Why do you trust/not trust the state?

[Crusade]

Trying to understand the reasoning of the Marxists and Anarchists here.

I know the arguments of needing a "workers state" to fight the cappies, but I don't see how they could be trusted to give up power when they're "no longer needed" once they have power. I'm not against organization or even governments(as long as they're community based,syndicated and not centralized), but the authoritarian aspect of it seems like a red flag(no pun intended). Also, considering how undecided we all are over small, but very important details, I'd assume we'd be better off entering a system WITHOUT coercive means of organization? Don't get me wrong, I strongly prefer state socialism to capitalism(obviously), but I'm a little anarchist leaning(although it's a little utopian given our current situation, it appears to be the most consistent to me).

It's not my intention to argue any point over the other, because I see the point both sides are making. I just wanna see what everyone else thinks so I can come closer to making up my mind about this, so I can spend more time organizing than theorizing.

[AK]

The conditions that let the state (legal system, police, military) arise in the first place gradually disappear. Economic inequalities and racist and sexist/misogynist hatred disappear so offences such as murder, theft and rape would become very rare and eventually might not even occur. Once they're gone (that being just an example; the material conditions allowing all other crimes to happen would have to disappear as well), the laws and the police required to enforce them would become unnecessary and not needed. Militaries only exist to defend against other states or to invade another state's sovereign territory for imperialist benefit. True socialist states tend not to be imperialist so, once the last capitalist state is gone (maybe earlier, as it might be very weak), the military would go with it. Voila. The state is no more.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Trying to understand the reasoning of the Marxists and Anarchists here.

I know the arguments of needing a "workers state" to fight the cappies, but I don't see how they could be trusted to give up power when they're "no longer needed" once they have power. I'm not against organization or even governments(as long as they're community based,syndicated and not centralized), but the authoritarian aspect of it seems like a red flag(no pun intended). Also, considering how undecided we all are over small, but very important details, I'd assume we'd be better off entering a system WITHOUT coercive means of organization? Don't get me wrong, I strongly prefer state socialism to capitalism(obviously), but I'm a little anarchist leaning(although it's a little utopian given our current situation, it appears to be the most consistent to me).

It's not my intention to argue any point over the other, because I see the point both sides are making. I just wanna see what everyone else thinks so I can come closer to making up my mind about this, so I can spend more time organizing than theorizing.

It's not that I trust the State. I just understand that the State can be used as a tool to gain the very goals we've set ourselves to achieve. Besides, ones got to understand that the way the State is operated is based on how the people who run it operate it. The State operates on the set of conditions that the people who run it have embraced their entire lives. The State in Capitalism is highly detrimental & has become quite untrustworthy, due to it being run under Capitalism. I would argue that the State would be operated differently through Socialism, because it would be under the rule of people who have totally different conditioning's within their lives, hence a different conditioned State. Though, eventually, the State will become unnecessary & will wither away, as theorized through Marxist thought. Anarchists, to me, have just become a little bit too paranoid against the State, which has given them a conclusion that the State must die immediately. Though, I don't blame them, because the State that we see now, within Capitalism, is highly detrimental & it must die.

[mikelepore]

I know the arguments of needing a "workers state" to fight the cappies, but I don't see how they could be trusted to give up power when they're "no longer needed"

No certainty is needed to make this choice.

To speak in broad categories, these are the only two candidates today for political office:

(A) "Vote for me. I say that capitalism is sacred. If the workers rebel, I promise that I will crush them."

(B) "Vote for me. I support the rebelling workers. However, I can't prove to you that I'm sincere."

It's certain that one of those two will acquire political power. "No winner at all" is not an available option.

Of those two, which is the better choice should be a no-brainer.

If you can't discern which of those two is the better choice, that's a form of the Perfect Solution Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy) , as if to say, "there's no point in having brakes in a car, because I can't prove that the mechanism will work properly when I go to use it."

[Jacobinist]

I dont like the state, because the state does not usually serve the peoples interest, and instead caters to the bourgeios ruling class (whom ever it maybe, its a variable). What can you expect from the strucute that gave you relgion?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I dont like the state, because the state does not usually serve the peoples interest, and instead caters to the bourgeios ruling class (whom ever it maybe, its a variable). What can you expect from the strucute that gave you relgion?

What you're referring to, though, is a Capitalist-run State, which of course will not serve the people's interest, because Capitalism doesn't serve the people's interest & merely serves profitable industries. The State isn't some entity that is in control of itself. (Despite my disbelief in God) The State is not God, where it's set itself under certain rules & applies to those only, no matter what. The State is run by people. And these people run things based on the conditionings set forth to them as they were growing up. And so, what this means is that the State is run by a set of conditionings. When a new set of conditionings is brought to those running the State, then the State, itself, will be different as well.

[AK]

What you're referring to, though, is a Capitalist-run State, which of course will not serve the people's interest, because Capitalism doesn't serve the people's interest & merely serves profitable industries. The State isn't some entity that is in control of itself. (Despite my disbelief in God) The State is not God, where it's set itself under certain rules & applies to those only, no matter what. The State is run by people. And these people run things based on the conditionings set forth to them as they were growing up. And so, what this means is that the State is run by a set of conditionings. When a new set of conditionings is brought to those running the State, then the State, itself, will be different as well.
The state is only run by those people who are in the legislature.
Direct democracy = all working class in legislature. Representative democracy = a few "representatives" in legislature.

Socialism = working class rules (i.e., has authority over the state and is the government). So where do representatives fit in with this?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The state is only run by those people who are in the legislature.
Direct democracy = all working class in legislature. Representative democracy = a few "representatives" in legislature.

Socialism = working class rules (i.e., has authority over the state and is the government). So where do representatives fit in with this?

Like you said, it'll be a workers state, not a representative democratically lead state. As I've stated before, it'll be an entirely new state, & so the same paranoia against it shouldn't apply.

[AK]

Like you said, it'll be a workers state, not a representative democratically lead state. As I've stated before, it'll be an entirely new state, & so the same paranoia against it shouldn't apply.
Of course, but many "Marxist-Leninists" and Maoists advocate representative democracy.