Tankies BTFO

t. edgy contrarian

The fact that some form of governance exists doesn't mean that it isn't organized on anarchist principles of horizontalism and self-governance. There will never be a perfect anarchist utopia where there's literally no authority anywhere. Same with Rojava on property, they have collectivized like 80% of the land and redistributed power to decentralized communes, who gives a fuck if some farmer owns a stall on the local bazaar. And tankies have the gall to call other utopians

So the premise of OP is wrong

Not an argument.

whats the alternative that you offer

No. CNT was an anarchist society, Sovjet a socialist and what we live in now a capitalist one. The ideals of a society always differ from the comd hard reality, obviously you can say that we don't live in a fully capitalist society because we have nationalized industries and libraries, but doing so would be pointless since we're generally organized on capitalist principles.

*cold hard reality

This user gets it.

The CNT was a Syndicalist organization, not a commune. The fuck are you on about?
jfc you dumb nigger, Christiania has not been an anarchist commune for longer than most users here have been alive. It has been a dealing spot mostly populated by new age faggots, who actually kicked the anarchists out last year, only for them to reinstitute themselves.
They outright say they are not anarchists, have no affiliation with anarchists, and do not want anarchists to join. Research your shit.
u wot m8

both anarchists and MLs are about communism as the end goal (with the possible exception of market anarchists like mutualists? not sure). MLs are all about the workers' State while anarchist schools of thought differ mostly on the form of the phase before full communism. neither believe communism is this magical end result that comes out of nowhere, it's the result of economics.

Lenin's interpretation of Marx, which seems accurate to me from what little I've read, in State and Revolution is that the workers' State should be a direct democracy, and that the proletariat, comprising the majority of the population, would become the 'ruling' class in a real democracy– again, because they are the majority. the function of the State, immediately after a workers' revolution, has already ceased to be a bourgeois State, an instrument of rule for a minority over a majority, and as inequality is reduced and capitalist conditioning fades from our collective memories, the State, having been reducing its role from the very beginning, ceases to be necessary at all.

anarchists argue that this is ridiculous and naive, because any body of power will seek to maintain and extend that power, because power is a corrupting force. obviously, you can't expect the so-called workers' State to remain an instrument of the people, or even to begin as one, really– MLs are obviously morons or authoritarians.

MLs argue that you can't put communism into practice without the power of the State to address issues as they arise, to coordinate, to react to uprisings and counter-revolutionary forces. obviously, you can't expect a society without any central authority to react to such threats. anarchists are obviously morons or naive children.

tl;dr neither thinks communism is utopian OP