Does Marx or Engels clearly write anywhere that communism is necessarily stateless by definition? People often define communism as a classless, stateless society, but to me it seems like the statelessness of the post-capitalist, communist society was more of a "prediction" Marx and Engels made (based on their analysis of the state as a tool for maintaining class society), rather than a defining characteristic of communism. (Keep in mind I haven't read that much Marx and Engels, which is why I'm making this thread in the first place.)
For example, this Engels quote gives me that impression: >Since 1845 Marx and I have held the view that one of the ultimate results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution of the political organisation known by the name of state. The main object of this organisation has always been to secure, by armed force, the economic oppression of the labouring majority by the minority which alone possesses wealth. With the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority there also disappears the necessity for the power of armed oppression, or state power. At the same time, however, it was always our view that in order to attain this and the other far more important aims of the future social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.
The abolition of the state does not seem to be an actual goal in and of itself for Engels, nor does it seem to be built into the very definition of communism. "The gradual dissolution of the political organisation known by the name of state" seems more like a likely side-effect of a successful communist revolution and abolition of private property, generalized commodity production, wage labour, etc, but it's not impossible that something similar to a state may exist even in communism.
Am I being totally retarded or is calling communism stateless by definition kind of sloppy and more in line with anarchism than Marxism?
Most of what they wrote was predictive rather than prescriptive.
Doesn't Engels also say that the state exists to mediate class contradictions? Maybe it was Lenin who said this, so correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, wouldn't the logical conclusion of that be that a classless society, i.e. communism, is also a stateless one?
Marxists are anarchists who don't realize the state, in whatever form, will never relinquish power and will always present a reason for the necessity of maintaining the state apparatus. From what I can glean, most Marxists think the state will become "redundant" and be dismantled. I see nothing in history nor human psychology that leads me to believe that's a rational prediction to hold.
If the state is an insturment of class dominance then communism (a classless society) shouldn't have a state.
The way I've always viewed it is that more important for communism is the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority, and that the disappearance of "the state" is just a technical necessity since without a wealth possessing minority there can't be any political organisation that can be said to protect that minority and oppress the lower classes. This, however, doesn't seem to me to imply anarchism, or a society without any political organisation of force or power, but perhaps that you could have a socialist or revolutionary new form of state post-capitalism that performs vastly different functions from the old state. For example, whereas the state of society thus far is said to be a tool of class oppression, the "revolutionary state" or the evolved form of state wouldn't and couldn't perform this function, and would have a completely new fundamental structure that is more based on horizontal rule of the masses over the masses, rather than a vertical hierarchy. This would come in the form, for example, of the mass militias that keep society together and in check in the socialist society, or other forms of organisation of the political power of the masses that Lenin proposes in the April Theses. The apparatuses that you setup in the dictatorship of the proletariat to enforce the rule of the masses end up, once class is abolished, becoming self-sustaining in society, and forming a newer form of "state".
The tankie argument against this is "muh dictatorship of the proletariat" and by that they mean dictatorship of the party. All power to the soviets would be the only form in which complete rule by the proletariat would exist.
The state is an instrument of coersion
You owe this belief to ignorance. Even though states are class dictatorships they can rule for periods of relative peace when their existence isn't critically threatened, which is how some have lasted for centuries. When the ultimate contradiction of class has been resolved it's entirely feasible repression can be done with as well.
Now go suck off your favorite anarchist dictatorships somewhere else.
For Marx it was clear that human emancipation can only happen once the state (political power) is no longer: So yes, for Marx, the abolition of the state wasn't just a nice side-effect of communism but a necessary step to achieving its goal. Engels and Marxists would probably disagree, but who cares about them anyway?
What, in either history and/or human psychology, leads you to believe Engels is right about this prediction?
Diactatorship of the proletariat is a revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism.
You haven't presented an argument, just a fantasy
When do you get to the transition to anarchy?
The state whithers away (you may still have some sort of cordinating central body) when class has been abolished and its no longer needed,
Coordination requires coersion for compliance. Coersion is the foundation of the state. You have not abolished the state, you just gave it a new coat.
What an ancap teir veiw of the state. The state is a insturment of class dominance.
the state is when people do things together fuck off dumb tankie
Got my noggin bobbin now bud
I guess you missed the part where I actually described history in my post huh? States aren't in any way rational but the violence they give is directly affected by the violence they recieve
Statism is also the only option for any new society. But this comes as a surprise to absolutely no anarchists, who have consistently supported organized violence at every turn.
Its not a state in the sense of one group dominating the other its just a organization of everyone that helps coordinate society.
And how many times has the state become redundant, and those in positions of bureaucratic power stepped aside?
Describe to me how you coordinate society without forcing people do to what you tell them
Thats not necessarily a state. A small tribe would be a state based on that definition.
If the small tribe uses physical coercion to enforce compliance with the democratic decision making, how is that not a state?
We are arguing semantics at this point. We have different definitions of a state.
Every single aspect of the future communist society as described by Marxists is a prediction Marx and Engels made. They didn't define anything beforehand.
Regardless of what you call it, are you ok with a group of people using physical coercion to enforce others' compliance with democratic decision making?
If the state is defined as the organ of class rule, than a classless society would necessarily be a stateless society.
Then what do you call the body of people who make and enforce the rules in a communist society?
What happens when two people come up with mutually exclusive rules?
No you are.
And when 51% of people say do A and 49% of people say do B, what do you do? Who enforces A on all of the Bs?
stop trying to force meme "leftcom gang" its not as funny as nazbol gang and therefore a shit
You seem to think people live for the sole purpose of fucking the system. They don't.
You can't seem to answer a single question because it's apparent you're not capable of addressing the fact you're re-defining the meaning of the word state to imagine it doesn't exist in the society you're proposing.
I have answered your question. Twice.
What you described is a democracy. People vote on what is to be done and then it is done. What you have not addressed is how democracy is enforced in your system. Democracy always requires enforcement for uniform compliance and that enforcement always takes the form of physical coercion. So you have a group of people deciding what is to be done and then forcing everyone to do it at gunpoint. And I'm supposed to say that's ok because you say it's not a state. I don't care if you call it a pony, I don't want that shit.
Society may not be a satisfying answer to you, but it is still the answer.
It's a fucking retarded non-answer
I can't tell if you're trolling or an insufferably retarded brainlet. Either way I'm done trying to explain basic logical fallacies to someone who thinks a one word reply suffices as political discussion.
No it's not. What is retarded is to think a society not divided into classes with opposed interests would need a specific body removed from itself to enforce its own decisions.
Tell me, have you ever played a board game? Or football?
Are you unironically arguing that all disagreement comes from class alone?
Literally no one has said everyone will just magically agree on every issue.
No. Read again.
Right, so people will disagree on something, have a vote on it, but the decision will not have to be enforced in any way
The implication is that people will "work it out on their own" without need for mediation. This presupposes a rational and civil view of man that is unsubstantiated by history.
Decisions will be enforced by people themselves (you know, those who made them in the first place).
What there won't be is a specific body removed from society.
How is this not police? Don't laws affect police? Do police not vote?
And here comes human nature…
Nobody said this either.
No government has law enforcment that are removed from society. That doesn't even make sense.
Tell me then: how do you define a State?
Police is a specific part of society. There won't be such a thing.
Nope, try again
That group of people is everyone in the society
Here's the correction
Here's the correction
Police are defined by their role in defending property rights and are given roles well outside the realm of "crime fighting" or whatever else people imagine the police actually are there for in favor of outwardly dull jobs that means that, in practice, they infect every facet of our lives. It's perfectly ok to have a group dedicated to stopping crime, but there's absolutely no reason for the same organization to do all the different things the cops do while also being accountable only to the property owning class.
Fuck, left my "troll a retard" name on
Actually those who don't agree with this or that decision (or most likely: who don't know why it has been taken / don't give a fuck) will enforce it too. Like I said: people don't live for the sole purpose of fucking society; if anything, they're always try and preserve the society they've grown up in (unless they're driven to a revolution by necessity).
My point exactly. If 55% of people want to radically change how something is done, it's foolish to base your system on the idea that the 45% of people will go along, even if it means upending the society they've loved. You are engaging in an idealistic view of human relations that is not based in any reality I am aware of.
you’re dumber than most ancaps my dude
We don't base any "system" on any ideas we predict why society will evolve into based on both history and today's society dynamics.
Their concept of State as State is developed out of their theory of historical evolution resulting from class antagonism which itself resulted from our incomplete productive forces necessitating the division of labor. The predetermined plan after the proletariat seizes the State and completes the socialization production by abolishing production for exchange rather than direct use, and other "absurdities" (contradictions that move) Capitalist society, thereby abolishes itself as proletariat, negates the need for the State. Government of people over people at the whims of history, changes to "direct", collective scientific administration of nature and society, where the bestial human fragmented by the division of labor finally becomes fully human, or post-human if you will. The "dies out", "withers away", or "a higher phase" terminology referred to the dialectical metaphysics whereby even with such a climatic rupture, this is supposed to unfold over an indefinite period of time rather than instantaneously convulse into actuality, which is reasonable enough, only if of course you grant the rest as sensical.
According to Lenin the State comprises three things; the army, the police and the bureaucracy. The army is needed to defend against foreign invasions and internal revolts, the police is needed to enforce law and order and run prisons, and the bureaucracy is needed to distribute scarce resources.