my local ML party insists on using the state as a means to archive revolution instead of going to communities and helping people. who really need it. in India there are Maoists(Naxalites) that go around helping and improving the lives of people according to the Indian government i just don’t understand why this is. why wait for revolution when there are people who need help now.
If the bourgeoisie has a monopoly on violence, and a legal system that enforces their rule, how are you supposed to help people with their primary material concerns? “Helping people”, without constructing organizations capable of taking state power, means that you are leaving bourgeoisie in charge, with all their power structures, intentional impoverishment of the majority of people, vast wealth inequality, a legal system tailored for their interests, etc.
As @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml stated, read state and revolution for more on why a state is necessary to make the transition from bourgeois to proletarian rule.
State and Revolution gave me the proper context to analyze the revolutionary movements that have succeeded and was the book that pushed me from being an Anarchist to becoming a Marxist-Leninist. After reading it it took me about 3 months to really realize how much it changed my positions on the use of the state as a form for revolution.
It is a really brilliant book, possibly the most imporant political work of the 20th century. Very few anarchists or liberals come out the other side.