Message from @Lucas 4313
Discord ID: 417177405426237460
nope
Of course.
because they kept the state, instead of destroying it
you cant just dissolve a state when the world is against you
@Lucas 4313 Last I checked, the USSR in it's early years got backed by the UK, france, and was allied with several communist chinese states.
I dont really know how to rationalize to someone that doesnt believe in collectivism at all but Marx believes that we require a world revolution, or in short a one state union that can then dissolve into communism
the USSR in its early years was not backed by the UK, or France, but with some Chinese
the UK and France sent volunteers to the whites, which were then sent back after their defeat
the western world depsised the idea that the rich were not in power
@Lucas 4313 No, the UK and france pulled support, and later actually supported the USSR, towards the end of the war.
marx and engels trying to justify the preservation of the state is exactly the reason for the atrocities committed by the ussr, the dprk, and venezuela.
it is for this exact reason that i will hate marx and engels forever
@alines To be fair, marx and engels did state that later on the state would dissolve by it's self.
you cannot just dissolve a state in this world
you will lose to outside forces
@Lucas 4313 Pol pot tried it.
pol pot failed
@Lucas 4313 He got taken out by his former comrades.
bakunin said "no it wouldn't dissolve itself" and not once has that happened in cases for socialism in which the state was conquered
rather than annihilated
@alines Indeed, marxist ideals really do not hold up.
what are you
@Lucas 4313 I'm a nazi.
oh right
he's anti-marxist, as a nazi
anyway
the state cannot dissolve unless the former state takes undeniable precedence over the world
@alines The issue with non marxist and anti marxist leftist beliefs, is that most of the time, they do not get far at all.
would it still? even in that case, when the state has conquered the whole world? i doubt it
we'll cross that bridge when we get there
we havent even come close
I mean, when you centralize the world, and everybody becomes dependant on a single state, there is no real reason to just say "OKAY, ANARCHY FOR ALL, FUCK STABILITY AND ALL THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE.".
thats....
not how it works
its not anarchy
i think the worst thing that could happen in a world-wide red bureaucracy is that it would deny its own existence
@Lucas 4313 Stateless society with no centralized form of power? That's anarchy in it's pure definition my man.
while still existing
@alines That's akin to trotsky's beliefs.
so if anarchy is the end goal, why jump through all these superviolent hoops?
the way I see it there is extremely small centralized government while the rest lives in what appears to be a state in perfect unison