I do not agree with you about the Donbass completely. These republics declared themselves to be
states. Chose the government. The history of the NDP begins in 1918, when the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donets-Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic) separated from the UPR (and these were also states) The current separatists were just taking their example. They purposefully organized the state. Yes, small and with support from outside. But this state.
It's true that they claim a de jure statehood, but from what I've read the Leftists there are highly decentralized and are managing to fight based on disorganized urban guerilla tactics, with an essentially insurrectionist strategy. This may not be the case, however, you surely would be more able to describe it than I. How is it like in reality?
The Red Army also fought for Soviet power and the state, the republic of Soviets. Although the anarchists in this army were present.
Yes but in those days the Soviet meant something very different from what it eventually became in the 60s-80s. They were workers councils that more closely resembled a commune than a state, no?
But I do not agree with this. In the sense that it is not possible for a man with capitalist thinking to place one moment in the society of victorious communism. Imagine that tomorrow came communism, everything is free, no one forces you to work, there is no police and army. What will people do? They will go to plunder and kill, because thinking has not changed.
I was born in the USSR, in this country the worker could talk to the director as an equal and live in the same house with a deputy. There was equality. But most of the thinking remained capitalistic. The desire for accumulation has not disappeared even to half a century of Soviet power. Most of my friends still today, after almost 30 years, have many items bought at home in the USSR. Utensils, household appliances, clothes, cloth, spare parts for cars ... People did not even use this stuff, it's new. And the question "why did you buy it?" They can not clearly answer. But I repeat, these were people born in a stable socialist country. The economic basis of the United States allows us to declare communism today, but people are not ready for it. They will kill each other by sharing junk.
First you should achieve equality, but only after that think about decentralization and anarchy. (Although I repeat, I am for the existence of the state)
This is true but the idea of communism existing immediately has never been realistic nor have I tried to pretend it is. The realistic course of events would probably follow a difficult revolution even to abolish capitalism. However I think that the selfishness you describe is a product of the culture of decadence among capitalist society, and that this culture would collapse alongside the capitalist system during the revolution.
The ruling classes will not agree to equality. For them, this is destruction. They will have to fight with them. (This happened in the USSR during the Civil War)
That is certainly to be expected.
In Ukraine, nationalists demolished monuments to Lenin and other Soviet leaders. Monuments are history.
People are history, their lives make history. Stories are history. Monuments are symbols, and what those symbols represent is never more important than the people whose history they reflect. Lenin would surely have despised the languishing of the state capitalist organization in the later Soviet state, and quite surely would've also permitted monuments to him to be torn down when he knew what they represented to the people who destroyed them.
Demolition of monuments, renaming of cities and streets is an insult and humiliation of those who respect these statesmen.
Respecting the statesmen of the past more than the people of the present is very much antithetical to the spirit of communism.
This is one of the reasons for the civil war in the Donbass.
Maybe in a very, very small way. I should certainly say that economic collapse and political instability were more significant factors.
Slavery is bad, but prescribing the history of the country is dangerous. In the US, a lot of weapons from the population and there is an atomic bomb. Civil war can be terrible. In your country, the opposing sides and ideology are already clearly defined. Even the scenarios of confrontation are similar to what was in Ukraine. The only difference is that in the US so far there have been no "unknown snipers" and "sacred sacrifices"
We have had a Civil War once before, and it was fought without much infrastructural damage because the victorious side had a massive economic and logistical advantage. Should Civil War happen again, we shall be careful not to damage our infrastructure, as we have been quite conscious of throughout our history.
The idea is good, I share it. But I do not understand why this should be abandoned by the state.
The state is not necessarily the only way to organize leadership in human society. In fact I disagree that leadership should be organized at all.
I suppose that without the state power will be seized by large companies (corporations) or private armies.
Not if the people are more capable of self defense.
