this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
773 points (99.0% liked)

Memes

48660 readers
1848 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That's state socialism, a specific kind of socialism that wants to keep the state apparatus, not realizing that it will always (re)create a ruling class. Different from Libertarian Socialism which unironically want a stateless society, not as a never to reach end goal.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This isn't true, unless you have a different conception of what "class" is from Marx and Marxists. The State is the only path to a stateless society, in that the state disappears once all property is publicly owned and planned, and thus the "state" whithers away, leaving government behind.

For Marx, the State is chiefly the instruments of government that reinforce class society, like Private Property Rights, not the entire government.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 46 seconds ago

So the bolshevik state bureaucracy wasn't a new ruling class giving themselves privileges others didn't have?

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How would society handle critical functions such as water sanitation for millions of people without a state to enforce equitable share of the cost?

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

With a world wide net of councils, all connected but not centralized

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

“These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

This retains class, though. If your councils only have ownership of their own jurisdictions, then the members of each council are Petite Bourgeoisie. Marx specifically advocated for full centralization because chiefly it becomes a necessity anyways with increasingly complex production, but also because it gives more democratic control over the whole of the economy, not just individual bits.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 minutes ago

So we have a factory council open to all workers in the factory to make decisions and send revocable delegates to the city council where they talk to the delegates of farmer councils, consumer councils, .... If the factory council makes unfair decisions (and I assume you mean all the workers in the factory belong to the petite bourgeois since they all can attend the council), the consumer council can take collective action to counter it.

So who is the ruling class? Certainly not the bureaucracy as in liberal and bolshevik states since it doesn't exist here. Or is it the city council? They are revocable, not elected for a given period. Like the soviets before the Bolsheviks ruined everything.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

I see this in various flavors of anarchism and I don't get how it would work in practice. Hierarchies form to simplify the logistics and social cohesion of a disorganized network of subunits.

As a basic example, how the hell do collectives even communicate with those on other continents? It took millenia for humans to develop reliable seafaring technology, only made possible through the direction of state actors. Sea cables cost millions to maintain; satellite communication is even harder to achieve.

Assuming that any of these could even be accomplished strictly via collectives ("Why the hell should I give you my Chilean copper so you can throw it in the ocean to talk to Europe?"), operating these essential services gives access to power and coercion.

Somebody has to launch the ships or run the heart of the telegraph network. Will you centralize the authority of multiple collectives to regulate and monitor it?...

And if you don't do anything to bridge the ocean, what's to prevent ideological drift for that continent; getting a little too centralized for more efficient resource use? Even if your accessible web remains strong and ideologically pure, you have to pray that completely separate webs will be just as strong.

Anarcho-primitivism is the only critique that seems to own the inherent anti-civilization logic, but even then there's nothing stopping a collective-of-collectives from making a bigger pile of sharp rocks to subjugate you.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

How is that different from a state, aside from the decentralization of power?

What would prevent centralization of power?

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 minutes ago

aside from the decentralization of power?

That's the whole point. If your state concept is broad enough to entail any organization of a certain size, be my gast in a council republic

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Would these councils be elected by the people they represent?

Would they sit in a parliament and form a legislature?

That just sounds like Canada.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 minutes ago

Not exactly. The lowest level of councils is free for everyone to attend to. These neighborhood councils send delegates to the city level and so on. These delegates are revocable so when they don't do what the basis wants, they are gone. Also on each level, each group can opt out if they want. And decisions are made on the lowest level possible so much more voluntary and less central than Canada

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Easy, we connect all humans together in a telepathic Borg-like mindlink.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately I quite prefer my mind being the only one I can hear.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Don't knock schizophrenia till you try it. 9/10 voices in my head recommend it.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 1 points 18 hours ago

Shit that's all you had to say

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 22 hours ago

Socialism is always about recreating a ruling class: it is to make the working class into the ruling class.

There is no practical alternative to this. Imagine trying the only way: to immediately end class relations. You've won the revolution. Your ideological brethren are in power and the Great Workers' Council is going forward with your plan. How are you going to force people to end class relations? Won't it require a state? Who is enforcing the end of relations? If someone buys up an extra-big plot of land and starts charging tenants rent, reinventing semi-feudal relations, who is going to stop them? And what are you going to do about the bourgeoisie who still exist, especially those overseas, and are working against you to reopen your country for exploitation?

All of these basic realities require a state. And you cannot simply end all class relations instantaneously, as the wider public will not all agree with you ideologically. Unless you plan extreme forms of oppression for the entire population, you will need to deal with the remnants of various class relations in various forms, engaging, ideally, in a process that will whittle them away. That entire process will be recreating a ruling class, i.e. the working class, to impose this process on the other classes.