Marxists aren’t the same as tankies

Marxists do not seek “domination” of others, nor do Socialist countries extract “rent.” Using a portion of the social fund to create infrastructure, social safety nets, advance productivity via new Capital, and more are not the same as a landlord extracting surplus value on the basis of owning a scarce resource like land. I think you’re confused on several areas, like what Marxists want, how Socialist states function, and what “rent” is. If you want, I have theory I can recommend for you.

What no theory does to a mf

Saying the rent is the people’s rent

Well that’s a strawman that nobody says

Yes, absolutely. Socialist states governed by Communist Parties are states where the Proletariat oppresses the Bourgeoisie. You can’t simply eliminate all property relations overnight, the role of a proletarian state is to sieze the large firms and key industries that are necessary to maintain that power, and gradually appropriate firms and industry until the entire economy can be publicly owned and planned.

There aren’t really degrees of authoritarian or libertarian in a state, just what circumstances the system finds itself in. At times where class struggle is sharpened, the state employs more drastic measures to maintain the class in charge, and this goes for bourgeois states or proletarian states. It isn’t a decision to be made on a sliding scale, but a reflection of circumstances.

Even comparing Anarchism with Marxism as “libertarian vs authoritarian” isn’t apt. Anarchists also employ authority in overturning class relations, just via a horizontalist approach. Marxist states also are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones, as they spread democracy to the economy, for the many rather than for the few.

Just my 2 cents as a Marxist-Leninist.

Side note: a higher stage Communist society where class has been abolished and the oppressive elements of government that make up the state have thus withered away would not be authoritarian, as there’s no longer class struggle. That’s more of a future thing though, not something that has immediate relevance.

he did say communist governments are authoritarian, in them the capitalist class would be getting oppressed by the state in service of the working class. this is why it’s called the dictatorship of the proletariat - the proletariat should still be getting their interests as a class represented in this arrangement, while bourgious have no special status or access due to their capital.

All governments are authoritarian, all states are instruments of class opression. What matters is which class is being oppressed, by which.

are there any examples of libertarian states?

Nuance doesn’t seem to be their strong suit

I commented elsewhere, but all states are authoritarian. What matters is which class is exerting its authority. In Socialist states, that class is the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. Marxists are not any more “auth” than other ideologies, and not any less.

States can present as more or less auth depending on the circumstances they are in, when the class struggle is a sharpened contradiction, but that doesn’t mean the state is making a choice to be more or less auth, just that it responds to different circumstances.

deleted by creator