this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
82 points (84.7% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1376 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
82
What does "stateless" exactly mean in the context of communism? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope. I live in an actually developed country where the police generally does a very good job (nothing is perfect) and there is maybe one home invasion in the whole country every 10 years.

No need to have an alarm system, a dog or a fortificated bunker as a home. Also very few people (even very few criminals) have guns, hence gun violence even in criminal settings is close to non-existent.

The murder rate here is 1/10 of the murder rate in the USA, with almost all of the murders are people killing their spouses. Other kinds of murder are very rare.

We never had a single school shooting ever.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are places like that in the US, with very little crime, there are also places with a lot, the US is the size of the entire EU and it's incredibly likely your country is the size of Michigan alone.

What you don't seem to realize though is that if someone wanted to sneak in and slit throats in the wee hours of the night you people are incredibly vulnerable, as you do literally nothing to prevent it instead just trusting that it won't happen. And that's great, I hope it never does, but the only thing stopping them is willpower. I say the same to people living in ideallic small towns in tge US where so many people say "we have so little crime here I don't even lock my doors," well, the only thing keeping you from some Richard Chase type is luck.

There are also places in the US that are not like that, where you basically need a gun, amd the people in those places are usually too poor to move but can afford $500 for something that may save their life. You judging those people for wanting to stay alive is called "classism."

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You do understand that "rate" means "per capita" and thus it doesn't matter if my country has a few million or a billion inhabitants when comparing a rate?

If you are incredibly afraid about an event where the likeliness of it occurring even once in your lifetime is roughly 1:150 000, then it's not called "being prepared" but "being paranoid". Your chance of dieing in a transportation accident is much, much higher and still your response isn't to fortify yourself in your house and never leave it.

Is it called "classism" if our poorest and worst locations are much better than your average?

Also, consider that more people die due to suicide or accidents using their own gun than people get killed by someone else's gun.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I was comparing towns of 500 where it is safe to not lock doors to Chicago where it isn't safe to leave the house. Regardless of capita there are areas that are like that here too. They're wrong, and the only thing keeping them from being victimized is luck and obscurity, but security through obscurity is a poor plan.

If you are incredibly afraid about an event where the likeliness of it occurring even once in your lifetime is roughly 1:150 000, then it's not called "being prepared" but "being paranoid".

Ok, then since it is so rare anyway, bans are unnecessary.

No, it's classism that makes you think the concept of "I can't afford to move out of the hood but I'd also like to protect myself" something to deride. You may be rich enough to move, we aren't.

And plenty of people in Japan kill themselves without guns. Shit I'm drinking near train tracks right now, and laying down in front of this next amtrak drunk as piss would frankly be easier than shooting myself had I the will to do either (but I like life, so..) l

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, that makes sense now. You don't understand statistics.

And you don't understand the difference between having laws for rare cases and being constantly paranoid about rare cases.

Please learn some statistics, especially stochastics and probability theory. If you understand the basics, look up some statistics about what you are talking about and then we'll continue talking.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I literally wasn't talking about per capita rates, you are misunderstanding the conversation at a base level. I tried, but since you are unable to grasp the topic I'm out.