• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        No, but the ultimate argument is similar. That as a state is no longer required to fulfil the duties of a state then it will shrink and ultimately wither to nothing.

        You can argue about methods but a lot of anarchist theory has approximately the same vague “and when we successfully build enough communism the state will wither away” so mocking that last part is silly.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          I think a communist state focused on centralised national control systems makes this far less likely than an anarchist system that aims to distribute power as locally as possible, no?

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            But they don’t start by saying “first we put everything within the state"

            No, but the ultimate argument is similar […] You can argue about methods but a lot of anarchist theory has approximately the same vague “and when we successfully build enough communism the state will wither away” so mocking that last part is silly.

            emphasis added for clarity

            • naught101@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              I don’t think there are many anarchists calling for the establishment of state socialism and then just hoping it goes away after. Means, and intermediate systems matter, path dependency is a thing.