To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
To all full-grown hexbears, NO DUNKING IN MY THREAD...ONLY TEACH, criminal scum who violate my Soviet will be banned three days and called a doo doo head...you have been warned
That is undialectical. All that exists shall cease to exist. States arose because agriculture enabled short term comfortability and population growth. Once the population was large enough it had to be organized some way. In a scarce world without sophisticated co-operative mechanisms it was natural for different classes to emerge, with some that controlled those resources. Then "history" as we know it was formed, driven by class struggle. This history has lead to increasing abundance from each mode of production to the next. Each mode drives the productive forces to a certain point until it becomes a hindrance. Today we have great abundance, but in the monopoly stage of capitalism we are prevented from sharing it or innovating even more. With socialism we can redistribute the abundance we have and figure out how to maintain abundance for all while healing the planet. There ceases to be class differences, as the ruling proletariat has lifted all the struggling people up to a reasonable level, and the past exploiters down. When there are no classes there is no state. When there is abundance there is no need for violence or oppression. There is still conflict, but there is no reason to believe we would "fuck it up again."
This assumes that noone is violent under conditions of abundance, which is false
There's every reason to believe that, because it's happened thousands of times over already. Human history started as roughly socialist tribes, who were intra-socialist, but inter-oppressive.
if you achieve utopian global abundance, and then dismantle the state that achieved it, it is certain that the world will devolve again into what it is now.
Even if everyone has their physical needs met, certain people want more power and control, and they'll figure out a way to "oppress their own people" to gain control of a larger amount of resources than the others, and then it's history.
keyword being maintain. You can't maintain this abundance while having no state
where did I say that? On the subject Lenin (in state and rev) says this:
spoiler
Again, there's a difference between a scarce world in which agriculture can produce new surpluses and create the possibility of private property, and one where scarcity has been surpassed.
Why? This is just the regular pessimistic overused human nature argument. Lenin also addresses the false claim that we seek to introduce Communism and abolish the state at one stroke. This is what the anarchists want to do, not us.
spoiler
From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.
Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive; as for the greatest socialists' forecast that it will arrive, it presupposes not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky's stories,[2] are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth "just for fun", and of demanding the impossible.
Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers.
The selfish defence of capitalism by the bourgeois ideologists (and their hangers-on, like the Tseretelis, Chernovs, and Co.) consists in that they substitute arguing and talk about the distant future for the vital and burning question of present-day politics, namely, the expropriation of the capitalists, the conversion of all citizens into workers and other employees of one huge “syndicate”--the whole state--and the complete subordination of the entire work of this syndicate to a genuinely democratic state, the state of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.
In fact, when a learned professor, followed by the philistine, followed in turn by the Tseretelis and Chernovs, talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind, which no one has ever promised or even thought to “introduce”, because, generally speaking, it cannot be “introduced”.
-VI Ulyanov, State and Revolution
Your issue is with the Anarchists, not the socialists. We do not seek to abolish the state, but to protractedly abolish classes resulting in the governing apparatus to be purely administrative and not a tool of oppression of anyone.
Your position is that once utopian abundance is achieved, that almost nobody will create conflict anymore bc they are satisfied by their material conditions--and that the few people who do, will be dealt with by the masses.
I reject that position, because such a self-interested individual can easily hide their motivations and trick the masses.
However, even if I were to accept your position that such a selfish individual is SOLELY the result of material conditions, and thus that they wouldn't even exist under socialism--your position still doesn't work because all it takes is a natural disaster for the system to be thrown out of whack.
Disturbances in weather can ONLY be absorbed properly if the entire system is managed by an authority--a state. Else it just devolves into what we have now. A tornado ruins the crop somewhere, now migration, now conflict, now inequality, and it's all downhill
In the presence of a state, this is a trivial-ass problem. You just take some extra from someone with a bumper crop. (Not being super highly populated also helps with this even more)
I never said I wasn't socialist. My issue was with this comment way up the chain:
I diverge from this because I don't think the state can ever be completely dismantled if you want a socialist system to continue. I think that a stateless society cannot be socialist forever. A state-run society could be.
You aren't listening. I never said anything would be dismantled. All I said is that once classes are gone it would cease to be a state. There will continue to be planning, governing, and an administative apparatus. There will just not need to be violence. Communism does not mean an end to authority.
Then there would be a state.
You don't understand the Marxist definition of a state. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/State Please read Lenin.
What am I missing here? You cannot "plan govern and administrate" a society if you do not have dominance over the society. Just because the state is benevolent and fair and maintains socialism doesn't mean it's not a state.
? It’s literally in the quote. A state is an apparatus of oppression by the ruling class. We want to be the ruling class, but our ultimate goal is the abolition of class society. When there are no classes there shall be no state. Administration and government can exist without a state.