Anarcho-Brocialist

Agent Orange was one hell of a biological weapon! Yeah, I heard the army, no matter what your politics are, is shit. Why did you join?

"It's impossible for a conventional force to topple a non-conventional force. Unless you plan on killing everyone."

Could not have said it better myself! What was the Army like?

No, we won "militarily" if you are talking about conventional war victories (like the Tet Offensive) but the Vietnamese won militarily when they "stayed in the jungle" (as General Giap wanted them to do) and kept up the guerrilla war strategy. That is why the Americans stayed there so long in the first place, they couldn't crush the guerrilla wariors by using conventional warfare tactics against the asymmetrical warfare tactics of the Vietnamese. They did have a strategy, as General Giap stated in his work People's War People's Army.

The U.S. probobly could have won if they sent in a small, special forces group to destabalize and crush the North Vietnamese, but instead generals like Westmoreland who wanted to basically fight WWII against a guerrilla army. The strategy caused their defeat and caused the victory of a force that was much less militarily superior.

Well, military superiority isn't always an indicator of victory or defeat. Strategy has a big role to play. One example I can think of is the Vietnam war. Despite massive American bombardment and American military superiority, the Vietnamese were still able to kick the American war machine out. I would say this is due to superior strategy. I will continue this as not to run out of room in another post.

Well, I think if the west would have backed the anarchists they would have just become pawns of their imperial interests as other rebel movements in the past have.

But the material conditions of war necessitated the military. Although, I agree, the fact they collaborated with the Republicans led to the degeneration of the revolution for sure. In fact, I would argue that move was extremely class collaborationist.

While it remained more "libertarian" (I feel that the terms libertarian and authoritarian are a false dichotomy) than Russia, it still used organs and institutions that were essentially "statist". This is why I feel the dotp is needed and unavoidable. In a post-revolution society, when remanants of the bourgeoisie will try to take back power, the material conditions which will exist will necessitate institutions which, by any Marxist of anarchist standard, would be considered a state.

It is somewhat ridiculous, though, to claim that the Soviet Union was the natural development of Leninism and Marxism. The Soviet Union faced massive foreign intervention, civil war, famine, sabotage, assassination, underdevelopment and the need to industrialize etc. etc. I think that had much more to do with the revolution's degeneration than a centralization in the state (which I would argue was a result of the above). There was nothing natural about the development of the Soviet Union.

I would disagree. I would agree with Bordiga in this writing Is this the Time to form Soviets that the Soviets are one of the most important organs of proletariat rule. I would say that this system would not be leaders legislating in the name of the proletariat.