I don’t see how collective ownership completely invalidates a state
States exist to protect class interests through exploitation, war, police, and armies. They protect the interests of the owners, the bourgeoisie. Without classes separating people, the state loses its purpose and withers away.
If there is no enforcement of democratically decided policy then the democracy is ineffective and it’s just plain anarchy where anybody can get away with doing anything.
When there is a line at a restaurant do you cut the line?
Is there laws in place to deal with people who cut the line?
If the answer to both of those is no, then you’ve already participated in a system in which group decisions are adhered to, without any enforcement mechanisms. And arguably, the group decision to wait in line instead of cutting is a democratically decided one. Nobody likes having somebody cut in front of them, so most people prefer that waiting in line is adhered to.
That’s just a small thought experiment, applying the same rational to larger society is straightforward. And these kinds of things already exist in the form of community gardens, mutual aid orgs, really really free markets, community cleanups, community workshops, and other similar things. Some of these are set up as nonprofits out of a necessity of working under capitalism, but not all of them. And they work together despite nobody enforcing usage or contributions.
They are also democratic, if the group working the local community garden decides as a collective that the existing garden is too small, they may find that they agree to expand it by adding an extra row of beds along some section of the plot. This is also, all without enforcement.
People do cut in line because it is not illegal, just like how people did murder other people and their families and in some cases entire tribes in the Wild West Frontier because it was not illegal.
But how does the concept of collective ownership invalidate a state?
You’ve missed the point, which is to show that you already participate and adhere to a democratic decision despite there being no enforcement.
just like how people did murder other people and their families and in some cases entire tribes in the Wild West Frontier because it was not illegal.
And that happened under a system in which labor was not collectively owned, where automation was not anywhere where it is now, and the resources were not spread fairly. Scarcity causes exactly that kind of strife.
But how does the concept of collective ownership invalidate a state?
It doesn’t, the dissolution of classes is what does that under Marxist theory.
You’re missing the point. The point being that regardless of whether or not I follow the rules, others demonstrably will not.
It doesn’t, the dissolution of classes is what does that under Marxist theory.
Classes form organically, only a collective with means of enforcement are capable of dissolving classes and mandating equality, and therefor a system, a state, is a hard requirement.
The point being that regardless of whether or not I follow the rules, others demonstrably will not.
I’m aware. Its also against the law to drive faster than the speed limit. Yet the majority of drivers do it despite there being very real enforcement. Laws aren’t guaranteed to work for anything.
Classes form organically, only a collective with means of enforcement are capable of dissolving classes and mandating equality, and therefor a system, a state, is a hard requirement.
That’s the socialist point of view, but it is not the only one.
What makes you say classes can only be dissolved with state enforcement?
States exist to protect class interests through exploitation, war, police, and armies. They protect the interests of the owners, the bourgeoisie. Without classes separating people, the state loses its purpose and withers away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
Under communism there are no classes, everyone is equal. Therefore there is no purpose for a state, therefore it dies.
Democratically controlling production != state
If there is no enforcement of democratically decided policy then the democracy is ineffective and it’s just plain anarchy where anybody can get away with doing anything.
When there is a line at a restaurant do you cut the line?
Is there laws in place to deal with people who cut the line?
If the answer to both of those is no, then you’ve already participated in a system in which group decisions are adhered to, without any enforcement mechanisms. And arguably, the group decision to wait in line instead of cutting is a democratically decided one. Nobody likes having somebody cut in front of them, so most people prefer that waiting in line is adhered to.
That’s just a small thought experiment, applying the same rational to larger society is straightforward. And these kinds of things already exist in the form of community gardens, mutual aid orgs, really really free markets, community cleanups, community workshops, and other similar things. Some of these are set up as nonprofits out of a necessity of working under capitalism, but not all of them. And they work together despite nobody enforcing usage or contributions.
They are also democratic, if the group working the local community garden decides as a collective that the existing garden is too small, they may find that they agree to expand it by adding an extra row of beds along some section of the plot. This is also, all without enforcement.
People do cut in line because it is not illegal, just like how people did murder other people and their families and in some cases entire tribes in the Wild West Frontier because it was not illegal.
But how does the concept of collective ownership invalidate a state?
You’ve missed the point, which is to show that you already participate and adhere to a democratic decision despite there being no enforcement.
And that happened under a system in which labor was not collectively owned, where automation was not anywhere where it is now, and the resources were not spread fairly. Scarcity causes exactly that kind of strife.
It doesn’t, the dissolution of classes is what does that under Marxist theory.
You’re missing the point. The point being that regardless of whether or not I follow the rules, others demonstrably will not.
Classes form organically, only a collective with means of enforcement are capable of dissolving classes and mandating equality, and therefor a system, a state, is a hard requirement.
I’m aware. Its also against the law to drive faster than the speed limit. Yet the majority of drivers do it despite there being very real enforcement. Laws aren’t guaranteed to work for anything.
That’s the socialist point of view, but it is not the only one.
What makes you say classes can only be dissolved with state enforcement?