How can you ask for a "timetable" of a state's dismantlement when its existance according to a marxist is an unavoidable outcome of the existance of domestic class contradictions and struggle and of geopolitical and international contradictions and aggression. What "plan of when the state will be dismantled" should Lenin have given in 1918 when a fascist genocidal war that the USSR obviously wouldnt have survived and prepared for with a decentralized and semi dismantled state (let alone a USSR that attempted to be "Stateless" in the 30s) was 20 years away without anyone , including Lenin, could have guessed. What "plan on when the state is gonna be dismantled" could Cuba or North Korea give you after their revolution when even more than half a century later they still find themselves under unimaginable aggression in every level by the world's superpower and entire western capital dominion that you cannot possibly theorize how to resist it and survive against it with diminished state power, let alone statelessness.
The withering away of the State created after the revolution and during the dictatorship of the proletariat in marxist theory isnt a choice to be made by a communist party thats in charge of it. Its a passive change that reflects and happens proportionaly to the diminishing contradictions and changes in the material needs internaly and most importantly diminishing class strugle and imperialist contraidictions worldwide. When these things dont diminish and in most cases the communist party or state cant make them diminish (like the dominant in all historical examples external/imperialist aggression and global capitalist dominance and contradictions) then the state will not wither away. How many aspects of the state and at what point in the existance of the USSR, Cuba , NK, Vietnam , China in your opinion could have withered away to the benifit of the project and its existance but didnt? If you cant come up with anything solid even with historical hindsight and Lenin answered you in 1918 a perfectly valid " idk depends, could be 20 could be 200 and we maybe wont even make it that far in order for that to happen" , would that mean that the theory of the state withering away is wrong in and of itself or that marxist lenninists just want excuses for the state to stay around
How can you ask for a "timetable" of a state's dismantlement when its existance according to a marxist is an unavoidable outcome of the existance of domestic class contradictions and struggle and of geopolitical and international contradictions and aggression. What "plan of when the state will be dismantled" should Lenin have given in 1918 when a fascist genocidal war that the USSR obviously wouldnt have survived and prepared for with a decentralized and semi dismantled state (let alone a USSR that attempted to be "Stateless" in the 30s) was 20 years away without anyone , including Lenin, could have guessed. What "plan on when the state is gonna be dismantled" could Cuba or North Korea give you after their revolution when even more than half a century later they still find themselves under unimaginable aggression in every level by the world's superpower and entire western capital dominion that you cannot possibly theorize how to resist it and survive against it with diminished state power, let alone statelessness.
The withering away of the State created after the revolution and during the dictatorship of the proletariat in marxist theory isnt a choice to be made by a communist party thats in charge of it. Its a passive change that reflects and happens proportionaly to the diminishing contradictions and changes in the material needs internaly and most importantly diminishing class strugle and imperialist contraidictions worldwide. When these things dont diminish and in most cases the communist party or state cant make them diminish (like the dominant in all historical examples external/imperialist aggression and global capitalist dominance and contradictions) then the state will not wither away. How many aspects of the state and at what point in the existance of the USSR, Cuba , NK, Vietnam , China in your opinion could have withered away to the benifit of the project and its existance but didnt? If you cant come up with anything solid even with historical hindsight and Lenin answered you in 1918 a perfectly valid " idk depends, could be 20 could be 200 and we maybe wont even make it that far in order for that to happen" , would that mean that the theory of the state withering away is wrong in and of itself or that marxist lenninists just want excuses for the state to stay around