"I've yet to see a anarchist present a valid system to progress the existing bourgeoisie state Capitalism to a classless stateless society"
Kropotkin's "conquest of bread" does a fairly good job of talking about post-revolutionary practicalities. I think it's clearly true that intermediate societies of some sort have to exist, and I'd go so far as to adopt the label 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in some cases, but that doesn't have to mean statehood, i.e. it doesn't have to mean a group of top-level administrators with a monopoly of violence. I guess the anarchist critique of state-socialism is similar to the Marxist critique of parliamentary reformism: you're not simply going there more gradually, you're going in the wrong direction and won't be able to turn round.

I also request evidence from you to back up the dubious statement- "[in modern] Capitalism, … the vast majority of people live in worse situations than they lived in pre-capitalist societies"

Compare tribal middle-African nations with modern African nations. Nowhere in the history of humanity did you ever have 5 million children _starving_ every year. Starving mind you, not being killed.

You can also see older examples as well, such as the situation of the industrial class of Britain during the industrial revolution, where people would rather spill blood than go work in factories.

Being a self labelled Marxist I never distance myself from Anarchists, they are on my side after all, but I've yet to see a anarchist present a valid system to progress the existing bourgeoisie state Capitalism to a classless stateless society, bar of course the "smash the state!". With the present existing class differentials and social hierarchy, to remove the state in one big sweep would only create further social hierarchy between the haves and have-nots in the modern world.

This is simply evidence that you have not bothered in checking what Anarchists themselves say about this but rather simply trusted Lenin's misrepresentations. Here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech13

The problem in our case is

1. That Marxist do not always advocate bottom-up socialism or transitory phase. While some do, such as Luxemburg, others do not, Such as Trotskyism and Maoism, which is why I've been talking about "Mainstream Marxism"

2. That some Marxists advocate libertarian measures, to the point of approaching Anarchism, but in practise follow authoritarian measures. Such was the example of Lenin for example.

So obviously we wouldn't follow what such regimes did but by doing so, we wouldn't be following the "Mainstream Marxism" I was arguing against.

The whole problem here is the misunderstanding between terms. I have yet to be shown any ideological difference in aims of Marxism, Communism, Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism, whatever you want to call it. Maybe you could show me one? Their goals for the creation of a society free from exploitation and social hierarchy are completely identical.

The only difference thus lies in their presented methods of achieving such aims. Marxists understand that the sudden jump from modern day Capitalism to a classless stateless society cannot exist without the intermediate socialist state. Let me remind you that this state would be a democratic bottom up system nothing such like the Soviet system. Once this so called dictatorship of the proletariat is established (Note – NOT dictatorship in the Stalin/Hitler sense, just in the sense of creating a workers state) then the state, from a Marxist view, becomes further and further unessential- and thus withers away, until a classless stateless society, that being the exact one which Anarchists envision, exists. Lenin went into this is great detail in his State and Revolution, which I see you have linked.

It is obvious to me, and any other intelligent being, that the concentration of power is that led to the failure of previous Communist movements. That is something that one would prevent repeating by the implementing of specific systems – including; the promotion of genuine democracy, removal of censorship, creation of workers councils etc. etc.

Being a self labelled Marxist I never distance myself from Anarchists, they are on my side after all, but I've yet to see a anarchist present a valid system to progress the existing bourgeoisie state Capitalism to a classless stateless society, bar of course the "smash the state!". With the present existing class differentials and social hierarchy, to remove the state in one big sweep would only create further social hierarchy between the haves and have-nots in the modern world.

I also request evidence from you to back up the dubious statement- "[in modern] Capitalism, … the vast majority of people live in worse situations than they lived in pre-capitalist societies"

Yet again @BlueLinchpin, I've yet to find anyone who worships Marx and or Lenin. What is the point in labouring issues that have previously been solved by theoreticians such as Marx?

Sorry though, I hadn't realized you had submitted one. Which is odd. Maybe they take a few days to go through the system or something? Sure didn't take long for the spam to appear though.

Posts like these are a perfect example of why sitting around worshipping Marx and Lenin and repeating their quotes does us little good. If theory is of any value, it has to come from us, not them.