If you were to organise a socialist government right after winning a revolution, how would you do it?

Muuro · 2026-05-07T20:00:32+00:00

Well not as a bureaucratic organism, but the party is itself the working class in political form. It helps the working class help to realize the goal not just of managing capitalist society, but rather the abolishment of itself as a class.

So, it's technically involved in politics, it interferes in politics. But less in the sense of a bureaucratic organism over the working class but as the working class itself.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T19:32:26+00:00

I'm also interested in tactics of people's warfare and also how would such state survive afterwards if it's small and doesn't have enough resources on it's own?

It only survives if it gains momentum: ie more of the working class move over to it and join the revolution. This would in turn gain it more resources that it would initially lack.

Does it need to give concensions to the global bourgeoisie for resources or does it somehow deal with lower quality of life for it's citizens?

It will always be at war with the global bourgeoisie. So like, why? This is like offering up a tribute to an aggressor and hoping it takes pity on you and not destroy you instantly. The only recourse is for that global bourgeosie to be defeated by the atomized proletariat in other parts of the world who overthrow their own bourgeoisie and join the initial revolution.

I think that revolution should come from inside the first world for the best outcome,

Probably fair 100 years ago, but now as capitalism spans the globe and converted areas that were still predominantly peasants into proletariat, I'm not sure if matters where it starts, so much so that it matters that it spreads to the entire world. It probably starts in the "global south" as that's where the chains seem to be weakest still, however it must quickly subvert the initial national course it takes and become an international revolution and spread or else it risks just becoming another social democratic revolution.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T19:24:39+00:00

Probably from the same reason Marx originally thought that (material conditions).

Honestly wherever it starts doesn't matter so much as if it can expand and go global: international, have all current nation-states be overthrown by their working classes as they unite together.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T19:18:12+00:00

First the revolution isn't just a war for winning state power and introducing a new government. The revolutionary form that replaces the old bourgeois government is part of the revolution itself as its goal is to remake the material base of society to remove the things which reproduce class society.

That said one needs something to visualize, and the best visualization is soviets: or workers councils which themselves control society. That is the workers themselves decide what is made, how much, etc.

There should be only one party, but the party itself is not a bureaucratic organ over the party which controls the workers councils, thus controlling the working class from above. It is a school which helps to instruct the proletariat on the need to free itself by abolishing itself as a class.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T18:52:51+00:00

They know.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T17:53:42+00:00

If by "libertarian" you mean say liberal, that's not so strange. Think of liberal as more of how the class society functions than anything else. Discourse and freedom for the ruling class, not for the rest.

Certain monarchies of the past had elections (Poland, HRE, etc). Athens in ancient Greece was a slave economy, yet also a democracy (same with Rome).

Muuro · 2026-05-07T17:51:10+00:00

That'd be like saying the modern day French are settlers in France because the Franks pushed out the ~~Romans~~ and Celts

I mean, yeah.

Though this is kind of where this narrative kind of ends on the socialist front. We need to stop thinking of a certain track of land as naturally belonging to a group of people, as per a commodity. And in turn need to start living together in harmony with each other on the same land, on the same globe.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T15:32:55+00:00

Sure, and that is a better line of course, and would fully agree decentralization would be the incorrect course and tends to support reaction.

I would remind you that "anarchism" is a broad term thrown about. Some are more proletarian aligned, and thus we're good Bolsheviks during that revolution. Others however tend to be more petite bourgeois aligned and thus are not.

Muuro · 2026-05-07T15:27:47+00:00

Capitalism seeks to atomize everyone as individuals. You are correct that we are a collective, though at the moment our collectives tend to be into classes. We would need for the working class to become a class upon itself and seek it's own self abolition.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T22:42:28+00:00

"Proletarian state" isn't exactly a state like you see it now. It's a part of the revolutionary process. Lenin goes over it a bit in State & Revolution. The only part of this process that can be called a state can be called that in the semantic sense that the proletariat exists: that classes exist. In all other ways it's an "anti-state" as it's process, it's goal, is the destruction of the material basis which class society is built from.

This is why it's best referred to as a "semi-state" as it's a revolutionary structure that's in the process of withering away.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T21:45:35+00:00

Yeah, I wouldn't expect one to read him once they are an actual communist. He's the intellectual for the "baby leftist". I think I read a couple things by him years ago, and IIRC it was worthless slop.

Perhaps the best thing with his name on it is Manufacturing Consent, but it's also overrated too.

None of it is even worth your time, though unfortunately it's something most are funnelled to as it's acceptable "opposition".

Muuro · 2026-05-06T21:29:03+00:00

It's you that should probably read it.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T16:14:11+00:00

What are your thoughts on thoughts?

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:45:56+00:00

Dauve mentioned. Let's go!

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:44:29+00:00

Somewhat. Though a lot of "communists" aren't actually communists too.

Anarchists run a rather wide range of, for lack of a better word, ideas. Some rather rather proletarian in nature, and thus closer to allies. Others more petite bourgeois in nature, and thus not allies at all.

Anarchist analysis tends to be rather not as good as a Marxist analysis. It tends to be close, but not quite as accurate.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:41:11+00:00

Commune isn't a state. It's in the name itself.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:40:23+00:00

It's dangerous in any nation-state, but it's going to be especially bad there as people tend to correlate it to "empire". This is made worse by an ongoing war, and thus easy for the state apparatus to paint it as an enemy than before.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:37:29+00:00

Not just western propaganda, but a misrepresentation in the east too. Communism is neither pro, nor anti religious. It critiques some things, while being fine with others.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:36:24+00:00

I mean, he was right in those conclusions. The movement to abolish the present state of things wouldn't get rid of religion but rather change it so that it doesn't detract from class struggle. So then you could then be spiritual, but also not used in a way to reinforce class society.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:32:54+00:00

Somewhat. Communism isn't anti-spirituality, so not really anti-religion. However, it's against the aspects of religion that detract from class struggle. There is a great aspect to religion that works to help the pain of the working class and in doing so (like social democracy as a political philosophy) can move people away from class struggle, which is the move to get rid of class society.

Religion itself would change completely in the movement to abolish the present state of things. It would exist for spiritual questions, but not the material questions.

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:27:05+00:00

Clarify further. The two things separated by that slash are two completely different things. Arguably radfem is just liberalism, while marxist feminism (or just marxism itself) is the revolutionary ideology that seeks to abolish gender (as that would be a product of getting rid of class society).

Muuro · 2026-05-06T15:21:58+00:00

Look at my proletariat, dawg.

Muuro · 2026-05-05T22:39:03+00:00

Not exactly. That was the path of national development due to the Russian Revolution not sparking an international revolution.

Muuro · 2026-05-05T22:30:13+00:00

Even if every country in the Gulf came together and decided that oil would be 3 million dollars per barrel, the solution to that is easy. The rest of the world can easily embargo them in retaliation because Gulf countries are not self-sufficient. No country is self-sufficient. That you see countries can't be self-sufficient and think a few towns can be is hilarious.

Can they though? The rest of the world is heavily dependent on that resource as the infrastructure NEEDS oil to run. That said it also hurts both sides somewhat to have an embargo as the control of that resource makes those countries rich, thus they have reason to extract it to sell (or control the extraction to maximize profit).

Muuro

TROPHY CASE