Main, home of the dope ass bear.
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
Why is minarchism a required step in a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat? The state is the mechanism of enforcing and preserving class society, it is inherently authoritarian. You can't have a minarchic dictatorship of the proletariat or of the current ruling bourgeoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is also the most democratic form of state by its nature: it is the rule of the proletariat, the majority, as opposed to the rule of the bourgeoisie, the minority. And democracy is not our end goal, democracy is a formal institution, a state. We seek to abolish the state, communism will be a stateless, moneyless, classless society; from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. For example: there was no "democracy" in pre-state formations, in primitive communism, even though there was collective and communal decision making as democracy presupposes the existence of a state.
As the dictatorship of the proletariat has eradicated class distinctions; once the tasks of the state are relegated to bookkeeping and its political character is lost, when it has transformed into a purely administrative body. A body in which every person is an active participant in, a sort of muscle memory, a habit, develops. As the people, everyone (as counter posed to the proletariat; class is no longer a factor, everyone means everyone), now complete the hitherto existing functions of the state, the state loses its reason for existence; democracy will wither away together with the state.
I would like to add a snippet of The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin to clear up any confusion about the subject, bare in mind this is only tangentially related. Even the one paragraph I am including here will be of great help to you in understanding how the state functions and the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and of the bourgeoisie).
I would also like to hear you clarify the concept of the "party-unipn" government, I don't really understand what you mean by it. Is this a syndicalist formation? If you don't mind me asking, could you please share some of your reading materiel on it? I haven't heard of it before.
the "party-union" part came from de leonism - in de leonism, dual organization is an essential part, but it's a bit different - in leninism, there's 'party-state' in which the vanguard party leads the state - in de leonism, the vanguard party (or parties) and the union work together. i think that minarchism is important to socialism, as it would provide a non-coercive state for just enforcing laws and administrating - there'd still be a government under this minimal state, but the state should NOT be the most important thing about the government - that would be the parties and the union.
my socialist views are a fusion of left-libertarianism, democratic socialism, market socialism and de leonism. seriously!
My last comment was mean, but in this one I sincerely would like to try to help you. If you believe that my attempting to be helpful first requires making amends for the previous comment, then let me know.
So I ended up looking through your comment history after the last exchange because I was trying to figure out what I was missing. I don't understand still, but I can identify a patter:
The one you probably would care the most about is that, aside from "georgism" being a bit of a meme, the reason people think you come across as a bit account is that you communicate in an extremely one-directional way. What I mean by this is that you don't come across as listening to anyone (not even to contradict them), you just sort of say your thing and move on, even if you pose yourself as seeking conversation. This is exemplified by how you constantly say the same things unprompted over and over even when not a single person has responded positively to some of it, and there's no apparent effort to change what you're saying to even account for that, even if it's just presenting an argument differently (though normally you don't even really argue, you just declare). I can go back to posts from ~3 weeks ago where you were rattling off just the same talking points, for which you have received over a dozen refutations between then and now, and it's one thing to still believe those things, it's another to just keep saying the same talking points just like you said them before without acknowledging the problems people have with them. Does that make sense?
This all is not helped by the fact most of the talking points just aren't very effective. I picked this comment because it had the example that I thought was the easiest to explain:
What do you think enforcing laws is if not coercion? Granted, there are definitely states that do a lot of coercion outside of the law, but in almost all states, most coercion is either via law enforcement directly or indirectly (via property relations, which I can explain more if you need me to). The idea of a "non-coercive state" that is "just enforcing laws" doesn't make any sense and comes across like a joke because it's a direct contradiction in terms.
And then you go making grand declarations on these ideas, ignoring what others have to say about them, going as far as seemingly endorsing war on Venezuela in order to write political fan-fiction. If you want to write fan-fiction, may I suggest writing about like an anime or something instead of real people being murdered?
Are you learning? What have you learned here? As I said, it seems like you're mostly just repeating yourself for weeks straight.
With respect to Venezuela, the main thing to emphasize is that there should be no war and the people agitating against Venezuela are tools of imperialism. We can talk about the direction Venezuela should be taking when it is on ground where it is even capable of changing course rather than clinging to survival as others try to dictate its course.
While some of this makes me think that you'd like to read Engels (I already linked you Socialism: Utopian and Scientific in another comment), you are now just talking around the problem, because law enforcement is still coercion.
But as I also told you in another comment that you never replied to, as did others, this is an attempt to depoliticize the state, and it's fundamentally misguided. There cannot be a depoliticized state. You cannot just avoid questions of what should be done and hope that things work out, and all this stuff about "shrinking" the government fundamentally isn't serious political theory. Here is why:
Either the government is enforcing property relations, or the property claimants are enforcing property relations. The tendency of the latter is inevitably to trend toward warlordism, which you might note is functionally also a form of governance.
The Republicans who talk about "small government" (because let's face it, those are most of the people who say that) either don't know the meaning of their assertions, or they are lying to you. The reason is that, insofar as you can trace discussions of the "size" of government to anything in reality at all, it usually relates to regulations. Regulations do not represent a spectrum from freedom to oppression, they represent the extent to which decisions are made by the government versus by the rich. The rich cannot be reformed to make pro-social decisions consistently, there are clear structural reasons that it is impossible because doing so will cause them to lose out to more ruthless capitalists. Only a democratic government, a so-called "tyranny of the majority," has the capability of consistently making choices that benefit most people.
Why would you do that, you would immediately be threatened, if not outright invaded, by the Capitalists. You're thinking in a vacuum only, without considering the material reality that would surround any nation with this 'ideology'.
That's not what the 'State' means, that's just governance in general. Not to mention that you would be unable to coerce any of the Bourgeoisie to the will of the Proletariat in any form. You wouldn't be able to seize the means of production at all; nationalization without State force is impossible, among other numerous issues. Without the oppression of the Bourgeoisie, through the use of the State, the Proletariat are at risk of oppression again by the Bourgeoisie.
We know what you're talking about, yet you keep reiterating as if we do not. My comrades here are trying to tell you that this is an ideological dead end, and instead redirect you to actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc. Not Wikipedia articles. Atleast read the Communist Manifesto, it is not that long and is possible to read- even with ADHD, which I suffer from heavily. It will atleast give you the bare basics.