Alt Text
Show parent replies
It might be argued that the existing, hierarchical state, if and when it has been seized by a ‘true’ socialist party and has successfully transitioned from capitalism to an early stage of socialism, will lose its capitalist character. Even if such a state retains some
hierarchical ‘capitalist characteristics’, it will now be a properly democratic workers’ state, which can be relied upon to carry out universal emancipation. This argument is a bit like saying that boiling water, once moved from a pot to a glass, is now really cold water with
some ‘hot water characteristics’. It’s terminological trickery: the internal structure of the thing remains the same, and insisting that it be called something else because it’s in contact with something else (without changing its internal structure) does nothing to change either
the fact of its internal structure or what we can expect to result from it. The results of spilling 100-degree Celsius water on yourself will be the same whether you say it’s ‘hot water’ or ‘cold water with hot water characteristics’.
So too, anarchists argue, will retaining a hierarchical state, regardless of how you label it.