Why does Marxism call for State or Government Ownership of the Means of Production ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Why does Marxism call for State or Government Ownership of the Means of Production ? Im sorry for asking this question again but I want to know why state or government ownership is needed I mean why can't the the Means of Productionbe run by the Workers without State or Government ownership or control ? I want to become a Marxist but I don't really get this idea of State or Government ownership of the the Means of Production.


Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Manifesto
of the Communist Party

1848

II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

[mikelepore]

First of all, everyone should read the preface that Marx and Engels added in 1872, where they described that section of the manifesto as "antiquated", the result of a lack of "experience", that it would be "very differently worded" if they were to do it over again, and that "no special stress" should be placed on it.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

Apart from that limitation, the basic idea was not to have state control, but to have control by the workers. Therefore, when the workers form their own political party and acquire control of the state, then the control of industry by the state can be be transferred into control of industry by the workers.

You ask "why can't the the Means of Production be run by the Workers without State or Government ownership or control" - but you don't say how the workers would get it. How else could it come about except by taking control of the state? The state enforces private property. The state wouldn't let someone get away with taking one dollar from another person, so why would the state let the workers get away with taking a million dollar factory from someone?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The implication is that the state would serve as a worker's state. The worker's state would take a hold of the means of production, thus putting them in the hands of the workers.

[AK]

On state ownership (not as in a genuine "workers' state" or what have you), Engels had this to say:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.

[devoration1]

The CM is an historical document.

Many currents within communism and anarchism oppose government ownership of the means of production as simply state capitalism. A mistake of the immaturity of the first revolutionary wave of 1917-1923. The means of production and all political power (including a monopoly on arms) has to be with the workers themselves and the legitimate organs of workers power- worker's councils, factory/workshop committees, mass assemblies, workers militias/Red Guards, etc. Confusing the interests of the workers with the interests of 'the state' was a mistake of inexperience. The state exists as long as there are class antagonisms, and it cannot be used by the working class to further their interests- it has to be seperate from the organs of power developed and held by the proletariat, who will excersize authority over it, but not with it.

[Thug Lessons]

Mao wrote this:

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests. I don't know where you live, but look at your country and ask yourself questions like this: are the people ready to lead themselves? Are they free of chauvinism, be it class, national, racial, gender or sexual? Are they educated about socialism and prepared to enact it? Do they already know how to seize the means of production for themselves and use them correctly? Have they embraced a communist ethic that puts their own interests and the interests of all people on equal terms?

The answer to these questions in all likelihood will be no, or otherwise your country would be communist already. Until you can answer yes, you must struggle. There is disagreements among revolutionaries on how to carry out this struggle, but the majority through history have chosen to create a worker's state lead by a communist party. In my view, this is the only way to resolve the contradictions that prevent us from achieving socialism.

Also, if you live in a Western nation, there is one more thing. If you look at the workers' states through history, like the Soviet Union or Mao's China, and see nothing to admire, keep in mind that in your country there is a great deal of propaganda about these countries, and they are not given a fair presentation. It is your responsibility to educate yourself, by reading materials from both supporters and critics of those societies, as well as those produced by the great thinkers of those societies themselves. This is a long and difficult task, but you will never understand otherwise. Good luck.

[mossy noonmann]

I think that at the present moment ,when everything is going to be privatised it is not wrong to defend the gains that have been won.

The NHS in the UK is a good example , would this be better off private?

That things are 'better' in the public sector i would say yes . for sure

i find it interesting that the most recent date that they refer to in the posts above is 1923

yes things should be brought under state control. ownership as well

this should be a demand for every socialist.

but you should not think that state control means workers control.

these are gains that the working class has won and it would be stupid to ask yourself the questions thug asks if you haven't already won something

if you answer no to his questions then you can sit on your arse all day waiting for the perfect revolutionary storm, that will pass you by cos you didn't do anything

[Conquer or Die]

Marx had assumed that liberal democracy had meant that once the working class was emancipated politically they could then, by numbers, take over the state and make it work to their benefit.

Marx didn't predict class collaboration, fascism, labor aristocracy, or the troubles of bureaucracy.

Politically, Marx was naive.

[AK]

Mao wrote this:

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests.
That just shows a failed revolution. Mao has said it all really, he became part of the ruling class.


I don't know where you live, but look at your country and ask yourself questions like this: are the people ready to lead themselves? Are they free of chauvinism, be it class, national, racial, gender or sexual? Are they educated about socialism and prepared to enact it? Do they already know how to seize the means of production for themselves and use them correctly? Have they embraced a communist ethic that puts their own interests and the interests of all people on equal terms?
So you think workers can't use the means of productions correctly? It's what they spend their whole lives doing.

Besides, if a revolution occurs and the working class has not yet seized the means of production, I fail to see how it could be considered a communist revolution at all. Moreover, if it is considered a revolution but the working class does not take over production: whose revolution is it? Certainly not the working class'. My bet's on the bureaucratic middle class.

Please take your statism and your capitalism off revleft. You are not a communist. You show support for a capitalist mode of production and a revised class system. Socialism has never been and can never be introduced from above.

[Kayser_Soso]

That just shows a failed revolution. Mao has said it all really, he became part of the ruling class.

The problem with Mao is that he let bourgeois elements into the party itself.




So you think workers can't use the means of productions correctly? It's what they spend their whole lives doing.

Thanks to division of labor, they only use a small part of the means of production. Many people work in complicated industries and have no idea how their small contribution fits into the big picture. Far more importantly however, knowing how to operate a large workplace for example, is something very different than running an entire community. There needs to be something to coordinate collective labor throughout the land in the absence of market signals(which is how labor is coordinated in a capitalist society).



Besides, if a revolution occurs and the working class has not yet seized the means of production, I fail to see how it could be considered a communist revolution at all. Moreover, if it is considered a revolution but the working class does not take over production: whose revolution is it? Certainly not the working class'. My bet's on the bureaucratic middle class.

First of all there is no such thing as a "bureaucratic class". The evil bureaucrats who popped up in places like the USSR often came from humble worker roots. Also, regardless of the manner in which you seize the means of production, division of labor will still exist, and there will still be those who do what they consider(or what may objectively be) more important jobs. Technicians, doctors, and so on. This is why the dictatorship of the proletariat and continued class struggle is so important- because sometimes people like that let their professions go to their head and start thinking that the whole country should revolve around them.

Second, when the working class gets behind a particular party or group of parties and they seize the means of production, this is the working class expressing its will. The Communist party doesn't get those means of production under state control without the support of the working class behind it.




Please take your statism and your capitalism off revleft. You are not a communist. You show support for a capitalist mode of production and a revised class system. Socialism has never been and can never be introduced from above.

Yaaawwn. Socialism has never been introduced by anarchists either, and never will be.

[AK]

The problem with Mao is that he let bourgeois elements into the party itself.
That was stupid. But of course, that problem would have never been of any concern if the small upper layers of the party did not have such tremendous power in the running of China.


Thanks to division of labor, they only use a small part of the means of production. Many people work in complicated industries and have no idea how their small contribution fits into the big picture. Far more importantly however, knowing how to operate a large workplace for example, is something very different than running an entire community. There needs to be something to coordinate collective labor throughout the land in the absence of market signals(which is how labor is coordinated in a capitalist society).
You sound like you're advocating another layer of bureaucrats managing workers. You also do realise, don't you, that co-ordination doesn't have to be top-down? Communes/workers' councils/whatever can all communicate and co-operate with each other to solve problems on regional scales.


First of all there is no such thing as a "bureaucratic class".
Appears we have a different class analysis. See, yours gives free reign to managers to replace the private capitalists in the capitalist mode of production. Mine includes those with the same relation to sources of social power as in the same class - hence why the traditional petit-bourgeoisie are in the same ranks as the workplace managers and company bureaucrats.


The evil bureaucrats who popped up in places like the USSR often came from humble worker roots.
Why would you use such emotive nonsense in a material analysis? They weren't necessarily evil; some must have thought that they were managing socialism correctly - it's just that the powers that they were given created economic inequality. Secondly, it is acknowledged that the Bolsheviks tried to strike deals with the pre-existing factory managers during the revolution - and many managers would find themselves in control of the factories even after the bourgeoisie and the tsar had been overthrown. If we consider this to be a continuation of the capitalist mode of production (albeit, with the bureaucratic management as the ruling class; having control of the means of production and the flow of capital), then the Bolsheviks seized power and became petit-bourgeois like many modern coups end up with military leaders becoming bourgeois.


Also, regardless of the manner in which you seize the means of production, division of labor will still exist, and there will still be those who do what they consider(or what may objectively be) more important jobs. Technicians, doctors, and so on. This is why the dictatorship of the proletariat and continued class struggle is so important- because sometimes people like that let their professions go to their head and start thinking that the whole country should revolve around them.
Technicians and doctors to me do not constitute a separate class than the working class - they have the same relation to the sources of social power.


Second, when the working class gets behind a particular party or group of parties and they seize the means of production, this is the working class expressing its will. The Communist party doesn't get those means of production under state control without the support of the working class behind it.
So are you advocating just another class system here? You want the party to seize state power and take over control of production? And you try and legitimise it by saying the workers support the party? Surely you cannot call such a system a shining example of proletarian democracy; the decision-making power is in the hands of the upper layers of the party. What did Engels say again?

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.
Besides, all you do is talk about the working class getting behind the party - as if the working class is something to be "led" and to be controlled, restrained, manipulated, utilised and guided through the darkness by their saviour; the vanguard.


Yaaawwn. Socialism has never been introduced by anarchists either,
I know that. But in terms of workers' self-management and self-government, anarchism has gotten the working class closer than Leninism ever has.


and never will be.
Good. I don't want a handful of revolutionaries introducing socialism to the unwashed masses - unlike some other people on this forum.

[Kayser_Soso]

You sound like you're advocating another layer of bureaucrats managing workers. You also do realise, don't you, that co-ordination doesn't have to be top-down? Communes/workers' councils/whatever can all communicate and co-operate with each other to solve problems on regional scales.

Oh they can? Great!!! Where have they done that successfully for any sustained amount of time?


I might add that there is no need for bureaucrats, just a system which gathers information so it would be available to theoretical workers councils this can be largely automated; you only need people to properly interpret the data and report it.



Appears we have a different class analysis. See, yours gives free reign to managers to replace the private capitalists in the capitalist mode of production.

No, it doesn't.





Why would you use such emotive nonsense in a material analysis? They weren't necessarily evil; some must have thought that they were managing socialism correctly - it's just that the powers that they were given created economic inequality.

I use "evil" sarcastically.



Technicians and doctors to me do not constitute a separate class than the working class - they have the same relation to the sources of social power.


They are not a separate class but under the right conditions they can become a sort of labor aristocracy.



So are you advocating just another class system here? You want the party to seize state power and take over control of production? And you try and legitimise it by saying the workers support the party?

First of all I advocate worker control insofar as it is possible based on the conditions of the time and place. As it turns out, the average worker today is far more competent and educated than a Russian peasant in 1917. Lucky for us.

That being said, the party represents, or should represent, the working class. Why should we force every member of society to weigh in on and decide every issue from national policy and economics right down to minor community issues. Do you have any idea how burdensome such a society would be? In addition to the work day, and domestic work, training, education, and so on, everyone would have to keep abreast of every major issue to make informed decisions. Otherwise they fuck everything up.



Besides, all you do is talk about the working class getting behind the party - as if the working class is something to be "led" and to be controlled, restrained, manipulated, utilised and guided through the darkness by their saviour; the vanguard.


Yes you got it. All us evil vanguardists just want POWER!!! UNLIMITED POWER!! The proletarian insects are too stupid to rule their own fate!!! They must bow to our will!! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!


Christ dude, we all got sent to detention and we've all done shit jobs where we get chewed out by our boss. But we don't all develop a complex about the idea of leadership, which is incidentally different from command or authority.




I know that. But in terms of workers' self-management and self-government, anarchism has gotten the working class closer than Leninism ever has.

And it failed, miserably, and many anarchist societies were not pleasant to live in. Consider in Makhno's Ukraine when the railroad men asked Makhno where they were going to get money to live. The answer they got was basically "figure it out yourself or rob people." Greaaaaat.




Good. I don't want a handful of revolutionaries introducing socialism to the unwashed masses - unlike some other people on this forum.

The bourgeoisie has its vanguard and its organizations for coordinating their aims. Why shouldn't we?

[Roach]

Yes you got it. All us evil vanguardists just want POWER!!! UNLIMITED POWER!! The proletarian insects are too stupid to rule their own fate!!! They must bow to our will!! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!



Once more the Leninists shall rule the Galaxy!And we shall have peace...

Now being serious...
Not everybody is capable of making such complex economic decisions,I doubt there are more then 10 people here (and I am not one of them) who have enough knowledge about economics to ''partipate in the decisions on the workplace'',let alone the patience and discipline.If it is dificult for us imagine to an 1917 russian peasant...

[Kayser_Soso]

Once more the Leninists shall rule the Galaxy!And we shall have peace...

Now being serious...
Not everybody is capable of making such complex economic decisions,I doubt there are more then 10 people here (and I am not one of them) who have enough knowledge about economics to ''partipate in the decisions on the workplace'',let alone the patience and discipline.If it is dificult for us imagine to an 1917 russian peasant...

Even people with enough training and education are limited by a lack of information, and the bonds of time and space(barriers which anarchists don't seem to have a problem with). Something has to be collecting information from all branches of the economy and areas of the country, coordinating this information, and sending it back to people.

[Thug Lessons]

That just shows a failed revolution. Mao has said it all really, he became part of the ruling class.
No, Mao was referring to the classic Marxist conception of classes, i.e. proletariat, peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie and so on. These will no disappear overnight, and this has been widely agreed on among communists since Marx's time. No revolution can instantly abolish classes, though it can fight them systematically and eventually win. I'd like to hear why you expect otherwise.


So you think workers can't use the means of productions correctly? It's what they spend their whole lives doing.
You're misunderstanding me, but then again I wasn't entirely clear. When I say they need to be able to use the means of production "correctly", I mean use them to build socialism. If you asked an average worker or group of workers if they could direct their factory/business/whatever themselves, they would probably answer "no". On the off-chance they did, they would almost certainly continue to run it under the capitalist mode of production and probably in a capitalist manner, perhaps with a few more concessions to workers that would be abolished by their successors.

The only was I can see the workers spontaneously seizing the means of production and establishing a socialist mode of production immediately is if they are already revolutionary socialists with a strong theoretical understanding of socialism. This is not the case anywhere in the world and it might never get there under capitalism. If it does, it will be 500 years in the future like famous anarchist Emma Goldman predicted. If that's what you're banking on, sobeit. But I want to get things done now. I am not content to wait for a revolution centuries away that is predicated on conditions that may never exist.


Besides, if a revolution occurs and the working class has not yet seized the means of production, I fail to see how it could be considered a communist revolution at all. Moreover, if it is considered a revolution but the working class does not take over production: whose revolution is it? Certainly not the working class'. My bet's on the bureaucratic middle class.

Please take your statism and your capitalism off revleft. You are not a communist. You show support for a capitalist mode of production and a revised class system. Socialism has never been and can never be introduced from above.
The bourgeois revolutions did not instantly abolish the property of the aristocracy. This is especially true if you look at the revolution in the US, where the landed aristocracy dominated the economy and even the government to an extent for decades, but the conditions it established allowed for capitalism's ultimate triumph over rural feudalism.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoists aim to do the same thing, except with communism. There have been a number of errors of implementation in the past, but that's grounds to reconsider tactics and strategy, not to scrap the entire plan and insist on utopian idealism.

[Thug Lessons]

That was stupid. But of course, that problem would have never been of any concern if the small upper layers of the party did not have such tremendous power in the running of China.
Mao was very concerned about this as well. He published many articles and essays about it, and speculated on ways to transfer power downward, and especially for the leaders of the revolution to learn from the masses. However, he did not reject the concept of leadership entirely, at least not yet, and neither did the anarchists for that matter. The CNT-FAI had a hierarchy. The Black Army in Russia had a hierarchy. No group had managed to eliminate leadership altogether without failing miserably, communist or anarchist, and all have suffered for it.

In his later years, Mao introduced the concept of cultural revolution, a movement led by the masses against the new ruling class rising in the party, led by the slogal "It's right to rebel". Stalin also attempted to allow greater democratic control towards the end of his tenure. To me, these seem like better paths to real workers' control than rejecting any attempt at socialism that allows for the existence of a state.


I know that. But in terms of workers' self-management and self-government, anarchism has gotten the working class closer than Leninism ever has.
What exactly are you referring to here?


And it failed, miserably, and many anarchist societies were not pleasant to live in. Consider in Makhno's Ukraine when the railroad men asked Makhno where they were going to get money to live. The answer they got was basically "figure it out yourself or rob people." Greaaaaat.
That's a very good point. What little history there is of anarchist control is even more violent and chaotic than that of communist control.

[AK]

Oh they can? Great!!! Where have they done that successfully for any sustained amount of time?
You are dealing with two different things - the strength and rigidity of organisational structures and the physical reaction (which includes the number and availability of combatants) to... well, reaction.


I might add that there is no need for bureaucrats, just a system which gathers information so it would be available to theoretical workers councils this can be largely automated; you only need people to properly interpret the data and report it.
Precisely. So sometimes I wonder why you support the USSR.


No, it doesn't.
So then why has it done so in the past?


I use "evil" sarcastically.
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, I'm afraid.


They are not a separate class but under the right conditions they can become a sort of labor aristocracy.
Doctors live off the surplus value derived from the exploitation of the third world? That, I have never heard in my life.


First of all I advocate worker control insofar as it is possible based on the conditions of the time and place. As it turns out, the average worker today is far more competent and educated than a Russian peasant in 1917. Lucky for us.
But a Russian peasant from the beginning of last century could just as easily co-manage production with his or her comrades as needed.


That being said, the party represents, or should represent, the working class. Why should we force every member of society to weigh in on and decide every issue from national policy and economics right down to minor community issues. Do you have any idea how burdensome such a society would be? In addition to the work day, and domestic work, training, education, and so on, everyone would have to keep abreast of every major issue to make informed decisions. Otherwise they fuck everything up.
I want people to decide upon issues which affect them. I don't want Melbournian workers voting on the standardisation of rail gauges in the Crimea.


Yes you got it. All us evil vanguardists just want POWER!!! UNLIMITED POWER!! The proletarian insects are too stupid to rule their own fate!!! They must bow to our will!! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!
Oh, the vanguardists don't crave power - it's just that they tend to get it.


Christ dude, we all got sent to detention and we've all done shit jobs where we get chewed out by our boss. But we don't all develop a complex about the idea of leadership, which is incidentally different from command or authority.
This point might be valid if Leninist vanguards never had such great authority.


And it failed, miserably, and many anarchist societies were not pleasant to live in. Consider in Makhno's Ukraine when the railroad men asked Makhno where they were going to get money to live. The answer they got was basically "figure it out yourself or rob people." Greaaaaat.
I do not consider Maknhnovist-controlled Ukraine or CNT-controlled Spain to be anarchist societies in the fullest sense. You'll find that the CNT-FAI was a vanguard organisation. Are you seeing the connection yet?


The bourgeoisie has its vanguard and its organizations for coordinating their aims. Why shouldn't we?
Because we care for the working class - and socialism needs to be brought from below.

[AK]

Mao was very concerned about this as well. He published many articles and essays about it, and speculated on ways to transfer power downward, and especially for the leaders of the revolution to learn from the masses. However, he did not reject the concept of leadership entirely, at least not yet, and neither did the anarchists for that matter. The CNT-FAI had a hierarchy. The Black Army in Russia had a hierarchy. No group had managed to eliminate leadership altogether without failing miserably, communist or anarchist, and all have suffered for it.
Kind of why I consider the CNT-FAI and Makhnovist leaders to be vanguardists. See the connection?


In his later years, Mao introduced the concept of cultural revolution, a movement led by the masses against the new ruling class rising in the party, led by the slogal "It's right to rebel". Stalin also attempted to allow greater democratic control towards the end of his tenure. To me, these seem like better paths to real workers' control than rejecting any attempt at socialism that allows for the existence of a state.
Socialism necessitates being conceived by the working class itself. It is sad that the Cultural Revolution was ever needed.


What exactly are you referring to here?
Spain and Ukraine had their problems, yes. But overall, most anarchist principles were followed and workers enjoyed greater autonomy.


That's a very good point. What little history there is of anarchist control is even more violent and chaotic than that of communist control.
AnArKy Iz KaOs. SmAsH tEh StAtE trolololol

[AK]

No, Mao was referring to the classic Marxist conception of classes, i.e. proletariat, peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie and so on. These will no disappear overnight, and this has been widely agreed on among communists since Marx's time. No revolution can instantly abolish classes, though it can fight them systematically and eventually win. I'd like to hear why you expect otherwise.
Because classes are defined by material factors - and as soon as those material factors change, the class composition of society does change. It is theoretically possible for workers to overthrow the ruling class "overnight", but the reality is that revolution starts in certain areas and then spreads.


You're misunderstanding me, but then again I wasn't entirely clear. When I say they need to be able to use the means of production "correctly", I mean use them to build socialism. If you asked an average worker or group of workers if they could direct their factory/business/whatever themselves, they would probably answer "no". On the off-chance they did, they would almost certainly continue to run it under the capitalist mode of production and probably in a capitalist manner, perhaps with a few more concessions to workers that would be abolished by their successors.
There's not much in the way of managing an economy when you do away with the limitations of the monetary system. All that needs to be done is for the allocation labour and resources to be co-ordinated - something which many workers today already take small parts in.


The only was I can see the workers spontaneously seizing the means of production and establishing a socialist mode of production immediately is if they are already revolutionary socialists with a strong theoretical understanding of socialism. This is not the case anywhere in the world and it might never get there under capitalism. If it does, it will be 500 years in the future like famous anarchist Emma Goldman predicted. If that's what you're banking on, sobeit. But I want to get things done now. I am not content to wait for a revolution centuries away that is predicated on conditions that may never exist.
All that is really required of a worker to change the mode of production is to establish and take part in workers' control of workplaces and working-class direct democracy in the running of communities. Simple, really. The theory exists as a necessity only for those anarchist theoreticians - they study to find out just what methods the working class should use to overthrow the capitalist system and take over. And since this has already been studied consistently, it is up to the working class to do so and establish a socialist mode of production, following the methods that will lead to working-class control. One the working class is educated in this relatively simple idea (and agitated, of course), revolution has a strong chance of arising and succeeding.


The bourgeois revolutions did not instantly abolish the property of the aristocracy. This is especially true if you look at the revolution in the US, where the landed aristocracy dominated the economy and even the government to an extent for decades, but the conditions it established allowed for capitalism's ultimate triumph over rural feudalism.
A revolution can be a slow and arduous process in some instances? Thanks, captain obvious.


Marxist-Leninist-Maoists aim to do the same thing, except with communism. There have been a number of errors of implementation in the past, but that's grounds to reconsider tactics and strategy, not to scrap the entire plan and insist on utopian idealism.
^ lol

[Kayser_Soso]

You are dealing with two different things - the strength and rigidity of organisational structures and the physical reaction (which includes the number and availability of combatants) to... well, reaction.

LOL WUT



Precisely. So sometimes I wonder why you support the USSR.

1. I am realistic. 2. I only support it 1924-1953.



So then why has it done so in the past?

If something happened in the past it must invariably happen again and again, and cannot be changed. Sure.



Doctors live off the surplus value derived from the exploitation of the third world? That, I have never heard in my life.

That is not the definition of labor aristocracy. If it were, we'd have to include football stars and even some CEOs as "proletariat."



But a Russian peasant from the beginning of last century could just as easily co-manage production with his or her comrades as needed.

Yes, in their community, not the country as a whole, and not factoring in industrialization.



I want people to decide upon issues which affect them. I don't want Melbournian workers voting on the standardisation of rail gauges in the Crimea.

That's good but then some body or organization needs to coordinate the labor of the whole society.



Oh, the vanguardists don't crave power - it's just that they tend to get it.

And no group of people could ever consolidate power in a small community or group of communities!!




I do not consider Maknhnovist-controlled Ukraine or CNT-controlled Spain to be anarchist societies in the fullest sense. You'll find that the CNT-FAI was a vanguard organisation. Are you seeing the connection yet?

I'd like to use this argument in the future against those anarchists who do consider them to be positive examples of real-world anarchism.

[AK]

LOL WUT
How is that confusing? I said you were comparing two incomparable things (because you said that communes/whatever had not lasted for a long period of time):


The rigidity and strength of a social organisational structure (such as the commune) and
The physical capabilities of the working class to resist capitalist reaction (in the form of military confrontation).

The reason for the ultimate failure of most communes and workers' councils is option 2 (although there are other options, such as the subjugation of them to another authority. Although many would also include that in option 2 as they would - like me - consider that authority/ruling class to be capitalist).

I only support it 1924-1953.
I was at the very least hoping no-one here supported it past that.


If something happened in the past it must invariably happen again and again, and cannot be changed. Sure.
So you're willing to accept bureaucracy? That's one of the reasons why I changed to being an anarchist; most of our class analyses acknowledge the middle management to be part of the middle class rather than "class traitors" as many Marxists would say - yet they fail to realise that they wield the powers of a separate class.


That is not the definition of labor aristocracy. If it were, we'd have to include football stars and even some CEOs as "proletariat."
But, you see, labour aristocracy is bullshit to me - it does not really show how workers of an imperialist country have more social power than others.


Yes, in their community, not the country as a whole, and not factoring in industrialization.
Communes/whatever-base-level-government-institutions can co-operate with each other in resource management for the goal of industrialisation and the completion of major projects. They could send delegates to meetings with delegates from other communes/councils within the region to discuss regional matters and present the position and opinions of their commune/council/whatever.


That's good but then some body or organization needs to coordinate the labor of the whole society.
I'd like to call that body the 'working class'.


And no group of people could ever consolidate power in a small community or group of communities!!
Well, the "tyranny of the majority" concept is utter shite. There are reasons people discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, gender or sex - and it all boils down to class-based society. I see people making rational decisions in the future - obviously without the influence of the capitalist classes. But, yes, it is possible this could happen theoretically - but the material and social factors negatively affecting peoples' decisions are gone so there's not much of a chance of this happening.

Also, I'd like to quote myself here:

Our principles keep any individuals from coming into power...
An anarchist system is not designed to accommodate individuals with the power and authority to rule over others. The common argument of "but anarchism would let capitalists to take control" is bullshit. A centralised government would be much more susceptible to subjugation by capitalists, etc. because the "capitalist roader" in question - along with their accomplices - need only gain control of the topmost level of hierarchy to impose their will on everyone below. An anarchist system would only fall to such a low if the system itself were completely destroyed and replaced with a hierarchical one - not fitting in with the strawman of an anarchist system's weak resistance to infiltration and sabotage by those already inside the system. The only way that internal sabotage could lead to the downfall of an anarchist system is if the vast majority of those living in an anarchist society suddenly became overcome with capitalist principles - highly unlikely.
I'd like to use this argument in the future against those anarchists who do consider them to be positive examples of real-world anarchism.
Go for it. It is already acknowledged by many anarchists that the CNT-FAI was a vanguard. But many still think mistakenly that Spain is a prime and perfect example of anarchism at work.

[Thug Lessons]

Kind of why I consider the CNT-FAI and Makhnovist leaders to be vanguardists. See the connection?

Spain and Ukraine had their problems, yes. But overall, most anarchist principles were followed and workers enjoyed greater autonomy.
So the problem isn't really vanguardism, now is it? You just disagree with the implementation of various vanguardist ventures, and would prefer something more democratic.

But more to the point, what is it about the specific implementations that leads to your judgment on the communist vs. anarchist movements? What policies of the the Soviet Union and China under Mao do you find so onerous as to reject them altogether, and which policies of the CNT-FAI and Black Army do you find so compelling as to overcome your objections to vanguardism?

And are you comparing them fairly? Both in Spain and the Ukraine the struggles never got past the revolutionary stage, but most of the bad things that happened under Soviet and Maoist communism took place after the revolution, while the revolutionary era was much more democratic. The soviets, (i.e. the democratic Russian counsels, not the Bolsheviks), had a great deal of control during the revolution and civil war, and were in fact the driving force of the October revolution. Mao's China had even better results, with practically every unbiased person who observed their policies in the early days after the revolution finding the communists quite admirable.

If you're comparing revolutionary anarchists to post-revolutionary communists, it's apples to oranges. The anarchists never managed to take power, (or whatever terminology you want to use), and so we don't know if they'd really do any better in Lenin or Mao's place.


Socialism necessitates being conceived by the working class itself. It is sad that the Cultural Revolution was ever needed.
I doubt you'll find many Marxist-Leninists who disagree.


Because classes are defined by material factors - and as soon as those material factors change, the class composition of society does change. It is theoretically possible for workers to overthrow the ruling class "overnight", but the reality is that revolution starts in certain areas and then spreads.
This view reduces class analysis to the point that it's useless. A member of the bourgeoisie who is deprived of his or her property does not instantly adopt a proletarian worldview, and a member of the proletariat who becomes part of a socialist society does not instantly adopt a socialist worldview. Material conditions and external factors generally are the basis of class identity and class struggle, but they are only given life and agency through an entire universe of contradictions between different populations and individuals.


There's not much in the way of managing an economy when you do away with the limitations of the monetary system. All that needs to be done is for the allocation labour and resources to be co-ordinated - something which many workers today already take small parts in.
You're dead wrong about this. Managing an economy is a difficult task regardless of economic systems. It's something that's definitely possible through popular control, but not immediately, since the people do not have much experience and knowledge of economics, and what knowledge they do have is tainted by a bourgeois approach to economics.


All that is really required of a worker to change the mode of production is to establish and take part in workers' control of workplaces and working-class direct democracy in the running of communities. Simple, really. The theory exists as a necessity only for those anarchist theoreticians - they study to find out just what methods the working class should use to overthrow the capitalist system and take over. And since this has already been studied consistently, it is up to the working class to do so and establish a socialist mode of production, following the methods that will lead to working-class control. One the working class is educated in this relatively simple idea (and agitated, of course), revolution has a strong chance of arising and succeeding.
If it's really so easy as educating the people about a relatively simple concept in economics, then why hasn't it happened yet?

[AK]

But more to the point, what is it about the specific implementations that leads to your judgment on the communist vs. anarchist movements? What policies of the the Soviet Union and China under Mao do you find so onerous as to reject them altogether, and which policies of the CNT-FAI and Black Army do you find so compelling as to overcome your objections to vanguardism?
First of all, you're creating a false dichotomy between communism and anarchists here. Secondly, I oppose the policies of state control of the means of production, as it just lets another ruling class take power (no I don't mean the working class). Lastly, there was obviously hierarchy within the CNT-FAI and revolutionary Spain as well as within the Black Army.

The definition of vanguardism that we anarchists use or find out that we agree with is from a Marxist, Keith Graham:
"that a given group's emancipation depends crucially on some other, much smaller group's leadership, guidance or domination in some stronger form"


And are you comparing them fairly? Both in Spain and the Ukraine the struggles never got past the revolutionary stage, but most of the bad things that happened under Soviet and Maoist communism took place after the revolution, while the revolutionary era was much more democratic. The soviets, (i.e. the democratic Russian counsels, not the Bolsheviks), had a great deal of control during the revolution and civil war, and were in fact the driving force of the October revolution. Mao's China had even better results, with practically every unbiased person who observed their policies in the early days after the revolution finding the communists quite admirable.

If you're comparing revolutionary anarchists to post-revolutionary communists, it's apples to oranges.
Ah, but as revolution entails one class overthrowing another (in this case by having their specific mode of production becoming dominant), the decisions to reposes private property happened during the period of revolution. Also, a lot of the Bolshevik subjugation of the Soviets happened during the revolution (with Kronstadt, being a well-known example).


The anarchists never managed to take power, (or whatever terminology you want to use), and so we don't know if they'd really do any better in Lenin or Mao's place.
Well, for one, it is not written anywhere in any anarchism that the state should take control of production.


A member of the bourgeoisie who is deprived of his or her property does not instantly adopt a proletarian worldview
You are right. But it doesn't change the fact that they are not part of the working class - rather, their interests as an individual are still aligned with that of the bourgeoisie. We see this happening all the time within the working class: workers vote for Bourgeois parties and rulers and support capitalism.


You're dead wrong about this. Managing an economy is a difficult task regardless of economic systems. It's something that's definitely possible through popular control, but not immediately, since the people do not have much experience and knowledge of economics, and what knowledge they do have is tainted by a bourgeois approach to economics.

If it's really so easy as educating the people about a relatively simple concept in economics, then why hasn't it happened yet?
"Why haven't anarchist and related movements' organisations' voices reached the working class yet?"

Take some time to think about that. Try ruling class oppression of dissent and also the propaganda that Bourgeois media outlets, politicians and the whole education system spit out. Plus also the physical problems and logistical limitations that many groups face.

[Kayser_Soso]

How is that confusing? I said you were comparing two incomparable things (because you said that communes/whatever had not lasted for a long period of time):


The rigidity and strength of a social organisational structure (such as the commune) and
The physical capabilities of the working class to resist capitalist reaction (in the form of military confrontation).

The reason for the ultimate failure of most communes and workers' councils is option 2 (although there are other options, such as the subjugation of them to another authority. Although many would also include that in option 2 as they would - like me - consider that authority/ruling class to be capitalist).

Whether a society collapses or is destroyed from without, it fails nonetheless. A stable society can defend itself. Marxist-Leninist based states demonstrated that they could defend themselves from overwhelming odds, first in 1917 and again in 1941.




So you're willing to accept bureaucracy? That's one of the reasons why I changed to being an anarchist; most of our class analyses acknowledge the middle management to be part of the middle class rather than "class traitors" as many Marxists would say - yet they fail to realise that they wield the powers of a separate class.

Who says bureaucracy? Just because there are certain administrative positions calculating what is needed on the whole and helping this information get around the country doesn't mean they are bureaucrats. The conditions which made it necessary to use things like "one-man management" in revolutionary Russia no longer exist these days.




But, you see, labour aristocracy is bullshit to me - it does not really show how workers of an imperialist country have more social power than others.

First, I think you are confused by the term. A labor aristocracy tends to exist more in developed nations but as to whether or not they benefit from imperialism is not the point. The point is that there are "workers" who for example, make a salary(e.g. CEOs) that is so high that their interests line up with ruling class elements. One rule of thumb is to think of how much money they have and if they could live off the interest and investments of that money whether they worked or not.



Communes/whatever-base-level-government-institutions can co-operate with each other in resource management for the goal of industrialisation and the completion of major projects. They could send delegates to meetings with delegates from other communes/councils within the region to discuss regional matters and present the position and opinions of their commune/council/whatever.

That's really efficient; I at least would suggest the internet and teleconferencing. The problem is that different communes have different things. Some sit on gold mines, and some have next to nothing useful. What happens when one commune figures out that they have something all the others want and they wish to use this leverage to make demands of others.



I'd like to call that body the 'working class'.

This is an abstract term. If we want to know exactly how the economy is going to run, we need concrete terms. This doesn't cut it.



Well, the "tyranny of the majority" concept is utter shite.

Why?


There are reasons people discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, gender or sex - and it all boils down to class-based society.

In the abstract yes, but the thing is that these feelings don't go away automatically as you "abolish" classes. I put that in quotes because you cannot truly abolish classes in a short amount of time. Worse still you cannot easily eliminate those feelings which remain from the past era.


I see people making rational decisions in the future - obviously without the influence of the capitalist classes. But, yes, it is possible this could happen theoretically - but the material and social factors negatively affecting peoples' decisions are gone so there's not much of a chance of this happening.

This is the problem with anarchism- everybody makes rational decisions so long as X is gone. While anarchists suggest that any "vanguardist" movement will inevitably lead to "bureaucracy" and "totalitarianism", anarchists seem incapable of considering that things might not go as they plan just because some factor is gone. There are hundreds of thousands of workers in the US, if not a few million, who are actively engaged in the destruction of their own rights, freedoms, and standard of living. To pretend as though they do this only because of Fox news and AM radio, or that somehow you can get rid of all these things and eliminate those beliefs altogether, is naive.

[AK]

Whether a society collapses or is destroyed from without, it fails nonetheless. A stable society can defend itself. Marxist-Leninist based states demonstrated that they could defend themselves from overwhelming odds, first in 1917 and again in 1941.
You're talking about firepower, not social stability. And I do not care if your great ML state could defend itself.


Who says bureaucracy? Just because there are certain administrative positions calculating what is needed on the whole and helping this information get around the country doesn't mean they are bureaucrats. The conditions which made it necessary to use things like "one-man management" in revolutionary Russia no longer exist these days.
Good. Let's hope you MLs stay true to your word.


First, I think you are confused by the term. A labor aristocracy tends to exist more in developed nations but as to whether or not they benefit from imperialism is not the point. The point is that there are "workers" who for example, make a salary(e.g. CEOs) that is so high that their interests line up with ruling class elements. One rule of thumb is to think of how much money they have and if they could live off the interest and investments of that money whether they worked or not.
Rightio. Besides, my class analysis considers CEOs and other similar senior positions to be bourgeois - a view shared by many Marxists, too.


That's really efficient; I at least would suggest the internet and teleconferencing. The problem is that different communes have different things. Some sit on gold mines, and some have next to nothing useful. What happens when one commune figures out that they have something all the others want and they wish to use this leverage to make demands of others.
That's an incredibly unlikely hypothetical scenario as I can guarantee that the commune which is refusing to share its resources more than likely requires resources and goods from other communes.

In Australia, for example, the mines are out in the middle of nowhere - people living out there depend on the flow of goods and resources to those far corners to survive.


This is an abstract term. If we want to know exactly how the economy is going to run, we need concrete terms. This doesn't cut it.
A federation of communes/councils/whatever (btw the commune is pretty much a mix of local government and local economic management) communicating with each other (teleconferencing, like you mentioned, or delegates and such), to negotiate how much of what product or resource each commune needs, based on the needs and wants of the workers of those communes (food, appliances, etc., resources needed for industry).

The "working class" is not an abstract term. Workers' self-management is a basic principle that every communist should be aware of - you shouldn't feel the need to ask.


Why?
Because everyone has the same power to vote on every decision, time and time again, but it is simply the most popular decision that gets used/acted upon. But everyone has equal power in the running of society.


In the abstract yes, but the thing is that these feelings don't go away automatically as you "abolish" classes. I put that in quotes because you cannot truly abolish classes in a short amount of time. Worse still you cannot easily eliminate those feelings which remain from the past era.
You're right; the abolition of class society will not do it alone. That is why the revolution must be coupled with internationalism and anti-fascism. Workers need to know that fascism, nationalism and racism are nothing but Bourgeois constructs that harm the working class. Of course, this alone will not completely destroy discriminatory attitudes, but it will influence any remaining racists not to harm or discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity and the like - due to the complete lack of social acceptance of such reactionary and hateful positions.


This is the problem with anarchism- everybody makes rational decisions so long as X is gone. While anarchists suggest that any "vanguardist" movement will inevitably lead to "bureaucracy" and "totalitarianism", anarchists seem incapable of considering that things might not go as they plan just because some factor is gone. There are hundreds of thousands of workers in the US, if not a few million, who are actively engaged in the destruction of their own rights, freedoms, and standard of living. To pretend as though they do this only because of Fox news and AM radio, or that somehow you can get rid of all these things and eliminate those beliefs altogether, is naive.
I don't know about other anarchists, but I find the term "totalitarian" to be utter bullshit.

[Kayser_Soso]

You're talking about firepower, not social stability. And I do not care if your great ML state could defend itself.

What do you think produces firepower, and what do you think keeps soldiers at the front equipped, full, and in good health? The fact is that the Bolsheviks in 1917 didn't really have much in the way of firepower. The Civil War was still fought mainly with the machine gun and rifle. The Russian Army had had a problem with artillery since the beginning of WWI and planes and tanks were extremely rare(the latter having come with the intervention forces). The arsenal of 1941 was built on a foundation of industrialization. Military matters cannot be divorced from the economy.



Rightio. Besides, my class analysis considers CEOs and other similar senior positions to be bourgeois - a view shared by many Marxists, too.

Very well then. Then I raise my earlier point which is that it will be inevitable that there may arise certain classes of people who by virtue of doing a desperately needed job(say, operating some new technology), may get compensated more in some way. We have to make sure that such inequalities, though they may inevitably spring up, don't get out of control.




That's an incredibly unlikely hypothetical scenario as I can guarantee that the commune which is refusing to share its resources more than likely requires resources and goods from other communes.

Why is it unlikely? And it's not that they would flat out refuse to share resources. They may just use a natural advantage to control trade. Besides, if it's a commune providing food for everyone would not be a difficult thing. They could install community gardens and become self-sufficient.



In Australia, for example, the mines are out in the middle of nowhere - people living out there depend on the flow of goods and resources to those far corners to survive.

Ok this works in Australia, but that's only one area of the world. Besides, mines are just one example, an obvious example. But let's say a place has a particular factory which makes technology necessary to everyone. It's simply not efficient to build this kind of plant in every commune. Obviously communes which supply raw materials may have some say in the matter but if they can't produce the finished project the commune with the necessary plant will still have an advantage over them as well.

And all of this ignores the possibility of some foreign government, having seen a formerly powerful state and military disappear, driving in with its armies and knocking off communes one by one.




A federation of communes/councils/whatever (btw the commune is pretty much a mix of local government and local economic management) communicating with each other (teleconferencing, like you mentioned, or delegates and such), to negotiate how much of what product or resource each commune needs, based on the needs and wants of the workers of those communes (food, appliances, etc., resources needed for industry).

It would save a lot of work for these organizations to just report their needs and products to some central body(which at first might actually be a computer, supervised by humans), which would then spit back the data necessary for production.



The "working class" is not an abstract term. Workers' self-management is a basic principle that every communist should be aware of - you shouldn't feel the need to ask.

Yes, it is abstract. What is concrete is a single worker. We can analyze a worker and say he/she has no means of production and sells labor power to survive. That is a concrete worker. The working class is an abstract term, the concrete being the workers themselves.



Because everyone has the same power to vote on every decision, time and time again, but it is simply the most popular decision that gets used/acted upon. But everyone has equal power in the running of society.

Having the power to vote means nothing if the majority is constantly against you. You would have equal power in running society mainly on paper. But then again, beyond the local level and certain important national decisions, who would want to make all those decisions? Doing so would require a lot of extra, unpaid work. The idea of Communism is that we can do less work, not more.



You're right; the abolition of class society will not do it alone. That is why the revolution must be coupled with internationalism and anti-fascism. Workers need to know that fascism, nationalism and racism are nothing but Bourgeois constructs that harm the working class. Of course, this alone will not completely destroy discriminatory attitudes, but it will influence any remaining racists not to harm or discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity and the like - due to the complete lack of social acceptance of such reactionary and hateful positions.

The problem is that rooting these ideas out, even defining them, can often be difficult. In America for example, virtually everyone declares his or herself to be against racism. Yet information shows ongoing, persistent discrimination.



I don't know about other anarchists, but I find the term "totalitarian" to be utter bullshit.

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[AK]

What do you think produces firepower, and what do you think keeps soldiers at the front equipped, full, and in good health? The fact is that the Bolsheviks in 1917 didn't really have much in the way of firepower. The Civil War was still fought mainly with the machine gun and rifle. The Russian Army had had a problem with artillery since the beginning of WWI and planes and tanks were extremely rare(the latter having come with the intervention forces). The arsenal of 1941 was built on a foundation of industrialization. Military matters cannot be divorced from the economy.
Rightio. But the Bolsheviks did have raw manpower.


Very well then. Then I raise my earlier point which is that it will be inevitable that there may arise certain classes of people who by virtue of doing a desperately needed job(say, operating some new technology), may get compensated more in some way. We have to make sure that such inequalities, though they may inevitably spring up, don't get out of control.
Agreed.


Why is it unlikely? And it's not that they would flat out refuse to share resources. They may just use a natural advantage to control trade. Besides, if it's a commune providing food for everyone would not be a difficult thing. They could install community gardens and become self-sufficient.
Agreed. The aim should be to make sure that base-level structures are as self-sufficient as possible.


Ok this works in Australia, but that's only one area of the world. Besides, mines are just one example, an obvious example. But let's say a place has a particular factory which makes technology necessary to everyone. It's simply not efficient to build this kind of plant in every commune. Obviously communes which supply raw materials may have some say in the matter but if they can't produce the finished project the commune with the necessary plant will still have an advantage over them as well.
I imagine that nearly every commune would have an advantage in the local economy somewhere, but most of them all still depend on supplies and resources from elsewhere.


And all of this ignores the possibility of some foreign government, having seen a formerly powerful state and military disappear, driving in with its armies and knocking off communes one by one.
Oh, we can still keep guns and arm the populous. We just don't want another class ruling over us.


It would save a lot of work for these organizations to just report their needs and products to some central body(which at first might actually be a computer, supervised by humans), which would then spit back the data necessary for production.
It would be more efficient, but we can't fine-tune every detail of the revolution. It will play out according to conditions and necessity, but I think this idea is better, yes.


Yes, it is abstract. What is concrete is a single worker. We can analyze a worker and say he/she has no means of production and sells labor power to survive. That is a concrete worker. The working class is an abstract term, the concrete being the workers themselves.
Alright.


Having the power to vote means nothing if the majority is constantly against you. You would have equal power in running society mainly on paper. But then again, beyond the local level and certain important national decisions, who would want to make all those decisions? Doing so would require a lot of extra, unpaid work. The idea of Communism is that we can do less work, not more.
I don't image there would be many "national" decisions aside from standardisations - and technocracy, as I understand it so far, states that such matters should be decided upon by those who work in that field (which makes sense; rail workers and engineers should be deciding upon things such as rail gauge standardisation). If there are any other decisions that aren't limited to a certain economic field, they can be decided upon by everyone (I don't imagine there would be too many of these sorts of decisions).


The problem is that rooting these ideas out, even defining them, can often be difficult. In America for example, virtually everyone declares his or herself to be against racism. Yet information shows ongoing, persistent discrimination.
To understand the results of such polls and studies, you have to take into consideration all the other factors impacting upon someone's attitudes and someone's behaviour.



This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

[Comrade Anarchist]

B/c in order to reach pure communism where everyone shares and holds hands and sings kumbaya you must force them to change and force is the very nature of the state. It relies on force in order to survive so knowing that, we can see that if the state owns everything then it can force everyone to obey it and if you have the dictatorship of the proletariat in control then it will force everyone to adopt its nature which is a communist nature. ( But in all reality the d.o.p. is nothing more than a dictatorship of marxists as bakunin points out - "they [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people")

So to answer the question the state must own everything b/c if it doesn't then lacks the necessary amount of force to kill everyone's humanity and create one slave class out of all the classes. Problem with that though is that once the slaves are created the d.o.p. never gives up its power and instead must gain more power so it becomes very nationalistic and starts to create a military slave class so it can conquer more and own more and in turn have more to fuel its power and force.:)

[Dean]

B/c in order to reach pure communism where everyone shares and holds hands and sings kumbaya you must force them to change and force is the very nature of the state. It relies on force in order to survive so knowing that, we can see that if the state owns everything then it can force everyone to obey it and if you have the dictatorship of the proletariat in control then it will force everyone to adopt its nature which is a communist nature. ( But in all reality the d.o.p. is nothing more than a dictatorship of marxists as bakunin points out - "they [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people")
I've emphasized where the crux of the issue lies. The simple response is that our positions are much more nuanced than that, and you'll note - probably as a result of historical evidence - most communists have rejected the vulgar "vanguard state ownership" simplicity of the Russian and Chinese models.


So to answer the question the state must own everything b/c if it doesn't then lacks the necessary amount of force to kill everyone's humanity and...
What a mess of strawmen.

Firstly, the first emphasized part is pure emotive, moralistic prejudice. I challenge you to find historical or ideological evidence for "killing everyone's humanity." You can't because its just childish idealism.


create one slave class out of all the classes. Problem with that though is that once the slaves are created the d.o.p. never gives up its power and instead must gain more power so it becomes very nationalistic and starts to create a military slave class so it can conquer more and own more and in turn have more to fuel its power and force.:)
Do you know what the d.o.p. is? It's not existed except in limited, atomized form in the early stages of the 'Soviet' regime (notably, when the soviet's lost political power before 1924 or so, there was no empowered 'd.o.p.,' which had furthermore only existed on a limited, localized level).

The d.o.p. gave up its power to the central committee.

The last bit of hypocrisy is hilarious: there is absolutely no way one can have "one big slave class (and no others!)," a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "a military slave class" all at once:
-"one big slave class" is simply impossible. We are enslaved to ourselves? :rolleyes:
-"a dictatorship of the proletariat" is contradictory to a "military slave class" since the mil. is a part of the prole. class.
-a "military slave class" simply can't exist if they are part of "one big slave class" or under a "d.o.p." as I explain above.

Marxism simply calls for the rerouting of economic power to a decentralized regime, which ultimately has the net effect of decentralizing economic power.