according to foucault, the state has undergone an evolution from “making dead or letting live” to “making live or letting die”; he terms this second situation “biopower”
many anarchists and libertarians want to return to the first state of affairs, and consequently seek to reduce the influence of the modern state; these are all, in one sense or another, neo-feudalists
marx instead would say that the state has not gone far enough. it has concerned itself with the lives of its citizens, yes, but only their INDIVIDUAL lives. it does not protect, and indeed acts at the expense of, their SOCIAL lives. the communist is consequently not concerned simply with making live or letting die INDIVIDUALLY, but with making live and letting die SOCIALLY. the communist state takes as its prerogative the nurturing of certain manifestations of social life at the expense of others
those of us living in capitalistic societies recognize that this is a more advanced state of control than we currently experience. control itself is neither good nor bad, however. just as capitalistic society can provide life-saving medical treatment or deny it, communist society can equally quash both white-supremacists and queer culture. the important question at hand is whether you think the decision regarding which societies should be supported (and which not) should be handled as a matter of state, or through some other mechanism. this is a particularly relevant question today, as we find that traditional mechanisms for dealing with these questions have run headlong into some severe crises
do you think the state has an obligation to protect social access to community spaces for queer people? do you think the state has an obligation to suppress white supremacists? do you think the state has an obligation to suppress conspiracy theorists / purveyors of misinformation? i think many people would say “yes” now who would have said “no” a decade ago; this is a tide turning in favour of communism