Will communism work better without the state?

[The Red Next Door]

Would agree if someone said that communism can work better if we didn't have the state? As an Anarchist I believe that communism can work best without the state because we would not have to worry about having a Stalin leader controlling the country after the revolution.

[revolution inaction]

communism can only work without a state.

[und]

I think you would need some sort of state to coordinate things such as providing resources to where they are needed (for example, one could be developing a scientific idea, and resources would be needed to develop it). Without a state, it would be difficult for coordinated efforts to take place. However, the state should have limited control.

[Robocommie]

Isn't this just another way of asking, "Are you an anarchist?"

[fatboy]

Communism IS a classless stateless society. Socialism is the transitional stage from Capitalism into communism. There has been no communist countries in the world, only socialist. Examples: USSR under Stalin, China under Mao,and Albania under Hoxha.

[Girl A]

Communism is a stateless society. The reason communists differ on the state issue, from what I gather, is the debate of whether statism can work in the transisition to a communist world.

[fatboy]

Communism is a stateless society. The reason communists differ on the state issue, from what I gather, is the debate of whether statism can work in the transisition to a communist world.
You are correct. I believe that you do need a temporary state to secure socialism in the country though. If not counter-revolutionaries and other bourgeoisie nations will end up setting up a capitalistic government.

[StoneFrog]

You can be a Communist and an Anarchist at the same time.
I myself follow many things from communism and anarchism. As a result of using a state policy you are taking away power from the people, that's why i support community and work place councils instead of state wide unions. The people who know how to run their community are the people who are living in it. A state also takes away the choice of how to live, in a communist state setting the anarchists which up hold similar beliefs will be denied their true freedom of self governing communities. You only need a few corrupt officials to ruin it for all, any only through bureaucracy can anything be done. Just as officials in capitalism they can easily cover their backs, then the only option is another revolution, a constant cycle of revolutions is not what we want.

Look up come Council Communists and libertarian Marxism, that's where i lean towards. I found it a good place between Communism and Anarchism.

[The Ben G]

Of course it would!

[Red Commissar]

Would agree if someone said that communism can work better if we didn't have the state? As an Anarchist I believe that communism can work best without the state because we would not have to worry about having a Stalin leader controlling the country after the revolution.

Then you'd be an Anarcho-Communist as opposed to a Marxist, which believes in the necessity of a transitional socialist state like fatboy said to achieve communism. Marx and Engels were an important theorists to communist thought but they are not the only people who profess communism. Marxism just provided a route to achieve communism, but is no means synonymous with communism.

There's a reason why there are numerous schools of thought. People have differing opinions on the matter.

[AK]

Communism: The stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Socialism: The transitionary period in between capitalism and communism, implying a state at the beginning and no state at the end.
Government: A system of how a society is governed, ranging from direct democracy to totalitarianism and bourgeoisie representative democracy.
The State: Entity with the legitimate monopoly on the use of force, i.e., a collective entity comprised of things such as a military, border control agency, judicial system and police force and - in more authoritarian states - a secret police agency or intelligence organisation. The last two are generally unwanted in a socialist society.

In my opinion, under socialism there shouldn't be a centralised authority, but rather a decentralised authority made up of all the workers. This is not to say there is no state. A defence force, border control agency, a set of laws, judicial system and a police force (To arrest criminals such as thieves and murderers, although crime rates for these crimes would go down - along with crime rates for most others - as a result of the deterioration of the conditions that allowed them to arise in the first place. Not to arrest strikers and protesters.) would still exist in a socialist society; with these taking on the characteristics of the state. A government would still exist under socialism, with workers' councils in everywhere applicable to democratically govern society and the economy and choose the laws of the state that the aforementioned judicial system and police would enforce. Over history, the meaning of the state has been bent to mean some central authority. Under socialism, there should be no central authority and the state should answer to the workers - which are the government. By this definition of states and governments, there would be government under communism as well as socialism, as democracy is a form of government, but no state under communism (only socialism)as the defence forces and border control agencies would gradually not be needed under international socialism and the judicial system and police force would gradually disappear as well. Democratic workers' control of the economy and society is socialism, the true dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of the party or even a bureaucracy - that supposedly represents the workers - as the workers are in full control of all matters concerning themselves. The current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie doesn't require all members of the bourgeoisie to be in government, but rather it requires some to be in government and the rest to have de facto authority as they control the economy and the workers' livelihoods, jobs and freedoms as a result of wage slavery.

So yes, communism will work better with no state. It requires no state. What I think you meant was socialism, but it needs a state to function and protect itself from the outside as well as genuine hostile reactionaries residing inside the territory of the state.

[Uppercut]

So yes, communism will work better with no state. It requires no state. What I think you meant was socialism, but it needs a state to function and protect itself from the outside as well as genuine hostile reactionaries residing inside the territory of the state.

I should probably tell you that your proclaimed tendency doesn't line up with your political compass scores.

[AK]

I should probably tell you that your proclaimed tendency doesn't line up with your political compass scores.
My proclaimed tendency and political scores? I took that test last about a month ago and I learnt heaps and developed my politics alot more since then. Tell me what doesn't exactly match up. And if you are claiming that I am, in fact, not a Trotskyist then I'll start my own tendency :thumbup1:

EDIT: I've since taken the test again, so here are the scores you were originally referring to:
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31

[Wolf Larson]

Would agree if someone said that communism can work better if we didn't have the state? As an Anarchist I believe that communism can work best without the state because we would not have to worry about having a Stalin leader controlling the country after the revolution.

Marx saw the state as a necessary TEMPORARY evil. This is why many subsequent communist movements [after his death] failed. The state apparatus was not dismantled/handed to workers. I also wonder if we can achieve the end goal of communism immediately [anarchism] or incrementally [Marxism]. The capitalist state is so powerful I'm not sure anarchism can work. In order to abolish capitalism we may have to take over their state but I personally think power corrupts. once a small minority has control over the state things go wrong. BUT so long as America exists in it's current form no socialist nation can afford to dismantle it's military state. The capitalists mission to contain socialism is an offensive mission which necessitates defense and this defense necessitates a state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Marx saw the state as a necessary TEMPORARY evil. This is why many subsequent communist movements [after his death] failed. The state apparatus was not dismantled/handed to workers. I also wonder if we can achieve the end goal of communism immediately [anarchism] or incrementally [Marxism]. The capitalist state is so powerful I'm not sure anarchism can work. In order to abolish capitalism we may have to take over their state but I personally think power corrupts. once a small minority has control over the state things go wrong. BUT so long as America exists in it's current form no socialist nation can afford to dismantle it's military state. The capitalists mission to contain socialism is an offensive mission which necessitates defense and this defense necessitates a state.

So you're claiming that the State, itself, was the reason behind the collapse of such places like Soviet Union?

[Wolf Larson]

So you're claiming that the State, itself, was the reason behind the collapse of such places like Soviet Union?

Not the state itself but the minority class who took control of the state. Are you saying the Soviet Union is what Marx had in mind as the be all end all goal of Marxism? Perhaps the beginning of the the revolution yes but not what it turned into. I'm saying power corrupts and unless power is distributed among the people, history has shown us, the system will become corrupt be it based in Marxism or not. It's my personal opinion that hierarchy/illegitimate power is the root of much of humanities problems but I'm also saying capitalism and its figureheads are so aggressive it also had an impact on earlier socialist nations. If American capitalism simply ceased to exist much of what happened in Russia wouldn't have happened. This is a complicated topic. Most of the socialist movements were stunted in the initial revolutionary state stage where a small communist party class controlled the state and was not allowed to progress towards what Marx envisioned. Marx was basically seeking anarchism as the end goal of communism. In order to achieve a worker controlled state of anarchism Marx thought, in order to abolish capitalism, a communist party would have to take over the state but eventually give up the power to workers. What I'm saying is the power was never given up in part because of the American threat and because power corrupts. Which was it that stunted the growth of communism most? America or the power held by a small elite class that was the communist party? Obviously America/capitalism but my point is whether you're looking at Pol Pot or Stalin there were mistakes made and these mistakes were based in hierarchy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not the state itself but the minority class who took control of the state. Are you saying the Soviet Union is what Marx had in mind as the be all end all goal of Marxism? Perhaps the beginning of the the revolution yes but not what it turned into. I'm saying power corrupts and unless power is distributed among the people, history has shown us, the system will become corrupt be it based in Marxism or not. It's my personal opinion that hierarchy/illegitimate power is the root of much of humanities problems but I'm also saying capitalism and its figureheads are so aggressive it also had an impact on earlier socialist nations. If American capitalism simply ceased to exist much of what happened in Russia wouldn't have happened. This is a complicated topic. Most of the socialist movements were stunted in the initial revolutionary state stage where a small communist party class controlled the state and was not allowed to progress towards what Marx envisioned. Marx was basically seeking anarchism as the end goal of communism. In order to achieve a worker controlled state of anarchism Marx thought, in order to abolish capitalism, a communist party would have to take over the state but eventually give up the power to workers. What I'm saying is the power was never given up in part because of the American threat and because power corrupts. Which was it that stunted the growth of communism most? America or the power held by a small elite class that was the communist party? Obviously America/capitalism but my point is whether you're looking at Pol Pot or Stalin there were mistakes made and these mistakes were based in hierarchy.

The State, itself, during the Soviet Union wasn't what Marx had in mind anyways. So it wouldn't be relevant to whether the state was an issue at the time, since the people who ran it were not of the proletarians, according to my knowledge. Marx called for a workers state, & in this process the state would wither away. This process was not present in the Soviet Union, in my opinion, so the State itself was not under Marxist conditions. If it would've followed, I'm sure we would've seen something different rise up.

[StalinFanboy]

There cannot be a worker's state in the sense of a centrally organized body that controls things. This only leads to the creation of a bureaucrat class, and the working class continues to be working class, rather than be able to abolish itself.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There cannot be a worker's state in the sense of a centrally organized body that controls things. This only leads to the creation of a bureaucrat class, and the working class continues to be working class, rather than be able to abolish itself.

The Paris Commune showed otherwise, thank you. I believe both Marxist way of achieving communism works, & Anarchist way of achieving communism works. Marxists have the Paris Commune, while the Anarchists have Anarchist Catalonia. We're both of working concepts, & should both be fighting together against those that are in our way.

[StalinFanboy]

The Paris Commune showed otherwise, thank you. I believe both Marxist way of achieving communism works, & Anarchist way of achieving communism works. Marxists have the Paris Commune, while the Anarchists have Anarchist Catalonia. We're both of working concepts, & should both be fighting together against those that are in our way.
The Paris Commune was not communism, thanks.

I don't really give a fuck about anarchists or Marxists. Revolutions have very little to do with political identity.

[Coggeh]

. In order to achieve a worker controlled state of anarchism Marx thought, in order to abolish capitalism, a communist party would have to take over the state but eventually give up the power to workers. What I'm saying is the power was never given up in part because of the American threat and because power corrupts.

The party do not hold the power the workers do you create a democratic workers state in which industry is run democratically by workers and communities to benefit the majority . This is socialism, this exist in order to defend the revolution against capitalist counter revolution, once this purpose has been served the state no longer needs to exist because a state exists only to defend property rights of a certain class , in a society becoming relatively classless under socialism this state would cease to serve any purpose.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Paris Commune was not communism, thanks.

I don't really give a fuck about anarchists or Marxists. Revolutions have very little to do with political identity.

It represented the goal that Communists seek, more along the lines of the Marxist's dream, & shows that it's possible. And you're right, when we achieve Communism there will be no classes such as Anarchist, Communist, Capitalist, etc. That'll be of the past, but we don't have that right now, & are still within Class War.

[Wolf Larson]

The party do not hold the power the workers do you create a democratic workers state in which industry is run democratically by workers and communities to benefit the majority . This is socialism, this exist in order to defend the revolution against capitalist counter revolution, once this purpose has been served the state no longer needs to exist because a state exists only to defend property rights of a certain class , in a society becoming relatively classless under socialism this state would cease to serve any purpose.

I was explaining this to the OP. I'm also questioning the empirical results of state socialism. I'm not one to apologize for Bolshevism, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Workers need no demigods. We need no leaders or hero's.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I was explaining this to the OP. I'm also questioning the empirical results of state socialism. I'm not one to apologize for Bolshevism, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Workers need no demigods. We need no leaders or hero's.

Let's keep in mind that Mao did not kill 'innocents' himself, but rather through a policy that was tried & ended up failing. This was not deliberate. When it comes to Stalin, let's try not to follow the lies of the Hearst Foundation, who started a lot of the capitalist b.s. against Stalin. We know he made mistakes, but not towards the extent of how the western world has perceived it to be.

[StalinFanboy]

It represented the goal that Communists seek, more along the lines of the Marxist's dream, & shows that it's possible. And you're right, when we achieve Communism there will be no classes such as Anarchist, Communist, Capitalist, etc. That'll be of the past, but we don't have that right now, & are still within Class War.
"Anarchist" and "Communist" are not classes, brah. And I don't think you understood what I said.

When the revolution against capital occurs, it won't be a bunch of workers holding Capital or The Conquest of Bread. It'll be a bunch of workers pissed off about their material conditions.

[The Vegan Marxist]

"Anarchist" and "Communist" are not classes, brah. And I don't think you understood what I said.

When the revolution against capital occurs, it won't be a bunch of workers holding Capital or The Conquest of Bread. It'll be a bunch of workers pissed off about their material conditions.

What do you consider as capital? Paper money and gold bars, or everything else like trade, the bartering system, etc.?

[Rjevan]

Are you saying the Soviet Union is what Marx had in mind as the be all end all goal of Marxism?
Of course the USSR was not what Marx had in mind as "end goal" of Marxism. Nor was it what Lenin or Stalin had in mind as final aim. People sometimes seem to be confused about the nature of such states as the USSR, as the name already suggests: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a socialist state. There has never been a communist state nor can there ever be one since communism (among other things) is stateless by definition.


Most of the socialist movements were stunted in the initial revolutionary state stage where a small communist party class controlled the state and was not allowed to progress towards what Marx envisioned. Marx was basically seeking anarchism as the end goal of communism. In order to achieve a worker controlled state of anarchism Marx thought, in order to abolish capitalism, a communist party would have to take over the state but eventually give up the power to workers.
What do you mean by "was not allowed"? If you mean that Stalin or anybody else sabotaged the revolution in order to get it stuck in the phase of socialism for all eternity instead of aiming at communism, then you are mistaken. If you mean that the material conditions to proceed were not given, then you are right. The latter was the case, Marx himself said that the new society which emerged from the revolution will still carry bourgeois characteristics, since the ecomomic situation has not significantly changed yet and thus people are still influenced by capitalist/bourgeois views and morals. Anarchists hold a different view but Marxists acknowledge that communism cannot be achieved immediately after the revolution, that communism can't be suddenly implemented by a decree or similar but that socialism, the period of transition from capitalism to communism, is necessary for the reasons stated above (and more of them). This was what happened in the USSR and the other socialist countries, socialism was constructed.
Besides, all revolutions so far were on a national level and "Communism in One Country" is impossible. Another reason why there could be nothing but socialism in these countries.

[StalinFanboy]

What do you consider as capital? Paper money and gold bars, or everything else like trade, the bartering system, etc.?
Where do you get these questions from? I consider capital to be capital. The system of producing commodities to create profit. The socialization of people to see the world around them in terms of profit. The alienation of life from labor.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Where do you get these questions from? I consider capital to be capital. The system of producing commodities to create profit. The socialization of people to see the world around them in terms of profit. The alienation of life from labor.

Just making sure you are talking about what I, along with others know. I've met people who have no idea what capital represents & like to consider them things like all that I pointed out.

[StalinFanboy]

Just making sure you are talking about what I, along with others know. I've met people who have no idea what capital represents & like to consider them things like all that I pointed out.
You do know that capitalism includes currency and exchange right?

[The Vegan Marxist]

You do know that capitalism includes currency and exchange right?

Of course. Which is why I'm for the call to ending all currency & any bartering system.

[StalinFanboy]

Have you read any Marx?