Caj

"States do not have interests apart from the interests of the class(es) they serve. They have nothing to gain. This is why states do not simply begin representing new classes when the ruling class is on the brink of overthrow. The state is a weapon of the ruling class to the very end. Hence the need for revolution."

If the state serves a class, how come it served only itself in the USSR, how come it did not develop into socialism, how come it was one of the most authoritarian states ever to exists.

"The proletarian dictatorship is the control of the state apparatus by the workers. The workers would own such a state, and it would act in their interests."

One cannot own a state unless one is the state, so you either name someone to be your dictator, which would mean he owns the state, or you start a system based on direct democracy, in that case the people are the state.

I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I will answer your next reply and retire to Minecraft.

"A state is an organ of class rule, not an entity independent of classes. In this case, it was a proletarian state, i.e., an organ for proletarian class rule. The Cheka were the secret police for the proletarian state. By defending the state, the Cheka were defending the class rule of the proletariat."

No, a state can be completely independent of classes, like demonstrated with fascism, nazism and some monarchies. There are the several classes, then there is the state, the state acts with only its interests acount, if it works for the capitalists then it must gain something from it, if it works for the aristocrats it must gain something from it. By working for the proletariat it gains nothing, therefore it might be put there by the proletariat but will act only for itself, I see where you authoritarians want to go with this, but state is impossible to control, unless you own it.

"There wasn't a choice to either obey the Makhnovists or not. If you chose not to do so, there would be consequences, including execution."

Disobediency is diferent from oposition, the Kontrrazvedka only executed oposition.

"Conscription was implemented quite early on when conditions necessitated such a policy. In addition to conscription, Makhno also had all top military posts appointed personally, a policy never adopted by the Reds. Although the Black Army (like the Red Army) operated initially on the basis of elected leaders, this was quickly changed when conditions necessitated it."

Seems legit, that is quite a good point you have there.

"Uh, no. You just admitted that the Makhnovists carried out executions. Obviously the Free Territory did not operate on the basis of voluntarism."

Can you ask someone to voluntarily execute himself.

Now seriously, it did operate on the basis of voluntarism, although in the last days of the Makhnovischina they used a kind of conscription.

"The Cheka were defending the proletarian dictatorship. By attacking the Cheka, the Black Guards were attacking the proletariat as a class. And who the fuck are "the people"?"

You mean the Bolshevik dictatorship, they were defending a state, not a class, they were state police , not proletariat police, since they only did the biding of the state.

"The people" is one of my ways of saying proletariat, its like "the workers".

"The Black Guards in Moscow were attacking the Cheka."

They were defending the people from opression.