Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

I think so, the state just needs to have broad decentralization and enough of a division of power, alongside the requisite checks and balances, so that it can’t be coopted by revisionist and anti-worker factions.

Anti-worker as in people who wish to resubjugate the working class not as in people who are anti-work

2

mouse wrote

i dont know if I'll get backlash for this but i'd actually be comfortable with an extremely small government such as the one you described paired with market socialism/mutualism

2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Market socialism is a big nono sir. We need a planned economy, that’s why I advocate a slight state.

2

mouse wrote

"slight" state

-V Lenin, 1917

1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I mean the Soviet Union was damn democratic for quite awhile and would've been so if the revolutions in Germany, Hungary, etc. had panned out and they had an actually developed ally. The degeneration of the Soviet Union was due to numerous factors, Lenin's theories were hardly the biggest problem.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

But how do you stop this minimized state from accumulating power until we have another Soviet Union or Chinese authoritarian government?

I don't know what the answer is. I'm enthusiastic about anarcho-communism because I think it might, in all seriousness, hold the moral high ground over all other forms of social organization.

But the anarchists point to Free Ukraine and portions of Spain during the Spanish Revolution as proof that anarchism scales to millions of participants. I'm not sure that's true. Anarchism scaled nicely, and then they got conquered. That makes anarchism a solution only if the whole world transitions at once. If the US transitions, we'll be conquered by others. If Europe transitions, it will be conquered by the US. etc...

1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

By doing what I said in my original comment as well as: -Not professionalizing the military -Keeping the population energized and revolutionary -All elected officials are recallable

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Maybe. But that might still spiral out of control. Lenin and Stalin didn't go from a worker's revolution to gulags in a day.

There's a famous quote, maybe fabricated, attributed to Stalin: "It's not the people that vote that count. It's the people that count the votes."

0

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

So then have the people count the votes.

Cuba, for instance, has all votes counted in public where any member of the community can watch them. That’s why, in conjunction with their many other democratic safeties, Cuba has maintained socialism and its popularity despite soviet-style socialism collapsing around the world.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Are you serious? Castro wiped out the opposition, imprisoned and executed dissidents, put homosexuals into reeducation camps, drove tens of thousands of residents to flee to the US each year, halted freedom of the press, and stayed in power until his death and then passed leadership to his brother through real democracy?

Respectfully, don't let your completely understandable hatred for capitalism blind you to flaws in alternatives. Cuba is not a model to pursue, it is at best equal to what the US and Europe have now.

1

BADC wrote

No, the worker will make the state into a cooking fire for the workers.

Just because an anarchist tossed some bombs leading up to your revolution does not mean communism is, was, or is the parent of anarchism. It never will be. You can try to rewrite history from the perspective of a person stepping on humanities neck; it won't work. You can plan too. You can also plan to join the mice with your plans.