(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.

  • LalSalaamComrade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually, I can’t answer that, as I’m not well-educated on politics. But states don’t necessarily have to be large, do they? Like for example, let’s take a small village, governed by some local head. It has to complete some transactions with a nearby municipality for transporting fruits and stuff, in exchange for some service. What becomes of the village? Is it now a micro-state conducting deal with another micro-state? Maybe I’m mixing the barter system here too, I guess.