(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.

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    2·
    1 year ago

    You do understand that "rate" means "per capita" and thus it doesn't 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 it's not called "being prepared" but "being paranoid". Your chance of dieing in a transportation accident is much, much higher and still your response isn't to fortify yourself in your house and never leave it.

    Is it called "classism" 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 else's gun.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1·
      1 year ago

      No, I was comparing towns of 500 where it is safe to not lock doors to Chicago where it isn't safe to leave the house. Regardless of capita there are areas that are like that here too. They're wrong, and the only thing keeping them from being victimized is luck and obscurity, but security through obscurity is a poor plan.

      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 it's not called "being prepared" but "being paranoid".

      Ok, then since it is so rare anyway, bans are unnecessary.

      No, it's classism that makes you think the concept of "I can't afford to move out of the hood but I'd also like to protect myself" something to deride. You may be rich enough to move, we aren't.

      And plenty of people in Japan kill themselves without guns. Shit I'm 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, so…) l

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        2·
        1 year ago

        Ok, that makes sense now. You don't understand statistics.

        And you don't 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 we'll continue talking.