Do marxists actually believe this? This sounds terrifying. There's never been any state in history that would just give up power
Radicalize the working class
How the state is organized is a matter of contention. You have people like Cockshott who advocate for direct democracy and the like. Also, "whithering away" is commonly misunderstood.
even a common understanding of the role of the state sees it as simply an instrument used for the interests of some group or class. if the state were truly in the hands of workers it would devolve itself to mere administrative functions upon achieving socialism, "politics" itself would begin to disappear. but of course, we are assuming that the state is truly made an instrument of worker power and not the instrument of another class or newly emerged administrative strata which separates itself from the workers via social and material privileges.
to be fair, when the workers seize control of the state and political power the idea is that they immediately socialize everything (i.e. nationalize without compensation) and abolish money, private property, etc.
what has happened historically is that revolutionary groups seize control of political power without abolishing money or commodities. even when private property is mostly socialized, they fail to address the elements which give rise to the 'law of value' - leading to reversion to capitalism over time.
and yes, there have been many instances of leaders and ruling groups conceding power for different reasons.
The abstraction of the state naturally alienates itself from the people's interests. You create a hierarchy where the rulers think they're the best man for the job and that the prole are too dumb to rule themselves.
they believe in several revolutions that will make that happen.
even if it means a revolution inside the "revolutionary" state that doesn't wants to give the MoP up to the people.
Marxism is a series of reforms, revolutions, etc, etc it's a long process. Also it's mainly just a science to analyze political-economic systems. Read Das Kapital….
yes that is why Marx looked up to the Paris Commune as an example of what he calls "dictatorship of the proletarian", he wouldn't agree on the Soviet Union which was so massively different. Read Marx…
I don't agree with this approach but you're kind of missing an important connection here. The issue is that once you seize control of the state (which has a monopoly on violence) you have separate material interests from the rest of the proletariat, since you have systemic power that you would be better off trying to retain.
It won't. What it will do is cease being a state. It is the Soviets.
I have read marx. His critique of capitalism is spot on. Points about the worker being alienated form their labor and having their labor value exploited is are also correct. Marx was right about pretty much everything, though dialectical materialism is a bit iffy. Marx however was wrong about how to solve the issue. Marxism requires a faith comparable to Terry's in christ and seeks only to rearrange society's components(workers, organization, leaders) rather than abolishing those components. Marxism keeps enough of society that it'll likely break apart back into tyranny. That is, implying its not tyranny from the start. Marxism still reifies the values of humanism and progress.
The state corrupt those who use it.
I know this. I also know thats complete bullshit in practice. Delusions that a DOTP could work are on par with classical liberals thinking they have the perfect society. The power is still too centralized, thus corruption will occur.
It will not just wither away. DOTP has an inherently authoritarian structure. Authoritarian structures no matter how good their intentions are susceptible to corruption due to their centralized power. Vertical power structure es no bueno.
All power to the soviets, famalam
I bet you've read all three volumes of Kapital. :^)
I have. But feel free to critique the logical fallacies in my argument instead of telling me to read kapital for what would be the 3rd time.
I don't need to. You've already been told you don't understand DOTP, and why. You're just a faggot that can't read.
No. The totality.
You don't understand the DOTP at all. Perhaps you are too hung up on the word "dictatorship". Another less confusing term for the DOTP is proletarian democracy. The proletariat, the immense majority of the society who are wage-laborers, will organize themselves as a ruling class. We have to understand a state as a special organ of suppression that one class uses against another. The bourgeoisie use the state to preserve the status quo, protect property, etc. The proletariat will eradicate the the bourgeois state and will form a DOTP, i.e. a proletarian democracy. As the state arose from irreconcilable differences between classes, the state in its present form will wither away when there is no class to suppress (in this case the bourgeoisie). The DOTP is a completely new state. It is not a complete democracy, it is not a democracy for all. It is not democratic for the rich as well as the poor. It is 1000x times more democratic for the immense majority of society and the non-propertied in general. The DOTP is the instrument of the proletarian revolution and will wither away after into something quite unlike the suppressive states of today
The Foundations of Leninism
State and Revolution
Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy
Top kek, m8.
Even if you dress up your definition in marxist prose its still a state dumbass. Youve just said my definition but with extra words. All states are corrupt. You're completely immature if you think that power wont be immediately exploited.
Thank you for demonstrating that you have no understanding of Marxism whatsoever.
If you can't attack an idea based on its actual definition, then you're just retarded. You've failed to understand Marx, and this is why everyone here thinks you're a fucking idiot.
I love how claim to have read Marx yet don't even understand the Marxist analysis of what a state is. The state will cease to exist in the present political sense of the term
Marx literally did this. Saying communism is an historical inevitablity shows how shitty marxism.
Except he didn't.
Yeah, it's not a Zig Forumsyp. It's an anarkiddie, and that's pretty fucking obvious.
Nice argument powers, really thinking for yourself, bud
brainlet tier user. Is this why you cant get your revolution off the ground?
You're embarrassing yourself, kid.
No. He did not say this. This is moralism and inconsistent with a materialist viewing of history. How fucking retarded are you?
He theorized that the logical next step was socialism, not how to go about putting it together, nor how anything would work to get there. Naturally, the structures that facilitate such a thing will be in place before the revolution, and will look inevitable in hindsight, as all evolution in human history. Fucking kill yourself, faggot.
Please, tell me what I think. Since you have no idea in the first place, you do not know what Marxists advocate for.
You have failed to understand what this means as well. You suffer of a pure ideology, where you think you do not have one.
Read a book, my lad. Better yet, re-read this thread. You've received a free education today.
Dont you have a copy of TANS to jack off to?
we're done here user. Cortez awaits your vote.
Damn, you really need to read, my nigga.
No. It's not. Read Marx and find out.
Again, it's not. Many ideologies based themselves on amorality. Marxist critique of capitalism stems from its unsustainability and contradictions, not from its moral shortcomings.
Read, nigga, read.
I rest my case. Anarkiddies, everyone.
Damn, you really need to read, my nigga.
You read marx dumbass. The only reason you do anything is because you think there is a better or worse. Everyone is a moralfag.
He would only point it out if he thought they were bad. So he is a moralfag and marxism is based on moralfagging like anything else.
Step out of your own bullshit user.
They've either come to agree with anarchists(in the case of leftcoms) or they think the DotP will be some super democratic republic that will dissolve after the bourgeoisie have been defeated and there are no diverging interests between the managers of the state and the population.
They cant grok that there will exist a hierarchy in a DOTP. Even if for a moment. And that with any hierarchy there is exploitation.
< If for the impending overthrow of the present mode of distribution of the products of labour, with its crying contrasts of want and luxury, starvation and surfeit, we had no better guarantee than the consciousness that this mode of distribution is unjust, and that justice must eventually triumph, we should be in a pretty bad way, and we might have a long time to wait.
< Both the productive forces created by the modern capitalist mode of production and the system of distribution of goods established by it have come into crying contradiction with that mode of production itself, and in fact to such a degree that, if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place, a revolution which will put an end to all class distinctions. On this tangible, material fact, which is impressing itself in a more or less clear form, but with insuperable necessity, on the minds of the exploited proletarians—on this fact, and not on the conceptions of justice and injustice held by any armchair philosopher, is modern socialism's confidence in victory founded.
On the contrary many seem to accept that in the name of defending the revolution. Given how this worked out in actually existing socialism, and to a lesser extent Zig Forums post BO's spergouts, it's dubious that such an arrangement doesn't end up with the managers carrying out the counter-revolution themselves and dismantling socialism/social democracy/whatever to institute capitalism that makes burgerland blush. Assuming you're OP you might want to check out and the works of the Marxists hosted at libcom.org for Marxist takes different from the proletariat merely taking over the state or building a new state. It's mostly conclusions anarchists arrived to earlier with some added pretension but if you've read Marx you'll find it interesting
May I ask: if tomorrow Trump wakes up and decides he wants to "dismantle capitalism", do you think he'll be able to do it? Why?
Saved by mistake.
No, but Trump as President of the United States isn't equivalent to the managers as a whole of actually existing socialist states, who did dismantle the USSR and are currently reintroducing property. In addition to this Trump as a member of the bourgeoisie has no incentive to dismantle capitalism to return to feudalism.
How is he not?
The burger president doesn't have that much power, a better analogue would be the US President, majority of congress, majority of the judicial system, and majority of military commanders.
Because we all know where you really come from.
Yeah, in the nineteenth century
Trump can't even bar Muslims from coming into the country. What the fuck makes you think he can do anything close to what you are suggesting?
I don't think he can, I'm asking you why exactly he can't.
Because muh constitution and subsequent law establishes the President as essentially a figurehead whose job is to do diplomatic shit and potentially get involved in war rather than legislate. That power lies with congress and can be circumvented by the supreme court. The burger government is specifically set up in a way where changing its liberal and capitalist structure is enormously difficult even if by some miracle electoralism worked to get a majoirty of socialists into positions of power.
Trump can declare war but he can't change the law, the scope of the President's power hasn't changed enough to systematically dismantle the government and replace it with feudalism.
Because he isn't a one man government. The civil service, congress, military, courts, and the local governments all the way down would have to be abolished. This can only be done through revolution. Even then, he cannot lead this revolution because the revolution would be against his class and him.
Honestly this thread is exactly why I stop posting here and why I’ve kinda stopped giving a fuck about the left and politics
Every single fucking thread or discussion, whether it’s between leftists as a whole and some Zig Forumsyps or between the various tendencies always ends up in the same damn shit
The problem isn't that they don't read any books. It's that they don't even accept that their definitions and conceptions of certain things are wrong, even when explained why.
Marx is valuable because he has testable and verifiable hypotheses that have been tested time and time again and shown to reflect reality, with some revisions to theory as more data comes along. However, how we get to socialism is another matter that isn't a scientific question. However, we can look at how political systems work and realize that there is no way to do it without revolution, DOTP, and subsequent advancements. The problem is that we can't even agree on the meanings of these terms because people insist on using their own rather than engaging theory on its own terms in order to criticize it.
The left is rising, but the revolution isn't going to happen online.
I just needed to step away for awhile. You’re right that it won’t happen online but it’s just the constant fighting and arguing and debating that drives me nuts. Speculation on what Marx meant, what was the real meaning of this word, ect.
Idk but quick reflection of history reveals that the various socialist movements of the past, whatever particular flavor they took from Euro welfare social democracies to the USSR to Catalonia to NK all arose from various social, economic, and geopolitical circumstances beyond the control of the average prole. Arguing about a Pancake style council system is better than a soviet system is better than an anarchist style horizontal organization, ect is tiring, and completely pointless since it won’t make a bit of difference in the end anyway. Shit will unfold as it may
My bad didn’t mean to derail this thread (it was shit anyway). Just needed to clear my head
Unironically stay away from imageboards. I swear they’re bad for one’s mental health. I’m getting sick of this shit too
>Arguing about a Pancake style council system is better than a soviet system is better than an anarchist style horizontal organization, ect is tiring, and completely pointless since it won’t make a bit of difference in the end anyway. Shit will unfold as it may
good…good… feel the chair flowing within you
…it's better than ML, but you're right, it's absolute crap.