I say try both, enough states to try, cooperate and well see which is better. People died for worst experiments. Also anything more left is better than the current system.
Reversal:
communist: I’m all for ending this oppressive system, but only if we do it with a state that will wither away
anarchist: So… by magic?
materially, socialist states tend to be much better to workers. straight up, it isn’t even a contest.
as a communist i agree that in an ideal world the state should not exist. as a third worlder, i doubt we can defend ourselves against the burgeoise and imperialism without it in the real world. history shows it pretty clearly over here. maybe westerners can have straight up communism, we don’t have that luxury.
that said, i understand why countries like china are overzealous with censorship because when you give too much leeway to them, they will worm their way into people’s heads out of the sheer amount of resources dedicated to pushing anticommunism.
also when i look into most anarchists i meet here, it’s usually just ancaps.
The basis of the state is class struggle, so to eliminate it you eliminate class. The basis of class is differences in relation to the means of production, so the answer is to collectivize all production. Until we get there, classes will remain, thus elements like police are necessary to keep the proletariat in control and capitalists oppressed, and as production and distribution collectivizes then so too will the basis of the state itself become unnecessary as class struggle fades alongside class itself.
It isn’t by magic, it’s based in sound analysis of socialism and the economic basis of class and the state itself.
From here
Once the proletarian state possesses political power and controls the means of production, it will “wither away” over time as it suppresses the bourgeoisie and moves toward a classless society. While the state must exist while class distinctions remain, it becomes superfluous in a classless society. The use of force is no longer necessary to suppress class antagonisms, because there are no classes. Lenin includes a long quote from Engels to explain this phenomenon, a portion of which is sampled below:
As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight.” (From Anti-Düring)
If you agree with the premises behind this argument, the conclusion must follow. If the state arises from class antagonisms in society and exists for the purpose of class suppression, it must therefore exist while there are classes (even during a proletarian revolution!) and start to die off once class is abolished. Engels’ description, “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production,” explains the change in the nature of the State very well. Lenin points out that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the State is no longer “the State” proper, but a different kind of institution altogether.
anarchist:
just got to wait for the capitalist state to whither away
socialist state:
so I guess we agree?
idea: we do the whole leftist infighting thing after we win against the common enemy, deal?
But the state is my enemy.
what do you mean “by magic”, the majority of human history was stateless
Yes, but it was also based on hunting and gathering. The state arose alongside technological improvements in production creating class society, we can’t just look to early communalism and use it as the bedrock for future society.
The past is definitely not a guide for how to achieve a future society or how that society should look, but it does remind us that a society without a state can exist.
It’s not the hard part, but when we’re told that thoughts of a stateless society are fantastical it’s good to remember that it has been done before.
Yes, and I agree with that. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and do agree with abolition of the state, but that requires erasing the basis of class society.
Step 1: everyone be nice to each other
Step 2: please bro
needs more jpeg
Pixel limit. OP hit it
The Spanish socialist revolution would like to disagree with communists I think
Everybody loves their imaginary friends like “states” and “money” and “gods.”