The thing is, states are tools for one class to oppress another. So as long as global capitalism (and thus capitalist encirclement) exist, abolishing the state is inviting defeat before the battle even started…
But I do 100% agree that there can be no communism while we still have states. It’s just that once capitalism has been destroyed, the state as a tool of class oppression will cease to have any legitimation.
(And yes, I do think that liquidating capitalists as a class and keeping them from reemerging is a good and necessary thing (ie. “class oppression”). Just from the side of the working people oppressing capitalists and this is BTW what Marxists mean when talking about the DOTP (Dictatorship of the Proletariat))
This would be using the master’s tools to break the master’s house, and then expecting the master’s tools to self destruct.
The state is a hierarchically built, tool for one class to opress another, seizing it won’t work for several reasons but the most likely one is that the state, as a structure (even in the abstract sense), is self preserving, thus cannot be appropriated for self destructive ends, the state will always tend to favor an oppressive class that will keep the hierarchy intact, or even recreate hierarchy inducing tendencies.
I’ll try to be more specific and less theoretical, to seize the state means being part of it, to be part of it is using its tools, solutions, and ideology, that’s to say that facing an issue, a person who works for the government, will have to use the tools the state uses like concentration of power, military and the police, apply its solutions like propaganda, cracking down on dissent and surveillance, and adopt its ideologies like patriotism, tyranny and elitism.
That same individual cannot help build communism as they would embody the old world’s tendencies and ruling class, and the worker class wouldn’t be able to build communism for a lack of experience in what communism requires, as in a strong community building values, conflict resolution skills, and honestly so much more than i can think of myself.
Anyway excuse the long and late reply, also i am willing to say more but for a 2 week old comment this is getting long enough and might be considered rude already, have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s rude and I appreciate a good faith discussion.
Although I think there has been a misunderstanding, it never was about seizing or appropriating the bourgeois state and it’s bureaucracy, which brings with it all the problems you mentioned (which in turn is why Marxists despise reformists BTW, because they believe they can magically wrestle control of the bourgeois state apparatus and peacuflly convince the ruling class of socialism).
It’s about destroying it and then – as a necessity against global capitalism encirclement – building a proletarian state to resist and oppress the bourgeoisie.
Marxism has the global POV of wiping capitalism off the face of the earth, and thus is willing to use the necessary means to achieve that end.
I agree that one must be cautious when building a worker’s state, one must learn from history to prevent the same mistakes as made in the past (though a lot of them arose from historical conditions), which is why I find the analyses of “degenerated/deformed workers state” to be vital.
I must apologise that I don’t have the necessary energy to continue this discussion further, but I believe ComradeSharkfucker made a good comment in this thread regarding the topic.
You aren’t a communist (of the Marxian variety) if you don’t believe a proletarian state is necessary to secure the revolution from the inevitable bouregois counter revolution. The main disagreement with anarchist that communist have is the belief that the state can be done away with outright through shear will. So long as class conflict exists a state arise whether we like it or not. Even major anarchist projects have had some aspect of a state because a state is a phenomena that arises from the material conditions of class conflict not something we invent. I would rather the working class control that state until it becomes unnecessary and whithers away than try to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society while surrounded by the forces of capital that would see me killed for this desire.
Yeah exactly. I am one of those kinds of communists. Not all communists truly understand this though. The issue is that not all anarchists are realistic about how to do it, timeframe, and the need to defend yourselves from capitalists while trying to achieve this. But that’s just my opinion, and where the real schism between communists and anarchists tends to come from. I personally have zero problem working together with anarchists. Same goal, and fuck capitalism.
I’m fine with communists so long as they go all the way and completly abolish the state. No half-assing it.
Maybe just a bit of state? Just to see how it feels?
The thing is, states are tools for one class to oppress another. So as long as global capitalism (and thus capitalist encirclement) exist, abolishing the state is inviting defeat before the battle even started…
But I do 100% agree that there can be no communism while we still have states. It’s just that once capitalism has been destroyed, the state as a tool of class oppression will cease to have any legitimation.
(And yes, I do think that liquidating capitalists as a class and keeping them from reemerging is a good and necessary thing (ie. “class oppression”). Just from the side of the working people oppressing capitalists and this is BTW what Marxists mean when talking about the DOTP (Dictatorship of the Proletariat))
This would be using the master’s tools to break the master’s house, and then expecting the master’s tools to self destruct.
The state is a hierarchically built, tool for one class to opress another, seizing it won’t work for several reasons but the most likely one is that the state, as a structure (even in the abstract sense), is self preserving, thus cannot be appropriated for self destructive ends, the state will always tend to favor an oppressive class that will keep the hierarchy intact, or even recreate hierarchy inducing tendencies.
I’ll try to be more specific and less theoretical, to seize the state means being part of it, to be part of it is using its tools, solutions, and ideology, that’s to say that facing an issue, a person who works for the government, will have to use the tools the state uses like concentration of power, military and the police, apply its solutions like propaganda, cracking down on dissent and surveillance, and adopt its ideologies like patriotism, tyranny and elitism.
That same individual cannot help build communism as they would embody the old world’s tendencies and ruling class, and the worker class wouldn’t be able to build communism for a lack of experience in what communism requires, as in a strong community building values, conflict resolution skills, and honestly so much more than i can think of myself.
Anyway excuse the long and late reply, also i am willing to say more but for a 2 week old comment this is getting long enough and might be considered rude already, have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s rude and I appreciate a good faith discussion.
Although I think there has been a misunderstanding, it never was about seizing or appropriating the bourgeois state and it’s bureaucracy, which brings with it all the problems you mentioned (which in turn is why Marxists despise reformists BTW, because they believe they can magically wrestle control of the bourgeois state apparatus and peacuflly convince the ruling class of socialism).
It’s about destroying it and then – as a necessity against global capitalism encirclement – building a proletarian state to resist and oppress the bourgeoisie.
Marxism has the global POV of wiping capitalism off the face of the earth, and thus is willing to use the necessary means to achieve that end.
I agree that one must be cautious when building a worker’s state, one must learn from history to prevent the same mistakes as made in the past (though a lot of them arose from historical conditions), which is why I find the analyses of “degenerated/deformed workers state” to be vital.
I must apologise that I don’t have the necessary energy to continue this discussion further, but I believe ComradeSharkfucker made a good comment in this thread regarding the topic.
You aren’t a communist (of the Marxian variety) if you don’t believe a proletarian state is necessary to secure the revolution from the inevitable bouregois counter revolution. The main disagreement with anarchist that communist have is the belief that the state can be done away with outright through shear will. So long as class conflict exists a state arise whether we like it or not. Even major anarchist projects have had some aspect of a state because a state is a phenomena that arises from the material conditions of class conflict not something we invent. I would rather the working class control that state until it becomes unnecessary and whithers away than try to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society while surrounded by the forces of capital that would see me killed for this desire.
Yeah exactly. I am one of those kinds of communists. Not all communists truly understand this though. The issue is that not all anarchists are realistic about how to do it, timeframe, and the need to defend yourselves from capitalists while trying to achieve this. But that’s just my opinion, and where the real schism between communists and anarchists tends to come from. I personally have zero problem working together with anarchists. Same goal, and fuck capitalism.