I agree, I want to make the government create cooperatives whom are independently by workers. I only suggest this idea in places where anarchism isn't popular, or where anarchists will be killed off by armymen of the existing government.
There is only one means of proletarian revolution... the seizure of the means of production by the working class. Unless you can think of another.
No the means of revolution change depending on the cricumstances
So the definition of the state changes according to social conditions? Just wow.
social conditions....
How so?
depends on the circumstances mate,
A Marxist state could never exist, as the state is a centralisation of political authority. Unless you're in favour of that... in which case you would just be perpetuating class divisions. The state is not some ultimate weapon - it is centralised political authority. An anarchist society could have a police force that enforces democratically made laws and a powerful army to defend itself from attack, and it would still not be a state. The state refers to the manner in which laws are made and the military (should it exist) and police are commanded. You can't "steal" the state from the Bourgeoisie - unless you are in favour of "representative" minority government, whose members can occupy the "stolen" positions.
It would be seperationist movement my friend and the anarchist couldn't stand a chance against the state. Thats why in some movements we must use all the advantages we can steal from the bourgeoisie and use it to the proletariat's advantage. Thats why I'm an Anarchist and a Marxist. I believe both have their pros and cons and can't follow one calls analysis...
The state cannot emphasise its own whithering away without somehow abolishing itself through changing modes of production and class hierarchy. Besides, if the working class took power there would be no state created. We criticise the state, seeing it as a centralisation of political authority. Don't turn the term into something it is not.
