#statist

[janora00]

Ah ja, ein Klassiker: die Ehemänner streiten, während im Hintergrund ein unschuldiger Statist mit Sprechrolle steht

Statist: "Hallo, ich habe eine Waffe? Kann mich bitte jemand beachten?"

[a-typical]

“Your implicit criticism still strikes me as somewhat unfair, as anarchists are not “blaming” the state in the same sense that some pious sinners blame the gods. In “God and the State”, Bakunin criticizes religion and its relation to the origins of state power. Anarchists deny the state as atheists deny god. But you seem to rely on the myth that human life depends on the State to give it social order.

When you bring the issue of individual responsibility, you seem to ignore the political, structural, and social issues involved in the constitution of the state, and again take it as a human condition, although there is no sociological, anthropological, or philosophical reason for doing so. In other words, it is a belief. Anarchism preaches individual responsibility in all aspects, including the political, while the statist hands over part of his power and responsibility to representatives, believing that authorities will act in their best interest. When they fail to do so, statists only blame themselves for a wrong choice, as if it was enough to vote better in the next election. In this sense, they are like religious who never question the structure of the church, only their own fitting into it.”

[wack-ashimself]

Libertatians=capitalists=statists.

aka, they are ALL BAD PEOPLE!

Capitalism, any form of it, is greed. Libertarians try to say freedom while they gouge your checkbook. Until you get a libertarian that -wants to kill the federal reserve, klll banks, kill the dollar, kill wall street AND end ALL slavery worldwide, they are FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!!! (hint-you won't find any wanting to do ALL that. Cuz you do, their chances of getting stupid rich go to 0)

[randomrants-obdm]

#government #statist https://www.instagram.com/p/B0_bKZInhDH/?igshid=18mlm6ucivw6z

[didanawisgi]

[terminalpolitics]

The successes and failures of the "transitional state"

Defenders of the idea that to achieve communism we must move through a transitional phase with a socialist state will look at socialist states that did not result in communism and they will say: “it failed because the conditions weren’t right” or “external reactionary pressures caused it to fail.”

But I think viewing this process as a “failure” is the wrong perspective. Why do we believe they were heading toward communism to begin with?

The faith that some Leftists will place in the teleological belief that “the socialist state leads to communism” is unfounded. These very examples from history show us that it has never yet been the case that a socialist state has produced communism. Whether a socialist state CAN result in communism is a different question – but we have no evidence to believe and a lot of evidence to refute the idea that socialist states inherently move toward communism.

If we really want to come at this issue from a truly materialist and historical perspective, then we should see these “transitional states” as SUCCESSFULLY resulting in something OTHER THAN communism.

Intentionality is irrelevant. “They were trying to bring about communism” is subjective and unprovable waffle.

“What might have been” and “if only” are for fiction writers and day dreamers. We can only look at what actually happened.

Now the “failed state” perspective will say that communism wasn’t achieved because it was prevented by forces outside the control of the revolution.

But I think if we look more closely, we will see that what actually happened was those who controlled the “revolution” weren’t interested in communism so much as maintaining their power in the transitional socialist state.

The socialist state does not necessarily end in communism as we have seen. In fact, it more often calcifies to maintain whatever rough power structures it first produces and then shatters under its own weight.

Whenever a class of bureaucrats emerges to adjudicate issues of power, you will get something other than communism. Power accumulates around itself. These revolutions consistently focus on consolidating power in the early days and this process continues until it is centered around a singular personality.

When that individual dies, so too does your revolution – though it might struggle on for a few generations.

So when we look at Post-Soviet Russia or China in 2018, we are seeing the direct legacy of the socialist states that gave rise to Maoism and Stalinism. These are the direct products of those states. They don’t represent “failures” of those processes, they are the natural consequences of them.

[xscryone312x-blog]

https://warzonedistro.noblogs.org/post/2017/09/14/setting-fire-to-the-church-of-social-justice-3-critiques-of-identity-politics-call-out-culture-other-forms-of-statist-thinking/