The Withering Away of the State

[PeacefulRevolution]

I've read numerous times that the goal of Communism is not the abolition of private possessions, merely the abolition of private property. It is completely acceptable (or so I've read, on this website and others) for a person to own as many TVs as they would like, as long as they have contributed to society in their own way.

One of the main goals of Communism is the withering away of the state. The theory (as I understand it) is that every person will have what they need, and will therefore have no reason to commit crime.

My question, however, is this: If one person can have more "possessions" than another, then won't the people always have need of a state? How can we achieve the "withering away of the state" as long as there are those who have more than others (not necessarily more food or other necessities, but luxuries, such as televisions or computers)?

[fa2991]

Well, the state/society would control access to luxuries... so inequality shouldn't be that bad, and if it exists it would be voluntary (i.e. "I don't want a TV").

[Peace on Earth]

I doubt the "inequalities" would be too bad; another television or computer won't lead to a new class system. And, because there would be no currency or monetary system (people would take what they needed/wanted) why would it matter what someone else had, when you could have as much as they had?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that it would pretty much impossible to abolish private ownership of possessions. LOL.

[AK]

this thread is lol

[AK]

Alas, Revleft is srs bsns.

I've read numerous times that the goal of Communism is not the abolition of private possessions, merely the abolition of private property. It is completely acceptable (or so I've read, on this website and others) for a person to own as many TVs as they would like, as long as they have contributed to society in their own way.
I'm not sure about socially acceptable, but it would be theoretically possible (and also pretty useless and unnecessary. I can't imagine such a scenario in real life).


One of the main goals of Communism is the withering away of the state. The theory (as I understand it) is that every person will have what they need, and will therefore have no reason to commit crime.

My question, however, is this: If one person can have more "possessions" than another, then won't the people always have need of a state? How can we achieve the "withering away of the state" as long as there are those who have more than others (not necessarily more food or other necessities, but luxuries, such as televisions or computers)?
People are unequal today in terms of race, gender, sexuality, nation and social class - and all of the former are by-products of class-based society. Social class is not determined by how many DVD players you own, it is determined by the social power in terms of hire/fire decisions, etc. (or as some other anarchists would say, a relation to the means of coercion. But for a Marxist view, which is presumably yours, it is defined by a relation to the means of production - and personal property does not produce or distribute goods). You must also realise that the state is the entity used by the ruling class to maintain its rule and support its class interests and property.

Therefore, there is no need for a state at all (as there is no ruling class).

[Uppercut]

In the higher stage of socialism, the state and its organs begin to lose their political character, as the workers can control the state and society and govern on their collective will. There would be no more left vs right or us vs them, it's simply civilization and life.

[Thirsty Crow]

In the higher stage of socialism, the state and its organs begin to lose their political character, as the workers can control the state and society and govern on their collective will. There would be no more left vs right or us vs them, it's simply civilization and life.
Have you read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government"? It's just that his vision of a potential society is strikingly similar to what you've outlined here.
Just a little note, that's all.

[Magón]

I think people would have to be more in the mindset, of what they need rather than what they want. I think you'd see a very different people, in this hypothetical society. Mainly because people wouldn't just have things that they like one minute, and then box up the next, never to be used again, or thought about. It's obvious in this Capitalist society, that people have too much shit, and having too much shit is bad, because then you get overwhelmed with it all.

I think in a post-revolution society, people would be able to deal with a lot less than what they had before, and realize that taking just what they want isn't necessarily going to help them in the future, with what they need. So if I was single, or just had myself and my girlfriend, I wouldn't have several t.v.'s for each room in the house, and if I had a family, I wouldn't have anything more than what I'd really need. Sure I'd have things for entertainment purposes, but I wouldn't have three or four cars, when there's only one or two people driving in the family or relationship.

Basically, you have to take the greedy mindset out of people, and show them that having all this extra crap doesn't do them any good, but does give them a headache.