Again, I was quoting an SLP publication from 1901, and I was not using that language against anyone as such. I said that “anarchism” without qualification or further clarification is and always has been a disastrous & destructive countervailing undertow within leftism at worst. And in the short-term it’s a purposeful swamp light and diversionary tactic at best. Lofty & noble to think about, but far more contradictory & dependent on weird niche community fandoms than ML states. Anti-communist anarchists are still just anti-communists… there’s not really much to discuss beyond that.

Then I misunderstood your point, to me it seemed like you were dismissing anarchism and anarchists as a whole, sorry.

The rest I think I can mostly agree to except for this part maybe, I'd say I am a bit more optimistic about what people are capable of themselves without needing any high court to tell them what they can and cannot do, what they are allowed to think, and so on and so forth.

States & jurisprudential authority and organizational methods of hierarchical/knowledge-based expertise will still be absolutely necessary in the medium term. We can’t forget that or side-step or put it off til after the cops & imperialists & capitalist-funded death squads just suddenly “give up” because the anarchists are just too “principled” and logically compelling to crush outright.

Otherwise, what is your opinion on having, in the event of something as monumental of scope as the Russian revolution actually were to happen in the future, would you think there is a possibility for communes(of course based on the principle of AnCom) to exist side-by-side with an ML state and not be crushed by it?