(Reposted in this community cuz I didnāt 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 canāt 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, Iām unable to find what Iāve gotten wrong on my own. Plz help <3
Edit: Okay, got a very clear and sensible answer from @[email protected]. Unfortunately, I donāt know how to link their comment. Hence, here is what they said:
Depends on how you define āstateā. IIRC, Marx drew a distinction between āstateā and āgovernmentā, where the former is all the coercive institutions (cops, prisons, courts, etc). In this framework, you need a āgovernmentā to do the things you refer to, but participation in that governmentās activities should be voluntary, without the threat of armed government agents showing up at your door if you donāt comply.
Nope. I live in an actually developed country where the police generally does a very good job (nothing is perfect) and there is maybe one home invasion in the whole country every 10 years.
No need to have an alarm system, a dog or a fortificated bunker as a home. Also very few people (even very few criminals) have guns, hence gun violence even in criminal settings is close to non-existent.
The murder rate here is 1/10 of the murder rate in the USA, with almost all of the murders are people killing their spouses. Other kinds of murder are very rare.
We never had a single school shooting ever.
There are places like that in the US, with very little crime, there are also places with a lot, the US is the size of the entire EU and itās incredibly likely your country is the size of Michigan alone.
What you donāt seem to realize though is that if someone wanted to sneak in and slit throats in the wee hours of the night you people are incredibly vulnerable, as you do literally nothing to prevent it instead just trusting that it wonāt happen. And thatās great, I hope it never does, but the only thing stopping them is willpower. I say the same to people living in ideallic small towns in tge US where so many people say āwe have so little crime here I donāt even lock my doors,ā well, the only thing keeping you from some Richard Chase type is luck.
There are also places in the US that are not like that, where you basically need a gun, amd the people in those places are usually too poor to move but can afford $500 for something that may save their life. You judging those people for wanting to stay alive is called āclassism.ā
You do understand that ārateā means āper capitaā and thus it doesnāt matter if my country has a few million or a billion inhabitants when comparing a rate?
If you are incredibly afraid about an event where the likeliness of it occurring even once in your lifetime is roughly 1:150 000, then itās not called ābeing preparedā but ābeing paranoidā. Your chance of dieing in a transportation accident is much, much higher and still your response isnāt to fortify yourself in your house and never leave it.
Is it called āclassismā if our poorest and worst locations are much better than your average?
Also, consider that more people die due to suicide or accidents using their own gun than people get killed by someone elseās gun.
No, I was comparing towns of 500 where it is safe to not lock doors to Chicago where it isnāt safe to leave the house. Regardless of capita there are areas that are like that here too. Theyāre wrong, and the only thing keeping them from being victimized is luck and obscurity, but security through obscurity is a poor plan.
Ok, then since it is so rare anyway, bans are unnecessary.
No, itās classism that makes you think the concept of āI canāt afford to move out of the hood but Iād also like to protect myselfā something to deride. You may be rich enough to move, we arenāt.
And plenty of people in Japan kill themselves without guns. Shit Iām drinking near train tracks right now, and laying down in front of this next amtrak drunk as piss would frankly be easier than shooting myself had I the will to do either (but I like life, soā¦) l
Ok, that makes sense now. You donāt understand statistics.
And you donāt understand the difference between having laws for rare cases and being constantly paranoid about rare cases.
Please learn some statistics, especially stochastics and probability theory. If you understand the basics, look up some statistics about what you are talking about and then weāll continue talking.
I literally wasnāt talking about per capita rates, you are misunderstanding the conversation at a base level. I tried, but since you are unable to grasp the topic Iām out.
No, you didnāt try.
No u.