• webghost0101 ( webghost0101@sopuli.xyz ) English
    7·
    12 days ago

    To me (anarchist) communism means no social classes of any kind.

    The political or ruling class is a social class, therefor any form of modern state that is not actively trying to devolve itself into a decentralized network without leaders is anti-communist by nature, regardless what they tell you.

    • Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) English
      1·
      6 days ago

      This is largely just a disagreement you have with Marx on what class means. For Marx, class is a social category related to ownership of the means of production, and all class societies are divided primarily into two classes, an owning class and a working class. The ruling class of society is the one that owns the state and the commanding heights of the economy. By insinuating that there is a “political class,” you create a third class that exists outside of the class struggle, oppressing all, but this isn’t how states function or how the state relates to the economic base.

      This is why the Marxist path to class abolition requires collectivizing all production and distribution, not simply dismantling as much hierarchy as possible. There’s intra-class hierarchy, which can be benign or not, and inter-class hierarchy, which the working class can wield to it’s own advantage by becoming the ruling class. It isn’t the “political class” that controls the state, but instead one of the two primary classes in any given society, the workers or owners.

      As the state collectivizes production and distribution, it creates one unified society that sees no distinction in ownership, thus creating classless society and eliminating the need for a state to keep the ruling class on top, as there is no distinction between workers and owners, as all occupy both.

      • Unruffled [they/them] ( Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English
        3·
        5 days ago

        There’s intra-class hierarchy, which can be benign or not, and inter-class hierarchy, which the working class can wield to it’s own advantage by becoming the ruling class. It isn’t the “political class” that controls the state, but instead one of the two primary classes in any given society, the workers or owners.

        The problem with this analysis is that you don’t have to own capital to control capital. So while in communist states technically a leader might not own the means of production, if they are making decisions about the uses of capital then there is little practical difference, especially when their position of authority can not be effectively challenged. Thus class just becomes a function of proximity to power and control over capital, same as capitalism.

        How do we solve that problem?

        edit: genuinely curious

      • webghost0101 ( webghost0101@sopuli.xyz ) English
        1·
        6 days ago

        Thanks for you eloquent reply.

        You might be on to something there, mainly that while i stil very much respect Marx and the work he did, i have found myself deviating from his philosophies as i got more left on the political spectrum.

        For example the dictatorship of the proletariat never sat right with me. Power in my observation always corrupts, regardless of who holds it.

        I instead find myself much more in agreement with Kropotkin. Its quite telling that while Kropotkin did get a preferable treatment being somewhat on friendly terms with Lenin his fellow anarchist got prosecuted under Bolshevik rule. Which to me sounds like state cencorship, oppresion of individual freedom.

        Needless to say i would have been prosecuted the same. So i while i do respect marx for his theory i firmly oppose Lenin his practical execution.

        • Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) English
          2·
          6 days ago

          Extending the thoughts of my previous comment, the state can only ever be the dictatorship of a given class. In classless society, there is no class to be dictator, and thus there is no basis for the state. The state exists for class supremacy. The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a democratic system where the working class controls all political power, and uses the state against those that would oppose the interests of the working class (typically the owning class, but also class traitors).

          The notion that “power corrupts” isn’t actually how administrative positions function in reality. Power isn’t some supernatural force that people turn metaphysically evil by. Administrative positions allow people levers, and these levers can be twisted in their own favor. At the same time, administration is a necessity for large-scale production and distribution, the kind necessary to achive classless society, meet the needs of everyone, expand everyone’s freedoms, and achieve scientific, collective planned goals. Keeping the problems that can come from manipulating these levers in check is a problem of form of organization, not a challenge to the necessity of these positions.

          I used to be an anarchist, but understanding scientific socialism as presented by Marx and Engels leads me to accept Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally correct. The vanguard path to revolution as is key to Leninism is merely an advance in the strategy of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a change in what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like.

          • webghost0101 ( webghost0101@sopuli.xyz ) English
            2·
            6 days ago

            I understand the theory you are coming from but with all respect reading your comment made me shiver. “State supremacy” most of all.

            I do not trust any individual to control levers that they can adjust in their own favour or ideals, especialy not the levers that can dictate who is and who is not a class traitor. It does not take a supernatural force to start punishing anyone critical of the leadership as traitors and have others agreeing against their interests out of fear of being branded a traitor.

            In an ideal world i think no state should exist at all, more realistically it should be as decentralised as can be keeping organisational powers as local as can be with no offices one individual can hold.

            I do find myself fortunatly priviledged to live in the age of internet communication. Therefor i can envision such decentralized system where all individuals can join and attend to organize shared interests.

            Administration and measurements can be provider transparantly for all to read like open source projects. Good ideas can spread organicly and be Imitated by any people to fit their own usecase.

            Without modern tools it seems more then logical to have a centralized administration to coordinate the many parts of a society. But we have the means to evolve past needing such.