• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        A Commune, in Marxist-Leninist theory, is a revolutionary political-economic structure where the proletariat collectively owns and democratically controls the means of production, abolishing capitalist hierarchies and bourgeois state machinery. It is rooted in the analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871 by Marx and Engels who saw it as a prototype of proletarian dictatorship. The key aspect of a commune is that it embodies direct workers’ democracy, dismantling the separation between state and society. Lenin further expanded this as a transitional framework where a decentralized network of soviets composed of laborers self-govern, eroding class distinctions and advancing toward a stateless, classless communism.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Are there any examples of this ‘late stage Communism’? I thought it was more about the central planning aspect. And if not are the USSR/China/Russia even Communist?

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 month ago

            Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.

                • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I feel like the Chinese model is already way too far into pragmatism to ever idealistically flip the switch to abolishing their state at the endgame.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    The abolition of the state isn’t a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.

                    I think you’re confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn’t what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.