Is this wrong or right?

Chinese porkies do that because the international porkies let them.

So again, Marxists never intend to do it without the state.

No one can hold them account for that, not even marxists.

There will always be some enemies or problems to justify the state.

So quit the bullshit that anarchists and marxists want the the same thing.
Anarchists: no state.
Marxists: want a state.

Just say it, faggot. Da joos are using ching chongs to ruin the proud American bourgeois heroes.

Derp.

Anarchism doesn't rely on one theory of value. I've never heard of a convincing theory, but you don't need one.

No they haven't

Go back to Zig Forums

*thonking*

Not the guy you're responding to but if you're just going to keep ascribing some secret malicious intent to all Marxists then why even bother? On the off-chance you're actually willing to seriously engage, though, the withering away of the state is a central part of Marxist theory; the idea isn't that one "abolishes" the state overnight but that its functions are gradually either abandoned when no longer necessary or subsumed into everyday life as the conditions that make them necessary disappear - this is obviously something that takes a bit of time, and "most of the world wants to fucking kill us lmao" is a pretty obvious barrier to getting rid of things such as a standing army. Obviously the development of the USSR - that is, isolated and backwards, without support from a wider revolution - is going to look different to the large-scale revolutions in advanced nations that were expected by Marx, Engels, and even Lenin.

Speaking of the withering away of the state, however, Engels even makes the point in a letter to Bebel discussing the Gotha program that the post-revolution "state" is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word:

In all I'd just recommend giving .pdf related a look over. TL;DR the state is ultimately a product of class conflict and attempting to "abolish" it or force it to wither away before the conditions that created it have first been "abolished" can result only in state power being captured by the class that is prepared to actually wield it. It's worth noting that even historical anarchist revolutions have ended up with the revolutionaries being forced into wielding state power, even if they didn't call it a state; the Ukrainian anarchists had everything from "voluntary" conscription up to their own version of the Cheka, for example.

It's catchy so it must be true! Neoliberals and Keynesians have predicted 0 of the last 5 crises.

No, eventually there will be no need for state. But we are talking after centuries of global socialism has created the right conditions for it. And then nobody will say "hey lets transition now into communism!" it will be more like, one day, someone will dust off an old book, read it, and say "hey, were communist now!"