I agree that states cannot function without violence. That is why I am a Communist - I reject the need for states, and believe that humanity is capable of hierarchy-less, forceless, voluntary co-operation and community, including decentralised community self-defence and mutual aid networks that don't rely on coercion.

I am not convinced that Lenin's revolution did work - at least not as far as achieving Communism. I would even argue that it set back the progress towards it. Perhaps Lenin did the best he knew how to, but fortunately we can now learn from his mistakes, just like we can those of the Paris commune.

I think that Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory in Ukraine did a better job for the short while they lasted before Leninism and Stalinism played their part in destroying them, and I believe there has been positive progress made by the Zapatistas and Rojavans since.

But I fundamentally reject the notion that a centralized state or vanguard party is necessary for social transformation, as such concentrations of power inevitably lead to oppression and exploitation, regardless of the initial intentions, because the means used to achieve a goal shape the end result.

(There is a lot more I'd like to say about how technological and scientific progress can be organised without centralisation, and more details on responding cohesively to large scale threats without authoritarianism, because I do agree that when the power of capital is threatened - even if peacefully - that the capitalists wont hesitate to use violence to protect their power, but I plan to address these in a future article series.)