If Communism is ultimately against the state why do socialists trying to create communism favor taxation and welfare...

If Communism is ultimately against the state why do socialists trying to create communism favor taxation and welfare programs that ultimately inflate and increase State power?

Isn't it enough that your surplus labor value is taken by "porky" why would you want his big brother to suck your labor value as well?

If you're in favor of reducing and eliminating the state the first thing that should go is taxation and most government jobs/programs, etc.

But really a people without a State isn't really a people at all, and it's liable to domination by foreign powers.

This is called social democracy. Americans call it "socialism" because they are trained to be stupid and don't know what most political terms actually mean.

so are you saying communists would oppose someone like Boynie Shmanders and his "social dem" policies and be more in favor of libertarian small-state, decreased taxation and regulation policies? In order to pave the way to "true communism"

lower taxes means less money for the pathetically weak social nets that keep our quality of life barely decent.

There were actually some people here shitting on him, others saw him as a tool for le class consciousness, so it depends.
No, communists want to abolish the capitalist relations in all forms, as such neither welfare state nor lolbert state is more desirable because they're both tools of the current system.

It depends on the circumstances. If it were bunny sandals against cheeto clown then the communist would support bunny sandals. If fascism isn't in the mix then the communist would be working to get rid of the sandman.

sounds like a giant hassle, what do you replace them with? how do you run power stations, nuclear plants, internet companies, credit unions, small food shops, farm land, airports, militaries, hospitals, and so forth without any "capital relations" ?

social nets remove incentives to work and artificially prop up losers with loser mentalities, go to Holla Forums and /r9k/ and see how many people proudly leach welfare.

remove social nets and extended families would become important, instead of slutty single-moms and internet NEETs sucking at the government teet

Yeah, old school commies called FDR a fascist and the Communist Party of Italy under Bordiga would often abstain from parliament altogether, pushing for workplace organization instead.
Later on as the Cold War waged on Communists started pushing for welfare state measures as a way to broadcast their ideas by associating themselves with the reform provided and seek further working class support (with unsatisfying results as history has shown), but Social Democracy does not at all stem from Marxist theory proper and is often simply opportunism.
Reformist anarchists piss me off the most.

Woah, gosh, you're right. I guess we'll never thought of that!

With democratic control of those industries you nitwit

In response to the "giant hassle" well ignoring the massive ethic gap in capitalism. Consider the environment, which WILL collapse in your lifetime if we continue consuming at the rate we do. Your until quality of life will be destroyed to the point where you might as well have been born a slave in a diamond mine

A rational ecological society is the only way to avert the unprecedented environment destruction. Market forces will never stop themselves.

It's not a hassle it's the only way you can assure your survival

You might as well call breathing a massive hassle

I don't see how most of those places would suddenly stop working if we were to remove the capitalist ownership.

as long as money is involved you have capital relations.
so not only do you have to remove the state and normal employment relations but you also have to get rid of money. And you can't do this as a "process" you have to get rid of them all at once, otherwise you get deformities and externalities and chaos like we've seen in the past with "attempts at Communism".

So tell me, how you remove the State, Money, and Ownership of the "means of production" and what do you replace all that with, in one single swoop and how do all those businesses work, from international law firms to powerplants and small comic book shops?

Do you even know what you're trying to do?

communists can destroy the environment just as well as capitalists can, there's nothing inherently "ecological" about either systems, depends on the users, their demands and values. Communist experiments in Asia were very good at destroying valuable farm-land and turning them into total unusuable crap.

Congratulations, you've just understood communism.

If by money you mean markets yes.
Have you actually been paying attention to the annil barter-fag?

That's a good question, only LeftComs can answer it, I'd rather just capture the state and build from there.

I agree with this, although you have to factor the effects of alienation and the division of labour into how people think of their environment and the control they believe they have over it, but yeah, you hit the nail in the head and muh eco-revolution cunts are retarded. AnCaps are perfectly capable of stopping global warming and so on.

You fundamentally misunderstand what marxists and anarchists mean by "state".

Marxists define state as an instrument for class rule and anarchists as a monopoly on violence. None of these definitions care about "muh tax", because collective ownership of the means of production mean its effectively taxed 100% and everybody gets paid from that tax. Therefore we do not fundamentally oppose social democratic programmes, because they help the working class and take a bit of money back from the bourgeoisie. At the same time we do oppose things like corporate wellfare or wars.

See pic related.

Which rely on the same "money" extracted from the bourgeosie to exist.

You assume the bourgeois state is suited for anything other than bourgeois rule, it isn't.

...

there are bourgeois states and proletarian ones, the bourgeois ones should be dismantled immediately after industrialisation and the proletarian ones should be protected from anarchist terrorists at all costs, how hard is that to get?

Tell me, where do these "reformist anarchists" exist? I swear, tankies have the dumbest ideas of what anarchism is, somehow even more so than normies who think it's Mad Max advocacy.

It doesn't become proletarian unless you abolish it along with all other states at the same time and destroy private property as well. If you maintain a state while still surrounded by capitalism, it will inevitably behave in a bourgeois manner and exploit the labor-power of the proletariat in order to keep up. The only difference is that it has no qualms whatsoever about killing its own citizens to meet goals (although the bourgeoisie export this violence to a Third World of their own devising anyways). Thus, you end up at state capitalism and never anything else. It's not socialism.

Lenin was no Marxist, and Stalin was actively anti-Marxist. Your ideology is social democracy at gun point. It's not such a far stretch to imagine you killing Rosa - oh right, Tiananmen Square happened. Put back on your rose, you theoryless piece of shit.

The anarcho-syndicalist answer is clean and simple: start unions, kick out any bureaucracy if it starts growing, all power to the workers themselves. Alongside those, create workers' cooperatives, mutual aid societies (which have made a resurgence under the name of "self-help"), and squats.

Every time that this has been tried and the state has collapsed, it has resulted in a functioning system of worker-owned firms, bottom-up democratic planning, and communal democracy. It worked in Catalonia, and it's working right now in Rojava (where the Kurdish anarchists are fighting ISIS).

The challenge for us is to build it into an international system and bring back the effectiveness of the strike as a weapon to win real power for the workers. Social democrats and liberals are the biggest threat because they tend to thrive in bureaucracies and only demand temporary measures like welfare and regulation. It must be full democracy of the workers or nothing.

Where do you get the impression that Rojava is somehow anarchist? Their primary source of training and arms has been the PKK, which was strictly ML prior to Öcalan's googling of Bookchin.

PissPigGranddad describes a few things that suggests the ideology of the YPG has not fully split from ML. This includes self-crit sessions, strict ideology lessons, and a party with membership for life.

I'm sure capital gains tax and corporation tax will suck up my labour value.

(council tax is bullshit though, FUCK YOU John Major.)

it's a cargo-cult like every non-western marxist organisation

when i look at them, it's like tibettan buddhists looking at sam hyde

Not the same guy but how do you get the negation of this
from this
?

There is no difference between the state and bourgeoisie. They are literally the exact same group of people, simply moving in and out roles. "Socialism" is a term that has been co-opted by this class so that their very "opposition" is simply a way of further empowering them. There is nothing actually socialist about anything you've described, and Sanders was pushed here by capitalism loving redditors who invaded en masse.

Prove it without begging the question.