my biggest gripe with ML’s is their advocacy for the state-owning the means of production. You can sell me on a vanguard party but I just don’t see how we’d be accomplishing socialism here.

Dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat must own the state

How do you expect to fight off reactionary and capitalist organization without an organization of authority to oppress their own revolt?

what’s the purpose of having a representative democracy when party members have to vote on behalf of the proletariat? It seems like an unnecessary step w/ the risk of corruption.

Wouldn’t it mitigate corruption if there was a legal obligation to properly present your constituents’ interests ?

legislation that makes it illegal. You could have a worker’s state with a central government to enforce the constitution but I think granting it all the economic power places the working class beneath it.

sure. ideally, yes. But why have it in the first place?

id be sold on marxist-leninism if the state didn’t own the means of production. I just don’t see the socialism in that.

The primary issue is that the state will always be owned by one class. Currently it serves the interests of the bourgeois. It equally has the potential to serve the interests of the proletariat. It’s specifically about how you construct the political organization of the state that leads to what class interests it serves

Even in your market socialism there will need to be a state that has power over the means of production to combat any capitalist or reactionary force that attempts to take over the existent market, or taking force from the state through the state itself

i’m in favor of their being a state to protect the market socialist system but not ceasing the means of production. Why allow that? Why consider that socialism?

As a worker, your vote will be carried throughout a political hierarchy and like a game of telephone, who’s to say you’ll get the outcome intended? It doesn’t seem necessary.

what happens when your firm’s interests become conflicted with the party? what happens when your sector gets screwed by new legislation because you lost the vote?

Imo I really do not care about this ideal concept of democracy.

Like I’d rather have a socialist state that actually exists but (in theory) takes a bit longer to get s*** done rather than one that gets crushed in a week because it’s so decentralized

There is a reason why Marxism Leninism has created powerful states but no other leftist ideology has done that. It’s because it works and allows them to become self sufficient. Granted yes there are faults, it is not perfect, but anarchism isn’t even in the negotiating table

Rojava isn’t anarchist nor is Chiapas

i’m not arguing against a centralized state I’m just asking why the unnecessary hierarchy? Why grant the state and it’s members power that could be weld directly by the working-class?

Because a centralized power can easily smash that system in months

would china become less powerful if the worker’s owned the means of production

State centric socialism isn’t a permanent thing. It’s specifically the weaponizatioj of the state to advance socialist interests in the face of capitalist danger

Precisely, they would lack the means to project and defend their interests and would be far more susceptible to foreign interference and subversiveness

Could you not have a strong and stable state without state-ownership of the means of production? I imagine you could.

The means of production is specifically where power and influence originates from in a society

Additionally, the state has always owned the means of production in a way, since the class who owns the means of production owns the state

could you not have a state to protect your firm without it ceasing the means.?

It has historically never happened, because of my above post. Power is sourced in the means of production. The state is a manisfestation of said power

It hasn’t. But I don’t see why it couldn’t be done? The USSR, China, etc could’ve accomplished this. That’s why I question how you could consider them socialist systems when the state itself owns the means of production, it doesn’t have to.