The state is a product of class struggle, and exists to serve the ruling class. A bourgeois state will only serve a bourgeois state, reformism is a dead end. Smashing the state and replacing it with a worker state is the basis of socialism.
I support socialist democracy, not liberal democracy. I don’t oppose hierarchy as I see administrative labor as socially necessary, especially for large-scale production and distribution. I don’t know if that answers your question in a satisfactory way, but I don’t really think the “key model” is very accurate.
Smashing the state, so you too are in favor of a 12 sided civil war, ending in a totalitarian dictatorship where people like you are the first against the wall. Okay.
Me? I say that the State is a tool, nothing more nothing less, and control of the State is key to everything. The State is necessary to have a functional society in the modern world. 99% of what the State does is boring regulations that make the world function at all.
Smashing the State means smashing society. Which means instant, bloody civil war where no one knows who will come out on top, except that it’s almost certainly going to be a bloodthirsty dictator, who will almost certainly engage in some form of genocide. We have thousands of years of examples of such.
No, the only path forward where things are actually guaranteed to not descend into sectarian violence is through seizing the State through as legitimate of means as possible.
Control the State, and by extension, you control the means of production.
Also, reform has done a fucking lot over the years. It’s the only thing that ever has.
Hell, even a recent history book will do it. There are a fuckload of examples throughout the world of a functional society having their government either couped or otherwise toppled. Syria is a prime example.
And I know, you’re just going to blame external meddling. But news flash, it’s impossible to escape external meddling. Even going back to antiquity when a civil war kicked off, the neighboring countries would often meddle, sometimes as an invading army, sometimes by cutting deals to support one side or the other, sometimes secretly both, or more than both if it was a truly messy war.
The Syrian State lost control, resulting in a massive civil war where everyone meddled.
Loss of control is the destruction of a State. That’s what it looks like.
It became a quagmire of sectarian violence with about a dozen different sides. Some communities were actually doing cool shit, some were engaging in genocides.
In the end, a new State had to be created, and even now things are not quite peachy keen in the country.
So, you think the State is some vague magic conspiracy then? No, it’s the government and associated bureaucracies. The rules and regulations by which society functions.
It’s the tool of control, and when it’s not in control, it’s just a group of armed thugs.
The major problem here is that reform has never actually managed to change capitalism to socialism, and has only cemented bourgeois rule. Revolution has, on the other hand, successfully established socialism. Your depictions of revolution are highly biased against successful revolutions, and your analysis of the state puts it outside of class society, which isn’t how it works.
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
The state is a product of class struggle, and exists to serve the ruling class. A bourgeois state will only serve a bourgeois state, reformism is a dead end. Smashing the state and replacing it with a worker state is the basis of socialism.
Hey, you are a ML right? Can I have your opinion on this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs]
I support socialist democracy, not liberal democracy. I don’t oppose hierarchy as I see administrative labor as socially necessary, especially for large-scale production and distribution. I don’t know if that answers your question in a satisfactory way, but I don’t really think the “key model” is very accurate.
Smashing the state, so you too are in favor of a 12 sided civil war, ending in a totalitarian dictatorship where people like you are the first against the wall. Okay.
Me? I say that the State is a tool, nothing more nothing less, and control of the State is key to everything. The State is necessary to have a functional society in the modern world. 99% of what the State does is boring regulations that make the world function at all.
Smashing the State means smashing society. Which means instant, bloody civil war where no one knows who will come out on top, except that it’s almost certainly going to be a bloodthirsty dictator, who will almost certainly engage in some form of genocide. We have thousands of years of examples of such.
No, the only path forward where things are actually guaranteed to not descend into sectarian violence is through seizing the State through as legitimate of means as possible.
Control the State, and by extension, you control the means of production.
Also, reform has done a fucking lot over the years. It’s the only thing that ever has.
Again, where’s your proof?
Go read a history book.
Hell, even a recent history book will do it. There are a fuckload of examples throughout the world of a functional society having their government either couped or otherwise toppled. Syria is a prime example.
And I know, you’re just going to blame external meddling. But news flash, it’s impossible to escape external meddling. Even going back to antiquity when a civil war kicked off, the neighboring countries would often meddle, sometimes as an invading army, sometimes by cutting deals to support one side or the other, sometimes secretly both, or more than both if it was a truly messy war.
Says the person who doesn’t seem to have read any.
A coup does not result in the destruction of the state, genius - that’s the whole point of a coup.
No, Syria still has a state… unless you have any proof that it has been destroyed that nobody else in the world knows about?
Why would I? You can’t even prove the basic assumptions your claims are based on.
The Syrian State lost control, resulting in a massive civil war where everyone meddled.
Loss of control is the destruction of a State. That’s what it looks like.
It became a quagmire of sectarian violence with about a dozen different sides. Some communities were actually doing cool shit, some were engaging in genocides.
In the end, a new State had to be created, and even now things are not quite peachy keen in the country.
No. That’s not how states work.
Nope. Again, that’s not how states work. Somebody else seizing a state does not mean the state has ceased to exist.
So, you think the State is some vague magic conspiracy then? No, it’s the government and associated bureaucracies. The rules and regulations by which society functions.
It’s the tool of control, and when it’s not in control, it’s just a group of armed thugs.
The major problem here is that reform has never actually managed to change capitalism to socialism, and has only cemented bourgeois rule. Revolution has, on the other hand, successfully established socialism. Your depictions of revolution are highly biased against successful revolutions, and your analysis of the state puts it outside of class society, which isn’t how it works.
Removed by mod
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
This is, frankly, ahistorical jibberish.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
Removed by mod