The state is mostly controlled by rich, upper class people...

The state is mostly controlled by rich, upper class people. And used to oppress poor people which keeps poor people from gaining power.
Should this be allowed?
If not, how do we fix it?

We kill the state, sooner or later.

And I don't accept the notion that individual ownership of the means of production is oppression.

Workers owning the means of production creates a new state of upper class that is still oppressive but to formally owned the means of production.

So that only makes it so a poor people run state can oppress the former rich, who are now poor. But the goal is to get rid of oppression. Not to merely change the oppressors.

Workers owning the means of production creates a new state of formerly poor now upper class that is still oppressive but to former owners of the means of production.*

I think this must occur, but why hasn't it occurred? I suspect that the state may be serving a necessary purpose that prevents it from dying.

Your picture is exactly what happened in the beginning of ww2. Except instead of liberals there was poland to bully.

haha
well meme'd my friend
And nothing of value was lost.

So it should really be Holla Forums and Holla Forums shooting fascists.

...

>every authoritarian regime is literally fascism!
I wish illiterate memelords like you fucked off from Holla Forums

I was thinking, who do leftypol and pol want to kill.
I'd say that we both want to kill progressives and central bankers.

What is leftypols definition of facism?
I think leftpol's definition of facism is a group of racially homogeneous people who want closed borders with the state owning the means of production.
How close am I?

...

Too specific, more proper definition would be

...

Closer borders is liberal revisionist definition of fascism

They're expansionist, likely using racial pretenses as justification for occupation of other lands.

ps Mussolini was definitely expansionist the italian army was just incompetent as fuck

Too specific. Everyone right of marx is the real definition.

Russia was expansionist as well. Is the definition, right wing expansionist countries?

Totalitarian, populist, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialist and usually class collaborationist radical nationalism, rather brief definition, but I think it works.

How do those opposites fit together exactly?

They aren't opposites, so it's easy.

and what definitions are you using for populist and democratic

support of the masses != democratic mandate

Explanation pls.

Mussolini and Hitler did derive their power from the popular support as evidenced by the large manifestations with hundreds of supporters, however they did not feel they need to uphold a democratic system to prove that popularity, as they needed to have large support rather than 51% of citizens.

I don't understand fully unless,
is your point that populism needs to maintain 51% of the vote to be considered democratic?

The state is a way or organising power to sustain itself. Police, military, welfare etc. are all part of the state apparatus specifically designed to uphold themselves.

Rebel against the state? Police are there to bring back "order" (think about the widows!!)

Secede from the state through peaceful, or violent means in order to establish autonomy? Military will kick you out. Also serves as defense from OTHER states which is handy.

And to keep it from getting that bad in the first place, we have welfare and other forms of social security that keep you strung along with just below the bare minimum to survive so you spend more energy trying to sustain yourself through welfare than you can achieving work, education, class consciousness etc.

It's not so much


but rather


That being said, we need some form of large-scale organising for the purposes of defence and protecting ourselves from regression back to capitalism, which is what Marxist-Leninists, Luxembourgists and others define as a "Vanguard" - A single-party state that is intended to defend the territory of the country, and organise resource usage, among other things - Their equivalent of a "state".

Ideally, the vanguard party doesn't develop an inner-circle of figures who want power for the sake of power and instead use the power as a necessity in protecting the interests of the nation. George Orwell's argument against this form of government is that figures become too fixated on protecting their own power that the state becomes more oppressive and repressive of society than before the revolution. 1984 is sort of a "worst-case scenario" of a post-revolutionary society that focuses on power and control over progress.

Democratic Confederalism, exercised in Rojava, seems to be an interesting solution to organising up toward a state level, but ensuring not one single entity controls too much or too many people. The region is autonomous, is able to protect itself through a cohesive, centralised military, but ensures power is kept local to citizens as much as possible, which has the side effect of protecting it from regression to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Hitler never actually was elected into a position of ultimate power. His last democratic election gave the Nazi party some 43% of the vote, which is hardly a democratic mandate.

You can also argue against it the same way you can argue against free market capitalism: Marketing.

Marketing, propaganda, etc. are used in politics as much as in capitalism to try and sell you a political platform. It usually revolves around blaming other parties for problems, saying X party's leader is stronger or better, rather than voters rationally choosing the "best" party that has the best manifesto for the people.

I could, with enough money, establish a political party, and by, say, 2027 have a majority in any western capitalist democracy on most shitty-but-not-crazy political platforms. Even the US could be possible assuming infinite funds - Half the reason cons/dems get all the spotlight is due to rules that limit federal political campaign funds. And then when I win a majority, I can just do what the fuck I want because any supporters I have are circlejerking with "HE WON YOU LOST" mantras- Plus I have control of the army and police.

Basically, with enough money and charisma you can get into a position of significant power, regardless of whether you mean good, or if your platform was good, or if YOU are fit to lead. It's all marketing.