[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1777758159506.png (3.54 KB, 250x250, 250px-Hammer_and_sickle.sv….png)

 

I'm just thinking.
The most important factor in the definition and practises of communism during history is the role of the State in the revolution.
Marx argued that after the proleatarian takeover and socialization of the means of production the State would simply "wither away".

I am not sure, but I think this is based in a hegelian style type of dialects in which he places the "dictatorshio of the ruling class" as a thesis, then the revolutionary takeover would be an antithetical form of dictaroshio which would result in the synthesis of communism or the stateless and classless society.

To be honest, this seems like a very simplification of reality if true and that would be the reason why so many revolutions failed.

The state don't simply disappears, because maybe it isn't only a "superstructure" vased on material relations but something much more complex than that.

Hegel defined the State as some type of collective rational which is the way God guides society, and Marx's views would seem to be the complementar opposite to that theory which would be also wrong, because the State is not God or only a product of material relations but something different.

It seems the State intead of disappearing it just change its form to something else. This doesn't mean it is guided by some kind o "superior being" but it also disproves the idea it is just a temporary thing that can simply disappear.

I would be interested in discovering what the true nature of the State is, becaue it seems to be, as I said, the central point of both the revolutionary theory and also communism in general.

>>2800176
<between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other
<corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors
<the Communist Manifesto places side by side the two concepts: “to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class” and “to win the battle of democracy"
<owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves "cannot be bothered with democracy", “cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population passively deterred from participation in public and political life.
<the proletariat organized as a ruling class is simply the vast majority of the people participating in politics and public life and pursuing their rational class interest
(pardon my hegelian)
<this is the transition from capitalism to communism
<in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then “the state… ceases to exist"

Other things to keep in mind:
1) there's a bourgeois and there's a proletarian state
2) the bourgeois state is smashed during the communist revolution and in its place comes the proletarian state (dictatorship of the proletariat, state is just the best word we have for the thing sometime)
3) the proletarian state withers away

What is the bourgeois state? I think Bukharin here has the best answer
>From the Marxist point of view, the state is nothing but the most general organization of the ruling classes, its basic function being to preserve and expand the exploitation of the oppressed classes.
>As the most general organization of the ruling class, the state arises in the process of social differentiation. It is the product of class society. The process of class stratification, in turn, is mainly the product of economic development.
>In order to ascertain the most general sources of this statification [for the current bourgeois state] we must keep in mind the tendencies of finance-capitalist development. The organizational process, which embraces more and mere branches of the “national economy” through the creation of combined enterprises and through the organizational role of the banks, has led to the conversion of each developed “national system” of capitalism into a “state-capitalist trust.”
>in the beginning the state is the sole organization of the ruling class. Then other organizations begin to spring up, their numbers multiplying especially in the epoch of finance capitalism. The state is transformed from the sole organization of the ruling class into one of its organizations, its distinction being that it has the most general character of all such organizations. Finally, the third stage arrives, in which the state swallows up these organizations and once more becomes the sole universal organization of the ruling class, with an internal, technical division of labor. The once-independent organizational groupings become the divisions of a gigantic state mechanism, which pounces upon the visible and internal enemy with crushing force. Thus emerges the finished type of the contemporary imperialist robber state, the iron organization, which with its tenacious, raking claws embraces the living body of society.

>>2800185
cont. bukharin:
>Now we must turn to a perfectly natural question – the role played by the workers and proletarian organizations.

>Here there are two theoretical possibilities: either the workers’ organizations, like all the organizations of the bourgeoisie, grow into the general state organization and become a simple appendage of the state apparatus, or, alternatively, they outgrow the confines of the state and explode it from within, organizing their own state power (or dictatorship).
>The material basis for such an outcome is the differentiated influence of imperialist policy on the position of the bourgeoisie compared with that of the proletariat. So long as imperialism allowed only its “progressive side” to be seen (the “peaceful” expansion of pre-war times), imperialist attitudes necessarily grew up within the proletariat.
>But now imperialism has displayed its aggressive side; and the more it does so, the greater is the burden it imposes on the international proletariat.
>Whereas the imperialist bourgeoisie sees vital necessity in continuation of the imperialist policy, the proletariat sees an equal necessity in the destruction of imperialism, and of capitalist production along with it.
>Any further development of the state organisms – before the socialist revolution – is possible only in the form of militaristic state capitalism.
>In the upper stratum of society a vile military clique is inevitably growing in strength, resulting in brutal drilling and bloody repression of the proletariat.
>any activity by the proletariat, under these conditions, is inevitably directed against state power - hence, a definite tactical demand: Social democracy must forcefully underline its hostility, in principle, to state power.
>To support the contemporary state means to support militarism.
>In our day the historical task is not to worry about further development of the productive forces (they are perfectly adequate for the realization of socialism), but to prepare a universal attack upon the ruling gangsters .50 [caliber]
> In the growing revolutionary struggle, the proletariat destroys the state organization of the bourgeoisie, takes over its material framework, and creates its own temporary organization of state power. Having beaten back every counterattack of the reaction and cleared the way for the free development of socialist humanity, the proletariat, in the final analysis, abolishes its own dictatorship as well, once and for all driving an aspen stake.

File: 1777759899955.jpeg (21.38 KB, 651x307, mussolinu.jpeg)

To Marx and Engels, a State is a class dictatorship which represents a ruling class, and so a State which represents the whole of society cannot be a State as such. This is expressly Hegelian, except that Hegel still saw internal contradiction as the rule - disturbingly, this is also the view of ᴉuᴉlossnW and Gentile, who in their "totalitarian" philosophy, said that all things must be liberated by their entrance into the State. We may view the Marxist view of the State as "totalitarian", then, since a global government is seen as inevitable.

In terms of its administrative functions, Marx and Engels nowhere imply that there will cease to be a political body; only that more and more people will be included into its process. As someone who enjoys wilderness, I find this all to be quite unsettling, but this is the curse of over-civilising society; we lose our thumotic character.

>>2800200
>>2800188
>>2800185
I will answer you both with my personal and yet quite simple and incomplete version of what the State really is (either bourgeois or proletarian or any type os state):

The state is a form of human organization that developed throgh time and was used as a form of both social organization, rationalization, but also oppression.
The state is not simply a tranaitory tool but it has some rational and unchangable structures that can be changed in nature but not exactly in the way it opperates.

The proletarian state will not simply disappear for the same reason it is very difficult for any state to disappear: there will always be new forms of social conflicts and the state is the "arena" in which these conflicts take place.

I don't believe in a transitional state. I think communism will only exist when society decides collectively that we all will not need the state anymore, but this seems like rather an utopian idea (and maybe it is).

Tge state is a mix of human socio-economical and political foindations and it must be revolutionized but not only this will create a new form of state but it will guarantee the state its own existence thereafter.

I don't even know if I am a communist anymore. I am pro-revolution but maybe the end of the state seems to be a rather silly opinion to hold nowadays..We must just change it in a better way.

>>2800208
This is unnecessary eclecticism.
>The state is a form of human organization that developed throgh time and was used as a form of both social organization, rationalization, but also oppression.
This is a word salad and not any functional (scientific) definition.
>there will always be new forms of social conflicts and the state is the "arena" in which these conflicts take place.
You are supplementing class struggle and the abolishing of classes with vague (non-quantifiable) notions of social struggles. This is falsification.

Word salad by an obvious opiate addict. Nothing of substance.

>>2800229
You are so dumb.

>>2800233
You are a fent addict.

>>2800229
>>2800233
What is so hard for you to uderstan the idea that the State is both a form of social organization and rationality but can also be a form of social oppression?
I think even Marx would agree with it. This is some obvious shit and not a "word salad" (dumb little minded americans and anglos in general tend to use this expression for simple fluid thinking they can't grasp).
This is scientific because it comes from historical observation and also analythical thinking (derived bothe from marxism and other traditions, like weberian).

>You are supplementing class struggle and the abolishing of classes with vague (non-quantifiable) notions of social struggles. This is falsification.
Am I really?
Did the abolition of private property ended social conflicts in any way? Didn't Stalin and Trotsky had to fight for the "correct way" of conducing the revolutionary state?
You are just ignoring simples historical facts.
This is not simply binding words in an ecletical way, the reality seems to be this complex and we should analyse the world not as a blank sheet of paper and with a dialectical simpkicity but as a complex form of arrangement of societies, in which the State places itself as a battlegroung of human class and individual struggles.

I am not exactly an orthodox marxism but I don't disagree entirely with him. I am just evolving his theory after all we have seen.

File: 1777763541871.jpg (311.08 KB, 2000x1333, Saude_Fumar-Maconha-Covid-….jpg)

>>2800239
Yes, you are american and yes, you have problems with continental way of thinking and this includes Marx itself.
You are just full if rage that can't grasp a simple fact or observation about the nature of things.
You are a disposable tool after any kind of revolution as you should be.

(I am more o a weed addict tho, cope and seethe, dumb tankie).

>>2800200
Anarchist (dumb): We don't have a state we have a horizontal federation of communes.

Marxist (smart): We don't have a state we have an administration of things.

File: 1777811393067.png (352.83 KB, 576x534, genuinely-did-not-know-you….png)

>>2800577


Unique IPs: 5
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /