cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25133597
Come one come all to the Lemmy-verse! It's nice and cozy here, we do have some "bad parts of town" but you can do an instance block and not deal with them lol
For your memes we have !memes@lemmy.world if you like sciency posts mander.xyz has some excellent communities (communities=subreddits) like !science@mander.xyz and !biology@mander.xyz and for a meme science combo theres always the fantastic !science_memes@mander.xyz
You can also drop a shit(post) off at !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or hang out at !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone (though you do have to post before you leave that one!)
There's much more around as well!
Obligatory, fuck Spez
Different leftists have a different idea of what constitutes the "State" and what "Statelessness" looks like. For Marxists, the State is the oppressive elements of class society like millitarized police and armies that can only go away once the world is fully publicly owned and planned, and becomes classless. Anarchists however have an issue with hierarchy, rather than class, and want full decentralization and horizontalism. For a Marxist, Anarchism isn't "stateless" as it retains class distinctions (each commune is interested in its own success), Anarchists obviously would see Marxism as not truly stateless.
This difference is why a lot of conversations go nowhere between some Marxists and Anarchists.
i generally lean ML, but both of these are stateless to me? isnt this really about horizontal vs hierarchical power?
If we are to agree with Engels, Communes (or cooperatives) consist entirely of Petite Bourgeoisie, unless there is no interaction outside said commune. Trade between communes implies each commune wishing to get more out of the trade, which implies differences in material wealth in communes that can then escalate into Capitalism. It isn't what we think of as a State, but some form of armed millitia must be maintained to enshrine ownership within a commune, and not outside it, ergo a state enforcing class distinctions.
Really, though, I think the term "stateless" brings ideological baggage rather than logical. What's important is the structures themselves, not how we wish to label them. Conversations around "true" Communism or whatnot inevitably fall into ideological debate based in idealism, rather than a logical analysis of material conditions.