You're viewing part of a thread.
Nah. State ownership is only public ownership in a robust democracy. Oligarchical states aren't public.
And thus far no state pursuing Marxist principles as been anything other than totalitarian. There is no democracy among those that seek that path only claims of it as a goal.
Many nations have been successful in creating communism. White people just tend to forget about tribal societies when they're discussing politics.
Tribal societies weren't "communism" in the Marxist sense, which is why when writing about them he classified their organization as a distinct Mode of Production. For Marx, Communism itself is a fully centralized economy that becomes necessary and inevitable as industry gets larger and more complex, and is triggered by class conflict. Tribal societies didn't have mass industry, and Marx never wanted to organize in such a fashion either.
Marx and Engels maintained that a communist society would have no need for the state as it exists in contemporary capitalist society. The capitalist state mainly exists to enforce hierarchical economic relations, to enforce the exclusive control of property, and to regulate capitalistic economic activities—all of which would be non-applicable to a communist system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
You'd better go edit the Wikipedia article so people stop thinking communism is stateless.
The state was the official representative of the whole of society, its concentration in a visible body, but it was so only in so far as it was the state of that class which in its time represented the whole of society: in antiquity, the state of the slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the feudal nobility, in our time, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The "Administration of Things" refers to a fully centralized, publicly owned economy, but without "special bodies of armed men" to enforce class distinctions. Marx's predictions for Communism came from analyzing the trajectory of Capitalism and predicting forward, not engineering an ideal society and working backwards.
Well that's not how politics should work. That's fine for history and making logical predictions. But saying "I believe in pushing for whatever is already likely to happen" is... dumb. Marx is dumb. You should imagine a better future and push for that. Supporting what you already think will win is like buying all the merch for the sports team the experts say is likely to win the sportsbowl.
That's not entirely accurate to what Marx was doing. Marx was studying history and how changes in Modes of Production happen, and advocating for the Working Class to harness that knowledge to create a better future. Kinda like how electricity was some unknown phenomenon until humans studied it and could make it work in our favor, so too can the laws of societal development be studied and harnessed.
I'm not trying to convince you to not be an Anarchist, I'm just trying to make sure you represent Marx accurately. I used to be an Anarchist as well and used to hold similar misconceptions, seeing those misconceptions spread around delayed me actually taking Theory seriously.
Why didn't you just read The Conquest of Bread, Kayanerenko;wa, or Bullshit Jobs? Anarchists can read theory. In fact, anarchists have better theory. Seems like your unwillingness to read is a you problem.
I've read a good bit of The Conquest of Bread, haven't read the others, I may give them a look. I don't think you can make the claim that Anarchists have better theory when you were arguing against the idea that Marx wanted centralization and democratization over decentralization, you haven't seriously engaged with Marx to begin with, though. I think that's only something someone who has meaningfully engaged with both sides can claim.
I personally was an Anarcho-Syndicalist until the Marxist theory and history I read about made more sense to me. I have sympathies for Anarchists, as I was one myself, but personally I agree with Marx more because history has proven his ideas useful and correct.
But it hasn't. People trying to implement Marx keep getting their movements hijacked by capitalists like Stalin and Xi. Marxists can't defend their societies against capitalists.
Anarchists derive our ideas from 60,000 years of history. We have successful movements to draw our ideas from. We follow the example of actually existing communism.
First I said "state" not "nation" as those are in no way the same thing please do not substitute one for the other just because it is more expedient for your argument. It is a false equivalence as a state is a hierarchically organized polity and a nation need not have a polity at all.
No state has achieved communism in their attempt to pursue Marxust principles. They either decline into totalitarianism or abandon the pursuit of socialism and adopt a hybrid system like China has which comes with very mixed results for the working class.
Are you trying to argue that pre-agricultural societies were making an intentional choice to pursue the ideologies of Marx? That would be an odd position to take given most did not intentionally create an economic system nor would they have heard of Marx.
Finally, why are you bringing race into this at all? It isn't relevant and frankly it is inappropriate to highlight race when race isn't a factor in this.
You're right, of course. States are incompatible with communism. Marx said as much. Anarchism is the only way to a worker owned society.
That would be an odd position to take given most did not intentionally create an economic system
Now, that. That is some bullshit. Tribespeople aren't savages. They think about politics and economics. You'd do well to read Kayanerenko;wa.
It is not inaccurate to suggest that most tribal societies that organized in a communist fashion did not read Marx as most tribes that did this did so before Marx existed or published anything.
True but irrelevant
No, it is 100% relevant as that is why I made that claim.
An example of an irrelevant comment would be the comment you made bringing race into the conversation inappropriately. You should avoid that at all costs in the future.