Along with [the classes] the state will inevitably fall. Society...

Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/


Communism is against State. Admit it.
State is acceptable only during the first few years of the revolution, to persecute and annihilate the reactionary forces.

The only thing that's keeps me away about the authoritarian left rout is the following ;-

How do you design a state model that will destroy itself in the long run without being too weak and failing as a state or too strong and turn into the neo USSR ?

How do you keep the state from not abusing its power and manufacturing an enemy to justify its existence ?

Direct democracy (council democracy) is the only way to transform bureaucratic state in a administration serving workers.

But, you can't build such a democracy when half of your population believe in God, are alienated, and submitted to the reactionary forces.

That's why you first need proletarian dictature, to jail/burn the religious, to jail/kill the far right leaders, etc.

Communism as an ideology (i.e. Marxism) is against Capitalism. State is a tool.

What about development of economic forces?

That can be done by the coordinated effort of the working class.

Stalinism failed.

Not our business.
Revolution is about destroying the old society and institution, it's not about making "a better world".
The idealist shit about better world is a reactionary dream.


The goal of Stalin was to keep the power, by killing all the old Bolsheviks revolutionaries. He succeed.

Can't argue with that. Democracy is shit.

No, killing/jailing the leaders is far enough.

The USSR turned out the way it did, not because it's State was "too strong", but because it was too national (the Third International itself should have been the State), too isolated (no revolution in Germany) and the society was too backward (mostly feudal in 1917, the whole history of the USSR basically consisting in the development of… Russian capitalism).

Hence, the main concern should be to keep the international party in charge at all cost, even if it means retreating sometimes.

That is the job of capitalism. It has been completed for about 150 years now.

this

lrn2 Dialectical materialism

Come back when you have something to show.


This business is not Communism then.

That's not what this word means.

Marx doesn't agree.


lrn 2 argue

Source?

I was clearly referring to this bit of Critique of Gotha programme (1875):
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I.e. 131 years ago Marx thought that productive (economic) forces were not sufficiently developed to allow transition to the "higher phase" - aka proper Communism. Thus we can be certain that "job of capitalism" has not "been completed for about 150 years now". At least, not according to Marx.

My bad, it wasn't clear to me.

It is no more "proper communism" than the lower stage. A stage of communism is proper communism, by definition.

As for the development of economic forces during the lower-stage in order to get to get to the upper-stage, it is not the doing of the State, nor does it require the State. Quite the contrary: the completion of this development by the society freed from commodity production and classes will put the last nail in the State's coffin.

duh it is against the state.

The state is merely supposed to be a tool work in favor of the temporary ruling working class who (in theory) should be class aware enough not to let Stalin take over or make odd concessions like the NEP.

Well then how do you keep the international party from not just being dominated by the parties of those nations that enacted the rupture first?

The state is not an instrument of the ruling class. The state emerges organically at a specific historical point in time in which the previous institutions of political rule find themselves within a society dominated by capitalist relations. In order to persist in their existence, such pre-existing political orders took on a radical restructuring of themselves as domestic and international bodies that could enter into a symbiotic relationship with the capitalist class, linking accumulation with state strategy and health.

The state will only be destroyed when the conditions for its existence are terminated. This means the abolition of private property, the salvaging of the human community from the fractional order of class society, the dismantling of an international order based on competing accumulation regimes, etc..

Explain to me why the USSR fell, but this somehow isn't due to flawed logic and thus deserves to be repeated without resorting to an un-Marxist "great man" theory.

Well I think the first step should be not to have national parties in the first place. Also the structure of the future international state must be built as much as possible today, not after the takeover of this or that country. When a country indeed falls in the power of the international proletariat, its residents' representation within the party and the state must be strictly limited.

You've never watched Friday the 13th. Jason Voorhees doesn't just take that shit lying down.

Communists are just embarrassed anarchists.

LOL you think this is a gotcha?

Read Engel's stuff against anarchists.

You're so proud of this but all it demonstrates is that you don't know basic Marxian political economy.

The ideas are good but it's the happily ever after rapture finality that's fucking retarded beyond belief.

So killing billions of people that don't agree with your ideology is somehow acceptable?
The majority of people on Earth are "reactionary", according to Leftypol, you would all be in favour of killing billions of people because they are "reactionary".

So if this isn't to create a better world, ultimately you want to create a shittier world, just with you in power instead of capitalists.
Ultimately, communists want a revolution for their personal own benefit, replace the old leaders, and they don't give a fuck about the workers and the masses.