Post
Region: The Black Bloc
Then speak on it...
That would be the positions of those present yes.
No. Casita may agree to that on a very nuanced level as he'll likely point out, but I disagree with 'revolution' by a vanguard or as a thing that can be determined as if the entire people within one set of borders were so of one mind and one will that they could be 'revolutionized'. There's a static intrasigence to 'Revolution' which belies its otherwise desired goal of turning society 360 degrees. Revolution would literally lead us back to where we started, if we pay attention to the word and to the eventual co-option of 'revolutions'.
We expect no transition, we expect classless society immediately. What one determines to be 'government', in most of the countries we live in to be 'voting', not voting in and of itself but the act of approving meaningless promises on paper, taking something and writing it out, the physical act. Simply because the state is a method of creating an image of the government formed of individuals and their own intrigues against each other, the State is not a bulwark but a grouping of individuals. If other individuals, namely those that form the majority were to adopt a condition of not endorsing the State/the individuals which call themselves that the power that they claim authority with, they'd be in no means to kill, jail, arrest, confront everyone. You can't overwhelm a rebellion when each member of the opposition is everyone outside of the State. Why am I so confident this can be achieved, because regardless of people's stances left/right, they can all agree to a proper viewpoint as an individual based on where their best interest lies regardless of a class origin, pointing out how things could be better without a centralizing force, just as it was in every science, means of organization, invention to now would, in tandem with actual actions aimed at liberating themselves and their conception of law, the state, liberty, etc through everyday action, not theoretical advances in clearly discernable stages(human history is never like this, its a philosopher/historian's decadence to think others think this way, time periods and their contradicting positions bleed into each other). There are no contradictions in history, no actual opposition of any two forces, its the chance happening of individual actions, not great men or great ideas, which form the substance of political history, economic interaction, and everyday life. Individuals will naturally gravitate with enough time to concepts and living arrangements which will benefit them, without the need for violent confrontation with the State as is except to defend their own individual rights to personal property. No violent overthrow of something that has no power anyways is necessary, its overkill and its a way to create resentment towards monolothic abstract arguments with faceless armies of revolutionaries changing your life as to you taking a change and working with it, experimenting with it, adopting it without coercion. The method we use as socialist matters a lot, and because your method is leading towards more confrontation by the State against the people and because the continuation of the State as this nebulous group of influential government officials and colleagues breed more amongst themselves, and the best place for them to be, the place they naturally end back up on is the new revolutionary state's government. The state has a commitment to survive, like a parasite on the people for as long as it can reproduce more parasites asexually. The new socialist state invariably ends up running the business of the country as state capitalists, centralizing profit and economic decision making to political comissars, introducing dangerous quota systems administrators are tempted to overstate production on for fear of reprisal, all create an economic system that is not worker's control of the means of production nor anything resembling it, but rather an evolved mercantilist state with its own inhouse elite and an even stronger grip on power, and a more destructive means of opposition, by making socialism look hardhanded and fascistic.
As Comrade Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution (1917), anarchism promotes that the state not be replaced upon its destruction in the revolution; however, Lenin points out that the bourgeois will simply rebuild their state, or that an outside state can come in and either annex or create a puppet state in the area; the former is because society has not yet been rid of bourgeois influences. Thus, there must be a method of ridding society of bourgeois influences, and of creating a society in which communism can exist without interference. The method for this is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
I'm quite certain you know what the DotP is, but in case there are newer comrades who have not yet encountered it (as we once all were, myself included) I will. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a literal "dictatorship", but the contrast of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" under which we now live; that is to say, a society in which one class is placed in political authority over another. In capitalism, it was the bourgeois in power over the proletariat; however, socialism will turn this on its head, making the proletariat the ones in power over the bourgeois.
Eventually, as the bourgeois and their remnants are assimilated into the proletariat, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will become less and less necessary, until finally falling entirely out of existence due to there not being a bourgeois. When there are no bourgeois, there can also no longer be proletariat; thus, there can be no dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state will cease to exist, bringing a classless, stateless society.[/quote]
