this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
1396 points (97.8% liked)

US Authoritarianism

874 readers
1071 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.

I think you're confusing what a State is, in Marx's words. Marxism is not anti-government, or anti-central planning. Marx specifically used the term State to refer to the elements of government that uphold class society, ie private property rights. Marx was not an Anarchist, he argued against Anarchism vehemontly. Critique of the Gotha Programme is worth visiting, if you haven't already.

It's in this manner that the state "whithers away." Not via the government intentionally eroding itself into Anarchism, but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions. Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.

This isn't analysis unique to Lenin, this is straight from Marx himself.

The rest of your comment is generally true though, such as analysis of Social Democracy.

[–] masquenox 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think you’re confusing what a State is

No. I'm not.

he argued against Anarchism vehemontly.

Yes, I know - and his arguments against anarchism is still just as as hollow as the statists that came after him.

government that uphold class society, ie private property rights.

Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.

It’s in this manner that the state “whithers away.”

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."

but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions.

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.

Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masquenox 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masquenox 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Marx didn’t see an issue inherent to hierarchy,

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masquenox 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Government is not inherently a bad thing.

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masquenox -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why is the state a “nexus of power,”

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masquenox -1 points 5 months ago

conflict with established Leftist theory and history,

Nothing I have said conflicts with leftist theory and history in any way whatsoever. What I have said does conflict with Marxist-Lennist "theory" and "history" - not really sure whether that can be called leftist, though.

Transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to Democratic institutions and councils is the goal and history of Marxism.

Oh... is that what the Bolsheviks were doing? I guess they just happened to hijack the soviets through anti-democratic means purely by accident, then?

and that which validate Class Society in Capitalism

So class society is good as long as it's not capitalist, eh? Do tell - what class do you imagine yourself to be in your idealized, faux-socialist utopia? Let me guess... the class that doesn't have to do all the hard and dangerous work with barely even a smidgen of the labour protection workers in the imperial core get?

More random jabs, childish and unproductive.

No, really, Clyde - where does the institutionalized monopoly of violence reside in a hierarchical society?

Care to explain why democratic states that control industry,

The state does not represent the working class.

The state will never represent the working class.

If the state controls the means of production, it means the working class doesn't.

The state will only ever represent the interests of the small elite that control it's apparatus. You know this perfectly well - and you believe yourself entitled to be a member of that elite that are (supposedly) qualified to dictate material conditions to the working class "for it's own good".

Everything you say merely exists to dress up that fact in socialist-sounding discourse designed to hide that you view the working class as little more than something that exists to facilitate your utopian fantasies. I'd say they were utopian fantasies that was doomed to failure - but delivering socialism isn't really the point to you and yours, is it?

You are not just anti-democratic - you are fundamentally anti-socialist.

I don’t see how you plan on achieving any leftist goals

What "leftist goals" can someone who only has loyalty to a technocratic elite have? You are no less classist than the liberals and capitalists - we have no goals in common.

Let me repeat that - me and you have no goals in common.