MLs and some Marxists in general think we’re too idealistic and utopian. Isn’t expecting the state to wither away by itself when it ceases to be useful pretty idealist? I really don’t understand why MLs think that would happen when it hasn’t happened at all in history.
This was one of my main takeaways after reading Lenin’s State and Revolution.
There’s a lot of bloviating, and throwing around of terms like ‘petite-bourgeois philistines’. But not a lot of substance when it comes to the details of why exactly we need a transitional state, and the particulars of how the withering away will begin.
He talks about the need for power to be in the hands of the armed workers - but it seems to be just talk. There’s also a lot naivety in the idea of having a minimal government who are paid a small sum - why do we need these people? And knowing what we know about the nature of capital won’t these people and positions become corrupted? It’s the state, and capital itself we’re trying to do away with - not a change to a more benevolent group of capitalists who somehow know what’s best for all of us.
It does all come off as very fanciful, idealistic, and wrapped up in the myth that humans are inherently greedy and stupid and in need of a patriarchal figure to guide them.
In comparison I find a lot of anarchist writing more visionary, but also more pragmatic and backed up by sound reasoning.