(Sorry for any possible English mistake, I thought about this and wanted to read someone’s idea on or against it but I can’t find if there is a movement like it and what it would be called)
Like, we probably all agree that we are against capitalism but in order to achieve socialism (or directly communism) you must first develop the proletarian class as it is what is going to start the revolution.
So is there something like anarcho-communism, where they are opposed to having a socialist state as a way to develop communism, but that still believes in the importance of a socialist state in a utilitarian way to develop it’s own group of revolutionaries ?
An idea according to which a socialist state will never achieve communism (for whatever reason, like the small difference between classes under socialism before it turns into communism that might become reactionaries and roll back change even under a dictatorship of the proletariat or something else) but there is going to be one more revolution starting from the (relative) bottom in the socialist state.
Because from my basic understanding of ML for example, the transition between socialism and communism is supposed to be smooth. But maybe I’m wrong ? Feel free to correct me on anything.
So I can explain the role of the state for marxists. The state exists as a means for one class to oppress another. In the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat class is oppressed. In the dictatorship of the proletariat it is the other way around. So as a result of a prolonged dictatorship of the proletariat, you will no longer have a bourgeois class, so the state will ‘wither away’ because there is no more class to oppress. The dissolution of the state comes with the dissolution of the classes.
To me, a social state doesn’t have the same un-resolvable contradictions (needed to create a revolutionary moment) as capitalist states do.
What you are describing is similar to the events of the Cultural Revolution in China, so I recommend reading up on that.