2y ago

What does "stateless" exactly mean in the context of communism?

(Reposted in this community cuz I didn't get any responses in the original community that I posted this under)

This is how I understand the communist utopia: Workers seize means of production. Means of production thus, start working for the proletariat masses rather than the bourgeoisie class. Thus, technological progress stops being stifled and flourishes. Humanity achieves a post scarcity-like environment for most goods and services. Thus, money becomes irrelevant at a personal level.

In all this, I can’t see how we stop needing a state. How can we build bridges without a body capable of large scale organisation? How would we have a space program without a state for example? I clearly have gotten many things wrong here. However, I’m unable to find what I’ve gotten wrong on my own. Plz help <3

Edit: Okay, got a very clear and sensible answer from @Aidinthel@reddthat.com. Unfortunately, I don't know how to link their comment. Hence, here is what they said:

Depends on how you define “state”. IIRC, Marx drew a distinction between “state” and “government”, where the former is all the coercive institutions (cops, prisons, courts, etc). In this framework, you need a “government” to do the things you refer to, but participation in that government’s activities should be voluntary, without the threat of armed government agents showing up at your door if you don’t comply.

60 comments

Statelessness is held to be necessary because, in the simplest terms, power corrupts.
If we institutionalize authority - if we create a structure in which authority is vested and positions within that structure that are held by specific individuals - then sooner or later (and history has shown that with communism it's generally sooner) self-serving fuckwads will capture those positions, then bend them to serve their own interests and the interests of their cronies and patrons, to the detriment of everyone else.
And yes - there are practical problems with not having institutionalized authority.
But the thinking of those who advocate for statelessness is that those problems can be, and would be, solved if people had the opportunity. But first we have to get the self-serving fuckwads out of the way, and the only way to do that is to not have institutionalized authority in the first place.
- The biggest issue I see is self serving fuckwads don't go away. They'll import themselves a la Putin if they think they can get away with it. They'll create their own institutions a la the Mafia if there's nothing else.
  The second problem is there are large groups of people who want to be under some Authority to the extent they get populist / fascist stuff going or invent ones like in Religion.
  I just don't think people "freed from institutional authority" are inherently going to not just recreate it, probably worse...
  
  Over the short term (in an historical sense), that's certainly the case.
  I just mentioned on another post that I liken it to individual growth. Just as individuals can and often do mature to the point that they no longer need or desire a mommy and daddy, so too can our species as a whole mature. And I believe that, if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, we not only can but will.
  But even if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, yes - that's still many, many, MANY generations away.
  
  All of that is the fruit of people living for generations under oppressive hierarchical power structures.
  Just like we can’t say humans “naturally are greedy” we also can’t say they “naturally will give themselves over a ‘populist leader’”.
  In less hierarchical societies, people naturally are more skeptic of authority and populism.
  Like when the North American native peoples of the North East first encountered Europeans, and couldn’t possibly understand how the sailors had “bosses” who “told them what to do”. The idea of following a leader like that didn’t make much sense to them at all.
- I'm not a fan of the current capitalism, but your explanation has some internal contradictions.
  So to not have an institutionalized authority that coerces people to follow the rules, you first coerce (or even kill) the self-serving fuckwads.
  Say you managed this during a revolution where generally everything goes. Revolution is done and now how do you guard your system from self-serving fuckwads using that power vacuum to gain even more power than before?
  Do you just hold lynchings whenever some envious randos thing that someone holds too much power?
  How does one get a fair trial if there is no judge or jury? War tribunals?
  
  So to not have an institutionalized authority that coerces people to follow the rules, you first coerce (or even kill) the self-serving fuckwads.
  No - you explicitly do not. It's impossible to get out of the trap of some claiming the power to nominally rightfully force the submission of others through some claiming the power to nominally rightfully force the submission of others.
  The only way it can come about is if humanity evolves into it - grows the fuck up, collectively as well as individually.
- Ok, so then would be correct to say that the communist utopia is a sort of singularity (consider y=1/x, where x=0). It can never be achieved, but the goal should be to get as close to it as possible. We will never achieve total post scarcity. However, we can achieve post scarcity for things like food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, then probably internet access, smartphones, video games and so on.
  We can never eliminate institutions of authority, but we can reduce their presence as much as possible. For example, we can never eliminate the police force, as there still would be some sociopaths who we would need protection from. However, as society would progress, crime would drop such that we would require smaller and smaller police forces.
  So in conclusion, am I right in considering the communist utopia as a singularity?
  
  It can never be achieved
  Why not?
  If an individual can outgrow a need for a mommy and daddy to watch over them and tell them what to do, then so can a species.
  But yes - for the relatively short term (in the anthropological sense), such a system is effectively impossible, so yes - "the goal should be to get as close to it as possible."
  And in fact, the only way that it can be achieved is incrementally, as ever more individuals reject the whole concept of institutionalized authority. Eventually, a point should be reached at which the view that it's illegitimate is so widespread that those who claim it will no longer be able to exercise their claim.
  Or to put it in simplistic and not-really-accurate terms, the claim "I'm the President of the United States" will be as ludicrous as the claim "I'm the Emperor of the Universe," and will be treated with the same disdain.
  We will never achieve total post scarcity.
  I agree.
  The extent of the universe as a whole might well be infinite, but the extent of the resources to which humans can have access most assuredly is not.
  We can never eliminate institutions of authority
  I disagree.
  I not only think we can - I think that unless we destroy ourselves first, we inevitably will.
  Again, it's akin to an individual outgrowing the need for a mommy and daddy, just on a broader scale.
  For example, we can never eliminate the police force, as there still would be some sociopaths who we would need protection from.
  Except that the police are ever more likely to BE sociopaths than to protect us from them.
  That's the exact problem I mentioned in the last post - hierarchical authority effectively rewards and thus selects for sociopathy.
  People with morals, principles, integrity and/or empathy will have things that they'll refuse to do.
  Psychopaths don't have those constraints - if so inclined, they're willing to do absolutely whatever it takes to get what they want.
  So all other things more or less equal, psychopaths actually have a competitive advantage in hierarchical systems.
  Which is exactly how and why "power corrupts."
  So in conclusion, am I right in considering the communist utopia as a singularity?
  Roughly, though it would be more accurate, if less appropriate to this STEM-obsessed era, to call it an "ideal."
  
  Idk I've never had a cop save me from anything, much less a sociopath. But maybe that's just because the sociopaths know the cops are out there.
  Oh and most cops I've spoken to outside brightly lit offices where one of us works struck me as sociopaths.
- Technically, no - there has never been a truly communist society. They've all really been communist in name only.
  In order for the society to be truly communist, property must be communal - that's the fundamental requirement.
  And in order for property to be truly communal, all must have an exactly equal right to it, or more precisely, an exactly equal right to share in control of it.
  The moment that hierarchical authority is introduced, control over the society and its property is tied to that authority. The right to exercise control over property is vested not in the people communally, but in the system by which authority is designated and exercised - the state. And that means that for all intents and purposes, regardless of any claims to the contrary, all property is actually owned not by the people, but by the state. And that is not and cannot be communism.
- Main problem, you'll be steam rolled by your enemies without institutionalized authority and regiment.
Depends on how you define "state". IIRC, Marx drew a distinction between "state" and "government", where the former is all the coercive institutions (cops, prisons, courts, etc). In this framework, you need a "government" to do the things you refer to, but participation in that government's activities should be voluntary, without the threat of armed government agents showing up at your door if you don't comply.
- But what if someone doesn't comply?
  When someone who owns the path to your house decides they won't let you use that path anymore.
  Or when the guy who owns the water works doesn't like you and decides that your house won't get any water any more?
  Or even more simple: what if you and your neighbour have a conflict that escalates further and further? Should you just duel? Or maybe shoot the neighbour in their sleep before they do it with you?
  And lastly: To get to this state, you need to coerce the current coercive institutions out of said power. Is that not being coercive yourself?
  
  When someone who owns the path to your house decides they won't let you use that path anymore. Or when the guy who owns the water works doesn't like you and decides that your house won't get any water any more?
  This would be public property. No private ownership.
  Or even more simple: what if you and your neighbour have a conflict that escalates further and further? Should you just duel? Or maybe shoot the neighbour in their sleep before they do it with you?
  So this is how I understand it. Achieving the communist utopia in its purest form would be impossible. However, the goal should be to go as close to it as possible. In your scenario, your neighbor would just be "nice", thus stopping any escalation of your conflict. Again, as it's impossible for this to happen completely, we would still require the presence of SOME coercive entity. However, the scale of this entity would reduce over time, as people would tend to be less asshole-ey over time (consider how wars have reduced over time).
  And lastly: To get to this state, you need to coerce the current coercive institutions out of said power. Is that not being coercive yourself?
  It is. However, this isn't necessarily contradictory. Say you have an institution with 121 coercion points. You thus overthrow this institution, thus becoming worth say 70 coercion points. After the overthrowing is complete, you dissolve your own institution that did the coercion on the other coercive institution. Thus, 0 coercion achieved.
  Another way to explain this: The Nazis started a war. The goal was to end this war. However, to end this war, the allies entered the war, thus expanding its scale. In the end however, the war ended.
- Okay now this is the answer that I was looking for! This makes perfect sense! For me, "state" and "government" were synonyms prior to reading your comment. So basically, the communist utpoia is a world devoid of institutionalized coercion.
  To answer my question, a space program could definitely work. The only thing is, all scientists would be working voluntarily there. No scientist would become homeless if they decided to stay home for the day.
Wrong answers only:
You're only allowed to program in pure functional languages. Hence the name "Standard ML".
- Haskell is a secret communist spy...
Many would say that stateless socialism is the premise of Anarchism. Stateless largely refers to organizing hierarchies horizontally over vertically, and this is due to the overarching critique that vertical hierarchies result in corruption and rank inequality. Check out Communalism and the works of Murray Bookchin if you'd like to know more. There's also a fair amount of talk about "pure democracy/direct democracy" in these circles and personally I think that Digital Direct Democracy could be the cure for the cancer in all the worlds modern democracies, if it ever takes off somewhere.
- YESSS!!! I HAVE AN ENTIRE MANIFESTO ON DIGITAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY!!! The only part that stumped me was how it could be stateless (I was confusing "state" with "government").
There are different ideas how (and if) this could work. E.g. worker's councils that form at a factory level (or similar - people who are working closely together), and then you might have higher levels of cooperation where e.g. all roadworking collectives in a region send delegates to coordinate who builds which road, what roads are even necessary etc. You'd probably want cooperation in another dimension as well: delegates of road working collectives coordinating with teamsters, urban planners, manufactureres of building materials, ... But it would be networks of networks, not a top-down structure responsible for everything from kindergartens to space exploration and equipped with military and police power.
You might want to check out The Disposessed by Ursula K. LeGuin or bolo'bolo by P.M. for some more ideas.
- The problem I have always seen is how do you deal with bad actors in general? It always eventually comes down to force.
  No police or military just means that eventually some one will come in and take over.
  
  People will have to be vigilant. But they have to be now as well - having a state does not provide safety against the rise of fascism or global corporations trashing our planet, as we can see.
  That is of course something people must (re-)learn through practice. We can't just "abolish the state" and expect people to suddenly have all the skills needed for self-organizing.
- Anarcho-capitalism is just a can of worms. Capital represents power hence an uneven allocation of them, i.e. capitalism, is incompatible with anarchism.
- Well, the communist utopia is stateless, no?
It's almost like communism could never work.
- Unlike unfettered capitalism, which has worked so well! /s
  
  It's propagated itself across the entire world and overtaken opposition repeatedly so I'd say in every way that matters, yes but unironically.
  And this isn't praising capitalism, this is stating that your alternative had better be more robust than the current most robust system in existence.
  
  "You don't agree with one extreme, so you must agree with the opposite extreme!"
  
  Where did I say it had?
- No I get the communist utopia. As I said, I believe it is supposed to be a society that has achieved post scarcity. I can easily see humanity reaching that stage soon enough (relatively). I just can't understand how statelessness is involved here.

60 comments