TheRedAnarchist23

(Continued) "Authoritarianism is never justified and must be avoided, since the revolution is suposed to liberate people, not opress them."

You said, "Anarchists believe in a federation of communities, but that may not be possible in time of civil war[.]" Does this not imply that "authoritarian" measures, such as that of the Makhnovists or Bolsheviks, are necessary under conditions of civil war? If not, what did you mean by this? What "libertarian" measures could be implemented to adequately deal with conditions of civil war?

"I can answer this with one word : tcheka."

Tcheka? You mean the Capeverdean musician? What does he have to do with anything? Or is that a typo of "Cheka"? In either case, your response is completely absurd.

"I think it failed because of the authoritarian state, like most (if not all) anarchists do."

...sigh...

"So, why should I use historical records of the USSR writen by Lenin."

What does this have to do with confronting material that critiques your position? Actually, your bud Anarcho-Brocialist reads Lenin, Bordiga, etc. because he wants to expand his knowledge on such subjects and understand his position even better. Seriously, I have never actually met someone so eager to admit they don't confront any material that could possibly contradict and critique their views.

"Democratic like the Soviet Union? (that was sarcasm)"

Good thing that I never claimed the USSR was a dotp. I would argue that it was a dotp in the beginning, but so would most anarchists as well.

This whole next part is your post and it makes no sense:

"through this:
"why be so active against a transitional state?"

you prove my argument to be correct."

"I say the same thing over and over again because you always answer to something I did not say, like when I say some ideas of anarchism (those of libertarianism) are present in anarcho-capitalism, you answer that anarcho-capitalism did not originate from anarchism, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said."

1. For any serious and genuine analysis, no ideas of anarchism are present in anarcho-capitalism. If you take these 2 tendencies in very abstract terms then yes, you can say that they have some things in common (although, this is flawed logic because you can do that with every ideology, belief system, etc. that has ever existed).
2. I have repeated over and over why anarchism has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism and the fact that it did not originate from anarchism was only one single part of that response. You have failed to respond to any of the other claims, and have just said the same thing over and over.

No, just you. He actually knows what he is talking about and me and him have had genuine, good, and civil debates over subjects that there is no way in hell I could have with you. Actually, he was someone I was going to refer you to.

Okay, I am done with this. I think I might block you too, it depends I guess...

You are wrong about a lot of things, and it isn't because you are an anarchist because many anarchists would be able to respond in a factual and logical manner, it is because you lack a basic knowledge about some leftist thought and history. If you have any serious questions, don't be afraid to ask and be more open minded to opposing viewpoints.

I may do one last response. I don't have much time right now, and I don't even really know what the point would be really since right now it seems you will hold on to your flawed notions and beliefs without any facts or sources to back them up and despite overwhelming evidence showing otherwise and no matter what I say. Talk to some of your anarchist comrades questions and ask them for suggestions on what to read to get a better understanding.

You think Assassin's Creed 1 was better than 2? If there was any doubt before, it's gone now. You definitely are a troll.

"what good is a state when it has been proven time and time again that all socialist revolutions who used a state have degenerated."

I can just as easily ask this question: What good is anarchism when it has been proven time and time again that all anarchist revolutions have degenerated?

Both questions are ridiculous arguments.

"A state is not necessary to win a civil war, for example, one could use a syndicate for that, or merely have a chain of command in an army."

How is a syndicate supposed to win a civil war exactly?

A state is an organ of class rule. If you have a centralized military to enforce the class rule of the proletariat during a civil war, you effectively have a state.

"Centralized state apparatus was what made the Soviet Union degenerate to state capitalism"

During the Civil War, centralization was what kept the Soviet Union from degenerating more quickly. If the state centralization of War Communism hadn't been implemented, the proletarian dictatorship would have been crushed instantly.

If you're referring to the centralization under Stalin, your statement is still incorrect. To paraphrase Amadeo Bordiga, the monstrous swelling of the state machine that characterized Stalinism was not the cause of the USSR's degeneration into state capitalism but its inevitable consequence.