[Metal Gear]

One part of Marxist Analysis I was never comfortable with is the stateless part of Communism. I think that even when the bourgeoisie is overthrown and the socialist state is set up - whatever follows that will not be anarchism. So would this make me a socialist but not a communist? I agree with the transitional phase of "Socialism" but then after that I think there still will be a need to organize people. Thus I reject the anarchistic leanings of the stateless part of Communism.

Does anyone else do that?

[Szabo]

With improvements in technology, maybe it would be possible to have a stateless country (at least on a federal level) through direct democracy and local councils, kind of like how it was supposed to be with the soviets.

The problem with that though is that I don’t know how it could be possible as long as nation states still exist. As long as nation states still exist, there will always be the risk of invasions, and I’m not sure I know how a stateless country which does not centralize its security apparatus can defend itself.

[Metal Gear]

By the way I made a post about this on reddit (it's not plagiarism it's the same person).

[Metal Gear]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/12i46z4/state_communism_anyone_else_bothered_by_the/
There is the URL since the embed of the reddit post is not working.

[Senter]

One part of Marxist Analysis I was never comfortable with is the stateless part of Communism. I think that even when the bourgeoisie is overthrown and the socialist state is set up - whatever follows that will not be anarchism. So would this make me a socialist but not a communist?

No, it just makes you one of the many who don’t really understand Marx’s communism. My recollection of Marx is that he said the people would become so accustomed to acting cooperatively, collectively, and democratically under socialism as it advances to it’s fully established, fully consolidated form, and become so accustomed to dealing with their own concerns in workers’ and community organizations that classes would “wither away” leaving just the people. All class consciousness, class interests, class goals, concerns, expectations, desires, habits, and all other remnants of class consciousness would “wither away”, meaning classes “wither away”. And as that happens, the need for the enforcement structures of the state and much more would also “wither away” from lack of need as the people’s own organizations deal with issues, and since, as Marx said, the state is the mechanism for managing/regulating the class struggle. Just the clerical functions of the state would remain, meaning record-keeping, dissemination of information, and other such functions that the working class would benefit from but all controlling functions that would regulate the working class/people would be absent. This, then, is “the withering away of the state” and what is called “stateless communist society”.

An important take-away: communist society cannot be imposed by force or by decree, largely because no law nor force can eliminate class consciousness. So stateless communist society must evolve and emerge of its own nature and in its own time.

Now, is it likely that this would ever happen, even after 100 generations? We don’t know. But to me it sounds too good to be true, so I have my doubts, but that doesn’t matter. Captain Picard said that is what the future will be. ;^)

[Saeko]

An important take-away: communist society cannot be imposed by force or by decree, largely because no law nor force can eliminate class consciousness. So stateless communist society must evolve and emerge of its own nature and in its own time.

Now, is it likely that this would ever happen, even after 100 generations? We don’t know. But to me it sounds too good to be true, so I have my doubts, but that doesn’t matter. Captain Picard said that is what the future will be. ;^)

It's important to understand that we cannot extrapolate to future forms of social organization while imagining that technology and other circumstances would remain unchanged. With the way things currently are, a classless society certainly seems impossible. However, for a civilization that was so technologically advanced that it had no need for human labor, such an achievement would be trivial.

With recent advances AI, this type of future seems more likely than ever. Even the "withering away" of the state seems 10 times as plausible if you consider the possibility of a state that is no longer controlled by humans, but by machines.

[Senter]

It's important to understand that we cannot extrapolate to future forms of social organization while imagining that technology and other circumstances would remain unchanged. With the way things currently are, a classless society certainly seems impossible. However, for a civilization that was so technologically advanced that it had no need for human labor, such an achievement would be trivial.

With recent advances AI, this type of future seems more likely than ever. Even the "withering away" of the state seems 10 times as plausible if you consider the possibility of a state that is no longer controlled by humans, but by machines.

All great points. However when we have a class that is dedicated to extracting a continuing stream of wealth from society by their domination of the economics, that class should not be expected to allow AI or anything else to diminish their ability to continue their greedy extraction processes any more than we could expect them to allow computerization and automation of society to be used to make life and labor easier and more financially rewarding than it was before computerization and automation.

For the people to reap the benefits, the people must rule and be in control and the profit motive must end.

[Deutschmania]

All great points. However when we have a class that is dedicated to extracting a continuing stream of wealth from society by their domination of the economics, that class should not be expected to allow AI or anything else to diminish their ability to continue their greedy extraction processes any more than we could expect them to allow computerization and automation of society to be used to make life and labor easier and more financially rewarding than it was before computerization and automation.

For the people to reap the benefits, the people must rule and be in control and the profit motive must end.

The Communist couple , Emerican Johnson and Luna Nguyen , in their Breadcast , addressed this very topic, and concur with you. In short it will take a massive societal transformation , and not simply technological innovation, for fully automated luxury communism to become a reality.

[Deutschmania]

As to the original post. As I understand it , a key difference between a Communist , such as myself , and the national syndicalism of such Japanese rooted fascists as the Tohokai , and as I understand it , on a more personal note @Saeko , is that the latter , to quote Mussolini , holds to the premise of "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" , while I as a Marxist look forward to a time in which the final conflict is faced and triumphed, with all enemies of the free working people of the world utterly vanquished. Then and only then will material conditions be ripe for the higher stage of communism. Lenin elaborates upon this in chapter five of The State and Revolution. Until such an optimal future society can be realized, we Communists believe that the best state of affairs that can be attained is the lower stage of socialism. Once the the social class hierarchy is eliminated, and consciousness is elevated worldwide, there will no longer be any underlying cause for armed conflict . And as statecraft is no more than warcraft carried out by other means, the end of the root causes of war will likewise bring about the end of the state, as it would no longer have a reason for being. Anyone who lacks confidence that such an ideal society can be brought to fruition is no more than a social fascist , whose socialism is nothing but yellow socialism . But in the end , even a number of neofascist third positionists have been gravitating towards a sort of autonomous nationalism / national anarchism . So we may come to see, for better or worse, the rise of a new synthesis known as National Bolshevism. This I have noticed has already been playing out in Russia , where such left-wing nationalist Communists such as for example Anastasia Udaltsova , had previously been affiliated with such parties as the National Bolshevik Party. So perhaps an increasing number of disgruntled fascists will wind up being reconciled to the cause of Communism, particularly given how post-fascism has been shifting in the direction of national conservatism / national populism , leaving anti-capitalist adherents of fascism stranded without a political home. What such would be converts to Communism must realize however is that while Communism rejects bourgeois liberal democracy, it does still affirm the idea of democratic centralism , and opposes such chauvinist prejudices as anti-Semitism. This I feel is what a number of more so nationalist inclined Russian Communists should be made to understand , if those comrades who are of Jewish descent, such as myself , are to be able to feel safe being part of the larger Communist movement. https://www.rferl.org/a/1089950.html , https://www.jta.org/archive/new-slur-by-communist-lawmaker-is-latest-of-anti-semitic-incidents-2 , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/208733.stm , https://cne.news/article/1787-russian-jews-duma-deputy-is-anti-semitic

[Potemkin]

With improvements in technology, maybe it would be possible to have a stateless country (at least on a federal level) through direct democracy and local councils, kind of like how it was supposed to be with the soviets.

The problem with that though is that I don’t know how it could be possible as long as nation states still exist. As long as nation states still exist, there will always be the risk of invasions, and I’m not sure I know how a stateless country which does not centralize its security apparatus can defend itself.

This is why the Revolution must be a world Revolution. Anything less is doomed to degenerate into a distorted workers’ state, just as the Soviet Union did. To survive in a hostile world, it would have no choice. The Soviet Union was doomed from the moment the Bolshevik Revolution failed to spread to western Europe in the early 1920s.

[Rancid]

This is why the Revolution must be a world Revolution. Anything less is doomed to degenerate into a distorted workers’ state, just as the Soviet Union did. To survive in a hostile world, it would have no choice. The Soviet Union was doomed from the moment the Bolshevik Revolution failed to spread to western Europe in the early 1920s.

I wonder though. Would communism flourish with a global revolution, or would power hungry assholes like Trump and Stalin just take over?


Also, prior to WWII, the propaganda of the soviet union was in fact that. "The global revolution is coming". However, after it be came clear that wouldn't be the case. The Soviets (read: Stalin) shifted the propaganda towards "anti-nazism". The legacy of this remains in Russia. This is why they use the excuse of fighting Nazi's in Ukraine. In fact, to Russians, a Nazi is really just anyone they deem to be an enemy. It is not a Nazi in the way westerners think of it.

[Senter]

I wonder though. Would communism flourish with a global revolution, or would power hungry assholes like Trump and Stalin just take over?

I think if the world were actually ready for communist society such that it were to blossom and appear the world over, the people would have formed their necessary agencies and committees to detect, criticize, and even intervene where necessary to stop any power-hungry assholes from making any progress.

“Communist society” means stateless and classless. It doesn’t mean the people have no control and no organizations!

[Deutschmania]

I wonder though. Would communism flourish with a global revolution, or would power hungry assholes like Trump and Stalin just take over?


Also, prior to WWII, the propaganda of the soviet union was in fact that. "The global revolution is coming". However, after it be came clear that wouldn't be the case. The Soviets (read: Stalin) shifted the propaganda towards "anti-nazism". The legacy of this remains in Russia. This is why they use the excuse of fighting Nazi's in Ukraine. In fact, to Russians, a Nazi is really just anyone they deem to be an enemy. It is not a Nazi in the way westerners think of it.

In answer to your questions , first off all, this is why we support democratic centralism , and self criticism , over the fuhrerprinzip (leader principle) , for example. As I mentioned to @Saeko , in another thread, when she brought up how Naziesque Trump has been , in the worse sense of the term fascist, democratic centralism and self crit are necessary safe guards against corruption and abuses of power . I shall post a series of videos pertaining to this below. As to Russia deeming any and all enemies to be fascist , the United States likewise does this , when it has for example , under the George W. Bush administration made reference to an " Axis of Evil" , referring back to the Axis Powers , and terming the radical Islamists as " Islamo-Fascists ." An actual self described fascist, such as @Saeko , would tell you that neither Osama Bin Laden , or the Islamic Republic of Iran have anything to do with actual fascist ideology. Yet the neocons in the United States will make reference to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem , Al Husseini , and the forces he recruited for the Waffen SS , as evidence of a common historic causality between Nazis and jihadis. For example , take these articles. https://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1601_1650/The%20Nazi%20Roots%20of%20Modern%20Radical%20Islam.htm , https://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3381 So such rhetorical propaganda , of linking the current struggle to the prior " Great Patriotic War" , as Russia has labeled World War II , serves the useful purpose of associating in the people's mind the old enemy with the new, no matter how imperfect the analogy actually is. The Russians , across the political spectrum seem to extol the Soviet Union's role in battling the fascist forces , during that time period. For instance here is a performance by the Alexandrov Ensemble , in which a girl , dressed as a Soviet soldier, complete with red star with hammer and sickle insignia , sings a duet of a song from that time period. Even those who are not necessarily Communist , as you can see , in this context at least, still honors Soviet iconography , as it harkens back to the national struggle against the threat posed by external aggression . I don't know if the girl is even a Communist , or if children can even be said to hold political alignments in the first place, but here she is posing with Pres. Putin , while still dressed as a Soviet soldier woman, even though Putin , as a member of the United Russia Party, is not a Communist himself, anymore than Zelensky, a Jew, is really a Nazi.

,