It's funny to me to see this kind of thing labelled as "communist" considering that classical Marxist theory itself actually has a very cynical (and determinist) view of the state and does not in fact see the state as performing this "civic" role at all. Old school dogmatic Marxists see the state as nothing more than the coordinating arm of capitalism, or a "relief valve" for it, and Lenin spoke openly about its complete destruction in State And Revolution. It's as equally cynical about government as the libertarian position is.

So, no, it's not "communist" to advocate a functioning civil sector.

I didn't say that. The current American populace seems to be saying that.

I was raised in the Cold War "Red Menace" days, and Civic Duty was considered "Red-Blooded American." My father[0] was in the CIA. He was a Harvard LLB, and could have been quite wealthy, but chose what he considered his Civic Duty, as a career (which wasn't really rewarded well).

I've never been particularly extreme, myself (very centrist -a vanishing species), but Civic Duty has always been important to me, and to my family, for generations.

That no longer seems to be the case.

[0] https://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I'm not the person who downvoted you.

Cool. Sorry about that, Chief...

>Old school dogmatic Marxists see the state as nothing more than the coordinating arm of capitalism, or a "relief valve" for it, and Lenin spoke openly about its complete destruction in State And Revolution.

And yet every single time Communists (Lenin included) have gotten into power...

Sure, and that speaks at least partially to the incorrectness of the classic theory of the state in those branches of Marxism.

(I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though. There are theoreticians who have added a lot more nuance here, especially Poulantzas)