So, do ancoms think that socialism is stateless?
So, do ancoms think that socialism is stateless?
Everyone ought to tbh
Only retarded tankies think socialism is not stateless tbh famalam.
maybe you guys should read marx, proudhon, bakunin or malatesta? Something else besides lenin and stalin.
Lenin knew very well socialism would be stateless.
Socialism is stateless. The state only exists in a class society.
do you mean socialism as early stage communism or socialism in general?
Socialism is a mode of production like Capitalism. It consists of production for use rather than production for exchange.
In this sense it can be stateless and it cannot. However, worker's democracy is a necessary element for a better society.
Socialism should be free of private property but not stateless. All the posters ITT who say socialism should be stateless must be gulag'd immediately.
COMMUNISM is the one that is stateless, not socialism.
Literally read Marx, brainlet.
Looks like Lenin must be gulag'd immediately:
Marx tells very clearly that communism is a stateless society not socialism.
He never makes a distinction between Socialism and Communism.
you're talking about Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is indeed a state ruled by the working class.
He agreed that in order to build a stateless society we need a state ruled by the working class
Marx also states very clearly that socialism is not some in-between capitalism and communism:
Yes, but the state != governance.
So DotP is just the transitioning?
good meme, let me guess, it involves "state capitalism" right?
Perhaps we should be careful about what is a "state" and consider what it is we are making headway to abolish.
Consider how easy it is to point out that ancapistan would develop stateless businesses that are indistinguishable from monarchist or plutocrat states by their monopolies on territory and through control of populations through contract. How do we prevent a state from doing the opposite and become a private-property-free business monopoly?
I don't mean this as some kind of hard counter to the state socialists, just more of something to consider.
Socialism is the economic system. Communism is the society. Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist advocates a classless stateless society
How can it be state capitalism if markets far and wide are abolished in the process?
Markets aren't all there is to capitalism.
When did I ever mention the soviet union? It was obviously a failed projected because of the failed revolutions worldwide
Markets are intrinsic to commodities though.
Would you be able to say it was a failed project before it collapsed in 91?
Holy fuck, Op. This thread attracted all the morons that think socialism is not a transitional period. Sad it seems they have never read Marx or have the Autism Level of Muke. If I have time I will have to get back on my desktop. But man this thread is great for the lulz. I would have to provide a good book on how to study because it seems many here are confused and frankly misunderstanding Marx a simple level.
Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism, and he certainly did not describe either as a transitionary state. I'm going to be your proof is Lenin calling the DotP socialism.
And I'm sorry is this not an accurate description? He specifically tore Proudhon's ass for falling for the "workers' ownership of the MoP" meme, as this would still follow the logic of generalized commodity production.
I get that Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably but this is because he would assume they pressuposed each other. But the man isn't a fucking prophet, jesus.
To Communism. You could eliminate production for exchange under a state, but then again you could theoretically do without one either, hence the distinction "Libertarian Socialism" originating in the 19th century, from the split between the Authoritarian and anti-State revolutionaries.
Pic related is an example of what people thought of it at the time.
Bakunin wrote that the DotP was retarded tho
how would you distribute property without a state? of course socialism has a state.
This is so dicey.
I'd like to think that we can obviate the need for money and start organizing production for use right away but that we will inevitably go through a period of working out the kinks so we will barter and stuff. Communism v0.01 so to speak.
It's a matter of semantics to call something a transition period. For me, communism would be nothing but transition. IIRC Marx differentiated between the lower and higher phases, but they were of the same thing (no hard distinction between socialism and communism, a transitional phase and a final phase)?
Thats what I'm saying, that both of them agreed that Socialism was production for use, but that the difference was between whether they should use the State or not.
If Socialism had always meant Democratic ownership of the MoP, then we wouldn't be such disagreements between Marx and the early Utopian Socialists, or Proudhon, Bakunin and the Anarchists.
There's a word that stands for the transition from one mode of production to another: revolution.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will be the political form of the revolution.
Thanks. This is the most satisfying answer ITT.
because it pretty much is
Of course socialism is stateless. States are an aspect of class society and since socialism is classless then too must it be stateless. This is literally socialism 101.
Yep that's why he said things like seizure of private property by the proletarian dictatorship along with a heavy progressive income tax should be means to the end of communism.
Ancoms are so fucking stupid I swear to god
Dictatorship of the proletariat=/=socialism
Where is the feudalism, pal? Hurr durr where is my utopia.
Not when state employees are ordinary workers, doing their jobs. Muh totalitarianism meme.
It doesn't exist any more and failed to abolish capitalism, it failed.
What are you going on about?
I didn't say it did you stupid fucking idiot, I said that a component of a socialist society is a DoTP to maintain the dominance of the working class over the bourgeoise. This is literally one of the clearest concepts Marx and Engels ever outlined.
You just said it again.
Surely you realize you've just claimed that the bourgeoisie exist in socialist society right?
A component of socialism is not socialism in itself. Societies had forms of commerce before capitalism, that doesn't mean they were capitalist. Basically what I'm saying is that you can have a socialist society without a DoTP, such as the various libertarian arrangements which have existed and do exist today, but in the Marxist sense you have to have a DoTP as part of your society or else it ceases to be Marxist
Found the liberal
You claimed that the bourgeoisie would exist in a socialist society, apparently with enough power to require a DotP to dominate them. I guess tankies are so retarded they don't even read what they write themselves.
Marxism isn't a system.
Of course, DoTP exists within capitalism. There would be no DoTP under socialism because socialism is classless.
W E W
Yes. The DoTP exists during the revolutionary period of suppression on the bourgeoisie, expanding internationally, and centralizing the means of production. Read Marx any time.
you first bucco
You actually believe this too, albeit in a distorted form. Since according to you socialism is a class society with a bourgeois-proletarian contradiction.
"My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society"
That isn't what I said at all. I said that there is the Marxist conception of socialism, IE "Scientific" socialism wherein the means of production are collectively owned and need rather than profit is the motive of production, where a DoTP exists to prevent a bourgeoise counter-revolution.
If you think that a socialist party or an anarchist "revolution" is enough in and of itself to abolish capitalism and its apologists automatically you're a fucking idealist idiot who needs to read a history book
Socialist policies in capitalism show it worked, lack of feudalism, workers rights, etc. It all goes away now, sure, good luck under neofeudalism, because muh ultimate perfect communism is not possible to implement so easily.
Yes it is enough, since it is exactly what defines a revolution. The revolution isn't over when you've taken the Tsar's palace; it is over when capitalism has completely disappeared worldwide. Do you understand?
another day another anarkiddie
You can't have a DotP and capitalism at the same time though, those are contradictory, aren't they?