It’s a lot more complicated and messy than that, and for what it’s worth they nearly repaired relations before the USSR dissolved.

The Sino-Soviet split is similar. Neither was the other’s “master,” but relations deteriorated.

Because, historically, the ruling classes never cede power willingly. I’m not an Anarchist though, I’m a Marxist-Leninist.

The Owenites and other Utopian Socialists of old would rise from their graves, vindicated at long last for, against all odds, finally succeeding.

Yea lol

I feel we are getting into the weeds about something that doesn’t matter, ultimately, I still don’t know what identifying as an “authoritarian” or “totalitarian” even means.

The tragedy of the commons is about random people misusing public goods, not corporations practicing unsafe dumping.

I think the biggest issue here is that we aren’t really speaking on common ground. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and can offer theory to show what that means but will put that aside for now.

The “tragedy of the commons” is not what you are using it to mean. You are referring to a lack of regulation as “tragedy of the commons,” which is not the correct usage of it.

Secondly, Capitalism erases its own foundations, it naturally centralizes and erases profit and competition, ergo it inevitably produces crisis and its own erasure.

Anarchism requires revolution, so at minimum guns are necessary for that.

Gotcha, I don’t agree with you but your comment makes sense if you are comparing yourself to the broader Marxist movement, and not just within your tendency.

I don’t know what a “self-described authoritarian” is, either. That isn’t a political stance.

If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die. The death of Capitalism is inevitable, but reaching such a point would see revolution immediately.

More often than not it’s a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn’t a “tragedy of the commons” issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

“Totalitarianism” is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of “Totalitarianism” from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a self-identifying “totalitarian,” plus the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t really a thing.

You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I’m not an Anarchist, though.

As I said, left of the status quo, but not on the left.

I appreciate the recognition, but I think being right implies a lack of living in a bubble, right? Like, we might be annoying, but certainly not detached.

That’s the far-left stance, generally.

Lenin wrote a great book about such people and their failures to get anything done.

So, Social Democrat. I wouldn’t call that “left wing,” in that it isn’t a Socialist platform. It would be “left” in comparison to the status quo, but not enough to be “very very very left wing.”

Are you saying you disagree with Trots on these matters, or that you agree with Trots despite their unique positions among Marxists in general?

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you regarding parties needing to be democratic, so I assume you are referring to a specific type of democracy.

As for Permanent Revolution, I think that was kind of “debunked” when the peasantry showed itself to be a genuine ally of the proletariat. Abandoning building Socialism because a revolution in Germany never appeared and instead focusing your efforts on exporting revolution ultimately would have led to a lack of developed industry, and a loss in World War II for the Soviets. Communism still requires global revolution, but it makes more sense to build up Socialism domestically and use that to fuel revolution globally than it does to focus almost entirely on the idea of a global revolution.