In Marxist terms, the state is a tool of class oppression, it is the machinery by which one class imposes its will on all others. Under capitalism (or rather, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), like e.g. the US, UK, France, Brazil, etc.) it is the bourgeois class who controls the state and uses it to oppress the proletariat (and any remnants of prior classes like the peasantry). In a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP), that structure is inverted and the proletariat uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie (and any remnants of say, aristocracy or whatever).
The idea is that in a DotP, the bourgeoisie will eventually become proletarianized and, after a long enough period when there are no more bourgeoisie, there will be no more proletariat (as classes are defined in terms of the conflict between them). Without a class system, there will be no longer any reason for the state - as that tool of class oppression to exist. All that will be left in terms of governance, will be the administration of things. You still need to manage healthcare, housing, transport, etc.
I take a very literal approach to “the state.” The state is the status quo. The way things currently are. The totality of social relations. The state is what keeps Haskell programmers awake at night. Nothing more, nothing less.
A hippie commune, an Anarchist book club, a Syndicalist federation, and a dictatorship of the proletariat helmed by a Communist party are all states. It isn’t very useful to argue about what is and isn’t a state. It is much more interesting to explore how these various forms of social organization differ in composition and outcome. To learn from effective practice, incorporate the triumphs of past movements, while avoiding the mistakes. Differing conditions call for differing tactics, and it doesn’t behoove anybody to be too dogmatic.
Wait, if stateless doesn’t mean ‘no government’, what exactly does it mean?
In Marxist terms, the state is a tool of class oppression, it is the machinery by which one class imposes its will on all others. Under capitalism (or rather, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), like e.g. the US, UK, France, Brazil, etc.) it is the bourgeois class who controls the state and uses it to oppress the proletariat (and any remnants of prior classes like the peasantry). In a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP), that structure is inverted and the proletariat uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie (and any remnants of say, aristocracy or whatever).
The idea is that in a DotP, the bourgeoisie will eventually become proletarianized and, after a long enough period when there are no more bourgeoisie, there will be no more proletariat (as classes are defined in terms of the conflict between them). Without a class system, there will be no longer any reason for the state - as that tool of class oppression to exist. All that will be left in terms of governance, will be the administration of things. You still need to manage healthcare, housing, transport, etc.
I see, thanks for clearing that up! I always wondered how everything would work without a government, I understand now.
I take a very literal approach to “the state.” The state is the status quo. The way things currently are. The totality of social relations. The state is what keeps Haskell programmers awake at night. Nothing more, nothing less.
A hippie commune, an Anarchist book club, a Syndicalist federation, and a dictatorship of the proletariat helmed by a Communist party are all states. It isn’t very useful to argue about what is and isn’t a state. It is much more interesting to explore how these various forms of social organization differ in composition and outcome. To learn from effective practice, incorporate the triumphs of past movements, while avoiding the mistakes. Differing conditions call for differing tactics, and it doesn’t behoove anybody to be too dogmatic.