In critique of the gotha program Marx seems to talk about a communist state...

In critique of the gotha program Marx seems to talk about a communist state. He mentions "administrative" costs will be deducted from the labor of the workers and talks about a fund for those that cannot work. Is their a state in communism or not?

YOU POSTED THIS YESTERDAY TOO STOP IT.

AND ADMINISTATION AND WELFARE DO NOT MAKE IT A STATE, YOU TARD.

who gives welfare and does administration other than the state?

Gorillaposter, through your endless and repetitive shitposting in the last year, have you at least learned something?

The collective governing body of society.
Which isnt a state because it doesnt enforce class rule and because its democratic and shit.

Yes. But now I'm banned for 3 weeks so I have to get on tor and get a new tor circuit until I get an end node that Holla Forums doesn't recognize.

Government =/= state
Coordinating public projects is not the same thing as an entity with a monopoly on violence that justifies itself through the circular logic that having that power means it deserves that power.

wouldn't this type of state have a monopoly on violence aswell?

This. A communist society doesnt have a state by anarchist and marxist definitions of a state.


No, why would it? Monopoly is to the exclusion of a group, if its all of society it by definition isnt a monopoly.

You don't need violence for people to agree to have part of their productivity go toward helping poor people. Shit, in the US most people favor this and the government uses its monopoly on power to stop it.

So anyone can run out into the street shoot someone and claim that was a legitimate use of violence?

The concept that violence can be legitimate or illegitimate only works in the context of a state
They can try but they will be shot themselves or worse.

The concept of legitimacy of violence is contradictory because the violence that established the state would be deemed illegitimate by a state's standards, which renders a state's "legitimate" violence illegitimate and the concept moot, since some authority would have to establish legitimacy but would have to be illegitimate itself.

Most people have a natural sense of what violence is justified or acceptable and this sense has evolved within social species for millions of years. There's zero need for a state to decide for people what's legitimate or not, and we frequently disagree with what a state considers legitimate. An important tool of US foreign policy is to label the violence of other states as illegitimate, which again contradicts the logic of legitimate state violence. If one state's violence can be illegitimate, then another can't claim its violence as legitimate on that same basis (of being state violence).

Exactly, thats what I meant.
Basically the idea of "legitimate violence" is like the following:

The whole point is that communism will have to grow out of the existing world, with its varied institutions and mechanism. He proposes a first phase of communism by redirecting and utilizing various existing institutions like taxes, the state, and the LTV. Maybe they will extinguish as communism progresses, maybe not. But at any rate communism if it arises, will arise out of the then existing state of things.
saged for gorillaposting

Are you sure you know exactly what state and nation mean? For instance, imagine a future where the whole world is one nation. Can you imagine that? And I don't mean that question in the sense of whether you think it a likely scenario, I mean isn't a one-nation world in a way a paradoxical concept? Ask some kids to list some aspects of what a nation is, and surely some will mention borders as an aspect of what a nation is, and making a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. So, if no national borders exist anywhere, you can say that means no nation exists. On the other hand, you can reason that whenever you are in a place that is not a foreign nation, you must be in your nation (if you are not on the Moon), so a world without different nations should be called a one-nation world.

Marx and Engels called the state an apparatus of one class exerting its will over another; so going by that definition, states will cease to exist when classes cease to exist. But if you think of the term state as meaning just about any sort of administration, then of course you can conclude the state will continue to exist.

State and nation are ambiguous terms, so you have to look at the context of statements people make when they talk about that.

my nigga I appreciate where you're coming from but
INTERNATIONAL WATERS

Could this mean the soviet union was a stateless society? Everyone had the same relationship to the means of production so obviously the government was not a apparatus of class dominance.

No. There was production for exchange, some private property, lack of democracy, etc.

Okay, so:

People.

Not even close.