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

  • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]
    ·
    10 months ago

    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)

    Your issue is with the Anarchists, not the socialists.

    I never said I wasn't socialist. My issue was with this comment way up the chain:

    Anarchists imagine a revolution that immediately jumps to a stateless society, and Marxists have concluded that it is necessary to seize state power to defeat the forces of reaction, and that the state can be dismantled only once imperialism and capitalism have been defeated on a global scale.

    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.

    • QueerCommie [she/her, fae/faer]
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • QueerCommie [she/her, fae/faer]
          ·
          10 months ago

          You don't understand the Marxist definition of a state. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/State Please read Lenin.

          • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]
            ·
            10 months ago

            In Marxism, the state apparatus, more commonly known as simply the state, is a system by which the ruling class maintains and perpetuates its dominance within the social formation. It functions by subjugating the other class(es) within class society,[1][2] and reproducing ruling class ideology.[3]

            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.

            • QueerCommie [she/her, fae/faer]
              ·
              10 months ago

              ? 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.