Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it's a representative democracy, there's huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn't this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn't make much sense to me.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It can't just poof into existence. The job of a Socialist state would be to build up the productive forces and create the frameworks for such a society to use after the state whithers away, so to speak.

[–] StellarExtract@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the specifics of how a community would allocate resources without there being a state is considered more of an open question, then?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Among Socialists, yes. Among Anarchists, no, as they seek to directly implement their goal from ground zero. Marxists tend to disagree with this as impractical, but there is a ton of developed Anarchist theory, specifically Anarcho-Communist theory, that goes over how society would be laid out. Usually via networks of Mutual Aid and Direct Democracy.

[–] StellarExtract@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I see, thanks. That's something I'll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it's really a prerequisite for a functioning society. I appreciate you going over all of that!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

No problem! Both Marxism and Anarchism have developed online resources you can use for free reading, Marxists.org and theanarchistlibrary.org are both fantastic sources.