I think the only real difference in our views is the classic one. I simply don't see the dictatorship of the proletariat as not having the same tendencies toward corruption as every other. I can't imagine an organization powerful enough to defeat capitalism willfully giving up it's own power after it's job is done.
It will attract psychopaths like flies to shit like every other power structure.
I would strongly suggest reading State and Revolution to understand the reasoning on the function of the DotP. It is fundamentally oriented towards the tendencies of power and people following self-interested motivations in aggregate over time. No one is talking about "giving up" anything. The proletariat is to oppress the bourgeoisie by means of more genuinely democratic governance (that obstructs the power of capital that is exerted in liberal democracies) and erode the bourgeois class over time until it no longer exists. No power is surrendered at any point in that process, but the people who need to be oppressed are decided on class lines that cease to exist by the very same process as the class is oppressed.
You can find both text and audiobook versions online pretty easily, and hopefully the most famous work of the founder of the first Marxist state is not on the same level as QAnon manifestos to you.
It's not about it giving up its power. It doesn't do that.
It redistributes resources to things that it needs. This is where understanding WHAT the state is and WHY it exists in the first place. The state exists as a tool of the ruling class to maintain their position of power and exploit the other classes. In a bourgeoise-state this is the bourgeoisie exploiting the other classes. In a proletarian state this is the proletariat exploiting the other classes. But once we abolish all classes and only have a single class the obvious outcome is that the resources dedicated to oppressing the other classes will be redistributed to new things. Much like the capitalist state winds down resource spending on cops and other shit when it doesn't require it, and ramps it up in a time of high class war. The proletarian-state will wind down the resources spent on oppressive organisations, prisons, cops, military, etc, because these all exist for a purpose - if that purpose is gone, people will use those resources for different things.
It's very longterm though. We're talking about something that will absolutely only happen when all capitalist states are gone and all socialist states enter a stage of unity. Once that's achieved military is going to be the first thing to disappear. Cops won't go until crime does and that's going to take achieving abundance first, as well as targeting more and more specific causes.
The marxist understanding of "the state" does not include systems of administration. Things like the decision bodies, councils etc are not "the state". It is expected that systems of administration will still exist under communism, councils of people deciding upon things and the like, this isn't exactly at odds with anarchist theory either though as anarchists don't exactly shun councils or deciding things between people.
I think the only real difference in our views is the classic one. I simply don't see the dictatorship of the proletariat as not having the same tendencies toward corruption as every other. I can't imagine an organization powerful enough to defeat capitalism willfully giving up it's own power after it's job is done.
It will attract psychopaths like flies to shit like every other power structure.
I would strongly suggest reading State and Revolution to understand the reasoning on the function of the DotP. It is fundamentally oriented towards the tendencies of power and people following self-interested motivations in aggregate over time. No one is talking about "giving up" anything. The proletariat is to oppress the bourgeoisie by means of more genuinely democratic governance (that obstructs the power of capital that is exerted in liberal democracies) and erode the bourgeois class over time until it no longer exists. No power is surrendered at any point in that process, but the people who need to be oppressed are decided on class lines that cease to exist by the very same process as the class is oppressed.
You can find both text and audiobook versions online pretty easily, and hopefully the most famous work of the founder of the first Marxist state is not on the same level as QAnon manifestos to you.
Idk, sounds like a Q drop
Why?
It was a joke.
It's not about it giving up its power. It doesn't do that.
It redistributes resources to things that it needs. This is where understanding WHAT the state is and WHY it exists in the first place. The state exists as a tool of the ruling class to maintain their position of power and exploit the other classes. In a bourgeoise-state this is the bourgeoisie exploiting the other classes. In a proletarian state this is the proletariat exploiting the other classes. But once we abolish all classes and only have a single class the obvious outcome is that the resources dedicated to oppressing the other classes will be redistributed to new things. Much like the capitalist state winds down resource spending on cops and other shit when it doesn't require it, and ramps it up in a time of high class war. The proletarian-state will wind down the resources spent on oppressive organisations, prisons, cops, military, etc, because these all exist for a purpose - if that purpose is gone, people will use those resources for different things.
It's very longterm though. We're talking about something that will absolutely only happen when all capitalist states are gone and all socialist states enter a stage of unity. Once that's achieved military is going to be the first thing to disappear. Cops won't go until crime does and that's going to take achieving abundance first, as well as targeting more and more specific causes.
The marxist understanding of "the state" does not include systems of administration. Things like the decision bodies, councils etc are not "the state". It is expected that systems of administration will still exist under communism, councils of people deciding upon things and the like, this isn't exactly at odds with anarchist theory either though as anarchists don't exactly shun councils or deciding things between people.