iByteABit [comrade/them]

  • 38 Posts
  • 478 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • Syria (maybe?), Russia (maybe?), and Iran (maybe?)

    We might critically support these states as anti-imperialist forces, but that does not mean that we support the way they govern their own people and the class they represent. At best they would be just as democratic as the western “democracies”, a bourgeois democracy where the capitalists have the freedom to pursue the maximization of profits with as little resistance possible while using the state forces against the oppressed proletariat.

    True 100% democracy can’t exist while classes also exist. Until they fade away into history the best implementation of democracy will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democracy by the working class for the working class. Capitalists have no place in it, unless they willfully sacrifice their privileges and join the working class without plotting to subvert this new reality. That’s what made the Soviet Union a democracy, everyone would participate through their unions and have equal rights to be elected to them and upwards. A former capitalist’s opinion on their factory being taken away on the other hand, would be instantly discarded.






  • If the lever controls nothing, by which you probably mean elections in which case I totally agree, then doesn’t that also mean that the material effects of pulling it don’t exist?

    This isn’t a democracy and capitalists will still do what capital needs after the election. If that is genocide, then genocide it is. Real change cannot happen from within capitalist institutions, it happens by workers organizing.

    Even if elections did matter, what exactly have the Democrats done to prove that they aren’t willing to do just as much as their counterparts? The “debates” were literally a contest of who is more willing to spend more on the war machine, instead of things like public health and housing, things that the working class really need and care about.


  • This is an important point and the most genuine argument topic between anarchists and communists imo.

    The thing to understand here is that a worker state was never really included in the Marxist definition of communism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, all very clearly oppose the existence of the state and believe that the final liberation of humanity will require its long term dissolution. Socialism, as the premature stage of communism, requires a state as a means of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

    Being against the state is not incompatible with being a communist, on the contrary it is necessary for socialism to progress and evolve. But it is purely utopian to believe that you can have socialism without a worker state, when classes are still an existing thing. Just look at the past century to see the relentless effort of the bourgeoisie to regain control. Do you really think you have a chance against that without a means of their oppression?

    That, I believe, is the major ideological difference we have with anarchists, the rest is purely a result of anticommunist propaganda.