The dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary...

You can't dissolve the state as long as you are under attack and in need of a people's army. You need to defend yourself. You need an army.

Whatever else you want to say about communities that went down that route, and I'll probably agree with the criticism, you defend yourself or die.

Actual socialist aligned politicians, parties and nations, upon gaining power, do not live long unless they arm themselves. This is historically true, every single step of the way.

In a transitionary stage in a world ruled by capitalist empires, you need to, sadly, show that you can defend yourself with violent force. This is not morally right, but it is a reality.

I agree.

The state in the hand of people still enforce properties protected by the state, not the people's properties.

Except Marx does, because communism is supposed to be stateless.

So it creates a contradiction.

A strong state will not dissolve itself.

Even Marx wasn't perfect, he was wrong about some things. There is literally nothing wrong with a proletarian-owned state.

SO just like today American imperialism the state manufacture an enemy to justify it's own existence

Leninism is easily corruptible system and the vanguard party is shit

What? No. If you are in a hostile situation no matter how friendly you are, you need to take into account that those around you are not.

That doesn't create a moral judgement on "your character".
A "strong state" doesn't mean anything. Either it's state, in power, or it isn't a state or not in power (i.e a conflict, with another authority also claiming to be "the state" of that region).

A "Marxist" state has as its goals to take the power of the institutional state, and use it for the power of the majority class - the proletariat, and as its functions are democratized economically and alleviated from the burden of "planning or ordering" it, and as the market economy and concentration of wealth is stifled, it will gradually dismantle.

That's the point of seizing state power.
There is no "off switch". You incorporate the functions that state under capitalism does (the purely preservative ones, not the profit accumulation ones) to take care of society, into the very basic everyday life of said society, and as these functions become a part of everyday life - they are no longer required to be done by the state.

It doesn't create any contradiction whatsoever. This is marxism. You gradually relieve the state of its duties but not in the capitalist sense of handing it all over to private tyrranny (yet another state) but a class-less democratically controlled, ideally money/currency less (far out there) society in which all needs are considered something we all work towards, for everyone, just because we're alive and so are they.

This is the Soviet person.

This is (was) what the Soviet Union was supposed to reach.

When a liar cries wolf and there is no wolf, they're a liar.
When someone is actually attacked by a wolf, and a horde of wolves, and they cry "I'm being attacked by wolves" and act accordingly, does not in any way place them in the same category as the liar. That the empire and all capitalist states lie about their own actual economic contradictions and issues and try to place them on an outside enemy does not mean that those that oppose that very same economic system, who are then attacked by the elite of said system, are not truly existentially threatened (And not in the makebelieve propaganda "Here's al qaida, v1, v2, v3! let's bomb shit!" style).

Socialists working towards communism were literally killed. Assassinated. By the empire.

Crapitalist pigs talking about fake existential threats to continue their war mongering are given prime time television hour slots.

Use your fucking brain.

And? The state will never be free of opposition, from whether inside or outside.

It will never dissolve itself.

Except Stalin tried that and socialism wasn't even reached.

Dictatorship of military strongman with left sounding rhetoric =/= worker control and self management

Uh, yes it will?
Opposition when you're ruling as an ecoomical elite? No, it won't be free from that. In the hands of the people, working towards the common good (and enabling, in essence, the opposite of what the state under capitalism does in regards to tyrrannical behavior)? Yes, it will be free from majority opposition. Even the borgy that are temporarily displaced under a proper socialist govermnent working towards communism would be alright. They'd have their own land, and their needs would still be taken care of. The infactuation with money and power would be merely a temporary one.

The idea of the state dissolving itself or the state recreating itself seems to be something you're misundestanding. The state doesn't exist being of an imposition, but a necesity. (i.e ancrap philosophy, say)

The concentration of wealth and power results in the need for some sort of agreement between those that have, to defend against those that do not have, or a "monopoly of rules" to enforce the rules of the strongest.

The state is not "made" out of nothing, it emerges due to these structural issues. If the state, and the community at large, focus on removing these issues and remove the structural economic system and the accumulation of real economic power which follows, segments of the state cease to have a function.

I think you misunderstand what a state or an administrative unit is.

The state exists to enforce rules of laws and protect society from threats inside and outside.

And threats from outside might be quelled, but threats from the inside such as terrorists or counter-revolutionaries will always exist no matter the "proper" socialist government, thus the state will always exist.

Yes, but then again, as history has shown over and over again, the issue is not so much with economic wealth, but with domination, whether it makes sense in economic terms or not. Power accumulates, and as it does, the state tends to accumulate power and centralize. This is what has happened to every single Marxist project and demonstrates why we must understand that there's more to Power than simple work and trade relations.

IS there actually a way where marxism comes about where the will of the people is respected?
Or is it just indiscriminate psychopathic slaughter? Becouse every marxist I hear is always about violent revolution and no compromise to reach their robot utopia.

LET KILL EVERONE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH OUR DEATH CULT. THAT MUST WORK WELL ON THE LONG RUN AMIRITE?

You are talking about an ideology where it says "your shit is mine, I use it so it's mine".

Violent revolution is inevitable.

So daddy/mommy issues projected on adult world?

Come back with an argument besides "Stalin and mao killed so many people, checkmate commies, capitalism is perfect and will last forever"

you can't compromise with capitalism retard

It worked for Christianity and Islam

If we use the capitalist definition of capitalism, as in as long as properties exist, capitalism exist, capitalism has lasted for the entire humanity.

Marxism is just babby-tier LARP great-leader-worshipping violent revolution porn.
It has no pratical implication in the real world, and it has historically always failed to deliever the results that were promised within the theoretical framwork of the ideology.

It's not science, it's religion at this point, and it's for kids who take Warhammer 40k seriously.

Democratic Confederalism is he way of the future.

But that's in the fucking plan. And in the OP. And in every practical implementation that came into being.
How will the 678th time be any better?
Capitalism in all forms existed since human became sentient. Why destroying it in favour of a fairy tale system?

So instead of making it better and rooting out the long nosed vermin you just throw everything up and kill anyone that doesn't agree?
How is that even remotely logical?

Ok if you want to define capitalism that way have at it. Bit torrent for example is totally capitalism because I own the movie I downloaded for free
But whatever you want to idealize capitalism as, the mode of production that we exist in will cease to exist. Hopefully soon, for humanities sake

I don't agree with op or the idea of a vangard seizing control of the state without democratic backing and no violence (other than the violence inherent to a state
And if you want to be taken seriously don't reveal that you're a fucking Nazi

Bit torrent is virtual property, but yes, people make buckload of money of it while you do it for free.

The state is ultimately a body of armed men (Engels) – it is more than that but at the end of the day, when the chips are down, it's about force in the street. Every organization or collective which attempts to impose its will on a territory and have its own social relations, laws, etc. while at the same time having people armed to defend it, is a state. Anarchists can shriek all they like but everything durable in human relations after the neolithic involved a state – not the modern state as we know it, which reached its maximum power under capitalism, but at the least a body of armed men serving a collective – one with a division of labor and thus a ruling class. Under anarchism there will still be a division of labor that will necessarily free some from the need to work for their own subsistence – the fact that they're delegates and recallable etc. is meaningless. For a time or another they will not work in order to serve the collective in another fashion – same with its militias. This is still a state, albeit one that is a lot nicer than ours – and it will have to contend with other states with much harsher class relations. This society will necessarily produce a surplus, only it will manage it differently – a portion of this surplus will nonetheless go to sustaining armed men and women along with those who's work will not provide for their own subsistence. This is a class society. Class society presupposes the state. Not until communism arrives will we have rid ourselves of the state. Assertions that it can be done otherwise are delusional.

Every single "marxist" project has contended with a world of capitalist states bent on its destruction and its own internal contradictions – and of course there's "more" to power than "simple work" and "trade relations". You'd know that if you ever read something other than a denunciation of marxism. Talking about "domination" or "hierarchy" as abstract phenomena independent of a society's social relations is idealism in the worst sense.

A social revolution is authoritarian. There was no compromise with the French monarchy either, hence the guillotine.

Democratic confederalism isn't communist, it's communalist. If it wants to assure the future, assuming it isn't destroyed by the imperialists or Assad, it will need to become internationalist and communist. That said it's still building a parallel state, which is a good start.

A vanguard without democratic backing is a coup d'etat – no vanguard at all.

I am a former Marxist. I've read plenty of Marxian litterature.
One thing that I came to realize is that in ''70 years of praxis, we cannot blame the failure of Marxism on anything but the internal contradictions of Marxism itself. It's simply a cheap excuse, and it will not help us, since no change in mode of production has ever spread as rapidly and internationally as socialism would have to for it to not degenerate into a totalitarian hellhole like the USSR did, if that is truly the only flaw of Marxism as you propose.

Meaningless sophistry. Democratic confederalism is totally open to internationalist cooperation. As for "communism", yeah sure, if you like state-ownership, that's not what they're about. They're about collective democratic ownership. I know that can be upsetting to a lot of Marxists.

Of course, "marxism" stood and fell on its own merits, independent of the entire social context of its transformation of formerly capitalist societies and utterly free from counter-revolution intervention, espionage and indeed actual invasion by capitalist states. I'll be sure, by your logic, to blame any failure of Rojava solely on the internal contradictions of democratic confederalism. It would only be fair.

With imperialists? Absolutely. But I don't begrudge them doing that; it's better to direct the bombs of US imperialism than to weather them. The rest I won't bother with as it's weak bait.

Are you implying that a coup is a bad thing? In a capitalism no vanguard will ever have democratic backing; not in the developed/wealthy world, at least. The demos does not want socialism.

Nice strawman, but as I highlighted of course some of that was due to foreign interventionism; the problem arises when you blame all problems on foreign interventionism alone and pretend there's no problems inherent in the theory, especially when the experiment ran as long as it did.

Like, do you really expect that Stalin would have simply given up power if he had had no opposition? It seems crazy, doesn't it, and again, if your system will fail internally even though it has a fighting chance against it's foreign threat it terms of resources and manpower, then the system you have set up is weak and inefficient.
Hell, at least anarchists reflect upon their theory based on concrete praxis. Marxists seem to just reject reality if it doesn't fit theory.

You mean like most major Marxists movements did in order to survive? Like the Soviet Lend-Lease and the Viet-Minh?

By the way, as the SPD how great friends the US have been to them after the Jarablus incursion.

SDF, I mean.

Yes, a coup is a bad thing in most cases.
Lenin didn't tell the workers' and peasants he offered socialism – he offered them land, peace, and bread.

I didn't do the former, and concerning the latter the problems have been openly discussed for longer than the USSR survived, within and without, by both anarchists and marxists. Who's crafting strawmen?

If anything the USSR was overly concerned with strength – to the extent it sucked resources, investment, and labor out of every other part of the economy. It was inefficient, but not in the same way that capitalism is inefficient – but these problems are no secret; nor will they be repeated. The major flaw of everyone who points to the failure of the USSR is that somehow history will repeat itself. There will be no repeat of the USSR. It will be a different kettle of fish, as we shall see.

We all do what we must. The US hasn't started raining bombs on the Kurds just yet, at least not to my knowledge.

Yes, and Marxists keep fucking insisting that the only reason it degenerated into absolute totalitarian nightmares was because it face outside interventionism.

So what the fuck will you do differently? Will you NOT use the state, NOT have a vanguardist party? Or will you NOT have external opposition? If not any of these will be different, then we have no reason to NOT expect history to repeat itself as it has done 30+ times before.
But yes, I know, a state cannot consolidate power in-of-itself, Stalin will resign the second the world has been conquered and capitalism doesn't exist anymore.
Socialism is supposed to be a science, but when fact are observed that contradicts theory, it's the facts that are wrong, not theory that needs to be adjusted.

Then why the fuck did you bring it up like it was important you hipocrite?

Turkish NATO planes has been bombing SDF positions for a good week now with Kerry Demanding that the YPG retreat to the east of the Euphrates.

I don't think that'll cut it, these days.

Any marxist worth their salt will acknowledge much more than outside intervention.

People who refuse to adjust theory to reality are not marxist, period. You're stereotyping in order to dismiss the entire range of marxist theory and thought. But I guess that serves your dogmatic opposition too well for you to acknowledge it.

You pissed me off.

It's not a game-changer until the US joins in – they're a source of war matériel and of course their special operations forces are embedded in YPG forces. Their relationship with the Turks has always been strained on this matter. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. Not that I believe for a second the US will choose the Kurds over Turkey.

In any case, I'll leave it here.

Obviously not, but that's beside the point.

Like what? It was all the dirty pesant-people's fault? Is that the Marxian platitude you're going to fall back on? They weren't a part of the glorious proletarian master race, and this is important even though it ignores obvious examples like hussite communes, the Mazdaki and the Ikko Ikki?
If not, then please enlighten me, because I haven't heard anything but blaming it on foreign intervention from you.

Ah, I see. No true scotsman.
No no, no Marxist would ever blame their problems on anything but the Word of their Holy Prophet Karl Marx (PBUH).
This is why we totally don't have thread after thread with Marxists banging on about how the theory is perfect, we just have to try it again and then THIS time it will work.

Nice, so you admit it was irrelevant shitposting, even though you in the very same post accused med of making "weak bait".

Does the intellectual dishonesty of Marxists have no end?

...

Marxist theory has been "tried" once in the whole history. It failed precisely because fucking socdems in developed countries were not Marxists.

Just admit you like LARPing and grow up please.

Ah.
The kind of Marxism that shits on peasants and ignores history.
Okay, it's *that* kind of Marxism you like.
The kind of Marxism that Marx had to revise when the revolution happened in the much less industrialized France rather than in Britain.

How is your blabbering related to what I said?

And what the fuck are you trying to say here?

Are you dyslexic or do you sincerily not understand how this is a response to proletarian exceptionalism?

I kinda get that you are trying to defend the principle of "socialism in one country" (I think), but I just don't see your argument. Have I said anything about this century of yours?

Once again: I was talking about the number of Marxist revolutions in history, and you give me a response to proletarian exceptionalism. How the fuck is that related?

And what is your problem with peasants, by the way?

The common arguement is that the only reason states were able to consolidate power, as you suggested yourself, was because socialism was not able to expand rapidly to encompass the entire world.
The fact that the USSR degenerated much sooner than that suggest that the timeframe for world-wide socialism to be implemented HAS to be less than a 100 years and even down to as little as 10 or 20 years, which is a completely unrealistic time-frame considering that it took centuries for all other modes of produoction to become dominant.
Therefore, any ideology based on this premise is ultimately flawed. We need to be able to have socialism in one region, or socialism is in of itself impossible.

You mentioned it was supposed to take place in the West.
If this is not an argument from either ethnic of religious exceptionalism, then it must be one of proletarian exceptionalism.

When did I indicate I had one?

Socialism didn't exist, how would it expand? It is the state, the proletarian state, that must not only "consolidate power" but also "expand to encompass the entire world". Only then you can have socialism.

I mentioned it was supposed to take place in developed countries. It is an argument for a developed industry.

You seem quite obsessed with peasants. You realise that, in developed countries (again), they have been completely replaced by agrarian capitalists and proletarians, right? Capitalism, not Marxism, is suppressinging peasantry as a class every day.

I see. So you unironically believe that Stalin will resign the moment the world has been conquered and that Power cannot exist simply for the sake of Power.
The memes are amazing.

And with developed industry comes… PROLETARIANS!
Who are constantly used as the example of the only *real* working-class with revolutionary potential. That's far from true though.

Yes, today. We were just talking about 19th and 20th century and how SocDems ruined everything. Back then, indeed, peasantry was still a real thing.

niggers, all of you

I said a proletarian state, the instrument of the revolution. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary, and the head of a bourgeois state.

Their revolutionary potential is nothing more than the expression of the revolutionary potential of industry itself. A revolution isn't simply an uprising: it is the transformation of the whole society.

The important thing is that they didn't have the potential to transform anything. Quite the opposite: they were the one being transformed.

There is no enemy to manufacure if the state is worldwide.

States any state want an enemy to justify itself from the KSA to the USA

...

happy now ??????????????

...