birdwing

Having individuals not capable of going against the collective interests of humanity isn't a bad thing.

Until that "collective interests" becomes an authoritarian force. I think you don't understand me. I reject seeking to achieve communism through a dictatorship; it can only be done fully democratically, through and by the people; not through any vanguard.

Anarchism isn't per se based around individualism - it is based around the rejection of the state altogether. Anarchocollectivism exists; but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

You also say that it's not rooted in historical evidence etc. that any and all leadership will *always* revert to capitalism or private interests being upheld... one would have to be more than blind to not see it; the Soviet Union and the PRC for example, are perfect examples of state bureaucracy. What communism, when Stalin murdered critics such as Trotsky simply because they didn't fit his agenda? What non-capitalism when wages still exist? Or let's look to social democracy, which is still susceptible to capitalist meddling, as with the murder of Olof Palme? Or to look at the dozens of coups by the capitalist US?

The facts are crystal clear: blindness for the bad side of leadership is blindness away from communism.

Zapatists also do not reject anarchism - they're literally named after one and in contrast to marxists-leninists and adjacents, actually uphold the freedom of communism.

Democratic centralism is a tool for dictators. Point said. It is an attempt to establish and reinforce a state, and so I reject it.

There also, in fact is a direct path to communism. That is; setting up grassroots organisations, working together with each other. Giveaway stores, federation among all who adhere to a gift economy and workplace democracy model, and so on. When a tailor gives a farmer clothes, and the farmer the tailor clothes; and so on. It's a simplified explanation, but Kropotkin's good material to read.

Capitalists will not give up their position willingly, that is true; they will do what seems most advantageous or prestigious to them, is what I perceive. When we change the system to change what is advantageous to them, they are also forced to change along or perish.

Except that with anarchocommunism, there is no class to speak of, as ownership is not private, but common; and neither transferrable (to the next generation) nor accumulatable.

If a larger whole - which is far stronger than an individual -, can decide for the person, then the state and correspondingly, capitalism will return, because they can override the individual, while not giving them an option to do otherwise.

Henceforth there absolutely can be repression without class distinction. If anyone ever has more power than others, and can misuse it, you bet some will.

I do think that some societies have achieved collectivisation and classlessness, such as the Zapatists. They have managed to do so without getting vertically organised - an incredible accomplishment.

And no: my question centered around the abolition of class and the state, which together would constitute communism for me. But the harsh reality is that without abolition of capitalism and all authority, socialism will never achieve free communism; oligarchs will either try their hardest to regress it into a free market, or use the power to repress. While building enough homes and raising life standards is good, it is not satisfactory enough when there's no possibility for criticism after decisions have been taken. What freedom, what socialism is there, when one cannot criticise and be a free queer?

Your metaphor thus wouldn't hold exactly; a better analogy would be that of the baseball player not using his prowess to harass other teammates into giving him gifts and doing as he says; and instead, the baseball player actually cooperates with everyone, sharing equally; because if he does so, so too will he receive equal positiveness back.

So, I'm inclined to beg to differ. Regression and repression is the mantra of an authoritarian. I reject the chances of such a path and prefer a direct path to communism.

Whips are indeed the same: as in parties often discussion is still permissible, but when it comes to votes, the whip forces aside freedom of decision. I view it as a tool of authoritarianism.

What would be most ideal, is to make the 'equilibrium' situation as close to anarchocommunism as possible, if not the same. The more attractive for oligarchs to give up their wealth and class distinction altogether, the better.

The fact that it's creepy that AI decides for us how to make our videos. It's spyware.

I do not for a second trust the state to wither away when a vanguard party is in power. I'd rather skip that phase entirely before it can corrupt politicians.

Sure, gradual withering would be nice, and ideal; but is there any socialist state that ever actually turned communist? in that there's no significant bureaucracy, no surveillance, where there's no democratic centralism*, and where workplace democracy is everywhere?

* western parties also do this, called party whips.

The priority for me is any authoritarianism. Authoritarianism by itself is extremist; wanting a world liberated of that is not.

Surveillance capitalism, religious fundamentalism, it's all the same to me: they seek to control people and the flow of good life standards, away from the masses, towards their leaders.

Surveillance capitalism does so by selling your private data to the highest bidder, and these will use it to spy on you, bribing, harassing, and corrupting lawmakers into creating a surveillance state - a perfect recipe for authoritarianism to pop its head up. They direct attention away from the oligarchs so that we do not combat them.

Religious fundamentalism sells your personhood to the strongest converters, to those that strip you of autonomy; such groups thus also spy on you. They always look for the downtrodden, weakest and most vulnerable, to direct their hatred for their current situation away from the true source -- oligarchs.

So for me, I'd say there is no difference and this question is meaningless: it's asking for the difference between a golden apple/window and a golden cross. At the end of day, both cannot be eaten, but all buy it up blindly.

Indeed. The entire wage system should be replaced by a system centered around human needs, such as in a gift economy.

Which goes to show it didn't go as far as it could've.

They might indeed call it unrealistic to actually go on and prosecute all (and reasonably so given that recovery was key), but at least most of the top and key individuals should've gotten further consequences. Werner von Braun got off light.

There's much the USSR did terribly, but at least it was thorough with its treatment of Nazis after the war. That said, at the end of day, anarchocommunism >>>> state & surveillance capitalism. Stalin still allied with Hitler.

There being no gender norms would actually be even more liberating. It means we're not pressured into only wearing femme clothing (when going the estrogen route) or masculine ones (when doing testosterone).

It'd open up a ton of possibilities for cis and queer people alike; wearing skirts on warm days for men also, or wearing pretty nail polish, or short hair for women...

Ultimately, the ideal is indeed the removal of repressive gender norms. When these are gone, we can fully express ourselves; taking hormones would be perfectly okay, not taking them as well, and so on. People certainly still would, but they'd feel happier not being bound anymore.

That's my stance as well, although I'd start puberty blockers a little before puberty starts. So around 6/8 yo, and HRT around 12/14. And also without parental consent needed, a lot of trans youth have strict parents which damages their prospects on that.

Obv, the blockers and hrt should occur with informed consent regardless, but yeah.

Yup. Before I came out, as a kid we often had shared showers and drying rooms. Pretty chill actually, we learnt to interact and talk with each other that way, instead of being segregated and correspondingly implicitly seeing the other side as something forbidden, mythical -- when they're just... people, really.

I think some also went there, or to Australia and New Zealand. Maybe other ones too. But I'm less certain of all those.

Trumpites are the real RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).