There is a very common assumption, propagated all over the political spectrum, both by Marxists and anti-Marxists, that for Marx, socialism is about state control, or at the very least presupposes state control. [...] So here’s a common narrative you see online. First, you have capitalism – markets, the state, classes, and all that. Then, socialism emerges when workers take power – under socialism, you still have the state and classes, but with the working class being in power. Finally, once the bourgeoisie have been defeated, classes, money, and the state finally disappear, we have communism. This is an extremely common, but it is not Marx’s narrative. See CCK Philosophy video from which this script is used.
I’m not anarchist or libcom, but this was still interesting to read. Clearly a lot of work went into it. I like, that they actually cite Marx, Lenin and Stalin. What’s missing is a perspective on imperialism.
So, if we go by Max Weber’s definition of the state, often used by anarchists, which defines the state as a monopoly on violence over a given territory, the dictatorship of the proletariat would arguably not be a state. It would however, be a state on the definition often used by Marxists – that the state is the means by which one class exerts its power over others. A lot of confusion in the debate between Marxists and anarchists on the state derives from the differing definitions of the state that are used.
I’m not anarchist or libcom, but this was still interesting to read. Clearly a lot of work went into it. I like, that they actually cite Marx, Lenin and Stalin. What’s missing is a perspective on imperialism.
That last part is definitely true.