Listen, the MLs were right, the state did wither away...it withered away and fucking died :ussr-cry:
This is why all utopian ways of living are a pipe dream. Embrace the rule of blood and death.
We have to create the conditions for the withering away of the state, this isn't just an ML idea, it actually predates Marxist Leninism. Its fine to disagree with ML tactics but we also can't assume that just creating dual power, fostering mutual aid, and radicalizing the workers will accomplish that either. I personally believe that anarchism is the most effective form of praxis within the imperial core, but this meme is pretty reductive and doesn't really belong here.
True but it just seems, idk, more antagonistic than funny. It kind of assumes bad faith on our comrades of other tendencies.
Heh heh heh, you fools. I destroyed the 'abolish state' button long ago :stalin-joking:
Hey, gentle rubbing is gentle rubbing. This gets the seal of approval
nobody ever said it would happen in your lifetime. maybe in a 1000 years sounds good.
Yeah, I disagree that the state will wither away and needs to be abolished immediately after the revolution, but I don't think the MLs are lying about it.
I think the point of the meme is that the state by it's nature promotes opportunists who are not ideologically committed to Marxism.
As opposed to the voluntary democratic council commission working group?
In my experience groups dedicated to specific time-bounded goals have been meritocratic, focused and generally pleasant experiences. Long term orgs eventually become stagnant with rusted on individuals who start putting their own interests before the organizations. This is something I have observed even in nonpolitical orgs with low budgets and power only over pretty trivial things. So to your question, yes.
Yeah and where on the timeline does revolution sit, or is that supposed to be spontaneous? If you don't have quarterly goals then there's no point in organizing apparently because corruption could happen some day.
Revolution like any greater task must be broken down into smaller specific tasks with constant reassessment as to what has worked and what needs to change. I don't think you disagree with this. However when those tasks have ambiguous timelines or completion metrics then the incentives of those assigned to the task drift from doing the task towards maintaining or improving their position. If you haven't witnessed this in your workplace or elsewhere then you are very lucky. Then when you add the real power and privilege that rising in the ranks of a state provide then you will see misalignment of interests that is far beyond what anyone in a temporary workgroup would face as well as selecting for those who want the power rather than those who want to see the job done.
I mean yeah kind of. You probably won't be able to eliminate opportunism entirely but I believe it's gonna happen less in more decentralized organizations where leadership turnover is higher.
I get why ML parties have centralized and hierarchical leadership but it's also pretty fucking obvious that it would eventually get filled with opportunists.
In my (ex Yugoslavian) country most of our political elite are ex communist party members, both in center-left and center-right parties. There's clearly a huge problem of opportunism that ML parties just never really solved.
Listen, you should be so lucky that opportunists think they can get somewhere in your movement. DJ Khaled: Suffering from success.
I mean it wouldn't even be THAT hard to mitigate, just have some system of checks and balances (that actually for real works and doesn't just exist on paper) within the party to prevent disasters like the Cultural Revolution in China.
Say what you will about liberal democracies but SOMETIMES these checks and balances actually fucking work.
OPPORTUNISM???? Haha silly child, that is the easiest way for living to once again come to fruition. Embrace the pain, embrace the suffering, embrace the tyranny.
My argument is that a state apparatus could promote people who ARE ideologically committed to Marxism, who will nevertheless perpetuate the state. I think it's actually counterproductive to guess at their intentions, because it implies that the state might just wither away if they just purge any secret "cultural non-Marxists".
I can see your point.
I think of the state like any self perpetuating system, what is useful to it's survival or reproduction will be maintained or promoted and what opposes this goal is destroyed. This is to say I don't think a state will or even can promote someone who is ideologically committed to dissolving the state at least beyond any short-term usefulness they may have to the state.
