Caj

"The existence of trade between autonomous communities means the creation of a market system and consequently the re-institution of the capitalist mode of production as a whole. There isn't any way to avoid this fact except by renouncing trade and advocating completely autarkic communities (which would be a regression from capitalism)."

How is making communities self-sufficient a regression, all comunities should be self-suficient.

If you don't belive in the federation, how you you organize it.

"One reason is that you can't have a society with semi-feudal productive forces in which production and distribution takes place in accordance with "from each according to his or her abilities and to each according to his or her needs" without everyone living in miserable poverty if not starving to death."

Ever heard of rationing, or does that also not apply to marxism.

"Earlier I said that we "authoritarian" socialists seek to exorcise power through the exercise of power, and you referred to such a sentiment as "hypocritical." Now you are arguing the same thing with different words ("natural" and "unnatural")."

What you said was "reach stalessness through the use of state".

"allocation of no more than an average worker's wage, salary, or amount of remuneration for state officials)."

Thus giving rise to curruption, being badly paid would make them easier to bribe.

"That would be tedious and pointless. Besides, I've already made many of my objections to libertarianism clear throughout this discussion. In addition, I'm tired of this discussion and don't want to lengthen it."

Then you do not believe in libertarianism because you are afraid?

We don't (all) believe that. I believe that a successful proletarian revolution can occur in an underdeveloped country, even one as underdeveloped as Russia was in 1917 (of which there are no examples today). Socialism, however, has as a precondition highly developed productive forces that only capitalistic development can create. Because 1917 Russia did not possess such highly developed productive forces (being semi-feudal and underdeveloped), a transitional stage of state capitalist development (under a proletarian dictatorship) was necessary. In short, the stage of bourgeois political power can be skipped; capitalistic economic development, on the other hand, cannot.

I don't think socialism needs developped means of production, I think it is complementary.
Explain why you think they are necessary.

"Libertarianism has countless flaws, and I have neither the time nor the effort to explain all of them."

You have all the time in the world, make a list.

"One flaw is the libertarian fantasy of a (con)federation of autonomous communes and/or syndicates. Under such a system, communes or syndicates would inevitably be forced to trade with one another on the basis of free exchange, reestablishing the market system and consequently the capitalist mode of production itself. "

Of course commmunities would have to trade with one another, but it is diferent, one community requesitions certain materials form another community, at the same time the other can do the same, if the community that receives the request agrees it send the materials over to the other community, without trade.

Like I said, make a list so we can disscuss all the problems you have with libertarianism.

"Okay, so now you've established that what is "natural" is relative to the observer."

It is natural for one to try to maintain his level of living, but it is not natural for him to force another into something he does not want, which might be necessary for the first one to maintain his level of living.
If you think this way, you will realize that revolution is not natural, any society involving state or money is also not natural.
Revolution is an unnatural action necessary to put an end to an unnatural system.

"The state."

Decentralized revolutionaries, volunteers, and militia.

"So are syndicates, communes, collectives, factory councils, soviets, etc., etc. What's your point?"

My point is that a human being will do anything to remain in his level of living, even betraying his own principles, that is why the state wouldn't "wither away".

"What does the Bolsheviks' suppression of the various anarcho-bandit groups that sought to sabotage the Revolution have to do with the Revolution's later degeneration?"

The fact that you say they sought to sabotage the revolution reveals that the sources of information about the Russian revolution you think are credible are those writen by Lenin.
The anarchists saw that the revolution was lost, "the dictatorship of the tsar turned into dictatorship of Ilyich", they knew that the bolsheviks had taken control of the country and were ruthlessly stopping any attempts at reaching communism (as in the stateless soceity).
The anarchists were trying to save the revolution.

I find it strange how marxists beleive that revolution cannot succesfuly happen in underdeveloped countries, I beleive it can happen in any country, all it takes is the will.

"Why would it? So long as the Party remains representative of, and accountable to, the class interests of the proletariat, I see no problem."

The problem is that the state is made up of individual humans.

"I do, however, see problems with the "libertarian" proposals of decentralization and autonomy, which would lead to the instant death of any revolution."

And I see a problem with authoritarian proposals of centralization and state control, which leads to the death of the revolution. I have justified why I think this, now you must justify why you beleive that libertarian proposals will lead to the death of the revolution.

"Why?"

Because the state will eventually abolish the soviets.