This seams contradictory. Isn’t communism also supposed to be stateless?
Edit: Oh nvm you mean the socialist transition.
Communism is stateless, but it looks a bit different to how anarchists mean the term. Marxists are more for collectivization of production and distribution, while anarchists are generally more for communalization.
The aim is to establish communal horizontal power while living under existing power structures. An example is bringing neighbors the excess fruit from a harvest. The practice is common in rural communities. The magic is cooperation and mutualism. No bosses required.
Yes, but there are bosses right now. And they would still be very powerful, even if they lost control of the state. They don’t care about what’s best for everyone. They care about what’s best for them. They would still control all those machines, institutions, money, private armies, the media and they would have the total support of all the capitalist militaries of the world, ready to come in and completely crush horizontal power and suppress mutualism. So the class of bosses wouldn’t magically disappear over night.
If people organized (either “horizontally” or otherwise) to form some thing, some kind of organization or institution or loose federation of grassroots cooperatives or whatever you want to call it, that would be able to suppress this boss class and their military and everything. That thing would be what marxist leninists call a state by definition. Because when we talk about a state, we mean nothing more or less than a weapon able to force the will of one class upon another. Even if that will is just:“stop forcing your will on us non-bosses”. How horizontal it is internally dosn’t matter at all for the definition of a state.
I say try both, enough states to try, cooperate and well see which is better. People died for worst experiments. Also anything more left is better than the current system.
Step 1: everyone be nice to each other
Step 2: please bro
needs more jpeg
