Anyway: pornographic art and performance is good, people have a right to the vast majority of their kinks, and it is ridiculous that consenting adults are finding those rights strangled by big tech and payment platforms

Cool. Well in that case, we'll see which groups persist against opposition. Sounds to me like so far as we've established, it comes down to whose methods are successful. My money's on ML theory and organizing but we'll let the marketplace of ideas sort it out

Given these repeated non-objections to the necessity of centralization's functions and also the capacity for armed self-defense on multiple scales, I want to reiterate my main point, which is that if anarchy is broad enough as to have no objections, it isn't *on its own* in conversation w/ Marxism.

That threat is guaranteed by bourgeois powers. It is a sure thing that they will threaten and oppose socialist projects, by which I mean those political projects which intend the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the installment of the working class as the ruling class, & then the end of class itself.

It is 100% necessary that the working class be capable of organized self-defense en masse. In fact, many communities in the present day could do with a great deal of organized, *armed* community self-defense. 100% necessary. Indispensable.

So far as I can see, there are basic tasks required in order to establish the lasting, sustainable rule of the masses (the working class allied with the peasantry and even, after a fashion, with the reluctant petit bourgeoisie) that require centralization or else they won't get done.

If in practice everyone gets organized just as if there were a centralizing and coordinating body, then we're right back at anarchy not actually having things to say which would present an alternative to just this "theory" you "for someone reason" "put" in """quotes""" """""derisively"""""

These organizational efforts must be coordinated, specifically they must be centralized. If they're left to mass consensus without an organizing body, they won't happen because direct democracy at such a scale without prior support or structure is not possible.

exactly, if we want conformity then why did every socialist country immediately rush to educate the population?

That is, it is more difficult to be in the party than out. There are tasks asked of them & they must hear out the masses, period. Society in its form one second after revolution has many tasks, it can't instantly do away with the specialization & organization which are required for its functioning.

When I say "you can't join the party unless you work for the party," anarchists may bristle, but the party is not there to be the elite ruling class immune from the critique of the masses and set over them. They have specific organizational tasks & are the target of 'self-criticism.'

Ideological here in the explicit sense of access to education (general & specific). Why did Cuba start a literacy program right away when Batista got the boot? Because it is absolutely necessary for a public to be informed, educated, to even be capable of organization in a communist mode.

What "tankies" ask from society is not ideological conformity. You can't even join the party if you aren't working for it. Most people aren't expected to be in it, they're expected to be mostly as they are, but the metrics are instead changes in organization and access, both material & ideological.

If I am an anarchist because I can be polite in the line for a bus, be involved in group decisions, and believe most politicians in this country at this time are not very good, then that could apply so broadly that it's not proposing things which could offer alternatives to, say, Bolshevism.

Then, "everywhere!" is a confusion that tries to make ideology transitive with material gains, that is, "everywhere" is pretty big materially and sounds impressive, and the win can be claimed without doing more than saying "well people don't believe in the divine right of kings much these days."

You got a question about the tangible forms of anarchy in what is a tangible metric—regions are tangible in the sense that they refer to material places in space and for some period of time—and your answer was and still is referring to ideological gains here claimed without the adherent's knowledge.

Waffles XDDD