Israel is an ethno-state centered around Jewish identity. That is the literal entire point.

Israel is not the only fascist state that should he totally destroyed, of course others should be. The US is probably the biggest cause of conflict and exploitation worldwide.

Ethnostates are bad, and right now we have a fascist ethno state destroying people.

How?

A single state solution over Palestine and former Israel, with equal citizenship.

Anarchists tend to fall for idealism, and see only Anarchism as “good” and therefore acceptable. That’s really the key point, they feel like they must unify means and ends, and that the microscopic chance that one day Anarchism may be established is worth fighting for.

It’s idealism to the core and puts the individual over the well-being of the group.

Oh duh, just gotta ask the Anarchist necromancers

Nobody is suggesting that, people are arguing in favor of dismantling a fascist ethno-state.

I understand what you meant, it’s just that Marxists don’t take on that mantle whatsoever. Same with your notion that we rely on some “super smart authoritarian,” that goes against revolutionary theory.

That’s why I suggested reading theory. You seem to have an idea of what you want your end to be, and why current Capitalism is bad, but you lack organizational and Dialectical Materialist theory.

Have you read Marxist theory? Marxists don’t typically identify themselves as idealists, preferring instead Materialism, specifically Historical and Dialectical Materialism.

Reading theory may help you better engage with leftists online.

Do you have evidence of Marx and Engels, both who railed against so-called “anti-authoritarians,” saying that “Democracy must be abolished?” Do you have evidence of Marxists who followed them saying “Democracy must be abolished” either? I do not believe you will.

What I do see is Communists advocating for the destruction of Capitalism and the structures that support it, replacing them with proletarian democracy.

It isn’t a non-sequitor, your point itself was a strawman that doesn’t exist.

What Communist says “Democracy must be abolished?”

Am I not allowed to make a joke? Your point was that since Marx dissavowed some self-proclaimed Marxists during his lifetime, that those that followed him and took on the moniker must also not understand his ideas. You have to admit this is silly and not logically supported, right? That’s like saying burgers are chicken sandwiches, because both have meat in buns.

That’s a bit goofy, but then I will amend the original statement with clarity: revolutionaries do not necessarily support random individual movements, but mass revolutionary action among the workers.

Are you conflating Capitalism with democracy?

I do argue in good faith, this entire time I have asked you to elaborate and you’ve ducked and weaved, now that you can’t duck anywhere else you run.

Good luck wishing for leftist movement to happen, surely another faithful will make it happen!

Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.

That’s a deeply silly statement, please explain why you think Lenin misunderstood Marx.

I believe that elected representatives can represent those that elect them if you don’t have Capitalism. Saying you can’t have that and just saying “no, you’re the idealist” is unproductive and goes nowhere.

Material Conditions did improve in Catalonia! Never said they didn’t, that’s a claim you lied about me saying, though I’ll let it slide this time. A lot did work, but a lack of proper organization led to losing to outside pressure.

Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist and Marxist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.

That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!

As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.

As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.

A coup is a revolutionary movement with mass support? Are all revolutions coups?

Took advantage of a wildly unpopular government during WWI to hold a revolution, taking the Winter Palace.

It wasn’t just a random strike and coup, but a revolutionary movement backed by a mass of workers.

How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.

Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.