• Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Jumping in to hopefully clarify something. The anarchist definition of the state is different than the Marxist definition of the state.

    The anarchist definition of socialism is also different than the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, to anarchists, socialism and communism are synonyms, and there really isn’t the lower/higher phase distinction.

    State capitalism is a term used to describe the economic systems of places like the USSR. The state steps in and becomes the capitalist, in essence. The worker is in a similar position of not really owning the means of production, in the same way that the public doesn’t really national parks in the US. In paper, in theory, and perhaps in spirit, the workers in a socialist state own the means of production, but in reality it is owned by the [the party/the state/an elite group of people]. There is still a similar incentive towards growth, there is still a group of people profiting off the backs of those who do the actual work of creating the items needed for survival, and there still a disconnected between those who do the labor of keeping all of us fed and clothed and the use of those things. Workers are not directly in control, and that’s the problem, to the anarchist view.

    Effectively, the anarchist is view that we can and should move directly from our current system to a stateless (by the anarchist definition of the state), classless, moneyless system, without an intermediary state in between.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?

      Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.

      Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.

      Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?

      How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?

      (Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).

      • gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        e had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).

        found it

      • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I jumped in to define some terms it looked like there might be confusion on (though it looks like I might have been wrong?), I’m not here to defend any positions. Haha. I have my views, but I find very little benefit to arguing them online, especially when my views are already niche within leftist spaces.

        All that said, super psyched to read that correspondence!