this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
77 points (85.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43901 readers
1647 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(Reposted in this community cuz I didn't get any responses in the original community that I posted this under)

This is how I understand the communist utopia: Workers seize means of production. Means of production thus, start working for the proletariat masses rather than the bourgeoisie class. Thus, technological progress stops being stifled and flourishes. Humanity achieves a post scarcity-like environment for most goods and services. Thus, money becomes irrelevant at a personal level.

In all this, I can’t see how we stop needing a state. How can we build bridges without a body capable of large scale organisation? How would we have a space program without a state for example? I clearly have gotten many things wrong here. However, I’m unable to find what I’ve gotten wrong on my own. Plz help <3

Edit: Okay, got a very clear and sensible answer from @Aidinthel@reddthat.com. Unfortunately, I don't know how to link their comment. Hence, here is what they said:

Depends on how you define “state”. IIRC, Marx drew a distinction between “state” and “government”, where the former is all the coercive institutions (cops, prisons, courts, etc). In this framework, you need a “government” to do the things you refer to, but participation in that government’s activities should be voluntary, without the threat of armed government agents showing up at your door if you don’t comply.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] azdalen@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

history has shown that with communism it’s generally sooner

I do wonder though, have there been -any- actual communist societies that were communist from the start and not communist in name only (e.g., Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.)? I would almost say that none (or at least none I recall) survive the transference between the prior society and communism before they become corrupted by power seeking individuals/groups. 🤔

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.ninja 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically, no - there has never been a truly communist society. They've all really been communist in name only.

In order for the society to be truly communist, property must be communal - that's the fundamental requirement.

And in order for property to be truly communal, all must have an exactly equal right to it, or more precisely, an exactly equal right to share in it.

The moment that hierarchical authority is introduced, control over the society and its property is tied to that authority. That means that for all intents and purposes, regardless of any claims to the contrary, all property is not owned by the people communally, but by the state. And that is not and cannot be communism.

[–] Justfollowingorders1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Ding ding ding! Someone around here gets it.