Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
Marx was not wrong about the “nature of a state,” but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation. This doesn’t make Marx “dead wrong” for not being an Anarchist, but a separate type of Leftist with different critiques.
There is no such thing as a “withering state” and there never will be. It’s no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith’s “invisible hand.”
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure. Moving through class society causes the elements of previous society to whither and decay. Socialism works the same way with respect to Capitalism, and Communism the same way with respect to Socialism.
As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a “lack of maintenance” of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
Not quite accurate, Marxism is specifically about working towards ending class society. Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist, it doesn’t really get at the heart of why systems work the way they do.
Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it’s twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
Not quite what I meant. Primitive Communism and systems like Owenism aren’t the same as modern Socialism. Capitalism necessarily creates within it the mechanisms for moving onward to Socialism.
but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation.
Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state’s role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure.
A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of “withering” - as you can see for yourself… the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it “withered” in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no “withering” to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no “withering” of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words “communist” or “socialist” in their gold-leaf printed titles.
Sooo…
Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist,
…absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I’d call it downright cynical - but I won’t, since I’m not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren’t even any “exceptions that prove the rule” around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
Primitive Communism
I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as “primitive” communism just as there is no such thing as a “primitive” - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
and systems like Owenism aren’t the same as modern Socialism
The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn’t make “modern” socialism all that unique.
Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state’s role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
Administration isn’t camouflaging anything, it is hierarchical. Marx didn’t see an issue inherent to hierarchy, but class and direction of production.
A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of “withering” - as you can see for yourself… the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it “withered” in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no “withering” to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no “withering” of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words “communist” or “socialist” in their gold-leaf printed titles
The feudal aspects of British society withered away. You’re again confusing size of government with what constitutes the state.
…absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I’d call it downright cynical - but I won’t, since I’m not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren’t even any “exceptions that prove the rule” around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
How exaxtly? Vibes?
For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
Ah, vibes, gotcha.
I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as “primitive” communism just as there is no such thing as a “primitive” - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
The descriptor may not have been the best, but the concept of tribal societies functioning without class doesn’t mean it never happened.
The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn’t make “modern” socialism all that unique.
Nobody said Marx invented the concept of Socialism. Socialists have built theory over time, yes.
Of course not… the people’s boot would never trample on the people, would it?
How exaxtly? Vibes?
Rejecting the idea that industrialized feudalism will, upon repressing and deprivating the working class hard and long enough, somehow lead to socialism isn’t “vibes.”
Ah, vibes, gotcha.
So you have exceptions to provide, then? Let’s hear it.
The descriptor may not have been the best,
And you’ve had how many years to change that descriptor? Or is it sacrilege to touch Red Jesus’ holy writ?
Of course not… the people’s boot would never trample on the people, would it?
Does the post-office trample on people? Government is not inherently a bad thing.
Rejecting the idea that industrialized feudalism will, upon repressing and deprivating the working class hard and long enough, somehow lead to socialism isn’t “vibes.”
You could elaborate on what you mean by “industrialized feudalism,” and why you think a democratic government is feudalist. Otherwise its just vibes.
So you have exceptions to provide, then? Let’s hear it.
I want to hear what you mean by “industrialized feudalism” before we get into discussing the successes and failures of AES countries.
And you’ve had how many years to change that descriptor? Or is it sacrilege to touch Red Jesus’ holy writ?
What good is it to individually use a term people are not yet familiar with? If leftists were more united, it could be put into question and changed, perhaps in an org or other structure. Without one, it’s easier to use accepted terminology. You already took issue with it, and I already responded, this topic is over. You just want to take a cheap shot at imagined religious reverence towards Marx, rather than maintain a productive convo, I feel.
Again - you are attempting to camouflage the role of the state as a nexus of power… and failing.
You could elaborate on what you mean by “industrialized feudalism,”
No elaboration needed - what did you think happens when the people is enslaved by a class of technocratic elites?
before we get into discussing the successes and failures of AES countries.
We will not be discussing that at all - you will either provide examples of the working class controlling the means of production or you won’t.
If leftists were more united
I have yet to hear one good reason to ally with you - not tripping over the anarchist critique of hierarchy at every step might be a good start, though.
Again - you are attempting to camouflage the role of the state as a nexus of power… and failing.
What am I camouflaging? Why is the state a “nexus of power,” what does that entail, and why is it a bad thing?
No elaboration needed - what did you think happens when the people is enslaved by a class of technocratic elites?
Something bad, I’m sure, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
We will not be discussing that at all - you will either provide examples of the working class controlling the means of production or you won’t.
There are many examples, Cuba is a quick and easy one. However, given your lack of elaboration on “industrial feudalism,” I think we are in for more stellar vibes-based analysis with lots of fiery language and no analysis whatsoever.
I have yet to hear one good reason to ally with you - not tripping over the anarchist critique of hierarchy at every step might be a good start, though.
You haven’t given a good reason to ally with you either, you have proven to be needlessly sectarian, aggressive, and unable to explain your criticisms.
Why do you need the obvious explained to you? Why do you think Marxist-Leninists want to seize the state? Because it (somehow) isn’t the nexus of power? What would be the point of centralized economic, political and social power if there was no organ through which to hegemonically exercise it?
Where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society, Clyde? On my patio, perhaps?
but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
It’s perfectly relevant - this has been the proscribed logic of every (so-called) “AES” so far… and none of them has delivered anything that can be called socialism with a straight face.
Cuba is a quick and easy one
The Cuban working class controls nothing. Cuba is not a socialist project - it is a nationalist one, plain and simple. Something isn’t “socialist” just because it got help from the USSR. The USSR cared about a lot of things - helping socialism along wasn’t one of them. It cared about as much for “spreading socialism” as the US cares about “spreading democracy.”
Try again.
You haven’t given a good reason to ally with you either,
I’m not the one whining about “leftist unity” - you are. I see no value in “leftist unity” whatsoever.
Why do you need the obvious explained to you? Why do you think Marxist-Leninists want to seize the state? Because it (somehow) isn’t the nexus of power? What would be the point of centralized economic, political and social power if there was no organ through which to hegemonically exercise it?
I want to hear it from your mouth, because so far you’ve been doing a lot of gesturing and asserting without explaining anything, and when your views conflict with established Leftist theory and history, I want to know why you hold those stances.
Marxists of all sorts wish to seize the Capitalist state as it is the instrument by which Private Property Rights are enforced and protected, and that which validate Class Society in Capitalism. Transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to Democratic institutions and councils is the goal and history of Marxism.
Where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society, Clyde? On my patio, perhaps?
More random jabs, childish and unproductive.
It’s perfectly relevant - this has been the proscribed logic of every (so-called) “AES” so far… and none of them has delivered anything that can be called socialism with a straight face.
Care to explain why democratic states that control industry, rather than wealthy Capitalists, is not Socialism? This is that thing you do, you gesture, assert, add some fiery language, but offer no supporting evidence or analysis to work off of.
As an equivalent, I could say that Donkeys are a type of fish, and that nobody could assert otherwise with a straight face. That would have the same level of rhetorical weight as what you have been doing thus far, even after I have tried to poke and prod you into a defensible position.
The Cuban working class controls nothing. Cuba is not a socialist project - it is a nationalist one, plain and simple. Something isn’t “socialist” just because it got help from the USSR. The USSR cared about a lot of things - helping socialism along wasn’t one of them. It cared about as much for “spreading socialism” as the US cares about “spreading democracy.”
Why is a Democratic Worker State where production is controlled by people directly and their elected representatives not Socialist? What could they do to become Socialist, in your eyes?
I’m not the one whining about “leftist unity” - you are. I see no value in “leftist unity” whatsoever.
I don’t see how you plan on achieving any leftist goals by trying to fight with every leftist that attempts to have a productive conversation with you. If your goals are not building up dual power to overtake the system, and instead to yell online and ridicule other leftists, then I would say you’re likely doing more harm to leftism than good. At that point, there’s very little separating you from a liberal, who also attacks the left and preserves the status quo.
![The US is Politically to the Right of [Other] Democracies](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/21301eb3-0348-4db4-9f02-82fd35987e02.jpeg){kind=link}
Marx was not wrong about the “nature of a state,” but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation. This doesn’t make Marx “dead wrong” for not being an Anarchist, but a separate type of Leftist with different critiques.
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure. Moving through class society causes the elements of previous society to whither and decay. Socialism works the same way with respect to Capitalism, and Communism the same way with respect to Socialism.
Not quite accurate, Marxism is specifically about working towards ending class society. Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist, it doesn’t really get at the heart of why systems work the way they do.
Not quite what I meant. Primitive Communism and systems like Owenism aren’t the same as modern Socialism. Capitalism necessarily creates within it the mechanisms for moving onward to Socialism.
Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state’s role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of “withering” - as you can see for yourself… the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it “withered” in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no “withering” to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no “withering” of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words “communist” or “socialist” in their gold-leaf printed titles.
Sooo…
…absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I’d call it downright cynical - but I won’t, since I’m not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren’t even any “exceptions that prove the rule” around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as “primitive” communism just as there is no such thing as a “primitive” - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn’t make “modern” socialism all that unique.
Administration isn’t camouflaging anything, it is hierarchical. Marx didn’t see an issue inherent to hierarchy, but class and direction of production.
The feudal aspects of British society withered away. You’re again confusing size of government with what constitutes the state.
How exaxtly? Vibes?
Ah, vibes, gotcha.
The descriptor may not have been the best, but the concept of tribal societies functioning without class doesn’t mean it never happened.
Nobody said Marx invented the concept of Socialism. Socialists have built theory over time, yes.
Of course not… the people’s boot would never trample on the people, would it?
Rejecting the idea that industrialized feudalism will, upon repressing and deprivating the working class hard and long enough, somehow lead to socialism isn’t “vibes.”
So you have exceptions to provide, then? Let’s hear it.
And you’ve had how many years to change that descriptor? Or is it sacrilege to touch Red Jesus’ holy writ?
Does the post-office trample on people? Government is not inherently a bad thing.
You could elaborate on what you mean by “industrialized feudalism,” and why you think a democratic government is feudalist. Otherwise its just vibes.
I want to hear what you mean by “industrialized feudalism” before we get into discussing the successes and failures of AES countries.
What good is it to individually use a term people are not yet familiar with? If leftists were more united, it could be put into question and changed, perhaps in an org or other structure. Without one, it’s easier to use accepted terminology. You already took issue with it, and I already responded, this topic is over. You just want to take a cheap shot at imagined religious reverence towards Marx, rather than maintain a productive convo, I feel.
Again - you are attempting to camouflage the role of the state as a nexus of power… and failing.
No elaboration needed - what did you think happens when the people is enslaved by a class of technocratic elites?
We will not be discussing that at all - you will either provide examples of the working class controlling the means of production or you won’t.
I have yet to hear one good reason to ally with you - not tripping over the anarchist critique of hierarchy at every step might be a good start, though.
What am I camouflaging? Why is the state a “nexus of power,” what does that entail, and why is it a bad thing?
Something bad, I’m sure, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.
There are many examples, Cuba is a quick and easy one. However, given your lack of elaboration on “industrial feudalism,” I think we are in for more stellar vibes-based analysis with lots of fiery language and no analysis whatsoever.
You haven’t given a good reason to ally with you either, you have proven to be needlessly sectarian, aggressive, and unable to explain your criticisms.
Why do you need the obvious explained to you? Why do you think Marxist-Leninists want to seize the state? Because it (somehow) isn’t the nexus of power? What would be the point of centralized economic, political and social power if there was no organ through which to hegemonically exercise it?
Where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society, Clyde? On my patio, perhaps?
It’s perfectly relevant - this has been the proscribed logic of every (so-called) “AES” so far… and none of them has delivered anything that can be called socialism with a straight face.
The Cuban working class controls nothing. Cuba is not a socialist project - it is a nationalist one, plain and simple. Something isn’t “socialist” just because it got help from the USSR. The USSR cared about a lot of things - helping socialism along wasn’t one of them. It cared about as much for “spreading socialism” as the US cares about “spreading democracy.”
Try again.
I’m not the one whining about “leftist unity” - you are. I see no value in “leftist unity” whatsoever.
I want to hear it from your mouth, because so far you’ve been doing a lot of gesturing and asserting without explaining anything, and when your views conflict with established Leftist theory and history, I want to know why you hold those stances.
Marxists of all sorts wish to seize the Capitalist state as it is the instrument by which Private Property Rights are enforced and protected, and that which validate Class Society in Capitalism. Transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to Democratic institutions and councils is the goal and history of Marxism.
More random jabs, childish and unproductive.
Care to explain why democratic states that control industry, rather than wealthy Capitalists, is not Socialism? This is that thing you do, you gesture, assert, add some fiery language, but offer no supporting evidence or analysis to work off of.
As an equivalent, I could say that Donkeys are a type of fish, and that nobody could assert otherwise with a straight face. That would have the same level of rhetorical weight as what you have been doing thus far, even after I have tried to poke and prod you into a defensible position.
Why is a Democratic Worker State where production is controlled by people directly and their elected representatives not Socialist? What could they do to become Socialist, in your eyes?
I don’t see how you plan on achieving any leftist goals by trying to fight with every leftist that attempts to have a productive conversation with you. If your goals are not building up dual power to overtake the system, and instead to yell online and ridicule other leftists, then I would say you’re likely doing more harm to leftism than good. At that point, there’s very little separating you from a liberal, who also attacks the left and preserves the status quo.