The State

Yes, I'm a state socialist. Ignore the anarkiddies.

We've got a live one literally doing babby's first B > A idealism here.

You are correct, but we still need a state in order to build socialism. And then we need an educated population that will make it wither away.

Actually, real leftists support the state in helping revolution. Only edgy anarkiddies actually believe in some kind of lawless wasteland

Oh, so the state isn't a tool by which people are kept in line through violence for the sake of economic exploitation then?

The funny thing is, if you're going to try to separate the state from the economic exploitation and antagonisms, you'd either be using the anarchist models of state and exploitation, need to come up with an entirely new leftwing analysis, or you'd be ideologically bankrupt.

Yes.

Historically, the state was only required (and subsequently created) for this many decennia after class society was even born. It's almost as if the state is a tool and not an immutable metaphysical thing that somehow enters existence just to personally come over to the trash can in which you squat to tell you mean things after forcing you to work for a wage.

Nah, I'll have my DiaMat entré, HisMat main course and critique of ideology as dessert as per usual. None of that second rate trash for me, I'm afraid.

Leftist? Yes, though the term doesn't really mean much on its own considering it encompasses everything from socdems to Stalinists to anarchists.

Communist? No. Communism is about the abolition of the state and class society. The state ultimately is and has always been a tool for the upholding of class society, and that doesn't change just because you slap the "worker's state" label on it. Minimal state can reduce this problem, but the job of abolishing class cannot be achieved until the state itself is gone.

n1x is aight

problem is
democratic centralism needs to be implemented as soon as centrally planned economy is created

means party needs to fuck off
actually, all parties should be banned

in a nutshell, it's the chicken or the egg dilemma
you can't get shit done without authoritarian party
when shit is done in the main, ie when centrally planned economy is created, party needs to fuck off

economic plans should be approved on referendums

supreme soviet should manage things in the meantime, with crucial structural decisions presented to referendum for approval

weak point is the army
commanding officers have too much power and can't be trusted
they are the relic of the past and think in the imperialistic ways

The state is needed to have agreed upon order and international legal rights. Not being a state means you do not get a place in global politics and any country could claim your land and impose fascism if they like.

You seem to have forgotten the question mark off of the end of your rhetorical question, which would have sounded less smug as a statement.

Claw hammers can remove nails as well as hit them.

"The State" is an instrument of class rule. With the gradual abolition of classes the state will become unnecessary.

The amount of people ITT who seem to think Marxists want to keep the state forever is unsettling.

Resorting to metaphor in lieu of actually explaining precisely how a materialist system works in the specific context being discussed is pretty intellectually bankrupt.
It's not really anything more than an appeal to aesthetic, rather than logic.

It's irrelevant what Marxists want to happen, what matters is what will inevitably and necessarily happen regardless. Classes can not be eroded away by a class system.

The state doesn't create classes, classes create the state.

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c2/5a/b3/c25ab390bb2d22b36552931c48a5fe95.jpg

smash the state,

the state enforces these classes at the barrel of gun, and it always will

If you think the state can only exist as 'a tool by which people are kept in line through violence for the sake of economic exploitation' then you're a fucking simpleton, no matter how much you dress up your language, wheel out theory and quote 18th century philosophers and economists, it's patently false and wishful thinking for someone peddling an agenda, in this case quite clearly anarchism.

Also the question mark has just appeared where I missed it before. Spooky stuff.

The state enforces the reign of the ruling class. With the proletariat being the ruling class the only class left to suppress is the bourgeoisie, which seizes to exist through the process of socialization and turning everyone into a proletarian. Tada! The state loses its purpose and whithers away.

I'm a different user.
Not seeing a lot of arguments coming from your direction here.

Impossible as long as there is a state, which becomes the ruling class.
kek

well said comrade

I think we're done here.

...

I was disagreeing with the AnCom sneakily redefining the state. The shitty metaphor was referencing his attitude of "This tool only does x" when it can do x, y and z.

I mean, you could argue that all states create a ruling class because the state needs a centralised group of people to run it, but it's a bit of a semantic argument. Yes, people need to work in the government when there is a government. That's absolutely nothing like what we have now though, and is just taking the piss with clever wordplay more than an actual criticism.

The economically exploitative argument is a bit iffy as well, you could argue that being forced to work two days a week for a communist state is exploitative because they call you up to do it, but because of the economies of scale you would do more for less without this exploitative state. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement and it also grants you more access to other avenues of employment rather than tilling your land for 50 hours a week.

How many times has that experiment been tried?

bruh

You only seem to think this is about semantics because you don't understand what the words you are using mean. For example, there is always a government, but not always a state. Not the other way around.

Are you asking why for example the Soviet state hasn't whithered away?

The obvious answer to that being there was still very much an existing bourgeoisie within Russia, not to speak of the rest of the world.

Maybe I'm seeing it as purely semantics because you're simultaneously not stating any support for what AnCom said, asking me to support my argument and not making a single case of your own, then falling back on semantics yourself.

Okay, you've caught me out using state and government interchangeably. Outside of the realm of LARPing on a Korean claymation forum, how does this have any actual relevance? Do you have any evidence to actually support AnCom's argument for the state being a tool to keep people economically exploited through violence, and in what way am I incorrect for disagreeing?

Well I'm back.

Can you give me an example of a state that does not exist for that purpose?

Even if you're talking about a proletarian state being used to repress the bourgeoisie to bring about socialism it's still a product of class warfare being used for economic reasons.

Also, the difference between state and governance does have important implications when we're discussing the actual state and its relevance to society and its various functions and roles so I think it's worth being a bit careful there.

No, the state enforces the rule of a class upon the others. Classes themselves preexist the state.
That requires maintaining the class society itself of course… except for the proletariat. Because the proletariat can't rule a class society. Its historic role is to abolish itself, and with it all the classes. But the ruling bourgeoisie won't let the proletariat accomplish this mission, so it requires a transition period where the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie in a society that is still capitalist.