I like communism becuase some good political analysis, intelectual archievements and organisation methods. Still...

I like communism becuase some good political analysis, intelectual archievements and organisation methods. Still, I can't sincerely stop being anarchist and become just ordinary commie because I'm to aware its flaws: authoritarianism, which leads to deceneration of revolutuon and restauration of capitalism, and economic failure due to centralization.

I know we need to bring bag big narration of social liberation, and tankiesm is actually not helping this contrary to what's tankies think (I count trots as tankies sorry). At the same time anarchism is pretty much inflitrated by petty bourgeoise ideology and elements, and disorganised. I hardly see an exit from this situation to join true revolutionary movement with actual potential.

inb4 "All you know about Soviet Union is wrong" Actually I know pretty much not from bourgeois propaganda but sincere analysis of data. I's simply no new way, we need to build something different.

Google Bookchin

Bravo comrade, you are starting to understand. Read Slovenian meth man

I know Bookchin, but seriously. It's theorist, and theory is much less important that actual social movment and its actions.
Of course, good theory causes good practice, but I also think that my role as an middle class inteligentsia should be joining working class organisation and create theory to their practice, not finding interesting theory and seek organisation with consistent practice.

I think the divide between anarchism and communism results from a flaw in symbolically structuring your ideology - being either for or against hierarchy/authority. The question should be, what is the right kind of hierarchy/authority. The anarchists are wrong, you have to have some kind. Tankies are also wrong, you can't just blindly trust the Dear Leader. I don't think there is a ready-made solution to this dilemma - but it would help if both sides were critical of their destructive tendencies.

Hierarchy and authority is always based on management of the work of others and the possibility of depriving them of their needs. It's impossible to call your system communism and keep the hierarchy /authority structure. You can of course say that in interactions between humans there will be always some kind of compulsion, authority, at least manipulation - ok, but in relation between social classes authority is unacceptable on the most basic level, that with goal of establishing authority our revolution is devoid of meaning: its purpose would be to reform the current political system and economy, not the revolution of the strict sense.

Anarchists, in their strong opposition to any political power, actually are last true revolutionaty and genuinely progressive party. The problem is lack of organisation and decay of anarchist movement after some unsuccessful revolutions, insurrections and struggles.

Maybe Makhno was right. Maybe Platformism is the only way to go. I haven't finished the book, but I think the idea behind the tendency is strong but there needs to be more theory for how to create a strong, discipled, and unified organization without turning to authoritarianism.

I think you're conflating authority with dominance - in the case of state and capital they go hand in hand, but I don't think they're necessarily the same. Authority can be earned, through relationships among equals. For instance a good scholar or critical theorist gains authority not because they exert dominance but because the quality of their work. Same with a good leader or organizer, they also have a degree of authority. The problem is not with the authority but how do you make it consensual, and revokable if the power gets to their head.

Yes, but this kind of authority is not this that anarchist are want to abolish. When we talk we are anti-authoritarian, we say that we're against social authority of one groups on others, based on power, not against authority based on competence and social trust. Anarchism from its begining was scientific system, created by scientists, and recognizing scientific methodology.

I used to be platformist before, I was member of platformist anarchist federation but it isn't working as I expected. Maybe in some places platformists are orgnized better, but I prefer syndycalism.
It's because I perceive anarchism more as practice and method of organisation than a worldview, strict set of views or ideologies. Platformism is basically organisation of anarchists, and I now would prefer organisation of many people on anarchists principles.
That's why we in our organisation are open to many people even without specific worldview, even marxists-leninists, if only they accept basic naarchist pronciples of self-organisation and autonomy of our unions.

boi just pick and choose the right ideas and policies for the situation and country you're in
Who knows? Maybe somewhere might benefit from a vanguard party acting in an advisory role. Maybe some place needs to transition through market socialism to be rid of some specific problems.
Being an ideological puritan gets noone anywhere. Leftists ideas shouldn't be set in stone but adaptable

Or just be an egoist

Well, tbh I agree with some kind of vanguardism, but I understand it differently than tankies. I perceive revolutionary vanguard as most concious part of workig class itself, not kind of professional revolutionaries "in service" of working class, making revolution "for working class" instead of this class, as if is in leninism.

For example, worker unionists are revolutionary vanguard, but not leaders of union structures, which are usually reactionary and reformists, but strike leaders, informal inspirators of riots, who are encouraging people to escalate claims, face the crowd and incite them to speak.

Also, I don't believe in any form of "market socialism" being realistic. I think socialism begins when we abolish market and archive better way of organising economy. If we need markets for anything, it means we don't have resources necessary to build socialism, and this project will always lead to failure and restauration of capitalism (what is, in reality, stil existing).

Well good for you you've discovered the magic of "hey, this seems like a good idea but this doesn't". Stay true to your ideas but don't reject stuff that seems to work on the basis of "that's not how I predicted that".
Be anti-sectarian and stay that way.

...

Not communalist. If it is then communalism is a fucking joke.

how so

Ocalan explicitly calls democratic confederalism a form of communalism you gigantic faggot

Rojava only exists because America allows it to. It's kind of embarrassing actually.

That has been true of any socialist state.

You think Cuba continues to exist due to gusto and moxie alone?

...

That's literally what Lenin says dawg. He ain't no Blanquist. Read some Lukacs too because that man has some mighty fine things to say. Tbh this conception of the vanguard as anything other than a weapon for organization and dicipline during a revolutionary period is simply the result of people (aka the average anarcho and tankie flag poster) NOT READING. I think there is a difference between populist leaders/thinkers of a movement and a class conscious group of highly trained individuals dedicated to organization and mobilization though so I disagree with the worker unionist kinda thing.

If you think Bookchin qualifies as a theorist then you have absolutely no room to talk here. The guy was basically a socdem who tried (and failed, miserably I might add) to create a sort of Bob Black style cult around himself. He died alone and unappreciated except by his three or so adepts.