Communist's counterargument to this?

If communists speak of the state so negatively, saying it's a tool for the upper class to opress the lower class, why are they so convinced they can reach communism through seizing state power? I understand the most class conscious people are the ones supposed to take state power create a proleterian state and then get to communism, and even if people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao may have been legit, but all their succesors were opportunistic revisionists.

What I take from this is that seizing state power isn't the most efficient way to achieve communism

Attached: IMG_20180207_172226.jpg (500x547, 36.97K)

The proletariat needs the state as a special form of organization against the existing bourgeois state. They will then abolish the bourgeois state, reorganize production and then the new proletarian state will slowly wither away from there since there is no use for it since, like you said, the state is an instrument of oppression of one class against another. Someone correct me if my understanding is wrong, I'm a bit new

Deppends how you define a state, tbh.

Attached: 8489494.jpg (229x220, 8.46K)

You are correct in what you said, but what happens when the class conscious leader dies and he's replaced by a buerocratic revisionist hack? It has always happened every time socialism has been attempted, and it ends with the socialist state reverting back to capitalism. So then what would be the best way to achieve communism?

I love authoritarianism tbh. I just call myself a communist so people don't think I'm a socdem.

Lol nice


Democrat syndicates can't be coopted by oppeertunistic influences.

Attached: 1520054347113.jpg (640x736, 44.68K)

See, anarchism would be the direct alternative to seizing state power, but historically all anarchist revolutions have fallen fairly quickly to either capitalist powers or a state socialist power bordering the anarchist society.

Communism cannot happen until Imperialism is wiped off the face of the Earth. To do so will require a state or some completely insane idea that suddenly everyone is just gonna wake up one day a Communist. Even a shitty red bureaucratic state capitalist society does more to help the cause and fight imperialism then it by not existing. Anarchists will sadly just get rolled over by the CIA and other imperialist powers and their anti-revolutionary fighters.

Workers must seize the state and be stable enough to hold onto the ideals of Socialism if they haven't reached them. Hopefully the strength of these red states or just anti-imperialist aligned nations will cut off the imperialist nations oppression which will spread worker revolutions to them since their capitalist economies will collapse under them, ending Imperialism and allowing the world to reach Communism.

What would be the best way to end imperialism? I'm currently thinking many things, but none seem that realistic or plausible.

Yeah so?

I like some of the third worldist theories myself, Cut the Imperialists off from their third world exploitation and the socdem reforms they put in place to stem the revolution will collapse and that's hopefully when Marxists will seize power. Easier said then done since a lot of the time the anti-imperialist nations would themselves love to be the imperialists of another and many of the people in them have no class consciousness at all.

I can't see much happening until America kicks the bucket or it's slow decline hastens and it's military empire collapses and it loses it's strangle hold. I hope China is anti-imperialist but i got no clue what they're up too and some of their Africa schemes are pretty damm fishy. A united front of third world anti-imperialism countries lead by China would pose a huge threat to Capitalists stability and the Wests dominance which would could be exploited by class conscious workers .

That historically both authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism have failed to achieve communism.

Those seem like good ideas to me. Definitiley not impossible, but difficult to enact nonetheless.

We know what happens, we've seen it every time, we don't even need the class conscious leader to die, all he needs is a taste of power to become a megalomaniac. There is a severe agency problem that people here just aren't willing to deal with, and I really wish we would because I'd like to actually build a successful society one day.

A Marxist conception of a state is how one class oppresses another class. In a communist state the proles oppressing the bourgeois, while in a Capitalist state the bourgeois oppress the proles.
So, the Communists seize the bourgeois state for proletariat aims. It instantly ceases to be a bourgeois state, by vrtue of no longer containing bourgeois. Fun fact, even anarchists will do this, unless they completely destroy the government. It's just totally not a state.

What do you propose then?

But how do we prevent the proleterian state from reverting back to a bourgeois state, like it has happened to every socialist country ever?

Yeah, like, 150 years ago.

This is so perfect it has to be a false flag. If not, KYS.

What prevents it from happening again now?

Nothing but our own organizational capacities; state pressure on society.

And not foreign imperialist powers?

Sure, but, you underestimate the power of large organized groups of individuals.

You're being undialectical. That's like asking how do we win a war when we keep on being defeated by larger opponents. This time we will use new tactics, hope/make situations in our favor, etc…
My point being that these states became Bourgeois because of immense Capitalist pressure. Socialism in one state is just impossibly hard to maintain. These countries slowly get crushed by Capital. I can't tell you how these states can stay proletariat anymore than I can tell you how to assemble a nuclear reactor. All revolutions have unique chracteristics that make it impossible for me to tell you how they can defeat the Capitalists around them. There are cultural, economic, militaristic, and even environmental aspects to winning these wars that I can't tell you.
All I can say is that these revolutions will have to defeat the Capitalists around them to survive.

I see what you mean. It's just that historically the downfall of anarchist societies have mostly been external, while the downfall of ML states have been internal

But you aren't considering that most if not all ML states reverted back to capitalism on their own, it was an internal condition that turned them back to capitalism