>>8162>did you ask them whether they wanted you to represent them?Well, you can't really have a real worker's party without popular support. I mean that's the point of propaganda and all that shit. Of course it's also important to keep in touch with more base-level structures like trade unions. You also can't get into power without having popular support if you are up against the bourgeois state.
>Second, who is "having" these structuresI have mentioned parties but I'm talking about pretty much anything that has representation. Unions, councils, etc.
>who is allowed to have a controlling relation to them? Who is allowed to annul that controlling relation to those structures?I'm just talking about representation in the abstract. These would all depend on the type of structure and its role in the DoP/movement.
>Third, what exactly does "representation" entail that isn't the same fraudulent bourgeois republican form we have today?The main reason why liberal democracy isn't democratic isn't that you vote for people. The real problems are the deep state (army, secret services, etc.) and the informal power corporations hold both in elections and over elected officials. Representation is a necessity. The only alternatives I know of are unelected structures and referenda. The latter is obviously superior to all other options but it's also really hard to organize.
>Exactly.Don't tell me you are opposed to all representative structures. Imagine if the union leaders decide to call a strike. Rejection of authority is not when you cross the picket line out of spite
>It absolutely does matter.No it doesn't. It's irrelevant how authority is legitimized if you oppose authority as as such. Take a party for example. It doesn't matter if delegates can be sent to the party congress in a more or less free manner or they are basically chosen by the leadership in advance, if I do something completely retarded I will be kicked out. That's the top-down aspect.
>That's private property you're claiming.Private property? What are you talking about?
>If you actually believe in the redefinition of democracy as bourgeois party liberalism, kill yourself now, because you are so steeped in liberal propaganda that you no longer have any tools with which to escape it.I'm not talking about liberalism. Lenin correctly identified that democracy is still a form rule, even if it is rule by the majority. A communist society where the state has been aboslished can't be democratic, since there would no rule whatsoever over any class. It would be the absence of rule. And if you want a "bottom-up" system, that means there must be an "up". If there is an "up", it must work by giving orders and speaking on the behalf of the working class to other states/organizations. And therefore it is top-down.
>He's starting to get it…My point is that the state has never been abolished, not even by anarchists. Therefore it is meaningless to label something "authoritarian" from your point of view, especially when with most people it's a very loaded term used for anything that is not liberalism.
>Obviously you lack adequate moral development to see yourself as anything but the instrument of anonymous authority.Do you actually think that the so-called free elections brought democracy? Cuz in my opinion elections don't matter shit. The main point is that in socialist countries workers had a lot more bargaining power in the work place because of full employment and the party always prioritised the well-being of working people because there wasn't any class they could have prioritized instead. Party officials themselves or factory managers were employed by the state and they lacked any direct incentive to do things like increasing workload or anything that is colloquially called exploitation. This is a lot more democratic than choosing who will fuck over workers every 4 years.
>I think other anon's complaint is about vestiture and entitlement, and he's got a very good point. The problem with you DotP types is that you imagine that you have a right to rule based on some narrative, which is exactly as much bullshit as any other monarch ever came up with.I asked you a very clear question about organization and hierarchy and you give me this moralist bullshit. At least you are being honest. For you hierarchy is not a concrete social relation, no no (that would probably force you to admit that it's unavoidable). Hierarchy is when you are mean entitled.
>that ranks become personal property?????
>Were they given a vote? Of course not.And it was still more democratic than liberal democracies. Anyways in the '90s free elections in effect meant the loosening of top level restriction on elected officials. Basically all power to the bureaucrats.
>They have to overthrow you after you've taken all the guns and police them almost as extensively as burgerland polices its subjects.America under. a lot worse than post-Stalin USSR. It's also very different who they throw into prisons. The USSR did this with retarded dissidents who mostly went on to become shitlibs (or at least this is the part you have the biggest problem with), America does this to poor people to restrict their freedom and get cheap slave labour. It's true that the gulags were pretty bad under Stalin, but keep in mind that primitive accumulation was never pretty and there just doesn't seem to be way in which communists could have skipped it. Not mention that collectivization allowed the USSR to quickly modernize. Also the aforementioned thing with the bureaucracy.
>No. It should have started later. After the 1929 crash would have been an excellent time.I don't care about your hypothetical cenarios where everything is perfect. If there was no socialism which could fall things would be almost certainly shittier because socialism is good. It's simple as that.
>Are you done with your tiring pompous doctrine of "everything my Great Man ever did was indispensable"?I didn't even mention a single person. And yeah, when you look that history, things that happened carry a lot more weight than things that could have happened. The USSR always faced very hard conditions and their options were always limited. The anarchist on the other hand were never able to provide an alternative.