To keep it simple, I see no way in which a social revolution will be able to be accomplished without centralized power. It seems incredibly unlikely that we can completely eliminate the state apparatus without class antagonisms being destroyed first. I think anarchism is certainly blue print by which we should attempt to strive towards, but in practice ever anarchist society has had centralized power. I'm open to discussing that point, but so far as I can tell Catalonia, for example, had bureaucracy, a militia with a monopoly on violence over a certain territory, prisons, execution of suspected counter revolutionaries, ect. They can call it anarchist all they'd like, but I fail to see any meaninful difference between that and a state dictatorship of the proletariat. For this reason, I am finding myself more and more sympathetic to traditional Marxist perspective. I do find myself disagreeing with them often though in their apologetic for, what I view as, tyrannical behavior. A recent example might be the Kid who died in NK after being given 15 years hard labor for stealing a poster. Many Ml's (not sure about other communist variants as I mostly converse with Ml's) will completely excuse this behavior which would be a universally condemned by leftists if it happened in the West. So in short, I find myself pulled between two positions. I am, at my core, anti-authoritarian. At the same time, I cannot bring myself to reject centralized power during a time of a transitional society, as I see no way around it. Additionally, I still refuse to apologize for what I view as gross misuses of authority like sending someone to a forced labor camp in response to stealing a flag. Can anyone relate to my position or perhaps help lead me in a good direction to do some research on it?