The term describes a material condition. State police forces exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

My confusion is why collapse back to capitalism?

Let’s start with some axioms. There is a continuum of stages of human societal progression with socialism following after capitalism. Under socialism the workers run the state. USSR socialism was great for the worker.

Given the axioms, why would the USSR decide to create a capitalist class again?

The USSR’s results in the face of outside pressure were great however. Why buckle after putting up such a fight?

Why can struggle against external power move human societal progression backwards?

Let’s examine laissez-faire capitslism on Lemmy. Trivially, how did the “invisible hand” become the “free hand”? That feels like a mix of “invisible hand” and “free market”.

How does such a system overcome “might makes right”? Adam Smith mentions the natural monopoly of kelp farms in Scotland. Who keeps the market free when I can use force to take over such a natural monpoly?

Thereby, I should be able to expand my holdings through force and regulate commerce on my land sort of like… a state? This corresponds with Nozick’s minimal state responsible for a monopoly on violence. Is such a state required for your unfettered system?

The aim is to establish communal horizontal power while living under existing power structures. An example is bringing neighbors the excess fruit from a harvest. The practice is common in rural communities. The magic is cooperation and mutualism. No bosses required.

I am working toward reduction of heirarchy and increased worker control of the means of production. I have an agenda to inform as many people I know about anarchy as possible. This is probably propoganda, maybe. I do not have all the answers. We can do better than the current system.

Does propoganda require a state? I think we can push an anarchist agena a state. Talk to neighbors and coworkers. Meet them where they are without the alienating lingo. The “RusSian PrOpogAnDa” reaction typically is the result of a bad sales pitch.

Conflating organization with heirarchy implies those at the top of a heirarchy do work that produces value. Organization can require delegation, but any delegation should be instantly recallable by the workers. Heirarchy however places a manager over workers.

Instead of bringing the entire team, the team can ask John to talk to the propulsion team about how strong the fuselage needs to be for successful liftoff and reentry. The team trusts John has the expertise to get correct specifictions. If John messes up, the team can go talk to the other team directly.

By contrast, a manager with a MBA has no idea about making rockets. The manager has to loop workers into the project. The manager uses the worker like a tool to communicate with other teams. The manager gets paid better than the workers. The workers cannot remove the manager for poor performance. That is the job of the managers boss.

I must have a master to defend myself. /s

In seriousness, meet your material needs for self-defense. I’m confused?

Wikipedia has a list of Chinese billionaires. Software Developer salaries in China are similar to salaries in the west. Laborers appear to make far less than owners. I do not know why an individual needs billions. Seems to violate, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

Maybe the billionaires do not own the capital their laborers use. Maybe the relationship between Chinese billionaire and worker is not exploitative as per the meme. Do the workers control their labor?

I would wear one.

My understanding of Euromaidan is likely tainted, but wasn’t that a Ukrainian alignment to the European Union and not NATO? Aligning to the European Union would still be a move away from Russian influence.

I agree that colonizers have harmed indigenous people, but find the argument anyone has a birth right claim to property proposterous. As Proudhon proclaimed, “Property is theft!”. I expect any revolution toward anarchy to remove property from the owning class.

I am less knowledgable than you about “land back”. How does “land back” differ from other ethno nationalist movements like “blood and soil”?

I acknowledge the argument NATO is encircling Russia. To what extent does Ukraine differ from other actions by Russia such as Georgia in 2008? Which sorts of actions are not resistance to NATO encircling?