Truth nuke
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
83 points (92.8% liked)
Memes
53022 readers
1420 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 40 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Ah but some of them are fascist lite™
Nazism contains a husk of antisemitism, and a kernle of anticommunism, the root of fascism is anticommunism, blahblahblah stalin is literally my dad and he'll be your dad up if your dad is hitler
Such a flash from the past, that picture.
How many on Lemmy are old enough to have watched that show? Probably most people here know it only as a meme.
I always thought the socialists who oppose immediately abolishing the state and having communism were kinda fashy...
Marx and Engels, and those who follow Marxism, are not "fashy." You cannot immediately abolish the state and at the same time establish fully collectivized production and distribution. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say "communalization," I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity's cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx's beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Fascism is capitalism violently asserting itself in crisis. It has nothing to do with Marxism beyond fascism being anti-communist.
I got a question, theory understander: In a post-state, post-collectivization society, what stops class structures and petty states from forming again, even if at small scale at first? I know this sounds a little close to the but human nature argument, but humor me. Is it that it lacks the conditions, like scarcity, for them to happen at all, or is the gist that it might as well happen, but it's them against literally everyone?
The state as defined by Marxists, is all functioning parts of the apparartus existing to prevent the outbreak of class war
after a proletarian revolution, the proles become the oppressing class, forcing their will upon the minorty (the bourgiouse). In theory, after a series of revolutions engulf the globe, the state becomes unnecessary, and begins to wither away
when the conditions that preclude class war exist, the state is no longer necessary, though this will not happen at once
in the USSR, under the New Economic Policy, the CPSU did have to allow some forms of capitalist industry to exist within their borders
I suppose for a 'small scale' state to re emerge there would need to be some catastrophy, a re-emfocement of compolsary monogamy for women, and a re-consolidation of wealth
the answer you seek lies within the origin of the family, private property and the state https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf
the beginning of state and revolution is an easier read and contains some of the same information, transgender warriors touches on some of this as well
our dear comrade cowbee's answer is better than mine <3
Thank you (and Cowbee). I'll give the books a listen 🫡
It's more that the basis of private property is material relations and development giving rise to it, and the state exists to protect that. In collectivized society, where production and distribution are planned, there's simply no basis to create a new state or new private property, there's no utility in it whatsoever and no underlying basis for it.
How does a collectivised society plan or make big decisions without a state to make the decisions for them?
The state and administration aren't necessarily the same thing, which is why I tend to stress the difference between collectivized and communalized production. Collectivized production requires the infrastructure of complex planning.
What is administration under communism? What would that look like?
A good preview is looking at socialist states currently, but with fully collectivized production and distribution globally, no borders, and no oppressive forces like police to enforce property rights. It's not that the state is killed, but that it withers due to becoming superfluous.
What socialist states don't have police? I china, Vietnam and Cuba all seams to have police.
Yes, as they have class struggle and haven't reached communism. Once production is fully collectivized does class disappear, and then the state becomes superfluous. Until then, it's necessary.
When you ask a marxism question and the answer is material conditions
In another wording, present levels of development suit private property more than public property for many industries, and in some areas cooperative ownership works well for agriculture. Building up productive forces ti higher levels of complexity and larger scales makes public ownership and planning more effective. In communist society, these lower levels of development simply do not exist, and thus the basis for earlier property relations doesn't exist. It's like asking why feudal kingdoms don't crop up anymore.
I'm an old school Marxist. I think communism is stateless, and I want to do consensual guro with anyone who's standing in the way of communism.
Communism is stateless. The basis of statelessness is classless society, which requires collectivizing production. To abolish the state immediately into fractured communalism is the opposite of how classless society is achieved, and is the very subject of books like Anti-Dühring.
[deleted]
I'm a fascist for being a communist and talking about what's written by Marx and Engels? You need to look in the mirror.
[removed by mod]
Sure, and I'm a communist. I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and I volunteer with communist orgs. Your argument makes no sense.
Are you into vore? I could eat you. I love eating people who want to replace instant communism with slow reforms.
I'm not into vore, and there's no such thing as "instant communism." I'm into scientific socialism, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. The path to communism is in gradually collectivizing all production and distribution in a post-revolution socialist state, thereby erasing the basis for class and by extension the basis for the state. I'm not an anarchist, and don't agree with communalism.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to threaten others with vore and knifeplay. It's unwanted, we aren't consenting.
Okay, I won't vore you. I'll focus on eating consenting fascists.
You still haven't explained why communists are "fascists" in your eyes. I'm not an anarchist, sure, but I am a communist, and if you consider yourself a Marxist then you should understand that. You just kind of started threatening everyone and calling everyone fascists for supporting communism, you haven't explained anything.
[deleted]
I'm a communist, though, and all you've done is call communists "fascist" and fetishize brutalizing us even when I've specifically said that's unwanted sexual advancement. You haven't once explained why communism is fascist, I gave a thorough explanation of why Marxists support the use of the state in the interests of achieving classless and stateless society, to which you responded with harrassment.
Edit: Responding to your reply here, since you were banned from Lemmy.ml and thus are invisible from my side and I can't reply:
Why the fuck are you continuing to sexually harass communists? You've never once responded in good-faith to what anyone said, and then proceeded to threaten and sexually harass everyone even when told to stop.
Looks like someone's trying to abolish their bedtime, not today sweetie, goodnight
Idea I just had: Wholesome old school family sitcom like The Brady Bunch, but its set in a The Dispossessed-style society where parents hold no authority. Kids run wild, hijinks ensue, family learns valuable lessons every episode. Somehow everyone still hates Jan.
Edit: I might have re-invented Captain Fantastic
If you actually thought about the subject for even a few minutes then you would've quickly realized why immediately abolishing the state can't work in the real world.
[removed by mod]
I'm anti communist larpers who reject actual real world socialist projects in favor of some Platonic fantasies while helping ensure continuation of capitalist rule.
[removed by mod]