Friendly reminder that "proletarian state" is an oxymoron as the state is a tool of class opression and it is necessary...

Having the people in arms Paris Commune style is a form of proletarian state. Shooting the bourgies who rebel is a form of oppresion against them, you're only confirming what I said.

I didn't so much mean having sway over the system as just a bourgie insurection

I still can't see how they are definitely a new class? The only difference is the type of labour they carried out and probably their wages. But a prole making more than another prole doesn't bump them into a new class.

the fact that they're masters

didn't want to become individuals they wanted to remain masters. they're dead, they can't complain anymore.

And how do you make the people who want to remain masters dead, if not by arming the proletariat?

duh.

That's what a state is, instituions that are upkept by an armed force controlled by a class.

I can hold a weapon I have 2 arms. I can decide for myself, my own self interest for what to use it I have a brain.

Turns out other individuals can too. They don't need masters telling them what to do. Good night.

A state doesn't necesarilly involve a "master" telling you what to do. The bourgeois state does, but that does not mean the proletarian state should, it defenitely should not. Having the people be in arms is a form of armed force.

jesus
hahahah
good night man

You're confusion the notion of state with the notion of a BOURGEOIS state. As I've already said, a state is simply institutions that are upkept by an armed force. Under a bourgeois state, this involves 'masters", because the bourgeoisie needs to keep a tight grip on everything so that they not be overthrown by the much more numerous proletariat. Under a proletarian state, there would be no need for this. Once again, just having the people be in arms is a form of armed force.

...

Can you explain how their interests were different?

What about if the dictatorship of the proletariat is used to denote the dictatorship of the proletariat class as a whole in and of itself, the self-organized rule of the armed workers without the dictates of a party elite. Would that not be a "proletarian state" which an anarchist would be willing to support and take part in.

Dictatorship of the proletariate as armed organizations of direct class rule rather than dictatorship of the proletariat as a one party state organized for the supposed benefit of the proletariat. Depriving the bourgeoisie of political power is still a necessity no?

Not the guy you were responding to, but.
The interests of the bureaucracy were different from that of the general proletariat under the soviet union because of the material conditions of russia and neighboring revolutionary countries at the time. Russia was a backwater peasant country that had just gone through two wars, and as such there was hardly any food left. However, important elected members of the party/councils need to be kept alive for obvious reasons, and thus are treated a bit better than the rest. This wasn't inherently bad per say, because the people who were elected need to not be starving, but it also led them to wanting to keep their positions, lest they go back to starving again. Had the revolution been succesful in more advanced countries, this would have not been a problem, but this was not the case. Lenin himself even said if the revolution did not succeed in Germany, the USSR would not last as it was for more than two months.

Anarchists are such children.

The Finnish Bolshevik is pretty shit sometimes but that's a good point he makes there.

Absolutely. He's still in the 20th century siege mentality of the cold war. Dude needs some 21st century theories of communism, *sniff.*

But they surely wouldn't maintain their position if they'd have fucked up? I mean, considering how many managers and elected officials got removed in the Stalin period (often on reports of the workers) I don't really see how actively working against the workers interest would be on their agenda. How would you even determine the workers interest? Having direct democracy over every single decision?

Referring to the famine, I hope you don't believe that the famine wasn't deliberately engineered or simply seen as collateral damage? I'm not saying there was absolutely no mismanagement (there was), but there was also sabotage and the material conditions, as you said, made it extremely difficult to transform everything smoothly into a collectivized agriculture. Still, there have been multiple works about how collectivization was the best alternative for USSR at that time, for example "From Farm to Factory" by Allen

maoistrebelnews.com/2017/01/11/farm-to-factory-the-soviet-industrial-revolution/

(Yes I know it's the Roo but he's just summarizing the book)

No objection to that, no ML would disagree with that.

...

Friendly reminder that you faggots have created states inside preexisting states, you anarchist class oppressors you.

How do you like your anarchist new bourgeoisie in Spain, Mexico, Ukraine, Korea, Rojava or whatever else you take pride of next, retard?

...

kinda culty

Seeing how most self-described marxists think a sovdem "transitionary" state is "the lower stage of communism", neither do you fags.

...

...

it's important to understand if you're going to critique marxism tho

it's not the only important one, but it's the one the OP had to be talking about, because its intent was to talk about Marxists.

Anarchists don't seem to really get what the state actually is but are more concerned about aesthetics and form. Why are you so fond of utopianism?

...

I agree, a shining example of non-statist organizations I recall are kekalonia with its definitely non-statist labour camps or Makhno's army with its definitely non-statist conscription

Who dis sperm germ?

This is Anarchyball-tier misrepresentation. Pic related.

And people wonder why so many revolutions shit the bed

Society can only be stateless once it's classless.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.