• Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    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?

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 minutes ago

      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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

    • culprit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      anarchist:

      just got to wait for the capitalist state to whither away

      socialist state:

      so I guess we agree?

  • shneancy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    idea: we do the whole leftist infighting thing after we win against the common enemy, deal?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

  • mel ♀@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The Spanish socialist revolution would like to disagree with communists I think