i mean, as an anarchist, could make a PARRALEL criticism of leninists, who believe ur gonna get full liberty by abolishing capitalism, and not the state
To summarize the ‘Marxist theory of the state’ on this point, it can be said that the Marxist classics have always claimed that (1) the state is the repressive state apparatus, (2) state power and state apparatus must be distinguished, (3) the objective of the class struggle concerns state power, and in consequence the use of the state apparatus by the classes (or alliance of classes or of fractions of classes) holding state power as a function of their class objectives, and (4) the proletariat must seize state power in order to destroy the existing bourgeois state apparatus and, in a first phase, replace it with a quite different, proletarian, state apparatus, then in later phases set in motion a radical process, that of the destruction of the state (the end of state power, the end of every state apparatus). - Louis Althusser
ohhh i didnt see this til now. okay louise get ready to call me a dirty anarchist: thats all pretty nice but its still a state
1. the state is unnecessary: people can organize themselves people can defend the revolution in voluntary organizations
2. it doesnt make sense to think that a state will abolish itself!!!! even the mythical “proletarian state”!! no state will ever conceivably abolish itself it hierarchy doesnt work that way
3. u cant have full liberty under a state no matter what, and its incredibly dangerous to set up a “revolutionary state” especially without democratic institutions u can look at literally any historical example of state socialism and see abuse by the state and police. ur gonna call it liberal bias but i mean those r historical facts idk what to tell ya. why is better to have “socialist” police beating and shooting people instead of liberal police. i dont see the difference
As I always say, I’d much prefer to live under a socialist state that guarantees the freedom from poverty and gives everyone access to healthcare, food, water, electricity, a home, transportation, a job (if able), etc., than to live in a stateless society with variables on my survival. Not to mention the fact that, in the event that the people were to “organize themselves,” we’re talking about quite the wait. Our system is designed to prevent just that.
Also, I’d like to add that a socialist state, in theory of course, could abolish racism, sexism, transphobia, and homophobia far more effectively than a society without a state.
But how would this state come about, and how would it fit into the world system of other states? Access to all of those things would be severely restricted if your state is attempting to survive in isolation…If we are talking about a situation of world revolution and the resultant upheaval, for the first long while your state is more likely to be in the position of rationing out those things to those whom it deems worthy rather than guaranteeing them to everybody.
in the event that the people were to “organize themselves,” we’re talking about quite the wait.
We’ll be waiting a hell of a lot longer for a revolution in which people don’t organise themselves, eg forever. Small groups can’t make proletarian revolutions, and with the bourgeois state’s current level of military advancement, coups are not on the cards either. Only a mass and worldwide self organised movement of workers has a hope in hell. If you want to be practical, this is the practical fact of the matter - the society you describe cannot exist without the self organisation of the working class.
Also, “racism, sexism, transphobia, and homophobia” cannot be legislated away from above, they can only be removed by a social revolution starting at the basic levels of society, in homes, in families, in workplaces, in the streets. Centralised states can’t help with that, it’s a bottom up process.