The state (police,army) protects private property. As long as private property exists, either as ownership by individuals, the workers or the state itself, you need an institution that makes this social relation a reality. Abolishing the state is synonymous with abolishing private property. Both are the result of actual movements by workers, and the working class doesn't need moralism to decide what tools to use. It can very well use the state to dominate and destroy all other classes before abolishing itself (by abolishing its relation to capital), which is synonymous to abolishing private property, and therefore the state itself.
I think about the state in a more abstract way. In a literal sense, as the state of affairs, or status quo. The rules and conditions as they manifest. From this perspective, distinctions between what's operated under official, private, or public ownership becomes moot. Private institutions like the New York Times or Amazon define the regime of social relations just as much, if not even moreso than vast components of the nominal state's bureaucracy. On the other hand, even under ｆｕｌｌ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｍ, no matter how decentralized, federated, or ad-hoc as it, we would have institutions of some sort, and those institutions would constitute a state. People need food, shelter, healthcare, literacy, education, etc. and the mechanisms of providing those needs will always be systematized one way or another.
The state, for communists, is a physical thing, it is the police, army, prisons etc that protect class society. Only if Amazon hires a private army can it become part of the state. This is what we mean by the state. It is important to have exact definitions, because when we say things like "sieze state power" or "abolish the state", we mean those specific things, we don't mean all administrative bodies in general.
Under communism, there would obviously be administrative bodies, but they do not form a state. The very lack of private property implies that physical force is no longer is a necessary condition for human organization, and there would be no need for the state.
The state (police,army) protects private property. As long as private property exists, either as ownership by individuals, the workers or the state itself, you need an institution that makes this social relation a reality. Abolishing the state is synonymous with abolishing private property. Both are the result of actual movements by workers, and the working class doesn't need moralism to decide what tools to use. It can very well use the state to dominate and destroy all other classes before abolishing itself (by abolishing its relation to capital), which is synonymous to abolishing private property, and therefore the state itself.
I think about the state in a more abstract way. In a literal sense, as the state of affairs, or status quo. The rules and conditions as they manifest. From this perspective, distinctions between what's operated under official, private, or public ownership becomes moot. Private institutions like the New York Times or Amazon define the regime of social relations just as much, if not even moreso than vast components of the nominal state's bureaucracy. On the other hand, even under ｆｕｌｌ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｍ, no matter how decentralized, federated, or ad-hoc as it, we would have institutions of some sort, and those institutions would constitute a state. People need food, shelter, healthcare, literacy, education, etc. and the mechanisms of providing those needs will always be systematized one way or another.
The state, for communists, is a physical thing, it is the police, army, prisons etc that protect class society. Only if Amazon hires a private army can it become part of the state. This is what we mean by the state. It is important to have exact definitions, because when we say things like "sieze state power" or "abolish the state", we mean those specific things, we don't mean all administrative bodies in general.
Under communism, there would obviously be administrative bodies, but they do not form a state. The very lack of private property implies that physical force is no longer is a necessary condition for human organization, and there would be no need for the state.