/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>610492

Fixes:

> In my opinion, it would even be more democratic than

It would be a lot more socialistic*

Excusi

And ignore the duplicate ghost thread that you cant acces.

>The state

The state is a centralized institution with a monopoly on the use of violence.

> collective ownership of the means of production (or lack of private property, which is basically the same, ie is everyone is super none is).

Most people's understanding of these things is via a capitalist straw-man explanation of these things which is wrong or deceiving.

First off, communists distinguish possession (the clothes you're wearing) from property (the plantation in Honduras you own shares in). So property has a different meaning - means of production is more accurate, as it describes what is being discussed.

More importantly, it's not about property or the means of production or these material things. That's all a kind of bourgeois commodity fetishism, or something akin to it. It's not about "things". It's about SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. There are no signs pointing down from the heavens saying he owns this and she owns that. If there were, it would probably show the US owned by the Indians. Why exactly does someone have some moral, eternal right to a farm he owns but does not work on, when some Indians driven off that land a century and a half before have no right to it? Yet if the hired workers on the farm tried to "seize" the land, they are bad? It makes no sense. It's all about social relations, relations of production and the current state of the forces of production.

Insofar as the state - states are a bourgeois creation. Both Marx and the anarchists believed this. Again, it's back to social relationships. The anarchists said since states are a bourgeois creation, when the workers take over, we should just form our own non-bourgeois institutions (anarcho-syndicalist unions, collectives etc.) Marx and his allies said this is the real world, and communists need to seize control of the bourgeois institution of the state, have a worldwide revolution, and then begin transforming these bourgeois institutions into socialist ones.

Marx thought the state was bourgeois. Marx did not think states were democratic, even if communist revolutionaries seized control of them. He thought they should be slowly transformed, whereas anarchists like Bakunin said they should be immediately be abolished.

None of them thought states were democratic, pro-worker etc. Not even Marx.

>>610555

Did you even read the post?

>>610558

So can you now give an answer to my post because

>given that the state or "state-but-not-called-a-state" is democratic

Though this begs the question when a state stops being a state and starts being "something that looks like a state superficially but isnt really one due to x and y reasons". Especially since I question the whole "monopoly on violence", given that an anarchist union or a federation of everyone would still punish acts of violence not endorsed by them and use violence to enact the will of the larger society on the few rebellious ones, such as capitalists or murderers. Perhaps our conception of what a state is has shifted throughout the years and this may cause confusion.

And I know it's about social relations and what private property is, hence why I used the terms private property and means of production in my post.

>>610492

>Is a situation wherein society as a whole controls the state (worldwide state, federation, syndicate, what have you) and thus means of production, not socialism?

It is, obviously. Worker control of production through a democratic state used to be the most popular conception of socialism but then the USSR fell and people starting worshiping co-ops instead.

>>610575

Yes?

I there a problem, officer?

:^)

Anarchists believe that the burden of proof rests upon those who claim hierarchical muh privileges for themselves or others, so, if some one is going to claim to be your king or your ruler they must justify that position to you and infact to every one and if the burden of proof cannot be met then that authority is illegitimate and should be dismantled by direct action and if necessary revolution.

So this:

>iven that an anarchist union or a federation of everyone would still punish acts of violence not endorsed by them and use violence to enact the will of the larger society on the few rebellious ones, such as capitalists or murderers.

Is bullshit

>>610575

>Especially since I question the whole "monopoly on violence", given that an anarchist union or a federation of everyone would still punish acts of violence not endorsed by them and use violence to enact the will of the larger society on the few rebellious ones, such as capitalists or murderers.

It's tangential, but this is already done. Stun guns, tear gas - violence can already be countered with less violent means. That's a side point though.

I think it's tautological thinking. Within capitalism there is violence and murder, so how can violence be countered without violence?

We don't look to the future, we can look to the past, or even the not yet "civilized" corners of the earth like the deep Amazon jungle. How much violence and murder goes on there? Despite bourgeois propaganda, the answer is very little, almost none really.

I mean Honduras and Colombia have large murder rates (and a large degree of class conflict, not unrelated). Iceland and Sweden have very low murder rates (and less class conflict). Iceland had one murder last year, in a country of 329,100 people. With changes in the world and Iceland's social system, you could easily see this figure going to zero. Thus, no more murder problems.

Violence and murder and killing are absolute necessities in class societies. They are unneeded in classless societies. I mean, how many big an issue is murder in Iceland with one murder last year? I think that's due to world pressure, with changes in the world I'm sure that could be lessened. It no longer becomes a problem.

If the state were to own both a monopoly on legitimate violence and the means of production, then there would be nothing to check its tyranny. Indeed, that is exactly what happens in such states. Consider this: in societies where the state controls the means of production, what recourse does the population have? How can it see its grievances addressed? If it can not do so, then that is tyranny, a tyranny that is ultimately no different than the very similar situation in liberal capitalist societies.

>>610636

I see, you are just shitposting and are triggered by the word state, even though the OP explicitly stated that the state would be democratic.

>>610669

>you could easily see this figure going to zero. Thus, no more murder problems.

I think this is far too idealistic. There will always be insane people who want to murder people just for the fun of it.

>Tribes in the amazon

If someone in those tribes kills one of their own, they get put to death or exiled (which is basically a death sentence).

>>610693

>what recourse does the population have?

So basically this comes down to what definition of state we are using. A federation in which the means of production are owned by the federation but operated by the workers would be the same as a democratic socialist state.

Thanks.

>>610492

I read this in Zizek's voice, how bizarre.

Yes, state socialism is socialism, with the goal of utilizing the bourgeois state until it, as a form of governmentality, no longer exists, eroded by the advance of socialism towards communism. It has been smeared by what you call "state despotism" as the Soviet Union had no private property or market economy, but nonetheless the means of production were not owned or managed collectively and democratically. So we know the abolition of private property and even the market economy will not change enough for socialism to be successful.

>It does not have classes, since there is no one who owns or controls the means of production more than the other.

Now we're getting into interesting territory. Marx specifically said that the state must be seized to suppress the bourgeoisie: in this sense it is a facet of class struggle that will not disappear until there are no more classes, i.e. communism. Socialism is still a class society, only it is one where the proletariat has completed its struggle for political power, and is now wielding it collectively and democratically.

Keep in mind that a classless society is something that must be striven towards. The proletariat will seize a bourgeois state: with all of its associated problems, power relations, and institutions. Those must be dismantled and changed into something different. Effectively, the moment a society is fully "socialist" it ceases to be and becomes communist. Socialism exists because class struggle against reactionaries and old power structures is ongoing. Once that is completed it has fulfilled its purpose.

Anarchists believe, not without some justification, that this process is one that is easily corrupted. I would put that down to the sheer brutality of class struggle as a material phenomenon. It is an epochal struggle, an existential one for the bourgeoisie and all of those who wish to wield ultimate power over humankind. And anarchists may yet have their own Soviet Union. Who can say what the future holds.

>>611223

Thanks. sniff

>>611268

Thanks fam

>>611268

>There is a big difference between "a state-like organisation in a socialist world" and "the state" in all historical and present societies. That is why they are distinguished.

This is actually a pretty major point of it. There is actually a fairly big difference between a state that is separate from and rules over society and an organizational body that is comprised of the society.

But of course when this is pointed out it's "Just don't call it a state :DDD"

>>611223

>So we know the abolition of private property and even the market economy will not change enough for socialism to be successful.

Indeed, Twentieth Century attempts at socialism perfectly illustrate the maxim that changes to the superstructure are always merely temporary without the means of production being in the hands of the proletariat.