askchapo

Your position is that once utopian abundance is achieved, that almost nobody will create conflict anymore bc they are satisfied by their material conditions--and that the few people who do, will be dealt with by the masses.

I reject that position, because such a self-interested individual can easily hide their motivations and trick the masses.

However, even if I were to accept your position that such a selfish individual is SOLELY the result of material conditions, and thus that they wouldn't even exist under socialism--your position still doesn't work because all it takes is a natural disaster for the system to be thrown out of whack.

Disturbances in weather can ONLY be absorbed properly if the entire system is managed by an authority--a state. Else it just devolves into what we have now. A tornado ruins the crop somewhere, now migration, now conflict, now inequality, and it's all downhill

In the presence of a state, this is a trivial-ass problem. You just take some extra from someone with a bumper crop. (Not being super highly populated also helps with this even more)

Your issue is with the Anarchists, not the socialists.

I never said I wasn't socialist. My issue was with this comment way up the chain:

Anarchists imagine a revolution that immediately jumps to a stateless society, and Marxists have concluded that it is necessary to seize state power to defeat the forces of reaction, and that the state can be dismantled only once imperialism and capitalism have been defeated on a global scale.

I diverge from this because I don't think the state can ever be completely dismantled if you want a socialist system to continue. I think that a stateless society cannot be socialist forever. A state-run society could be.