Anarchists and Marxists? So many ists....

[Brotto Rühle]

However Marx did not claim that its immediate destruction was advisable, he instead said that it would be put in the hands of the workers in a socialist society after which point it would gradually decay.

You should try reading Marx before you claim anything he has said. Marx never suggested it was advisable that the working class take power and form its own state, he said it was necessary. However, he NEVER said that this was in a "socialist society". Lastly, the term is "withers away", and it withers away at the same point class is abolished in society.... socialism.

The state is only an instrument of oppression in a class-oriented society. Under socialism it (along with parties and politicians) would become more and more pointless as the revolution spreads and people become more and more self-sufficient.

Under socialism, it would not exist.

[The Idler]

This is predicated on the (wrong) assumption that the most successful political work is done by ideologically pure small parties/sects, which is generally not the case. The greatest expressions of class war, by the working class, in recent years in Britain came in the 2011 riots and the Occupy movement, both of which drew from a far more heterogeneous political/social grouping than a trotskyist/marxist-leninist sect.



That's a problem with the sectarian nature of the left, and your desire for everyone to belong to an 'ism' wouldn't change that - people would still belong to different 'isms'. The point isn't to have as many discrete 'isms' as possible, but for people to see that whatever abc or xyz parties think, people do not need to pigeon hole themselves as this or that 'ism'. In fact, I think it's extremely unhealthy and leads to the sectarianism noted above, and the lack of organisation and cooperation amongst leftist sects.

I think you misunderstand "sects" and "sectarianism" in a way common on the left.
Small parties with ideological differences are not "sects" or "sectarian" for disagreeing with other possibly larger parties. If that were the case, then every "socialist" party since the formation of the SPGB in 1904 would be "sectarian".
Refusing to work with or co-operate with another party with whom you have differences is not "sectarian".
Properly understanding the differences (or non-differences) between the ideas of groups (instead of decrying this or dismissing this as "sectarian") is the quickest and best way for you to choose with which group you agree with.

[Red Star Rising]

You must surely see the irony of you ordaining this supposed democracy upon the workers, no?



1. This is a very ahistorical understanding of the raison d'etre of the state. The state, as we know it today, was borne out of the need to protect profit-seeking merchants during the early-modern period. Ergo you had the British state providing cover for those who wished to increase urbanisation within Britain, and later for those who wanted to go and 'explore' (i.e. exploit) the natural and labouring riches of countries that, until then, had been un-discovered by capital's rent-seeking pursuits.

2. Following on from above, this really means that the state is not an appropriate tool to either prevent totalitarianism (which itself is a concept that is positively related to the size of the state) nor allow people access to politics. The state machinery - the bureaucracy, the civil service, the professional political class, the military etc. - are not the right tools to achieve what you want to achieve.

Well I'm going to assume that the you(plural) have thought about this more than I have so I guess I may as well throw in with you (or at least revise my conception of the state). The state in Socialism should become a central administration used by the workers as an instrument of organising labour and nothing else. It may also serve as forum for the discussion of ideas but that does not require a political elite and would most likely happen anyway. "Politicians" would become obsolete, there would be no such profession - workers may take part in organising their affairs but the running of affairs cannot be a separate job. There would be an agreed upon constitution which would include a set of rules that defined Socialism (no private ownership, workers own means of production etc.) but no direct enforcement of the will of one party.

Does this sound more agreeable?