The state'll just wither away fam, trust me

>>>/liberalpol/

name ONE (1) economist in the current year who advocates for a command economy

HARD MODE: they arent jewish or a spic

Say that to my face fgt. pic related, it's me.

I mostly agree with Marx but I seriously think that his view of the state is way off. Hobbes had it much closer, the state is simply a superior way method of organization so states are going to outcompete non-states. In addition forming states just seems to be something that humans have a natural inclination to do, it's just how we organize ourselves, like bees building a hive.

read a fucking book

You want me to vomit on your face? Is that your fetish?

whoa… so this is the power… of forced labor…

how can non-slaves even compete?

M-maybe…

Anarchists, why don't you attack the market socialists instead?

And all it took was one of the most repressive totalitarian states the world has ever seen.

...

Why did you post a picture of Enver Hoxha's modern followers?

The state is fine, at least as a concept. Besides pretty much any Anarchist alternative to the state I've ever read about is basically just the state on a smaller scale.

True

youtu.be/0t9W0DgbCYY

Do you think that most police shootings in the U.S. are justified too? After all, the police investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

anarkiddies are fucking morons

...

...

jesus christ i bet youre one of the tards who think the USSR could have just devolved into an anarchist society and magically fight of imperialists and fascists arent you

I'm no anarchist but history has shown that you don't need a state to beat an invader. The Mujahadeen managed to take on the Soviets and they were illiterate goatfuckers who fought each other just as much as they fought the Russians.

Care to explain why we need a state to defend ourselves

What happend in Catalonia?

What happend in the free territory?

Wasn't the largest criticism from the C.N.T that the state came to power.

You still havent explained why a state is necessary.

not to mention those people were funded by the fucking USA.

a state is necessary to industrialize and organize a military in order to fight off imperialists without receiving aid from foreign countries

M8 there are literally dozens of cases of insurgencies defeating state backed militaries. Afghanistan is just one, there's also the First Indochina War, Algerian War of Independence, Irish War of Independence, the American Revolution, etc.

As long as resistance is determined and has some degree of collaboration it will succeed.

Care to explain why people aren't just going to keep ignoring anarchism in favor of interacting in party politics instead? The real world isn't a fucking game, in 1917 Russia people had very real issues that needed to be immediately addressed. When a normal person sees a country in complete chaos after the overthrow of a autocratic regime their reaction isn't to instantly make things even more chaotic by lashing out at every group trying to rectify the situation through the existing apparatus.

right, but what happened after those insurgencies succeeded? they all went on and established a state. the bolshevik itself was not a state, they collaborated and fought against the tsarist state and had to establish a state themselves to defend themselves.

tankie logic

What are we even talking about at this point?

I dun fucked up

The Mujahadeen was supported by operation cyclone which was one of the largest and most expensive CIA operations undertaken. Billions of dollars were spent by the CIA to fund the Mujahadeen. Saudis also sent thousands of their Wahabbi jihadists to the country so it wasn't just Afghans there. To say "they were illiterate goatfuckers" would be completely inaccurate.

The American revolution literally only worked because of massive support from the French. It happened after the French and Indian war between Britain and France. Then France spent massively to support the American revolutionaries so much that they bankrupted themselves and then the revolution spread there.

Supported by the Soviets and later the Chinese.

Supported by Egypt and other anti-colonial countries

The Irish revolted well Britain was fighting other powerful states in WW1 so they made them a self-governing dominion of the British empire well they still had to say an oath to be loyal to the king and his heirs.

...

Engels literally just said this once during his old man phase.

And Lenin never attempted to conceal that the the post-1918 period of Soviet policy was concerned with building state organs under the direction of the party.

The revolutionary Marxist answer has always been: the state must be smashed, its organs demolished and done away with at once. Read State and Revolution and the history of the first six months after the October seizure of power.

How exactly could the state be abolished "at once" when Nazis like Hitler where already planning on invading the Soviet Union for Lebensraum soon after the formation of the Soviet Union? How would the Soviet Union defend itself without a state?

Lenin had failed when he went one step back with the NEP and not even one, let alone two, step forward was made.

FAAAR before Nazis.

You could say it's SocDem's fault for both Rosa and Nazis coming to power.

The NEP was totally necessary and was even continued for years after Lenin died. There is literally no way a country like the Soviet Union with essentially no electricity or industry could have done otherwise without first developing the country and allowing for NEP industries.

This is always the retort, isn't it? Somehow I must certainly think communism will happen instantaneously because I don't think a ruling class of "socialists" will work any better than a ruling class of capitalists.

Yes. Am not arguing it wasn't. Am arguing it never went past it.

Nope. Still NEP.

But he talks constantly about the state withering there.

How is that a failure of Lenin? Lenin died before they could possibly have went past it.

Hitler talked about invading the Soviet Union in Mein Kampf in 1925 when the Soviet Union still had the NEP and was state capitalist. Hitler wasn't really anti communist or anti socialist he mostly just anti jewish and he saw the Soviet Union as a product of judeo bolshevism. Even if the NEP was still continued they would have still done the invasion. Even if the USSR was just another capitalist country it still would have needed the state to defend itself just as it would if it was a socialist country. So the question is how could the Soviet Union defend itself from such enemies without a state?

mfw when anarchist still think no one like living in the ussr, when will this meme die

ussr was slavery, is this what anarchist actually believe?

If it's Democratic it can

this

all we need in ML is more democracy

...

What is democracy? Etymologically it means means rule of the "people." But what are "the people."? In practice there is never a united people. There are lumpen proletarians and fascists and so on. Thats why we need a vanguard party and we must reject liberal notions of democracy.

hahahahahahaha
democracy for the proletarians!!!

...

What the fuck are you talking about? When have Marxists said that no one wants to live in the United States for example? People want to live in the United States but they don't want to live in the countries attacked and fucked over by them through their imperialism.

hahahah i want making an argument that because people liked it, it was good (altho i do thing it was good) anfem was trying to act like no one would want to live in the ussr witch is clearly false many people loved living in the ussr and many of them today want it back