A workers state in the 21st century

No, you dense motherfucker. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the mass of workers organized as an armed repressive force, i.e., a STATE.

???

Expanding until there is no more bourgeois State.

Every state is the instrument of one class's dictatorship.

jesus christ, kill yourself
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

...

Yes, hence "workers state"

This, the first world can't afford to be stateless, a network of bookchinite communes would break under the pressure of climate exodus, Deleonism with state power would be able to take it

Sometimes I really fucking hate the level of discourse on Holla Forums

Yes, that's what "workers state" means. What's your point?

The proletariat cannot become the ruling class. They are the negation of the bourgeoisie and can only exist as such. As soon as they overcome the bourgeoisie they both cease to be and become something more. The "class domination of the proletariat" is an impossibility and I honestly have no idea what Marx thought when he wrote the socdem manifesto.

I'm not interested in your hot take. My point was that posts like are fucking dumb, because Marx definitely, without a doubt, thought a workers state is possible and desirable.

...

Sorry it was more an answer to OP. Marx isn't outdated, he was simply wrong when he wrote that.

What are you smoking, I'm basically reciting the State and Revolution verbatim

The abolition of the capitalist class doesn't happen immediately or completely. The revolution is the transition, not the conclusion.

lmao another thread derailed into meaningless semantics, never change, retards

sounds like reformism but OK

What's Social Ecology?

It's literally how a revolution works. You don't just seize the state and kill the Tsar and suddenly you have communism. That's just the first step of the revolution, the next steps are you making sure you don't get stomped by the counter-revolution and creating the conditions and institutions to enable the post-revolutionary society, communism.

Google Bookchin

ITT: we argue over the sematic meanings of words instead of discuss ideas for better economic systems.

I really wish people would do more research into communalism before making baseless claims like this. One of the most important virtues in communalism is economic and political interdependence. Communalism does not support some vague "autonomy" of individual communities. Communes are not allowed to separate from the confederation, which is managed vis-a-vis administration by a government operating with law and constitutionalism. That a wishy-washy anarchist confederation would probably collapse with some strain is perhaps true, but the same doesn't hold true for communalism, which emphasizes coherence and government.

Thanks, user.

To answer OP: Worker states are more of a necessity than ever before. Production has become so complex and globalized and labor has become so divided and specialized that the idea of immediate decentralized stateless communism is even more of a utopian fantasy than it was when Marx was alive.

...

No, revolutions dismantle the old social order and erect the institutions of the new at the same time. If your revolution starts with repurposing old institutions it has failed before it even started.

That's literally the opposite of what a workers' state does

Are you being intentionally dense

It's exactly what Trotsky did.

And that's why Trotsky was the ultimate spook

It means a state yeah, in the sense of a political body that operates the will of the workers

Unless you intend to erect those institutions out of thin air, you're gonna need some period of development where you are appropriating the "old institutions". Revolutionary change never happens overnight

Workers erected them out of thin air in every revolution when they formed councils. The old institutions have to be torn down to make space for the new.

True. But "overcoming the bourgeoisie" worldwide is a long process. You realise that, right?

So what you're saying is that communism was achieved the moment people started forming workers councils?

They are torn down by the workers' State.

Historically the only thing "workers' States" torn down were the workers' councils.

Workers councils are the workers'State.

No.

Yes. Read the documents of the Third International, or State and Revolution.

Am I the only one who sees how arbitrary semantic argument derails literally every thread?

Marx is our god and his writings are our bible. We look through his books and try to find parts that support our own position. This is what Holla Forums is for.

lmao that's not what happened

What you call "derailing" is more often than not an actually much needed clarification. Approximations, that always leave the door opened for opportunism, may be the worst enemy of communism.

It's usually just tankies trying to redefine words to fit their propaganda.

What happened? What are you talking about?

No, this really is a "both sides" sort of thing

The Bolsheviks seized state power in their coup and quickly castrated the actual councils. Trotsky would later call this state that destroyed the actual councils a workers' state.

...

How?

You thought Bolsheviks were anarchists?

Nice tirade but it still doesn't change the fact that anarchism is just a semantical excuse to justify a dictatorship.

Have you never heard of the October "Revolution"?

The irony here is that you're showing how the revolution would fall apart when we get to the semantics and consensus part, when I'm just arguing the whole thing already has fallen apart and cannot get off the ground because of this inherent inability to unify around a consensus.

You mean the one where Soviets lead by the Bolsheviks take down the bourgeois State?

No, where small armed Bolshevik forces took over the state while the workers were going about their own business, ignorant of the revolution they were supposedly participating in.

Sure, that's how things happen in real life: "small armed forces" take over entire States, while "ignorant" masses "mind their own business". You've read too many comics, and not enough history books.

That's not how revolutions happen, you retard

Your Bolshevik-worker dichotomy falls flat when you consider where the base of the party's support and membership actually came from.

The army?

"Bolshevik" is just arbitrary semantics, duh

No kidding?

You realise this was no professional army?

Now hold on just a second. Let's not have any arbitrary, semantical chicanery.

Yes, my friend, the army is the reason they earned ten million votes in the constituent assembly elections. Whatever makes you fucking comfortable dude

Imbeciles.
Reminder that leftcoms do not actually read.

Reminder that "leftcom" doesn't mean a damn thing.