Can a one party state with inner party democracy be considered democratic?

You'll convert normies easier calling liberal democracy, it also drives a wedge between us and the liberals. Not to mention it makes you sound with the times.

Wtf i like socdem now

Yes, but its a tenuous relationship

No. Statecraft and politics are mutually exclusive

All power to the soviets and factory committees, give the Bolsheviks the wall treatment tbh

It is the natural tendency of a party, by the nature of its structure, to want state power and to impose an ideology from above. It's in its very purpose. Otherwise, it exerts no influence in the conventional sense of what a party is. Nominally having democracy will not change this - the antagonism between party and populace cannot be resolved.

Now you will go on about "stupid utopian anarkiddies, parties can take state power and exert influence!". Yes, they can, but they are not an option. Only a loose organization based on revocable delegates and without higher-up rulers, with demands rising from the struggles of the people themselves, can truly make proletarian democracy a reality.

This guy gets it

more people need to take the green pill

Not a big fan of Bookchin tbh. I read some of his work, it's riddled with idpol - imaginary things such as an aggregate interest of all females versus an aggregate interest of all males is the basis of that cancer. I suppose it's to be expected, given that he wrote before the post-2008 return of class warfare.

You ever read Makhno? His platformist project has at times been criticized as too authoritarian by some anarchists (in particular those of the individualist strand), but his ideas make a lot of sense in today's light.

No parties after the revolution. Decentralized direct democracy

This, the revolution and the proletarian government must come directly from the masses themselves, not through some phony vanguard that "represents" the interests of the workers. Parties should be abolished or minimized entirely, and replaced with direct or council democracy.

Yes. All "multi-party" democracy is really just factions of the bourgeoisie anyway.

Considering that their chance of gaining real power is ten times the chance that you will, you should be careful talking about the wall.

Rojava is a one party state. So, Actually Existing Communalism turned out to be just like State Socialism.

And yet the assemblies run themselves. I'm not a communalist and disagree with large aspects of their project because they haven't abolished private property, ignore class, and give undue attention to women's liberation (which is more of an issue in the ME than here in America, granted), but I don't see much of a resemblance between what the PYD does and how the Bolshevik vanguard operated.

If anything, it's much more like an anarchist organization along the lines of the FAI than a traditional party - it serves more to defend the self-organization of the people than to defend a stubborn vision of how society ought to be organized.

Anarchists have had multiple chances to put them up against the wall. The Bolsheviks would have lost if Makhno hadn't saved their asses by attacking Denikin in the rear when he did. The CNT could easily have crushed the PCE if they had known what backstabbing traitors the Leninists were. Now we know what pieces of shit they are. Their cause is that of the party, not the people. Accordingly, they are no different from the bourgeoisie from the anarchist perspective. They can and will be destroyed.

Moreover, they've thoroughly discredited themselves. Nobody wants to live in the USSR, and you know what, not everything critical of it is bourgeois propaganda (although a good amount is). It's not much of a jump to go from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il.

People today are overwhelmingly open to anarchism and not authoritarian "state socialism". All it takes is an organizational spark to light the tinder so well dried by neoliberalism and the failures of Lenin.

holy shit anarkiddies are delusional

holy shit you're a fag

See here:
That's just from Wikipedia.
For a more complete source, see here:
ditext.com/nomad/makhno.html
Maybe I'm jaded to any sort of identity-based struggle (even though I qualify for many) because of how annoying and counterproductive SJWs are here in the US, but I just don't see them accomplishing anything big as a central piece of a program.

I'm not against women's liberation. That's not at all what I said. It's a very real issue that women aren't treated like human beings in the ME. I just don't see it being a viable centerpiece for an international anticapitalist movement.

You mean like a… vanguard party?

How about a general union of libertarian communists? A vanguard is specifically supposed to take state power. It's cancerous.

Stop it with this stupid false dichotomy of "vanguard that does stuff versus anarkiddies without organization who never do anything". You're making it obvious that you're illiterate and uncritically accepting of whatever you're spoonfed. You're a fucking moron. READ MAKHNO!

What about the overwhelming majority of proletarians who are not "libertarian communists"?

Mandatory single party with genuine democracy internally honestly sounds like truer democracy.

In liberal democracy the parties have all sorts of control, and there may only be 2 of them. By having a single party in the long run you'll bring in people who have all sorts of crazy ideas to run in what amounts to a party-free system.

Then you're fucking stupid. The PKK PYD came over to Syria and fucking set up literally everything through TEV-DEM. They set up the communes and councils, organized the SDF, told other Kurdish orgs to get with the program or fuck off, and have been the ones directing operations against Daesh etc. etc. They. Run. The show. The people, of course, get to play in their communes and councils over every-day matters, but there are SDF for a reason, and there's a party for a reason. There's a reason why people who have been in the PKK/PYD for 30 fucking years or so are in charge in the Cantons and the SDF. It's because, unlike you, they're not idiots.

...

Yes.