2 ms·

Many socialist and communist ideologies are explicitly opposed to even the existence of a state, and/or want a weak state. Some of them see state control of cap

by vidarh 2y ago

Many socialist and communist ideologies are explicitly opposed to even the existence of a state, and/or want a weak state. Some of them see state control of capital as inherently instituting class rule, and so consider it inherently a threat to their goals. In other words, while you will find ideologies that call themselves socialist that favor a state, the a strong state or even the existence of one is not a defining feature of socialism. It is, however, an inherent, defining feature of fascism.

dismalaf 2y ago
How exactly would a stateless socialism work? No matter what you call it, it'll always end up looking like a national state.
- vidarh 2y ago
  At least a dozen different socialist ideologies have entirely different answers to that. First you'll need to decide what you consider a state. Some - e.g. anarchists and other libertarian socialists reject the state outright, and don't want anything to replace it. Others reject "only" top down/involuntary authority, or want any replacement to be minimal in scope (e.g. communes). A defining trait of a national state is sovereignty over a territory and control of the use of violence in that territory, and those are both traits that multiple socialist ideologies explicitly reject. Whether or not you believe any of the variations can work is orthogonal to the point that socialism is not a singular ideology, but a spectrum of ideologies that where many reject the state, and so the existence of one is not a defining trait of socialism. Insisting that it is, is a bit like insisting that capitalism is the same as fascism because capitalism too relies on a state (to enforce property rights). If anything, capitalism is inherently tied to the existence of a state because of the need to enforce property rights that many socialist ideologies reject. But very few socialists would equate capitalism with fascism (some would).

by vidarh 2y ago

dismalaf 2y ago

How exactly would a stateless socialism work? No matter what you call it, it'll always end up looking like a national state.

vidarh 2y ago
At least a dozen different socialist ideologies have entirely different answers to that. First you'll need to decide what you consider a state. Some - e.g. anarchists and other libertarian socialists reject the state outright, and don't want anything to replace it. Others reject "only" top down/involuntary authority, or want any replacement to be minimal in scope (e.g. communes). A defining trait of a national state is sovereignty over a territory and control of the use of violence in that territory, and those are both traits that multiple socialist ideologies explicitly reject. Whether or not you believe any of the variations can work is orthogonal to the point that socialism is not a singular ideology, but a spectrum of ideologies that where many reject the state, and so the existence of one is not a defining trait of socialism. Insisting that it is, is a bit like insisting that capitalism is the same as fascism because capitalism too relies on a state (to enforce property rights). If anything, capitalism is inherently tied to the existence of a state because of the need to enforce property rights that many socialist ideologies reject. But very few socialists would equate capitalism with fascism (some would).