Marx and Engels, and those who follow Marxism, are not “fashy.” You cannot immediately abolish the state and at the same time establish fully collectivized production and distribution. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Fascism is capitalism violently asserting itself in crisis. It has nothing to do with Marxism beyond fascism being anti-communist.
I got a question, theory understander: In a post-state, post-collectivization society, what stops class structures and petty states from forming again, even if at small scale at first? I know this sounds a little close to the but human nature argument, but humor me. Is it that it lacks the conditions, like scarcity, for them to happen at all, or is the gist that it might as well happen, but it’s them against literally everyone?
The state as defined by Marxists, is all functioning parts of the apparartus existing to prevent the outbreak of class war
after a proletarian revolution, the proles become the oppressing class, forcing their will upon the minorty (the bourgiouse). In theory, after a series of revolutions engulf the globe, the state becomes unnecessary, and begins to wither away
when the conditions that preclude class war exist, the state is no longer necessary, though this will not happen at once
in the USSR, under the New Economic Policy, the CPSU did have to allow some forms of capitalist industry to exist within their borders
I suppose for a ‘small scale’ state to re emerge there would need to be some catastrophy, a re-emfocement of compolsary monogamy for women, and a re-consolidation of wealth
the beginning of state and revolution is an easier read and contains some of the same information, transgender warriors touches on some of this as well
our dear comrade cowbee’s answer is better than mine <3
You might find it comfier if you go through my list, but add Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State to the Scientific Socialism section.
It’s more that the basis of private property is material relations and development giving rise to it, and the state exists to protect that. In collectivized society, where production and distribution are planned, there’s simply no basis to create a new state or new private property, there’s no utility in it whatsoever and no underlying basis for it.
In another wording, present levels of development suit private property more than public property for many industries, and in some areas cooperative ownership works well for agriculture. Building up productive forces ti higher levels of complexity and larger scales makes public ownership and planning more effective. In communist society, these lower levels of development simply do not exist, and thus the basis for earlier property relations doesn’t exist. It’s like asking why feudal kingdoms don’t crop up anymore.
Communism is stateless. The basis of statelessness is classless society, which requires collectivizing production. To abolish the state immediately into fractured communalism is the opposite of how classless society is achieved, and is the very subject of books like Anti-Dühring.
I’m not into vore, and there’s no such thing as “instant communism.” I’m into scientific socialism, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The path to communism is in gradually collectivizing all production and distribution in a post-revolution socialist state, thereby erasing the basis for class and by extension the basis for the state. I’m not an anarchist, and don’t agree with communalism.
I’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to threaten others with vore and knifeplay. It’s unwanted, we aren’t consenting.
Marx and Engels, and those who follow Marxism, are not “fashy.” You cannot immediately abolish the state and at the same time establish fully collectivized production and distribution. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Fascism is capitalism violently asserting itself in crisis. It has nothing to do with Marxism beyond fascism being anti-communist.
I got a question, theory understander: In a post-state, post-collectivization society, what stops class structures and petty states from forming again, even if at small scale at first? I know this sounds a little close to the but human nature argument, but humor me. Is it that it lacks the conditions, like scarcity, for them to happen at all, or is the gist that it might as well happen, but it’s them against literally everyone?
The state as defined by Marxists, is all functioning parts of the apparartus existing to prevent the outbreak of class war
after a proletarian revolution, the proles become the oppressing class, forcing their will upon the minorty (the bourgiouse). In theory, after a series of revolutions engulf the globe, the state becomes unnecessary, and begins to wither away
when the conditions that preclude class war exist, the state is no longer necessary, though this will not happen at once
in the USSR, under the New Economic Policy, the CPSU did have to allow some forms of capitalist industry to exist within their borders
I suppose for a ‘small scale’ state to re emerge there would need to be some catastrophy, a re-emfocement of compolsary monogamy for women, and a re-consolidation of wealth
the answer you seek lies within the origin of the family, private property and the state https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf
the beginning of state and revolution is an easier read and contains some of the same information, transgender warriors touches on some of this as well
our dear comrade cowbee’s answer is better than mine <3
Thank you (and Cowbee). I’ll give the books a listen 🫡
You might find it comfier if you go through my list, but add Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State to the Scientific Socialism section.
Great comment, comrade!
It’s more that the basis of private property is material relations and development giving rise to it, and the state exists to protect that. In collectivized society, where production and distribution are planned, there’s simply no basis to create a new state or new private property, there’s no utility in it whatsoever and no underlying basis for it.
When you ask a marxism question and the answer is material conditions
In another wording, present levels of development suit private property more than public property for many industries, and in some areas cooperative ownership works well for agriculture. Building up productive forces ti higher levels of complexity and larger scales makes public ownership and planning more effective. In communist society, these lower levels of development simply do not exist, and thus the basis for earlier property relations doesn’t exist. It’s like asking why feudal kingdoms don’t crop up anymore.
I’m an old school Marxist. I think communism is stateless, and I want to do consensual guro with anyone who’s standing in the way of communism.
Communism is stateless. The basis of statelessness is classless society, which requires collectivizing production. To abolish the state immediately into fractured communalism is the opposite of how classless society is achieved, and is the very subject of books like Anti-Dühring.
deleted by creator
I’m a fascist for being a communist and talking about what’s written by Marx and Engels? You need to look in the mirror.
Removed by mod
Sure, and I’m a communist. I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and I volunteer with communist orgs. Your argument makes no sense.
Are you into vore? I could eat you. I love eating people who want to replace instant communism with slow reforms.
I’m not into vore, and there’s no such thing as “instant communism.” I’m into scientific socialism, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. The path to communism is in gradually collectivizing all production and distribution in a post-revolution socialist state, thereby erasing the basis for class and by extension the basis for the state. I’m not an anarchist, and don’t agree with communalism.
I’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to threaten others with vore and knifeplay. It’s unwanted, we aren’t consenting.