Post AiIM53yY68ShYNBKL2 by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
(DIR) More posts by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
(DIR) Post #AiHk4k4yHAHzaUbbhA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T14:01:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Do you think some sort of transition state is necessary to achieve communism? If not, why, and if so, what kind? (I will be throughly examining and critiquing arguments from both sides in order to come to a proper conclusion on this matter)
(DIR) Post #AiHkNNIND4I4QWl7RI by adaoist@todon.eu
2024-05-26T14:04:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom a state could never usher in communism. It's like saying in order to completely decentralize power, we need to first completely centralize it, then by some magic we'll persuade ppl with power to give it up.
(DIR) Post #AiHld51yz3x0Mu93nU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T14:18:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@adaoist The argument that I hear from transitional state supporters is that a transitional state is necessary to dismantle the existing power structures, redistribute resources, and facilitate the transition from capitalism to communism. Could you explain how we could do these things without a state?
(DIR) Post #AiHm6ilYKSuq0CatMm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T14:24:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cass_m How can we address the desire for some individuals to have others take charge? Surely there must be ways to educate and empower people to participate more actively in decision-making processes.
(DIR) Post #AiHmPRc8K8E8JC7GN6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T14:27:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djuuss @adaoist I never considered that specific use of markets before. Thanks for your imput!
(DIR) Post #AiHmRRfd5Khb3who2K by adaoist@todon.eu
2024-05-26T14:28:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Well, it will depend on material and ideological conditions, and that's all in the future, but I would suggest a lot of local organization coordinated into confederation, which anyone can join. People can act individually of course, but if they are organized and coordinated, they can do anything. So if there were a lot of businesses that needed to be expropriated, they could teach workers how to do that, provide them support, or just encourage it. If there were lots of reactionaries, racists, etc., a sufficiently organized group or network can keep an eye on them, report on their activities, and stop them before they start.We have lots of models we can learn from, from the Paris Commune to Rojava, but would inevitably have to adjust them to local circumstances.
(DIR) Post #AiHnOz3Kc7mzgJBLv6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T14:38:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adaoist It would be important for local organizations to remain inclusive and representative of the broader community. One fear that I have is that it will be impossible to convince enough people to willing participate in expropriation. I would assume some method of education to convince people to voluntarily participate would be required, and the success of the revolution would solely depend on the effectiveness of this education.
(DIR) Post #AiHoUfcVsP7Z6VuhJA by Rob200@mastodon.floe.earth
2024-05-26T14:51:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom It might depend on the politics of a specific country and who has power and how much power and influence they have.In the U.S you have capitalists who write the laws and bribe for changes in their interest.In places with less influence you might be more likely to manage Communism with a transitional state.If you do this without a transitional state i'm afraid any progress made towards communism could be taken away at any point of time.
(DIR) Post #AiHs6lHJaVjhWEqxEm by MMRnmd@todon.eu
2024-05-26T15:31:32Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom It mainly depends on the size of the city/population you're talking about.Uner a couple of thousands people, like for a town or a small city, no transition state would be needed, roles would be pretty simple and quick to attribute.But in the case of a huge city, let alone a several million people state, I do not see how processing the transition would be possible without, at least, the skeleton of a state : finances/taxes allocations, organization of a citizen led security standards aso.Just the same way we prototype software, we would do so with anarcho-communism till we reach an acceptable organization for most of us.Difficult to elaborate a complex explanation with only a few lines.But the idea would be basically to begin with neighbourhood, then the town, then city/state and eventually a nation.But by any means, no nations bigger than a couple of millions would be possible to build that way.And this is a good thing.Who needs a country of billions citizens ?Small entities would prevail us from building huge and expensive weapons while it'll enable to make sure money won't disappear in out of control tremendous projects.Anyway, it's my opinion, and I sure share it with me, myself and I.
(DIR) Post #AiHsThAP2Z8PQaYVt2 by Tiempo@todon.eu
2024-05-26T15:35:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I think the problem of the question is that it asumes to scenarios: stateless society as in full free for all individualities interacting or state as monopoly of lethal force. The answer is very good explained by IWW, before the stateless society we need to build the structures that will replace state. They don't need to be fully matured but enough to be sure that "bread" gets to everyone (Kropotkin makes a big point on that). That way, after the state is destroyed (probably by violence) the society can transition with haste as it haves the basic to surpass a chaotic first phase (there is no need to a war between everyone if access is guaranteed). Barcelona experiment worked like that, in middle of the war, the new society was build, so once the state were fully destroyed there would be a net where services existed.
(DIR) Post #AiHsoQP2YzMrW6HqbY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T15:39:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tiempo What specific structures and institutions would need to be built to replace the functions of the state and ensure the equitable distribution of resources and services in a stateless society?
(DIR) Post #AiHt6run0qum3YvqHQ by Tiempo@todon.eu
2024-05-26T15:42:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom for example, popular hospitals/clinics, popular schools, workers owned bakeries and so on. The harder are the big ones, but we can start with having strong union there that, wen revolution starts, can keep the work while everything folds out.
(DIR) Post #AiHtbnDsVYEQTtbegC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T15:48:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Tiempo That does seem to be the most practical thing to do. But what mechanisms would be put in place to prevent the co-option of these institutions by capitalist interests or counter-revolutionary forces?
(DIR) Post #AiHu8E5w8NmR5cMCzw by Tiempo@todon.eu
2024-05-26T15:54:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Violence jajajajajSo far, popular schools can't be coopted as they works without a monetary gain mindset, for example, and are anticapitalist by natureWhat can't be prevented just by the institutional design is if a mercenary army comes and attack the school, but it will happen only during revolution (so violent means of protection will be deployed) or the first epoch post revolution, but as institution won't be centrally defined, it will stop to make sense attacking them because there isn't a big institution to be destroyed so will lose any gain possibility very fast.
(DIR) Post #AiHuNjbNH2w99PSNv6 by Tiempo@todon.eu
2024-05-26T15:57:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom it's guerrilla tactic in institutional design. Unless you have the means to destroy everything, there is no chance of winning. And as capitalist had, supposedly lost the war, and thinks as old money will lose the economic power, it will be very hard to do that
(DIR) Post #AiI0H0rjHxTEOKHj6W by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T17:03:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I believe in means-ends unity. You can't achieve statelessnes by a state. Historically that never worked and will never work, because everybody looks after their own interest. Those in power won't remove their oportunity just like that.
(DIR) Post #AiI3JriM4KFqjyx4bo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T17:37:08Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo Some people who argue in favor of a transitional state propose that the state be decentralized and allow thing like political pluralism and making workers' councils the primary organs of power in order to prevent people in positions of authority from having all the power. What are your thoughts on that?
(DIR) Post #AiI4AtkVEbe2OnFDRg by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T17:46:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Even then, you will have hierarchies and the people on top will become the next capitalists. That's what happened in my country after the Communist party came to power. Most anarchists actually believed they are free for the first time until their newspapers started being banned and all of them presecuted. The Federation of the Anarchists in Bulgaria became completely illegal during that time until 1993 (if I'm not mistaken).
(DIR) Post #AiI4tSVTMsLewISj7Q by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T17:54:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Actually it's 1990.https://www.anarchy.bg/%d0%b8%d1%81%d1%82%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b8%d1%8f/%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%80%d1%85%d0%be%d0%ba%d0%b0%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b4%d0%b0%d1%80/%d0%bd%d0%b0-19-%d0%bc%d0%b0%d0%b9-1990-%d0%b3-%d0%b2-%d0%ba%d0%b0%d0%b7%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%bb%d1%8a%d0%ba-%d0%b5-%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b2%d1%8a%d0%b7%d1%81%d1%82/
(DIR) Post #AiI5jqyVdlTnsv1mJU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T18:04:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo One reason supporters of transitional state give as to why what you described happened is due to the lack of proper checks and balances within the goverment, and a lack of transparency and accountability for goverment officials, as well as having no rotation of leadership roles to prevent one person or a small group of bureaucrats from accumulating power, and that with these things the transitional state can avoid becoming repressive.
(DIR) Post #AiI6WftXcn61i4z3K4 by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T18:13:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom there are no checks and balances when someone rules over you. The people in power will always have the upper hand. Such things are what liberals usually want to tell. For me that's bed time stories. Even the propper autonomious sindicates achieve what they want with disobedience, most of the time, not with checks and balances.
(DIR) Post #AiIEOrLNyMUUXFnAKu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T19:41:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sindy You do make a compelling case for the necessity of a transitional state. We must acknowledge the immediate needs and realities of our struggle. It appears to be a strategic choice rooted in the lessons of history and the imperative of solidarity.
(DIR) Post #AiII5VzFYLVec1TAau by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-05-26T20:22:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom A transition state is necessary because you can't get everybody to agree on exactly how society should be organized, and the more radical the change the more people will resist it.I'm not sure what form a transition should take, but I believe it needs 30-40 years to bring enough of the population along without large numbers of them feeling oppressed.
(DIR) Post #AiIKgHYeMX2kU5gg2S by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T20:38:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @Radical_EgoCom imo if you wait everyone to agree with you, that will be a long wait and taking over the state will make the situation worse, because you will become their master. That's what happened in the most bolshevik ruled countries.Wouldn't be better to provide the needs of the people before the revolution, so they can trust you more when that happens?
(DIR) Post #AiIKgIozfFi8P4LF9U by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T20:51:43Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle I think that the argument that people make for transitional states is that in the absence of a transitional state there's no guarantee that people will support you even if you do everything in your power to gain their trust before the revolution because there will be opititional forces that will get in your way, making it necessary in the eyes of state communist for the existence of some sort of state.
(DIR) Post #AiILQoDTGtJp5qy048 by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T21:00:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle there will always be opposition. The issue is that if you take over the state you will become the opposition. Most successful anarchist societies did not do that and every the leaders of any socialist revolution who did that actually became an authoritarian counter revolutionary after they did that.
(DIR) Post #AiILx65CNaFrlwUf7Q by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:05:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle I know that transitional states in the past ended up becoming counter revolutionary, but what about the safeguards that some supporters of transitional states propose as solutions to prevent the state from ending up that way, like decentralization and rotating positions for government officials?
(DIR) Post #AiIM53yY68ShYNBKL2 by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-05-26T21:07:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @nlupo Exactly, you cant get everyone to agree with you but you need to make sure those that hate and fear you are an insignificant minority, otherwise it will devolve into violence.There is also the subject of foreign interference. Countries current economies rely on international trade, you take action that causes shockwaves in governments abroad you should expect interference both clandestine and overt.
(DIR) Post #AiIMEn6XgA9E7mYj0y by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T21:09:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle Tell me how is that different than what we have now in many republics? And why it does not work actually? Can you show me how that can be achieved at all?
(DIR) Post #AiINL26UvP6AKs4vr6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:21:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle From what I understand, the primary difference would be the objectives and goals of this transitional state, being the elimination of the inclinations towards capitalism, class, money, and inevitably the state, as opposed to current republics that have no such goals or objectives. But back to the safeguards to prevent the transitional state from becoming counter-revolutionary that I mentioned before. Do you think those would be sufficient?
(DIR) Post #AiIP8bxUVSRrgH4QHA by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-26T21:41:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle I need to know about the safeguards. Can you elaborate more on that?
(DIR) Post #AiIQ7tSM43R5c7jDJg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:52:45Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 1/6 Decentralizing power allows for greater autonomy and decision-making at the local level, empowering communities to address their specific needs and concerns. This prevents the concentration of power in a central authority and creates grassroots participation in governance.
(DIR) Post #AiIQAnm5e4AurSLW4G by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:53:17Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 2/6 Decentralization also encourages diversity in governance approaches and policies, as different regions or municipalities can experiment with various models of socialist organization. This flexibility enables the adaptation of socialist principles to local contexts and promotes innovation in governance.
(DIR) Post #AiIQD0WZDIA2yz8YOO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:53:40Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 3/6 By dispersing power across multiple levels of government and society, decentralization reduces the risk of authoritarianism and prevents the emergence of a centralized dictatorship. It creates checks and balances within the system, as power is distributed among multiple autonomous entities.
(DIR) Post #AiIQEySBsn9P8k1mVc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:54:02Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 4/6 Rotating government positions ensures that no individual or group becomes entrenched in power, mitigating the risk of bureaucratization and elite capture. Regular turnover of leadership roles creates a culture of accountability and prevents the consolidation of authority.
(DIR) Post #AiIQGgdB7OvIRVz3Ls by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:54:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 5/6 Rotating positions encourage broader participation in governance, as more individuals have the opportunity to hold leadership roles and contribute to decision-making. This promotes inclusivity and diversity in governance, reflecting the principles of socialist democracy.
(DIR) Post #AiIQIWWjehVRgXqW8W by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-26T21:54:41Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle 6/6 Regular rotation of officials reduces the likelihood of corruption and nepotism, as individuals can not maintain control over key positions indefinitely. It promotes meritocracy and prevents the formation of entrenched power cliques that may undermine the socialist project.
(DIR) Post #AiIYRv82M7SUE2HkWm by adaoist@todon.eu
2024-05-26T23:26:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom anarchists will need to be there educating at every step :)
(DIR) Post #AiIzIEltAQFJ0rX65g by RadicalEcologist@todon.eu
2024-05-27T04:26:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComIf a state exists, it must pursue self-preservation as its primary objective, or it will not survive or achieve its other objectives. Therefore, it is a logical impossibility for a state to exist with the objective of eliminating the state, assuming that is what you meant by achieving communism.
(DIR) Post #AiJ1OEZV1TRk2Tj0mu by Napo@hispagatos.space
2024-05-27T04:50:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom a transition state would never ever end up in communism since we are humans, we love power.
(DIR) Post #AiJBLrnhiEq6NXsYpU by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-27T06:41:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle I don't think you can build aoutonomious structures from the topdown position. All you propose expect the people on the top to have perfect knowlege, which is not possible. You can't know how the people want to organize themselves. All you can do, is to enforce some structure on them blindly. That will just bring a lot of conflicts between your idas and those of the other people. 1/2
(DIR) Post #AiJUHREQS4Wjwmynjs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T10:14:01Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@RadicalEcologist I don't agree with either your premise or your conclusion. A state does have to pursue self preservation as an objective, but I see no reason why that objective must be its primary objective, especially when ran by people who believe in the eventual abolition of the state.
(DIR) Post #AiJUkIFgutX2UmKZaS by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-05-27T10:19:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @RadicalEcologist Homeostasis and resilience are a pretty important feature of any entity (including organizations, like a state). There’s a really interesting / important tension to consider in this. With living beings, we consider neglect of our perpetuation to be suicide, and suicide to be pathological. Why would it be different for other complex system entities?
(DIR) Post #AiJUoHWvXj59PlIKFE by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T10:19:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Napo That's not a very convincing argument. First, all humans don't love power, and second, the argument "we are humans, we love power" could just as easily be made to argue against the possibility of an anarchist or communist society, which would be inaccurate.
(DIR) Post #AiJVrAKcrYddubTo6S by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-27T06:45:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle That most likely will make you want to punish them, because you can't know whether they are genuine revolutionaries or some reactionaries who want to sabotage the transition. And that will make you conter revolutionary. 2/2
(DIR) Post #AiJVrBOCvj67C0ABKC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T10:31:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle I don't think autonomous structures can be built from the top-down either. From my perspective, autonomous structures can only be made from the bottom-up. The idea that I've seen is that these autonomous structures would run and manage themselves, and the transitional state would only exist to protect them from counter-revolutionary forces, while also having the safeguards I mentioned previously to prevent itself from becoming counter-revolutionary.
(DIR) Post #AiJW4HQPnjL7fzRPV2 by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-05-27T10:34:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Do you mean transition state as in “state of being” or transition state as in structured set of organizations that conduct formal governance?
(DIR) Post #AiJWQ9qWexwAXe5PSS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T10:37:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter A structured set of organizations that conduct formal governance.
(DIR) Post #AiJWt4bzCUfyhm4cE4 by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-05-27T10:43:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Got it. I’m torn, but partly because of the scale aspect. I think (and can probably rustle up enough reliable research to justify the argument that) nation-states are fundamentally dysfunctional entities. And that party-based electoral politics is a major barrier to reform (let alone transformation)I sympathize with what I’ve read of Bookchin’s stuff on confederal municipalism, and see strong connections with pluriversalism, local autonomy projects, etc. I know there are arguments for the use of current structures as vehicles for anarchist transformation, but if I understand correctly (having not read sufficiently in depth), they’re more about using the municipal and local structures rather than National or meso-scale (like states in AUS and USA or provinces in Canada).
(DIR) Post #AiJXUhyJp5lfUdStRA by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-27T10:49:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle you can't build that from the position of the state, because in order to do it you can enforce it, and to do that you have to have special privilege over the common people and that makes all the checks and ballances useless. Anarchist ruler is a contradiction.On the other hand if you already have autonomious structures, you don't need a state, but a way to organize them. Platformism is a good example of that.You can have them now. It's a matter of organization.
(DIR) Post #AiJY2lH6386jaBUCHo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T10:56:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nlupo @duckwhistle I'm not saying that autonomous structures should or can even be built from the position of the state. I think they can only be built on a community level, with a state existing not to create these autonomous structures, but to protect them, as I'm not convinced that these autonomous structures would be strong enough, at least at first, to be able to protect themselves.
(DIR) Post #AiJZ5oXsRgruY7M2rY by nlupo@xno.social
2024-05-27T11:07:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @duckwhistle they don't need to be like that, if they start simple, just work on how to sustain themselves first and if they work outside of the system. They can become robust enough when they become too visible. That probably will need organization on a higer level, because no small group can achieve everything by themselves. That can be done with delegates. Currently we have many different groups across the world, thanks to the hard work of our predecessors.
(DIR) Post #AiJfaxOCDJiSgE3kRs by Yorkshiregeek@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T12:20:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom yes, as it would be a culture shock for too many and too difficult to adapt.but I'd also be worried about anyone dealing with the transition not letting go of the power and ending up in a Soviet state with a broken version of it.
(DIR) Post #AiJftB8JqwRUWDK1aK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T12:24:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Yorkshiregeek That's why I don't like the Soviet Union state model. It was too centralized and didn't have enough measures to prevent the consolidation of power by a few bureaucrats. I would much rather prefer a decentralized transitional state with the proper mechanism to assure that power not be accumulated by anyone.
(DIR) Post #AiJh9Pb3wfDfxq4Sjg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T12:38:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aradio_berlin I don't see the point in adding these four options. The question I'm asking is a binary question, either a transitional state is needed or it's not needed, and "might be needed" and "will probably not be needed" are essentially the same thing and would also fall under the category of a transitional state being needed.
(DIR) Post #AiJhNM7BggI3DfkJlI by Yorkshiregeek@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T12:40:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I'm not highly read up for the failing of the Soviet Union, but too much power by a few definitely seems to have been an issue.when I think about how things should be run I always believe in a community lead but without so much bureaucracy that nothing gets achieved for the benefit of the people
(DIR) Post #AiJlNQc9MHaGzUWDIm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T13:25:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aradio_berlin The basis of my question does not imply that a transitional state is sensible or not. "Do you think some sort of transition state is necessary to achieve communism?" was the question. Nothing about the phrasing of that implies that a transitional state is sensible. It leaves the sensibleness of a transitional state up to the respondent to determine.
(DIR) Post #AiK01WHd6CphVxvozg by taschenorakel@mastodon.green
2024-05-27T16:09:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Whatever change you plan: It only works if that change is supported by a wide majority of people. Any other kind of changes ALWAYS leads to violence and supression.
(DIR) Post #AiK3P73QqpsU54ETWS by sorceressofmathematics@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T16:47:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Yes, but it probably wouldn't look much like the state as we know it. Depending on your exact definition of a state, it might not necessarily even qualify as one; for example, it may not need a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion.
(DIR) Post #AiK49gwtjCeMj7O2IC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T16:55:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@sorceressofmathematics The kind of transitional state that I would prefer is one that is decentralized with rotating positions for government officials and many checks and balances to prevent the emergence of a bureaucratic ruling class like in the Soviet Union.
(DIR) Post #AiK4FmrIfWm0nDfu2y by rvinson@liberdon.com
2024-05-27T16:57:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @sorceressofmathematics
(DIR) Post #AiK5i9ml7ZLTxfdtMO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T17:13:25Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rvinson @sorceressofmathematics The problem I see with past socialist transitional states is that they were heavily centralized and had little to no safety measures to prevent a bureaucratic ruling class from emerging. Something like Council Communism could potentially address these issues by promoting decentralized decision-making and direct democracy at the local level.
(DIR) Post #AiK6Vs4jF0zRVtklG4 by adaoist@todon.eu
2024-05-27T17:22:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @sorceressofmathematics the "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't have to be a state. It could just mean the effect of smashing the police and all other law enforcement, plus the right wing: the rest of the people take over, making everything available to everyone.People will start organizing at that point, as they usually do, but of course we will be around and will already have consensus-based, non-hierarchical organizations as a model.Although, as I said, that's all in the future, so in the present it's all just speculation. If we smash the state, we might already have a very strong confederation.
(DIR) Post #AiK7P011QAwO4CJ41A by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T17:32:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adaoist @sorceressofmathematics I completely reject the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the traditional Marxist-Leninist sense. The workers' councils that Council Communism advocates for seem more reasonable, as they align more with my beliefs in direct democracy and decentralized workers' self-management.
(DIR) Post #AiK8wS2OMAPOUCSimG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T17:49:35Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rvinson @sorceressofmathematics Or, better yet, Marxist Federalism fits more with my current position.
(DIR) Post #AiKA4cwTnTy2Zq9w8G by mistergibson@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T18:02:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Parallel construction (Dual Power) will provide the infrastructure for a transitional state. We can do this legally - no guns
(DIR) Post #AiKJi14aubn2IaoOwa by jhulten@fosstodon.org
2024-05-27T19:50:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @adaoist @sorceressofmathematicsI also think we need to examine the thought that "people" will do anything. There is a lot of "Educate" to do like when and how to compromise, what it means to disagree but commit on a non hierarchical basis, etc.
(DIR) Post #AiKXuJquJdjDNJAdZg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T22:29:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@theceoofanarchism It's not necessarily the case that all transitional states will follow the pattern of failing to fully dismantle hierarchical structures and perpetuate authoritarianism. The problem with past transitional states was their tendency to centralize power, which resulted in bureaucratic control and authoritarianism. A transitional state that incorporates decentralized decision-making and workers' self-management could avoid those pitfalls.
(DIR) Post #AiKZV1VDbQmB8I5jRA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T22:47:11Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@theceoofanarchism The idea that all hierarchy and authority must be attacked immediately and without exception overlooks the complexities of revolutionary struggle and the challenges of transitioning from capitalism. In practice, some level of organization and governance may be necessary during the transition period.
(DIR) Post #AiKciyIQcVcr6aS48W by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T23:23:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@theceoofanarchism Which part of my previous comment are you disagreeing with?
(DIR) Post #AiKe1Vv2RyGOYDuu1I by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-27T23:37:53Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@theceoofanarchism Well, I've examined both sides of this topic, and for a long time I was on the side of no transitional state, but after many debates with people and a lot of research, I've found that the transitional state provides more security for revolution than the forms of organization that anarchists suggest. Vital alterations need to be made on the transitional state model, but a transitional state seems more logical.
(DIR) Post #AiKgS5Sp7KywEGWCCe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T00:05:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell @theceoofanarchism Societies can transition towards communism through various stages of development. Of the research that I've done on the topic, the process involves significant changes in governance, economy, and social organization, which may include the existence of transitional states or forms of governance.
(DIR) Post #AiKh788c520gOZdUXI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T00:12:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@livinghell @theceoofanarchism Marxism provides a framework for understanding historical and social development, including the transition from capitalism to communism. Marxism differing from anarchist communism in its approach and theoretical underpinnings does not render the concept of transition to communism meaningless or nonsensical. Also, Marxism's assumptions are based on historical materialism and dialectical materialism, not idiosyncratic notions.
(DIR) Post #AiKiHPWeO6llAkLSca by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T00:25:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell You're making many bold assertions with no evidence to support them. Marxist have a coherent definition of communism. It's the same definition that all communists have, a stateless classless society with collective ownership of the means of production. Marxist having a method that involves a transitional state in order to achieve communism in no way makes them not communist, and to claim the contrary is blatantly false.
(DIR) Post #AiKmmKAElt2TKzrF3Y by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:15:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@livinghell 1/3 There are many things factually incorrect with what you've said. While it's true that Marxism acknowledges different stages of development, including the transition from capitalism to communism, it does not define communism solely as a movement that abolishes the current regime. Marxists do recognize the ultimate goal of achieving a moneyless, stateless society based on worldwide organization of labor, as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.
(DIR) Post #AiKmojZDIMYChbgnAm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:16:26Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@livinghell 2/2 Additionally, the concept of transitional states or stages, such as low stage communism, is indeed present in Marxist theory, as seen in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. Transition to communism involves a process of social transformation, which may include phases of state socialism or social democracy, but it ultimately aims to reach the stateless communist society envisioned by Marx and Engels.
(DIR) Post #AiKnWdZgw4IWrKqbpI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:24:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell This is factually incorrect. Marx envisioned communism as a stateless society, where the state apparatus would wither away as class distinctions dissolved. Marx's concept of communism is inherently stateless, as he described it as a classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers. Therefore, defining communism as stateless is consistent with Marx's ideas.
(DIR) Post #AiKoEn3R3FMr0AoVg8 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:32:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell I already stated that Marxist have a clear definition of communism before. Also, I don't subscribe to Egoist Communism anymore, but I can't change that part of my account.
(DIR) Post #AiKoj9q4u4WqM22vmi by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:37:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell 1/3 The assertion that "Communism can not be defined as stateless according to Marx" is not entirely accurate. Marx envisioned communism as a stateless society where class divisions are abolished, and individuals have equal access to resources and the means of production. While Marx did discuss the "withering away of the state" as a characteristic of communism, he viewed this as a gradual process resulting from the establishment of a classless society rather than an inherent feature
(DIR) Post #AiKokcadUfFNoUWNqi by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:38:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell 2/3 The statement that "It is not moneyless either in its lower stage" is also misleading. Marx described a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism, often referred to as the lower stage of communism or socialism, where money and commodity exchange still exist but are gradually phased out as society progresses towards communism. However, the ultimate goal of communism, as envisioned by Marx, is a moneyless and classless society.
(DIR) Post #AiKoljrLx0cMeJsCzA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:38:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell 3/3 It is inaccurate to suggest that "progress is communism and nothing else." Marx's conception of communism involves the abolition of private property, the means of production being collectively owned, and the end of class distinctions, among other aspects. Progress towards communism involves social transformation and the establishment of new social relations, but it is not synonymous with all forms of progress.
(DIR) Post #AiKpChFDmVaaMEtMgK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:43:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell You're correct in pointing out that Marx did not provide a detailed blueprint for the specific features of a communist society in the way some later thinkers might have done. However, he did outline key principles and characteristics of communism throughout his writings, including "The Communist Manifesto." While Marx didn't offer a precise description of what a fully realized communist society would look like, he did envision it as a stateless, classless society where resources...
(DIR) Post #AiKpEZ4F9djVZmeEfw by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:43:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell ...and the means of production were commonly owned and where the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" would apply.In "The Communist Manifesto," Marx and Engels discussed the transitional period between capitalism and communism, often referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat, during which the state would be used as a tool by the working class to suppress the bourgeoisie and establish the conditions for communism. However,...
(DIR) Post #AiKpHSaLiAm0LC2u4O by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:44:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell ...Marx also wrote about the eventual "withering away" of the state as class distinctions and antagonisms disappeared, leading to a truly stateless society.So, while Marx didn't provide a detailed blueprint for communism, he did outline its broad principles and characteristics, including its stateless nature and the abolition of class divisions. Therefore, it's accurate to say that Marx envisioned communism as a stateless society where class divisions are abolished and...
(DIR) Post #AiKpHpJpBmDmqbUX0S by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:44:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livinghell ...individuals have equal access to resources and the means of production.
(DIR) Post #AiKqIAa6EekskJpbTE by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:55:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@violetmadder @livinghell 1/3 What you've outlined here appears to be a misinterpretation of Marx's views on indigenous societies and the stages of societal development. Marx did not categorize First Nations peoples as "primitive" in a derogatory sense, nor did he propose that they needed to transition through capitalism to reach communism.
(DIR) Post #AiKqJlJt7zbyyi0YRk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:55:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@violetmadder @livinghell 2/3 Marx's analysis of historical materialism recognizes that different societies evolve through various stages of development based on their mode of production. However, this does not imply a linear progression from primitive to advanced societies or that capitalism is a necessary stage for achieving communism.
(DIR) Post #AiKqKrJYKFkPrMNFMe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T01:55:50Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@violetmadder @livinghell 3/3 Moreover, Marx did not prescribe a universal path for all societies to follow. He acknowledged the diversity of human history and cultures, recognizing that different societies may have unique trajectories of development. In fact, Marx was critical of colonialism and imperialism, which imposed capitalist systems on indigenous cultures, often leading to their exploitation and destruction.
(DIR) Post #AiMETpV71uaUtoYF8a by walsonde@antifa.style
2024-05-28T18:01:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom the Mad-Max-esque times after world war III will be the transition state. I wouldn't say I'd need that but that's how it will most likely be.
(DIR) Post #AiMFnvBFir5gGCPFqq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T18:15:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@walsonde I certainly hope that the transition will be more peaceful than having to live through Mad Max.
(DIR) Post #AiMFzPliKxJYJSwQXA by walsonde@antifa.style
2024-05-28T18:18:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom In some countries they already live through Mad Max right now. This world is preposterous.
(DIR) Post #AiMLeoMsHVtoFZsj6u by sb@fed.sbcloud.cc
2024-05-28T19:21:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I've been thinking a stateless, bottom-up approach makes the most sense. Workers of the world make the world work. The elites act as a stiff faucet - occasionally dispensing a trickle of capital. We can smash off the faucet and take buckets to the well. Take, in isolation, the healthcare system. Arguably their largest problem is terrible upper management. The way healthcare workers recommend fixing their system, is to have the workers (nurses, doctors) in control, driving requirements and policy from the floor, up. I like to visualise it as a wave of common sense flooding in from the bottom, bursting out the windows of the C suite, taking the board with it. The healthcare providers already have their orgs in place - they just need autonomy to do what they need to do. Likewise the energy sector. Who knows the sector better than those who work it? Etc. The same goes for schools, transportation, you name it. Lobbing off the top of the pyramid - the whole C-suite - will more or less allow the working groups below to do what they need to do. Rather than a totalitarian at the helm, decisions will be democratic, by those who produce the labour or goods. A tempory state is still a state, and a state ain't what we need.
(DIR) Post #AiMMvkiNDX1dnTa04u by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T19:35:48Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@sb I feel like some sort of decentralized temporary state is necessary to transition society towards communism by facilitating the redistribution of resources and dismantling capitalist structures.
(DIR) Post #AiMSdxjQgHiCgHyRAu by Aknorals@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T20:39:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The word "communism" means nothing to me, as despite the post- Marx claim the word means what he said it means, actual "communists" clearly want something different from each other.(Note the ideology predates Marx, and early Marx spent time trying to redefine the word from more authoritarian claimants to the ideology.)
(DIR) Post #AiMTpDL166xeDrU4i8 by Aknorals@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T20:40:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom That said, I'm an anarchist, and I think the entirety of the failure of leftism in the 20th century shows that an ideology that has zero understanding of authority should be treated as antagonistic to real people in their desire for mass freedom."Just one more state bro, I promise it's transitional, bro, it'll be different this time bro."Yeah, fuck no. Treating anyone that says this like the butchers of Kronstad.
(DIR) Post #AiMTpEnlehYMlJwYAC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-28T20:53:01Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aknorals The reason communist movements in the 20th century failed are far more complex than simple assertions of ideological flaws or lack of understanding of authority.
(DIR) Post #AiMUqdbd1GZfw1UrVA by jlperuyero@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-05-28T21:04:28Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @Aknorals If communist regimes were doomed by nature to fail, the best demonstration would have been to let them fall by themselves, without any interference. Those who joined forces to overthrow them through economic blockades, wars of attrition and internal sabotage encouraged from outside the Iron Curtain were surely not so convinced of said intrinsic failure.
(DIR) Post #AiMxYj1r11VKDDZgNk by Bugspriet@social.tchncs.de
2024-05-29T02:26:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I think that there must be some practical understanding the rules within a system - not just abstract in theory.
(DIR) Post #AiMzJhcIBSwrOeaB96 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T02:45:54Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Bugspriet I agree. It's important to have a practical understanding of the rules within a system, especially in the context of analyzing and challenging capitalist structures, and to grasp the concrete realities of capitalist exploitation and class struggle, not just in abstract theoretical terms, but also in practical terms that inform revolutionary action and social change.
(DIR) Post #AiN0fhnMIiIqH7oYRk by RavenLuni@furry.engineer
2024-05-29T03:01:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Total collapse and near anihilation will be the transition state
(DIR) Post #AiN19xZ2EjX1rxXbZg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T03:06:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@RavenLuni That seems too risky of a "transition state."
(DIR) Post #AiN3xpSMr1UB6zKUoy by Bugspriet@social.tchncs.de
2024-05-29T03:37:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Definetely. Every system establishes a kind of self-healing tactic (for the system, not for the people) that pushes back behaviour into common ground where things go as usual. That causes less effort in maintenance. Effort that is needed for the people to keep their daily lifes going. This leads towards a fault tolerance, where enough people maintain the kind of living and disturbances can be seen as those and will be pushed back in line.
(DIR) Post #AiNAdNP29BerzYxsLg by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T04:52:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComI voted "yes" a while ago, but I really have no idea. It depends on whatever unpredictable historical and cultural context the communism is being incubated in, and also on how you define "state" (the anthropological definition, the usual Weberian definition and the most common understanding don't completely overlap to my limited understanding).1/3
(DIR) Post #AiNfLNEN93BapDsDtw by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T04:53:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComIf you have a general strike across the whole world all at once that instantly breaks down capitalism and the class system in an instant, then my answer is more likely to be "no".I would also answer "no" if you use a definition of state like Max Weber's (a polity that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence), as I'm not sure if most modern governments qualify under that definition.2/3
(DIR) Post #AiNfLOYcDGyMwILu5o by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T10:36:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@floatybirb The transition to socialism would be a complex and protracted process that would involve more than just economic disruption, so it's unlikely that a general strike alone could instantly break down capitalism and the class system. Dismantling capitalism and establishing socialism requires not only economic changes but also the reorganization of political, social, and cultural institutions. That, plus capitalists resistance of the transition, would make a transitional state necessary.
(DIR) Post #AiNfLPScr1m9k0YdOa by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-05-29T04:54:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom But if you limit your revolution to the Yucatan, then the Yucatec revolutionary commune federation might resemble something more statelike just because it needs an army and a foreign office to ward off and negotiate with the neighbors in Central America.If you define "state" very loosely (like "a polity that controls a given territory"), then that commune might qualify as a state anyway, even if it lacks features that typical states have.3/3
(DIR) Post #AiOtK2uCozBU0wf5pw by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-05-30T00:48:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I would guess there might be some other process that could bridge that gap without a general strike, but I'm not sure what it is.Figuring out how a future communist society emerges is a little like figuring out how the first starship to fly to Alpha Centauri would be constructed... it might not ever happen, and if it does happen, the social context that leads to it happening be unfamiliar to us poor folk trapped in the present.
(DIR) Post #AiPE198fWJ9wsjFvxw by Napo@hispagatos.space
2024-05-30T04:40:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom when power is distributed in all society instead of just in a individual or party, then is simpler. But a socialist state means one unique party and one little Stalin, not for me.
(DIR) Post #AiPkeoie3ZEVfS2mjA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-30T10:45:47Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Napo A socialist state doesn't have to be one-party rule or the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual or party. A centralized authoritarian state absolutely can lead to the suppression of workers' self-organization and democracy, but some form of transitional state or revolutionary government would likely be necessary to maintain order after a successful revolution, preferably one that has workers' self-management and popular participation.
(DIR) Post #AiR6rQtqJtzfhuf7x2 by overanalytcl@hachyderm.io
2024-05-31T02:29:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I don't believe in a transitional state because that would imply the leaders are willing to give up power (no, they won't). How are we persuading them into giving up power, after we've gone full throttle with centralizing it and making sure everything's as bureaucratic as possible? The power dilemma has to be solved in the incipient phase of the revolution, not after some corrupt leaders (that's what hierarchies ultimately create, one way or another) are in power.
(DIR) Post #AiR7UGbgWSGD4ugcxk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T02:36:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@overanalytcl >>How are we persuading them into giving up power after we've gone full throttle with centralizing it and making sure everything's as bureaucratic as possible?<<You seem to be thinking of Marxism-Leninism. Ideologies like Luxemburgism and Council Communism don't advocate for a centralized bureaucratic state. The transition state that these ideologies advocate for are decentralized and based on direct democratic control by the working class through councils or soviets.
(DIR) Post #AiR7sRK8KRttGZ0HDc by sashin@veganism.social
2024-05-31T02:40:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @overanalytcl when you say "transitional state" do you mean state as in "phase" or state as in "governing structure"?
(DIR) Post #AiR90gebJcwB5B4cFM by physicman@mstdn.jp
2024-05-31T02:53:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @overanalytcl hmm... I think we're on the same page, except that I wouldn't call it a "state". 😉In my understanding, a state is a power structure made to enforce policies decided by a group of people upon the whole population. It's basically a tool of coercion which is why I'd have a hard time associating it with a (true) socialist revolution. 😅
(DIR) Post #AiR9qzT2c1cmURbfyC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T03:02:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@sashin @overanalytcl By "transitional state," I mean it in the sense of a phase, not a permanent governing structure, a transitional period between capitalism and communism, where the existing state apparatus is transformed to facilitate the transition to a classless society. Not a centralized, bureaucratic state, but decentralized, democratic structures (workers' councils, soviets).
(DIR) Post #AiRAOu1nLIObSw26yG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T03:08:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@physicman @overanalytcl I suppose a more accurate descriptor would be "transitional institutions."
(DIR) Post #AiSM6yAwZnlDizUIEq by Winstonwells@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T16:54:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Bakunin was right though
(DIR) Post #AiSMgkHLimmV39Xj9s by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T17:01:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Winstonwells About what? Because there was a whole lot of things that Bakunin was wrong about.
(DIR) Post #AiSPDAVVwKUfZSkyem by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T17:29:38Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@HarbingerOfSalem I think that the government should be transformed into a vehicle for democratic participation and workers' self-determination in order to make the transition to communism easier.
(DIR) Post #AiSPQMZ0QTKOjAgJfM by Winstonwells@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T17:32:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom the specific question you asked. He warmed the International (didn't he?) that having a vanguard "transitional' government would only lead to an oppressive " communist" government. Or do I have that wrong?
(DIR) Post #AiSQK5OVRqpVh7LDTU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-05-31T17:42:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Winstonwells Yes, he did warn against Vanguardism and its propensity towards authoritarianism, and he was right. One caveat to add is that there are other versions of transitional governments besides Vanguardism.
(DIR) Post #AiURzCngycKcNK6kEq by rofaustin@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T17:10:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom sem a promoção de novas relações sociais de produção a gente não destrói a engenharia do capital e do Estado. Atualmente eu penso que pequenos Estados conselhistas, como Rojava, podem indicar uma saída para o dilema histórico de derrotar o Estado sem tomar o Estado e se tornar o velho Estado.
(DIR) Post #AiUSpTnP28qU8xtmFc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T17:19:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rofaustin Translation for the above comment:"Without the promotion of new social relations of production, we can not destroy the architecture of capital and the State. Currently, I think that small councilist states, like Rojava, can indicate a way out of the historical dilemma of defeating the State without seizing it and becoming the old state."
(DIR) Post #AiUW3j19XHcVGmoYoi by mrnhmath@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T17:55:46Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The dictatorship of the proletariat i.e the state in the hands of workers and peasants, both in form and function, will remain until class distinctions can be observed.
(DIR) Post #AiUkh2fvmVmqtBWvke by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T20:39:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I think the more fundamental question is “do the majority of people in your country actually want to live in a communist society?”
(DIR) Post #AiUlNdB4SPL0GGP4oS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T20:47:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis Not right now.
(DIR) Post #AiUlZ8pp62aVd7xBp2 by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T20:49:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Then persuading them to should come before all else. You cannot impose systems people don’t want to live under, transition state or no.
(DIR) Post #AiUlobeeEATBMB6J2u by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T20:52:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis It is required to convince as many people as possible, preferably the majority of people, but everyone isn't going to agree. That's why it's called "class war."
(DIR) Post #AiUmTYdiLHLtsXBuam by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T20:59:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom No. No good has ever come from well-meaning idealists thinking they know better than the people they seek to help. Liberation cannot be imposed from above, and class war is supposed to be workers v bosses, not communists v workers because the proletariat can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them.“Nothing about us without us” holds true for class politics as well as minority rights activism, and the arrogance of thinking it doesn’t is profoundly worrying.
(DIR) Post #AiUmwIVrNbu2GDDnkm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T21:04:55Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis The way class war works is that one class suppresses the other class by force. Capitalists aren't going to just give up their power; it will have to be taken away from them by force.
(DIR) Post #AiUnOjh9uVU6fn4DdA by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T21:10:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Yes, I know that. My point is that if the class you’re fighting for doesn’t actually want to live under the system you’re fighting for them not only are you going to be short of allies, even if you win you’ll have to impose it on them by force. Probably with some show trials and propaganda about false consciousness thrown in for good measure. This will not be a morally good thing to do, and is best avoided.
(DIR) Post #AiUo4tSfzP5p7qOYyG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T21:17:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis No state is ever going to have 100% complete support from the entire population. It is definitely required to have at least the majority of people in support of the state, but a proletarian state, by definition, is the supremacy of the proletarian class, i.e., most people, and that supremacy is to be used to suppress any enemies of the proletarian class in order to make a clean transition to a stateless, classless communist society.
(DIR) Post #AiUoIhjcNzGUoGuBDk by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T21:20:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom See, when people talk about suppressing enemies I get nervous. You also seem to be advocating for a global communism, and I don’t see how you get there from here.
(DIR) Post #AiUokvt1McbcoClOq0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T21:25:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis A global communism can be achieved by first establishing Communist Party led socialist governments all over the world, and then once that's achieved, phasing out these socialist states, as they would not be needed anymore since their entire purpose was to combat capitalism and reactionism, thereby creating a global communism.
(DIR) Post #AiUprrDfDL3mJcHikq by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T21:37:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom It can’t though. If that was going to happen it would’ve done so in the first half of the twentieth century when there was at least some enthusiasm for the idea. I’m not sure where you are, but I’m in the UK, and there seems to be zero appetite for communism beyond a tiny fragment of fringe idealists. How do we achieve communism here, never mind internationally?
(DIR) Post #AiUqCxH5tazjB1wvhI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T21:41:32Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis Communism can be achieved in one country like any political party by gaining popular support through effective communication, grassroots organizing, meeting people's needs, and pushing for systemic change.
(DIR) Post #AiUqw0DnmmufLctEpc by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T21:49:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom That feels a little vague to me, to put it mildly, and still doesn’t answer my core question throughout this thread: people don’t seem to want communism, so how are you proposing to persuade them to? I’m reminded of student days, when practical questions were hand-waved away in favour of the beauty of big ideas. The trouble is that the only way to get to enact those beautiful ideas is to solve all those practical questions.
(DIR) Post #AiUrqLEcqW3Ejh8iZ6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T21:59:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis It is intentionally vague because the specifics of achieving a successful communist movement will depend on the specific sociopolitical environment of the country, which will be different for each country. What I laid out is essentially a general guide to creating a communist movement that can essentially be applied to any country.
(DIR) Post #AiUs6v39SFh0Rng4P2 by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-01T22:02:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Fair enough, I wish you luck with it. And thank you for responding to me, even if I don’t really feel you meaningfully engaged with my questions, I’ve enjoyed this thread. Much appreciated.
(DIR) Post #AiVjCKTZdwruK8V8gi by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-02T07:57:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComEnforce cooperative businesses. Build liquid democracy. Make people take their own decisions so when time comes to decide something on a bigger level we are already experiences.And I am in favor of a transition state because the alternative means in the best scenario having a civil war.@cass_m