• StellarExtract@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it’s a representative democracy, there’s huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn’t this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn’t make much sense to me.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It can’t just poof into existence. The job of a Socialist state would be to build up the productive forces and create the frameworks for such a society to use after the state whithers away, so to speak.

      • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        So the specifics of how a community would allocate resources without there being a state is considered more of an open question, then?

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Among Socialists, yes. Among Anarchists, no, as they seek to directly implement their goal from ground zero. Marxists tend to disagree with this as impractical, but there is a ton of developed Anarchist theory, specifically Anarcho-Communist theory, that goes over how society would be laid out. Usually via networks of Mutual Aid and Direct Democracy.

          • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I see, thanks. That’s something I’ll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it’s really a prerequisite for a functioning society. I appreciate you going over all of that!