Nation states, power, fiat currencies, religions, borders constitutions and laws are just games we play in our heads. A tally stick doesn’t work anymore as a measure of value. Kings are dethroned. Old ideas are replaced with new ones (for better or worse)
We make these thoughts in our heads real, but they dont exist unless we make it so. We actually could wish this all away as though a spell was cast. Magic as you say.
People are to busy trying to make life happen or are to invested in their favorite flavor of boot polish to think of a new way to live our lives unfortunately.
Fine by me. I got a vasectomy. I didn’t force a kid to play y’alls reindeer games. Couldn’t care less. Back to playing the world’s smallest violin in the world’s tiniest box.
This seams contradictory. Isn’t communism also supposed to be stateless?
Edit: Oh nvm you mean the socialist transition.
Communism is stateless, but it looks a bit different to how anarchists mean the term. Marxists are more for collectivization of production and distribution, while anarchists are generally more for communalization.
A type of commune for all. One that best reflects our values. Not everyone’s community will look and function the same. Why would we want that? We are not the same person.
There will likely be local distinctions in communism, but trying to focus on communalism where every community is its own local thing and not a part of a much bigger wholr results in contradictory interests. The soviets found this out early on in practice, early factory councils would focus on themselves, so they were restructured into a more interconnected system.
The aim is to establish communal horizontal power while living under existing power structures. An example is bringing neighbors the excess fruit from a harvest. The practice is common in rural communities. The magic is cooperation and mutualism. No bosses required.
The problem begins when trying to scale that to a societal level, which is necessary for things like high speed rail, the internet, huge power grids, etc. Trying to compartmentalize production to be both high-yield and small-scale is ridiculously difficult, and to do so would require technology far beyond what we have now without a serious lowering of living standards. That’s why Marxists advocate for collectivization, and planning production and distribution at a societal scale, rather than trying to focus on creating communalist structures emulating early hunter-gatherer societies but with the niceties of today.
You can voluntarily co-operate together without having a central authority dictating to you. Anarchism is not mutually exclusive with large scale projects or distribution networks.
That’s a bit like saying you can have battlefield success with only footsoldiers and no tacticians or strategians, or like saying a factory can run smoothly without foremen, or that a ship can sail safely without a capitain. We develop administrative positions because of their utility even within a class, not just class-based hierarchy like workers and owners. The latter, class-based distinctions are a product of unequal ownership and control, the former are a product of material necessity.
Cooperative production can work, but only for certain industries and certain scales. Agriculture is a good example, but for something more complex like smartphone production that involves global supply chains and intense safety risks for mining, shipping, silicon processing, etc, it’s just not feasible to do cooperatively and horizontally. Even then, for agriculture, as we advance to more efficient industrialized production we too develop beyond the basis for cooperative ownership to function.
Administration is not a bad thing. What’s bad is class society, which allows a small portion of society to plunder the vast majority of the spoils of social production.
Yes, but there are bosses right now. And they would still be very powerful, even if they lost control of the state. They don’t care about what’s best for everyone. They care about what’s best for them. They would still control all those machines, institutions, money, private armies, the media and they would have the total support of all the capitalist militaries of the world, ready to come in and completely crush horizontal power and suppress mutualism. So the class of bosses wouldn’t magically disappear over night.
If people organized (either “horizontally” or otherwise) to form some thing, some kind of organization or institution or loose federation of grassroots cooperatives or whatever you want to call it, that would be able to suppress this boss class and their military and everything. That thing would be what marxist leninists call a state by definition. Because when we talk about a state, we mean nothing more or less than a weapon able to force the will of one class upon another. Even if that will is just:“stop forcing your will on us non-bosses”. How horizontal it is internally dosn’t matter at all for the definition of a state.
Can I get this with a few more pixels?
Enhance
deleted by creator
No
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 or libs.
I agree with everything you’ve said, except for the last sentence.
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.
The basis of the state is class struggle, so to eliminate it you eliminate class.
thus elements like police are necessary to keep the proletariat in control and capitalists oppressed
That is the main basis, but it is not the only one, and police are a good example of it. More often than not police enjoy the power that their position gives them. The job itself attracts people who enjoy having power over others, and that’s not strictly a mechanism of classes existing.
The state backs up their power, and so they are influenced to protect the existence of the state. Anybody who commands the police will see the police as an extension of their power and will be similarly influenced.
Power corrupts and makes people want to retain power.
I’m not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that “power always corrupts”, this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.
But In a socialist state, where the heights of the economy are controlled not by private capitalist dictators, but by collective decision-making, and production decisions are controlled at the collective political level, then no one person can accumulate that much power, and they would be (and are) punished when they try to subvert the collective authority.
Taking the example of police, the important question is who commands them, and for whose benefit? In proletarian states, police are commanded not by capitalists who use them to protect their private property, but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they’re harming the people.
That’s a key distinction between proletarian cops and capitalist ones.
This is more idealist than materialist. “Power” isn’t a real substance, it has no ability to “corrupt” people or turn them “evil.” Police exist to protect the ruling class, the state itself is not a class but an extension of the ruling class in society. The state does not exist to prop itself up, it’s a tool by the ruling class of society to entrench itself, prop up ruling class ideology, and suppress any resistance from the working class.
People act in their own interests, and in capitalism profit is the driving factor. The capitalists at the top are the ones that best get the most profits by any means necessary, so the ones at the top are typically more morally bankrupt. It wasn’t that power corrupted them, but capitalism as a system selected for them.
In socialism, this isn’t the case, and when we measure it up to how socialism exists in practice we don’t see this kind of “power corruption.” That isn’t to say corruption doesn’t exist in socialism, it absolutely does, but that isn’t because of metaphysical powers of corruption. The closest is that people’s existing material conditions and the way they interact with production does change their thought-process (called class consciousness), but that isn’t the same as saying anyone with any degree of authority is being mentally poisoned by it into becoming evil.
Further, as Dessalines said, socialist planning and administration is more collectivized, both by intention and by necessity. You physically couldn’t have a single person, or elite few, making all of the decisions in socialist society.
In a communist non-state area, who enforces environmental protections? Who punishes rapists and murderers without being he said she said? Who prevents workplaces from unsafe working habits? Who assures buildings are up to code? Those are realistic issues, that don’t stop magically when you do away with a class system. Doing away with a class system will improve them, but not eliminate them.
Administration and other protections that don’t involve things like oppressive police forces. Marxists don’t lump all administration into the state when we talk about statelessness.
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.
See my response to Cowbee
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.
Step 1: everyone be nice to each other
Step 2: please bro
Step 1: everyone be nice
Step 2: or else
needs more jpeg
what do you mean “by magic”, the majority of human history was stateless
Do you want to go back to hunting gathering? Anything further will inevitably create the classes.
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.
but that requires erasing the basis of class society.
Something impossible to achieve while maintaining the tools of oppression (authoritarianism/statehood) that protect and nurture such divisions
Other way around. Class society is what gives rise to the state, the state does not give rise to class society. The state is not above class struggle, or above the ruling class, but is representative of any given society’s ruling class. To get rid of the state, you have to erase its basis, and thay requires collectivizing production and distribution. As ownership is collectivized, class is eroded, and the elements of the state that enforce class distinctions and uphold the ruling class such as an oppressive police force fade away and wither.
Pixel limit. OP hit it
The Spanish socialist revolution would like to disagree with communists I think
Not at all. The Spanish revolutionaries were communists. Some in the communist party, but even the Spanish anarchists called what they fought for “libertarian communism”.
Everybody loves their imaginary friends like “states” and “money” and “gods.”
I wish they could keep it all to themselves.
