however if there was 50 anarchists and 50 marxists...I'd side with the anarchists
"3. I truly despise the idea that the state can whither away - it is all wrong. The state ceases to exist when there is no more centralised political authority. The state exists or does not exist as the conditions change - and I assume that a stable socialist society would not constantly be overthrowing modes of production and state apparatuses to the point where some state (which shouldn't even exist in a socialist society) whithers away. 4. Marxism isn't that popular in Pakistan either." Thats why I'm kind of a Marxist. I believe that the state must emphasize it's 'withering away'. Marxism is mildly popular in Pakistan. Socialism is popular however.
1. The market is abolished immediately, replaced with democratic planning. 2. You have to be semantic when referring to the state, because we cannot call it something it is not (such as just purely a "government"). 3. I truly despise the idea that the state can whither away - it is all wrong. The state ceases to exist when there is no more centralised political authority. The state exists or does not exist as the conditions change - and I assume that a stable socialist society would not constantly be overthrowing modes of production and state apparatuses to the point where some state (which shouldn't even exist in a socialist society) whithers away. 4. Marxism isn't that popular in Pakistan either.
By state I mean government. By control I stress Libertarian Syndicalism and cuts on the military infrastructure if we had revolution in a third world country. We'd also give nationalize industry into cooperatives. That is Marxism. Eventually the state will be useless and people would not live in a cycle of market production. They'd live in a pure-communist or Anarchist society. I only advocate this idea in places like Pakistan, where Anarchism isn't popular and social unrest causes the failure of Anarchist praxis to exist. I also consider myself a Marxist for my Marxian econmic outlook.
Wouldn't you agree that, in order for the proletariat to become the ruling class, it must control the means of production beforehand? What's your revolution going to entail, capturing the state and that's all? Laughable. No good Marxist advocated a state.
Use the state to give the proletariat means of production. The state WITHERS AWAY
How can you use the state? If libertarian Marxism and Anarchism both succeed in the same goal (bringing the working class to power), the state will no longer exist as it is a centralised political authority.
yes but we use the state, anarchists don't
Marxists don't advocate a state - and libertarian Marxists, even less so. The state is not some "ultimate weapon" to crush the forces of capital - it is an observable social relationship.
Not exactly. Anarchists don't care an awful lot about statism. While I believe we xan achieve goals by using the government to kill itself not just 'wither away'
