When did Marx say communism was "stateless"?

[Xvall]

I need help here. I distinctly recall it, but I can not seem to find where.

(Please don't give me some generic example like "The Communist Manifsto". I looked in it and couldn't find it - point out where.)

[Organic Revolution]

i know you werent looking for a general answer but it is in the last 3 chapters somewhere.

[Xvall]

Um. Thanks?

Anyone with a more specific answer, your help would be appreciated as well.

[Martin Blank]

Marx himself did not write in detail on this subject, but Engels did. Here is what he wrote:

"The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand." (F. Engels, Ch. 2, Part III, Anti-Duhring -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...uhring/ch24.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm) -- italics in original; boldface added)

Miles

[h&s]

Originally posted by rise up+Aug 12 2005, 07:16 AM--> (rise up @ Aug 12 2005, 07:16 AM) i know you werent looking for a general answer but it is in the last 3 chapters somewhere. [/b]
Well seing as it is only 4 chapters long, your hardly saying where! :lol:
This essentially makes the point:

Communist Manifesto
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

[Severian]

There's a bit of stuff in Critique of the Gotha Programme as well.

If you pick up State and Revolution by Lenin, he has a number of quotes by Marx and Engels on this subject, which can point you to the relevant works by them.

[Free Palestine]

Should this be in Learning?

[David]

i have a question. if there is no state, who will force me to pay taxes/help the community if i just want to hoard my wealth?

or will i even be forced?

[Black Dagger]

if there is no state, who will force me to pay taxes/help the community if i just want to hoard my wealth?

It's a bit hard to horde 'wealth' when money has been abolished.

[David]

how will money be abolished?

and things such as homes, cars, TVs, computers, etc are part of wealth, so what will prevent me from hoarding those things?

[Capitalist Turkey]

Your common good will!

Once all means of production are to the state, once all workers are happy at the factory, once all form of wealthiness and excess is eliminated, once the 3rd moon of Jupiter lines up with the shadow of Mars, then we will have a stateless commune!

But until then it's alot of control and death.

[viva le revolution]

Oh yes. Right now we are in Utopia right? We don't know how good we have it, espacially us in the third world. we should be grateful that the great liberators from the west have blessed us with thier presence and safeguard our freedom and liberty. :P
The system is perfect now. Let those niggers and sand-niggers in the third world die, as long as i have my quarter pounder and my gallon of pepsi.
Boy, take a look outside your minimall and your pillows and champagne attitude.

[Capitalist Turkey]

We are far from utopia right now. And free market capitalism does not exist presently in America. Corporations that have ties to the govt do though. That is not capitalism, but I'm not shocked that you wouldn't know that.

Did I ever say I supported invading and bombing other countries?

I think the best way to make allies in the world is through free trade.

And I'm damn thankful I have it so well.

[viva le revolution]

Free market capitalism is an impossibility, it did exist for a short while right after the industrial revolution in europe. However the equal chances of starting a business were availible only to those who had capital and led to naked exploitation of workers in sweatshops and workhouses, THAT's free trade, no inhibitions on the growth of capital and appropriation of goods. The very theory of free market capitalism makes it inevitable for the rise of monopolies, due to unihibited aquisition of wealth, and the influence of those monopolies upon the government.
Free trade has no place in the betterment of relations between nations, only to make the self-interest of those nations and those in the corporate aristocracy all the more influential in world events, through the competition it creates. The inherent characteristic of globalization is the smashing of local industries to make the market dependant on your goods and supply. Through the presence of monopolies this ensures that even the military is at your disposal.
Tell me,i am assuming you are a yank, where do you think your nike sneakers come from? not in a factory but from a sweatshop some where in south-east asia. The worker there is not so thankful that he works so that you can enjoy a cushioned walk. he'd much sooner smack that shoe across your face than agree that THAT is free trade and legitimate enterprise.