reserve uses in xrisis intervention, or is the good simplmenet state who gets the impostus to maintain military forces ... this state will always be unnecessary, the k passes can be epndre forms, macros more ... however I agree that anarchism is a parasite for the revolutionary transformation of any country. Re: Tea it makes you ... Dice to invent these advance. Because ¿? Do not create a progressive and Legacy Revolutionary Bourgeois was the conception de la pluralidad política y el control del Estado? Bueno pues entonces dime tu cual fue ...Tu problema es que tienes una concepción excesivamente instrumental del Estado propia del marxismo más ortodoxo, hoy en dia las investigaciones historiográficas apuntan en la línea de una conjunción de intereses de Estado-Capital en el proceso de formación de Europa. El marxismo en este sentido tiene lagunas importantes como el hecho de ignorar la competencia militar entre Estados como una de los factores clave. ¿Son fuerzas productivas que se desarrollan los equipos militares? La necesidad de modernizar los ejércitos llevo en muchos casos a sistemas fiscales diferenciados (coerción y capitalización intensivas) demostrando un papel protagonista of Estado.Nadie said the state was forever, but it is scientifically implausible that something is going to disband after handing over functions that formerly had. Our daily practice is not given materialism kicks as you say in the libertarian movement for the fundamental and most important organization is the union usually something that directly affects the material conditions of existence of the working class. In any orthodox materialism is absurd because it makes sense within the dialectic start an endless game is first rate if the chicken or the egg, I do not know if I explico.Quién said we think the cognitive process of a society is changed in a few years or a generation. the English anarchists took them from the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries to build a social fabric strong enough to try to make the socialist revolution with more radical perspective that has been in humanity (I'm not saying that I just say authors anarchists). The order of phases stable in the process of bourgeois rule in Europe (economic, ideological and ultimately political) was as effective and consistent with the strategy precismante anarchist and revolutionary syndicalist raw performance in the economic and cultural finally reaching political. There if you have chipped, you show no knowledge of the approaches of syndicalism, which is precisely based on the transformation of the infrastructure before the superstructure. Durruti was who said in full English Revolution "Politicians who are engaged in one's own that we will handle the economy." Siqueiros criticize the question of power, all right, but that's a classic in critical but we do underestimate the infrastructure that already is a joke. Find out more truth. Well that's what it is trying to unite and work on something serious but it is not easy for a very old movement which carries many burdens of the past, that's not the problem of IE but if you that are not best placed to talk about unity with the factions that you have constantly faced each other. With what's Yonker and drunk and you've spent three villages. I'm a little sick of these stupid things anymore. Is there no other cajolement redskins and relate to your ideology and the only thing that is going to talk football, drinking beer and spanking? Such people there are everywhere so do not give me nonsense. On the of cold beer and other crap I refer to the above that it's okay to say stupid things ... As for the lumpen proletariat the very good barbed Marx, although that decision was objectively reaccionarias unas conditions, situations or he could reconocía determinadas decantarlo in the side of the revolution or reaction, well I believe that no sea muy revolucuionario discriminarlo input spikes yet inclinando of the Balanza rechazandolo side entrance. I do not know if I explain. Health and anarchy. Communist : like it or not, the social fabric akest k speaks the author of the text does state, k enkara anarchists do not want to admit. We need a tool to x expropriating the bourgeoisie and working to establish a democracy based. Anarchists x opt to leave the running ik akests time tissues are downloaded to expand the government sees no k out and drop by their own weight. The Communists want the same, say po kl State is the supreme capitalist x k using exploit us, yx Axo break it needed it and create one of us again to expropriate the bourgeoisie. The state x will not fall alone, if not destroyed the bourgeois akest the pk will take advantage of their possession are not expropriated. We will be in danger while kl 'capitalist state exists, as was unfortunately pass to 36, k was left living in capitalist government was already over joining the government (many tb Communists have joined the capitalist governments). K I think the anarchists are right and which we say kuan ks' should be establishing a social fabric k organizing workers in part, but we can not kdar aki, but k k have destroyed the social fabric of another, the capitalist state, and then we build a state. I am a communist, but strongly critiko regimes where there is no democracy or basic freedoms. I k does not mean communism or authoritarianism or lack of freedom or democracy. The Stalinism has done very badly and consider k tb k all countries were to be passing socialisteses they spend a very primitive capitalism to socialism, and aki is where 's the bureaucrats take advantage, as would have been if past anarkistes. In a socialist state tk having no grassroots democracy, self-management of the government is Fabrik YK ki social movements and assemblies YK not the party, the Communist. That party Unik between communists argue it, but not be akest ki tk government, but agencies base, LS and organizations have politik politika k bring their bodies to base pk no bureaucratic state. X me the Orthodox anarkisme x utopik Axo is, wants to spend XK Mon capitalism to communism as ki pass the pages of a book. communism : Anyone can pass the cross k more brutal capitalism to communism, libertarian stateless?, kom k is awaiting the decisions affecting a cluster of older people a common k?, Kom distribute wealth among workers from different parts of the world? With confederalisme?, K think people are capable of passing from one world to a neo-liberal libertarian communism? It is needed not a period where there is a "state" k organizing the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and prepare people to get to communism? ("State" bodies governed x base where ls politik and independent organizations, can contribute ideas and then they voted, the Soviets) would organize a society Kom horizontal? K organisms have been vertical but democratic. Ls decisions and actions have to go down k up Shah secure democracy. In a horizontal system such as x decide issues such as education, health, transportation, infrastructure, etc.. If k could be decided kom organize the neighborhood, the city as much, but no more. Then we need a body vertical democratic, participatory and representative later. Outside the authoritarian and undemocratic socialism! Long live the world socialist revolution! A supporter of anarchy : textmolt You wrote a really long and do not know if I can answer all questions posed, but I'll try ... 1) Which social network do you mean? The anarchists strive to build? One of the biggest problems when there is a debate between anarchists and communists are not we the same meanings to the same signifiers. A State is not for us simply an organization that performs consistently and occasionally violence, but is a specialized organization and therefore to some extent, separated from society, something with a relatively autonomous act. We have never shared the vision of true Marxism that merely having a strictly instrumental view of this body and now more recent historiographical investigations seem to agree with us to recover part of the legacy of Max Weber's sociological and putting some of the approaches questo Marx (authors like Tilly, McNeill, Michael Mann etc.).. The social fabric can not be a time when state is not a bureaucratic entity and therefore separate from society. For you Confederation of Free Soviets in Ukraine, the Council of Aragon, the Committee of Antifascist Militias of Catalonia States were properly? I know your opinion ... 2) I will not discuss the errors in the revolution of 36 because it would be very extensive and now I can not remember all the questions but let go as they ready for me the problem was that neither they themselves (the anarchists of the time) or at least most of them came to believe that they were facing a real social revolution and not politics, as were the majority. On the other hand was a mistake in my opinion does not dissolve the government and do it with the Committee Militias. Today one of the issues that force women to anarchism in increasing social movements that operate with its principles is the fact that this organization is ceasing to be increasingly a subject of sovereignty to become a nodule over a network of capitalist relations bushy increasingly interdependent: the resulting feeling is widespread and increasingly has less and less the power to change anything and is rather a way to prevent it. The tangible proof of this is that the socialist republics that are passed to the planet with weapons and baggage to capitalist globalization: The Triumph of the combination of "freedom" and economic authoritarianism policy of the Communist Party of China is merely a reflection of this paroxysm. The state no longer serves much more evident today than ever. Given that some value related to the postmodern anarchism: the defense of the "micro" and "life forms" a conception of revolution as more cracks in the here and now not as a teleological project that is the translation of a political form of capitalism in the long term since overcome. I recommend "Change the world without the power to take" John Holloway on autonomist Marxist perpectiva from a focus on all these issues ... 3) You say that you defend a system with socialist democracy and basic freedoms. I guess you should be influenced by experience or Iuogoslava trotkisme do not know. But this view is inconsistent with an idea that defenses later: Still the defending party. You understand that grassroots organizations to which you refer are by nature (and so be good) organizations ideologically weak, if we combine with the defense of a single party (a party is always a highly ideological organization especially a communist) the result is you have a dictatorship and a monoideològica organizations that act as transmission belts for masquerade or precisely for this asymmetry. It should be understood that because truly democratic socialism we have sufficient ideological choices that are a part sufficiently different from each other and to defend the socio-economic model matitzades or different versions of it. But will never be democratic, it is important entedre it. And I think the experience of the Catalan Committee Militias tried it but the politicians were all too determined to let themselves be persuaded by anarchists. Noam Chomskian, renowned American linguist and anarchist, once said "the only mistake of the anarchists was being advanced in 50 years time." 4) It is false that anarchism (orthodox?) want to move from capitalism to communism and who passes the page of a book anyway, but I refer to an opinion set forth above "Nobody told you forever outside the state, but that something is scientifically unlikely to go after disolverse entregarle more the functions that formerly had. " I think this is impepinable. 5) With respect to the latter posed, is a prejudice to think that a very extended complex system can not be organized horizontally. In fact today the functioning of most companies increasingly tend to decentralization and the more innovative technology. Process that we must overcome evidently. The problem we have is that in a follow anclats ideological concepts anchored in the past: As a Marxist should know that a certain way to determine the economy in a particular way of doing politics and vice versa (it is a dialectical process) these ideas of centralization and defenses that are the result of a time when capitalism was governed by long-term projects and increasing scale economies. Today, it can not be so but the continuous change, deregulation and the network organization imposing increasingly turning ideas into something quite defenses obsolete. Anyway, I recommend "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin on already late nineteenth century tells us how various complex systems in a decentralized fashion. Then Au, health, and good debate anarchy communist : I am speaking badly in the last sentence. The k k meant it needed a body k ekitativament the rekursos divide between the "common" or as we like to say after akestes ik 's wish to administer kom. Estik of AKORD. And I repeat tb k is need of a centralized body x issues as education, health, etc.. if I, I might consider Trotskyist kom you said, but there are things of anarchism, and even komparteixo k k would have Things between Trotskyism and the token is far more anarchism k k with Trotskyism "Marxism-Leninism," Kom case POUM Mon ls k support to longing revolution mostly in Catalonia, the anarchists. k Krek our big difference is the strategy to get to communism x (k are not contradictory, but can pervades k), k but we want a very similar social organization. The anarkistes say k tk economy was planned by the unions, we say ktk be planned xl "state", directed by base agencies, unions have k k akest be independent state. We are in favor of all organisms based, and all things k can be decided without the need for elected representatives, k decide, but do not fall into the competition between "common". Kuan horizontal k you mean you say? X told me komo t, k things affect a small community (neighborhood, district, street), you can decide horizontally, but kuan home to more people need to vote for representatives (k Mon defend the position 'or assembly but sel dismisses immediately) by a vote of a democratic ak. This is what I want to k and k I understood you by tb. I would Akest mechanism Dik vertical pk requires organisms based embergadura lowest to highest, reaching a supreme body which supports the positions of the base. Then once the results come, now another kop k back to work on the basis Shah ks' mostly has agreed, on the bottom up and from top to bottom. A supporter of anarchy : Only a few more questions: 1) I wonder if the revolutionary experiences that I mentioned and its agencies resulting in Ukraine, consider the Aragon and Catalonia " States ". 2) I do not think you've solved the question that I raised the problem of single party and its compatibility with a truly democratic socialism. 3) I think you still tenin prejudice to relate complexity hierarchy when not necessarily be so. They argue that crosses it should be so but what it should look if the current conditions or allow it or not. I've said that today very technologically advanced enterprises operate in a decentralized way (except for the array targets imposed absolutely not). As Kropotkin, in the nineteenth century, in his book "The Conquest of Bread" gave us examples of complex systems operate with a high degree of voluntarism and decentralized way: the system of channels through the union holandés boatmen, the international health system Red Cross volunteer whom he admires (today is something else and it concentrated CNT but go against) and the railway system was already at that time tangible examples of complex systems operating in a completely decentralized based on consensus, today it has reached the speed of information transmission would be much more feasible and much needed voices that centralization could be replaced easily by putting the huge technological advances available to the population (primitivist disagree with me but the same Jeff Luer said he believed in a green technology) ... You sound concepts as "endogenous development" as acceptance by the UN and that in the same line as the "micro" and the defense of "lifestyle"? All items are currently much debated and are in advance of the debate and anthropological sociolòcic current. However I must thank you made of "honor" in the title of this post because I like the debate in a constructive manner and style that usually have some Stalinists. Health and socialist revolution! communist : Well yes, usually the Stalinists capcuadrats with topics already recorded in your brain. I defend the social revolution, and defend the revolution k chooses the people. I anarchism does not seem impossible, but Krek k x k have the best mechanism to power, k is a non-bureaucratic socialism Democratic base. I think
k Decree of a state may be many ways as we all k states are meteixa social structure. For this reason dik k kualsevol social fabric, makes me Shah functional status. State Kuan I mean I do not mean bourgeois parliamentarism, but the mechanism will use the k x treballadrors expropriate the entrepreneurs and the organizations where basic rule. Akest social fabric could be created in many ways, if the k k k will never accept you dik k Unik party government. That is undemocratic and PK unique among communist party? The only k with this I will join forces to overthrow the state x, k is a very strong, where terrorism has no single head start. Tk is going on centrally, and all at once in one golpeixant goal. But so m 'k're saying could not be any organism with democratic centralism trankaria XK is the democracy? No trankaria, the base body are the highest organ of decision, the only k would a party and you're ideas. Finish x I km 'explikis a summary form, how to organize society pk everyone has the same resources. I argue in a decentralized fashion in residential areas, but the economy was planned and tk centralized but democratic basis and for the whole population is equal to ak. decentralization in the economy can make a very unequal distribution of wealth. How to make things k can not be manufactured in the same place? How to measure the needs of treballadors.El k k estik saying does not mean there is no self-management, so k argue with death. Self-management itself, but the planned economy and centralitzada.Visca traballadors revolution, long live the social revolution! A supporter of anarchy : Well I think because we are approaching an interesting point ... 1) The analogy you make the social revolutionary state = not at all correct to me so I refer to the above question that I made to see if some agencies consider the revolutionary states it would be interesting to answer. We present another example: the "Juntas de Buen Gobierno" in Zapatista territory in Chiapas, released Mexican capitalist state, which are chosen by popular will and a maximum duration of 2 months (I understand) think the state government? And the agency that coordinates? (Not how I remember it says). The APPO in Oaxaca was abolished when a state capitalist institutions and implement the policy? To me a body "like a river fluye constantemente" (if I may use one of the indigenous metaphors) can not be considered a state, because it is not really a separate entity from society (and this is the true sense that "States are given the anarchists in my opinion). 2) the fact that you said that all communists be united, well, a fact that I do not concern me but it was clear that it must coexist with other ideological options and always subordinate to the social movements in all cases (the split between social and political activism should be disappeared in all cases). When I say this in the structure CNT-FAI, which was the political organization that was subject to the union and not vice versa. 3) do not necessarily mean lack of coordination decentralization. When Kropotkin spoke of the examples I gave is clear that there were meetings between the cells of the Red Cross, the boatmen and the railroad unions to establish common minimum parameters but after CAD had a wider autonomy. Today with the advancement of technologies that decentralization can be even more effective because you no longer need a physical meeting point but could even be virtual. The other day I heard there's college tuition in Spain where are all the same place regardless of the race in question, it surprised me because at UB are the secretariat of the Faculty. The meeting point is it is a virtual website. The same applies to this site from where you're writing is a clear example of a project and decentralized autoconstruït. Regarding the comment of manufacturing goods is exactly the same: As you now know how the business is based on a matrix which reduces manufacturing and increasingly few companies and fluctuating esxternalitzades where manufactured products increasingly using the "Just in Time" dependent on the state of demand. The parent company is becoming less productive and increasingly imperative: It simply said "It gives me like you do but I need it on Monday." The parties have increasingly outsourced freedom in the creation process but have no involvement in the design objectives. If we apply the Marxist model of contradiction between the development of productive forces and relations of production that these subunits will tend to be desempallagar array unproductive without forgetting evidently the intervention of revolutionary subject. For example, workers of different subcontractors can get to see them have some common interests and strive for an effective decentralization in their hands that employers are not able to achieve for its commitment to the rule that prevents the system final development of these productive forces (do not know if I explain.) Recall that Marxism says that we rely on the dynamics of reality and not current ideologies and dynamics leads here. This decentralization stressed that the revolution would (why should I believe supports the Network against the walls and insecurity because I think it works in this direction) that would coordinate these subunits could be as free from the tutelage of the matrix, which in After redesigning its function to approach them, and would have a set of subunits that could reach agreements through the exchange of products easily to communication technologies. In my opinion centralization is increasingly unnecessary as they are developed because they can take decisions in common virtual spaces without creating executive agencies. This is no Utopia many organizations, especially the most technologically advanced work increasingly well the problem is not yet desempellagat a corporate hierarchy increasingly obsolete and increasingly responding to the needs of running them. This obviously has its translation into social and political processes that describe attached but you can imagine. 
There will be some anarchists may think I'm too optimistic when the technology but I think that decentralization will lead to efficient small-scale technological systems and not harmful to communities that decide to live differently (think solar panels is a paradigm of advanced technology and decentralized if we could everyone would have a home with energy self-sufficient) By the way, if I have mentioned many times Marxism is because I'm also influenced by libertarian Marxism Guérin, although it must be remembered that there Bakunin recognized the merits of this very author and Kropotkin was an ex-Marxist. Anyway I do not think completely Marxist because I think he was wrong on several issues també.Au not more angry, but stay on the dole now I do not bother with these straws mental lol, for what is always a priority action, in my opinion, but in fact it is interesting too ... Health and libertarian communism, comrade!
Communist : 1 - To me a "state" is a mekanisme created to govern society. A state worker tb serve to govern society, but in akest workers sense would be the same ki will govern. In a common such as Chiapas and Oaxaca (k ls argue), s also has established a social contract among its inhabitants basikes to ensure the needs, rights, freedoms, etc.. Tb I want the maximum individual freedom, but 's have put barriers ak individual freedom is not superimposed on freedom other. That you want and not a social contract between citizens, in the case of a common trtactat be made from the base. To my understanding, grassroots organizations comprising the common k and all its tissues, together with k compact sets certain behaviors Shah ensure coexistence makes functional status. Kuan I mean I want to state that, based organisms, k akests govern, the way it 's will be created during the fight. I do not use the word "state" as used by a Stalinist. To me the state is the organ of authority (I am anti-authoritarian) and akesta authority are the same basic bodies. To me a democratic decision-making base of an org can not be skipped x ningun citizen. You can have all the freedom k you want, but the k is decided democratically Shah ensure coexistence are the authority. K Pasaia assembly decides whether a sample x k be prohibited in the community to use gasoline engine? (For example) would sanction Kina akell citizen k has measure taken in breach of democratically? It would of authority-based organizations? 2 - Mon party deixemo That aside, I tampok estik very convinced of that. Be clear ks' must guarantee freedom of expression, and totally against estik k esl mov social and unions are subordinated to Unik party. Estik you say kuan k k subordinate organizations will have to mov social. Estik and they argue with you.
3 - point three estik totalmentd ' agree with you k enkara surprise you. K Everything can be done in a decentralized and effectiveness have made k now. I speak Kuan x centralism is to establish the working example, the reward due to work, the rotations in different jobs xak everyone can participate in different steps of production, etc.. That was centralized tk, pk to be internationalist, fair, caring and communist (libertarian or not) would have everyone k ls k equal opportunity to receive the same or not? If kuan decentralization can, but there are k rules having centralized To ensure the igualtat.Crek k Trotskyism and the token is quite anarkisme or Sere k I'm a weird bug and trotskisme.Visca anarkisme k lies between the proletarian revolution, companys anarkistes!
