So how exactly does the state whither away and when it does what prevents capitalism from reemerging?

So how exactly does the state whither away and when it does what prevents capitalism from reemerging?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluli_people

This is a very complex question that requires a lot of reading.

To put it as simply as I can:

The state withers away because the state has historically always existed as a mediator between classes in society. This is why the birth of class = the birth of the state. The state has historically, for obvious reasons, quickly taken the "side" of the dominant class in society; filling its ranks with members of the ruling class (or rather, the ruling class taking control of the state). In a classless society, the state will only be comprised of people from the one class, the society as a whole. Therefore it becomes not so much a state, as we have historically understood it, but instead general bureaus for the organization of production and other social facilities, made up of the people, all of one class.

In terms of what "prevents capitalism from reemerging" - you have to consider what caused capitalism to emerge in the first place. It was technology that out-moded the feudal socio-political structures. That situation will not occur again. It is unlikely that capitalism will occur again.

It does not.

It doesn't.

The state, unlike what those who refuse to analyse it in materialist terms would have you believe, is a top-down organization of unaccountable actors and functionaries who extract surplus value from the working people for their own benefit. To expect it to simply wither away on its own is naive and akin to believing that capitalism or feudalism too will end itself spontaneously. It won't.
Thus why the USSR devolved into a totalitarian state-capitalist nightmare where the nomenklatura had simply replaced nobility, much as the bourgeoisie had simply replaced the nobles in the West.

The belief is an archaic one that stems from lack of Marxist theory on what a state is and the material exchange it facilitates. It ought have been discarded after the Soviet experiment, but instead we have people worshipping the word of Marx like it was dogma instead of science, wanting to repeat the same mistakes but expect different results, because "this time the philosopher kings will really care about us!"

Classless people still cause problems among themselves.

The state exists to control society with its rules.

As long as society exists with rules exist, there will be a state that enforces its rules.

Yes, but consider the interests of people in a classless society compared to a class society. The rules can be much more widely agreed upon, everyone has more similar interests.

The state is not a capitalist enterprise you stupid anarchist. Jesus.

The interests of people will remain the same, isolationist Japan was in harmony for about 200 years with no wars and people grew fat and happy but the state didn't wither away, classes still exist and crimes still happen. In fact, the secret police was stronger in those years because the state wanted to protect that peaceful and harmonious society.

There's your problem

There has never been a classless society.

There has been peaceful harmonious society (which is the very point of communists wanting society to be classless), but the state still didn't wither away.

Yeah and? The point he was making is that as long as classes exist, these classes have different self interests, and the state is used to enforce the class interests of one class over the other.

The elimination of classes is not for a peaceful harmonious (whatever that means) society but to end economic exploitation and domination of people over others.

Also lul at Japan being harmonious. Pls read some history of that period.

There's no historical precedence that a classless society, and if one exists would lead to the state withering away.
End economic exploitation sure, but how can a classless society end people domination over others?
The 200 years of the Tokugawa shogunate were some of the most peaceful years of Japan, with only a handful of civil war and peasant rebellions.

You say there's no historical precedence for a classless society leading to the withering of the state, but of course there isn't. There's no historical precedence of a communist revolution.

What we do have historical precedence of is the fact that in classless societies of ancient history, there was no state. We also know that the state arose as a set of institutional practices very soon after the birth of classes in newly agriculturalist society.

...

Uh, what?

The ancient societies have states and classes.
You have the hunter-gatherers, the warriors, the elders.

Just read Engels and then come back and have this conversation. That's not what "class" or "state" means. You're embarrassing yourself comrade.

Engels can define state and classes whatever he wants to.

The warriors, the peasants and the elders are still classes, and a state still exists.

...

...

You're the one defining them how you want to, then. Engels is using an understand of state and class that are well established and properly defined, that can be universally applied because their definition is well expounded.

Do some reading.

It's the same goddamn shit.

The hunter-gatherers work, give shit to the elders who make the decision how to distribute the fruits/meat and to the warriors who protect them.

Can you explain in what ways would people be able to dominate each other in a classless society?

Also lul at your Japanese example. If by peaceful and harmonious you mean an extremely authoritarian society based on social castes and fuedal economic exploitation(that still had civil wars and peasant rebellions), then I have no idea what to say.

Keep digging yourself deeper, I'll just stand back and watch.

Youre talking about post agricultural societies

This is the definitions, I'm using:
> a : a group sharing the same economic or social status
>a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereignb : the political organization of such a body of peoplec : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
I don't really care what definitons Engels used.

Please define what a state and classes mean to you.

Honestly, please, please, please do some reading. Do you have any anthropological evidence to back up that thesis about how ancient hunter-gatherer societies organized and conceived of power relations?

The division of labour between food producer and warrior is the first division of classes in society, and corresponds to the dawn of the state. Before that, hunter-gatherers were the warriors of a given society, the hunters and the warriors were the same men. There was only one class (two if you count the sexes) in that everyone occupied the same economic and therefore social role.

Can I get a source on that? The structure of hunter gatherer societies youre describing.

Classless people can still rob and kill other classless people, because poor and rich people still exist in a classless society.

Peaceful and harmonious in the way that they are next to no wars, and the people grow fat and lazy.

Also worth noting that division of labor isn't the same as division of class.

No, you're right. It is not equal to it but it is what leads to it in this historical context being discussed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
Anthropologists maintain that hunter/gatherers don't have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.[13][14][15] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[13] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[16] Postmarital residence among hunter-gatherers tends to be matrilocal, at least initially.[17] Young mothers can enjoy childcare support from their own mothers, who continue living nearby in the same camp.[18] The systems of kinship and descent among human hunter-gatherers were relatively flexible, although there is evidence that early human kinship in general tended to be matrilineal.[19]

Here>>666843

What is this proving?

It's proving that whie they don't have permanent leaders, they do have leaders, thus classes and state exist.

If I am not always the leader I am not in a leadership class. If other people are also occasionally the leader then we share in a class, so if everyone gets to be the leader at some times, then we are all the same class. The existence of leaders != the existence of class.

Shameful.

If you are at leader, you have a class, at least temporarily.

You can say a capitalist stops being a capitalist when he loses his private property, the same for a leader.

...

...

I just can't anymore, it's too painful. Please just learn what "class" means. Please just do some reading.

Doesn't the fact that everyone is disagreeing with you tell you that you might need to re-think your ideas on this?

t. anarchist theory

I already said it:
>> a : a group sharing the same economic or social status
No, because you guys are not everyone.

Social status is derived from economic status. Class is derived from economic status. Being temporarily the leader on a particular expedition or project does not give me any economic status different from anyone else, therefore just because my word might carry more weight or some other social power, I am not a different class.

Not really, since you can be leader even when you have the same economic status.

You will be treated better when you are leader, even when you have the same economic status.

Tall people are a class because they dominate shorter people in almost everything.

Corporations are states because they have massive control over workers.

...

...

Uh, yeah, that's what social status means.

Not to mention the part, you know, you deciding the future of your state.

The point is that class describes an economic relationship. Social status is derived from class in a class society, but it is not equal to it, and is unrelated to class in a classless society, obviously.

People are treated better in the context of the project on which they are the leader. They might get "celebrity status" for their achievements over time. But this doesn't manifest itself in economic differences, so they're not a difference class.

honestly as this point it seems as if you're jumping through mental hoops to pretend like you were correct
How is a fixed class of definite exploitation in a capitalist society "the same goddamn shit" as a fluid movement of hierarchical structure?
srsly just read that book by Engels, it isnt even that long

It's the same goddamn shit because it means people dominating each other, and classes exist in those exist.

And a capitalist is not a fixed class, a capitalist can lose his property and become a non-capitalist, just like a leader can lose his leadership role and become a non-leader.

Jesus christ l2context.
Social class according to leftists, is the class division of society caused by capitalist processes.
Thats what we're concerned about.

Yes, in a communist society, attractive people will get laid and be liked and ugly people will still be virgins, communists dont give a shit about that or any other non economic kind of social status.

Once economic social classes are gone, the rest will be a piece of cake to deal with.

>> a : a group sharing the same economic or social status
A leader doesn't share the same status as the rest of his tribe, therefore he does not belong to the same class as the rest of his tribe.

I don't care about leftist context, I care about the definition I'm using.
Proof?

Again, fine, but are using the word "class" to mean something entirely different to most understandings. You are making words up to suit your own position.

I'm using some of the most mainstream definition, literally a google away.

So yeah, maybe it's you guys who have a different definition of class.

In Marxist understanding, class is economic. If you want to refute that, read some Marx.

I don't view reality in a Marxist lense, nor do I need to.

I'm going with the definition the labourers movement was using until liberal media redefined it in the 50's.

Hint: "middle-class" is not actually a class, it's a socio-economic strata

The roles, interactions, and implications of the capitalists classes are completely different, please stop embarrassing yourself

Read the fucking book fam

I love it when people think they're being all "free-thinking maaan" when they say shit like this. Like "I view the world through my own lens bro", as if they have some kind of unbiased, objective view of things. We are always understanding the world through one lens or another. You have been inculcated with a lens from birth. You may as well make it the most correct lens possible.

PUT THE GLASSES ON!

See
Finally you get it.
We're not using class as "middle class" that burgers use. We have a different definition.

Just read your books and spare me the drivel.

I have no intention to switching to Marxist lense.

Sure Ill give you proof, first tell me what forms of domination exist in a society without social classes.

Easily.
Of majority against the minority.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluli_people
Here OP

One thing is to refuse to view the world through a Marxist lens, another thing is to refuse to understand what Marxists mean when they present an argument.

How does a majority inherently dominate a minority?

Instead of a Marxist lense, perhaps a better word would be a material one

If you are content to criticizing something without having any idea what it is and supporting something you have no evidence of, sure, go ahead

Through sheer number.

If a minority decides not to follow the majority's wish.

The marxist can use any definition they want, but I stick with the mainstream definition, what people generally know and use.

So a majority dominates a minority. How does it do so?

Extermination or subjugation.

OK so according to your retarded and supposedly mainstream version of class wherein even tall people are a social class, then communism can do nothing about that. Are you happy? You've debunked communism by completely ignoring their theory and definitions, inserting your own retarded definitions and disproving the theory!
Congratulations!

In newton's time the mainstream meaning of gravity was the sensation of weight

I do not insert any new definition, I just google an existing mainstream definition.

And now it's changed.

When you marxists become the mainstream, I will concede to your definition.

Are you serious?

The correct way to understand things is whatever current majority happens to believe?

I have to assume you are being willfully stupid at this point.

I'm a relativist.

If the position is right, I will follow it.

The truth is ever-changing.

...

On what factors do you decide if a position is "right"? What do you mean by "right"?

If it's proven to be correct through history.

And how does history prove or disprove the correctness of ideas?

Or rather how does history change the definition of words?
Can I just ignore what a Buddhist means by the word "Karma" when discussing with a Buddhist just because "karma" has a new and more popular definition in the West?

It doesn't, not in the way conceived of by Leninists The modern state is an invention by bourgeois liberals and leftists theorists in the 19th century. When we have socialism, that conception of the state will become obsolete and we'll have to come up with a socialist form of governance. There's no 'withering' part.

Marxist theory isn't a science, but you're correct about people becoming dogmatic about it either way.

lol anarcho-babbys still thinking they are not reactionary

no wonder you guys were purged in the USSR

Red fascism is a hell of a drug

Democratic mandate
It's really as simple as that m8
Socialism should come about that way, and when the government is no longer needed that's how it should be phased out

Typical anarkiddie logic.

Please, tell me how exactly Soviet factory worker interacted with the state. I.e. all the power structures he was (or could've been) part of.

I strongly suspect you have no idea of the internal structure of the USSR.

The withering of the state can only occur under a specific set of circumstances:

Firstly the revolution must have spread worldwide, there must be no external enemies to defend against.

Secondly there must be no alienated groups of enforcers, that is, no police force or army apart from the people themselves. During the dictatorship of the proletariat the defense of the revolution must be carried out by the organised proletarian themselves (organised into a giant regulated workers militia).

Thirdly the forces of production must be developed to the point where people have free access to everything they need, there must no longer be a need to enforce work or ownership over possessions (or personal property if you prefer).

Once there's no longer any enemy to fight (either internally or externally), the need for people to be organised on a martial basis will largely disappear, as the only need for enforcement will be to deal with the occasional dangerous or insane person (which hardly warrants a state in the current sense of the term). As the need for such an apparatus disappears people will simply opt to scale back time and resources delegated to it and as a result it "withers away".

I'd like to learn more about the USSR and asked AnCom poster for texts/books but gotten nothing. Please halp StalinStache?

Also thank you

for your explanations, I found them to be basically accurate and concise.

Just to clarify, when I say state I'm talking about an armed group with special rights acting as enforcers on behalf of a ruling class. As the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" only has some aspects of a state it should be regarded as a semi-state.
It's also worth noting that the withering of the state doesn't imply an absence of organisation. There will need to be a global administration of production and distribution, probably based on federated councils. Such an organisation doesn't pass laws or govern people however, and as such is not a state.

But you have to think about what those problems are and what sort of mechanism you'd put in place to regulate them. Society has its rules and public enforcers of these rules, but local policing/legal institutions are not going going to gradually expand its rules and regulations towards a modern state. Only an upper class can do this.

This awkward moment when I have to ask: do you know Russian?

If not, you'd be better off starting with "The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)".

For me, my anarchism is about societal progress as much if not more than revolution. Over the last two hundred years "Western" position on so many things has changed positively, we've tackled racism, created social reforms, etc. Socialist tendencies and liberal views are on the rise and through continuing these actions within and throughout our communities, we're creating a better society. Systemic change will occur when capitalism and the current "liberal democracy" with its greed, national, ethnic and monetary divisions, poor working conditions etc. will be so far away from the public desire, it will be brought down as just another example of common sense. We're far away from this, and what we can do is to carry on exposing the idiocy of conservatism, national divisions and pursuit of wealth, while not being outsiders ourselves. Moderate conformism with an anarchist/socialist undertone. What needs to be realised is that the state is reactionary and all forms of oppression are reactions to societies' expressions of freedom. From that we can extrapolate two things. 1. Society is always a step ahead and can use that to manipulate the reactions of the state. and 2. In order to pursue socialism and anarchism both ideas need to be promoted within society as a whole. Otherwise when the state reacts to socialist and anarchist groups on the fringe of society the public will often back the state in the fight against the non-conformists. I cannot stress enough that anarchism and socialism need to slowly become the normal thinking of the populace. The revolution might be 50-100-200 years from now, it's a foreign concept. We need to concentrate on small changes rather than short bursts of non-conformist activity. This is why I support parliamentary left, but also tru-left trade unions, some direct action etc. as much as spreading socialist ideas whenever politics, money, social security, freedom or housing is being discussed with my friends, co-workers, family.

Really?
Please show me your secret Holla Forums documents that 'prove' how tall people 'dominate' short people in everything.

And states have massive control over workers as they can seize corporations.

No sadly. Thanks for the rec.

So many people are confused in this thread about what a state is and if it can exist in a classless society.
Honestly, there are anarchists, maybe a few leninists, and other leftists that either hate the state and want it abolished, or they love the state more than eliminating classes.

It's so strange how you rigidly stick to a centuries old idea of "this is how the state must wither", instead of thinking of newer, more efficient methods and current problems.
There will always be external enemies, external alienated groups of outcasts/enforcers.
I don't understand where you get the notion that a classless society can function.

Tankie, USSR fanboys, either you eliminate the state, and your precious larping fantasies and throwing the kids that bullied you in high school into gulags, or you reject the idea of abolishing class to resurrect an oppressive USSR society.

I just wonder why you can't simply make up your minds, and stop being so fucking dogmatic.
Why do you cling to "Our Lord Marx/Lenin/Mao said our society must be attainted in this way, under these conditions, and must function in this way".

If you take their word, especially Marx's as a holy book, then you are a religious cult that deserves to be destroyed by capitalism.

I wonder if anyone here has bothered to stop chanting 19th century and 20th century dogma, take a few breaths and sat down to think.
Now, have any of you have bothered to update communism/anarchism/socialism for the 21st century instead of being so dogmatic and religious with Marx? I mean, ancaps love Rothbard, but they aren't as fanatical about him as you people are with Marx.

It's so strange.
Why don't you do something more useful like look into "does the labour theory of value have any merit in the 21st century" and "How do we have a communist society in the 21-25th century, while adjusting for current problems and future ones"?

The USSR collapsed.
That is something no tankie has ever truly come to terms with. If you did, you would move on and solve current problems instead of desperately trying to resurrect an unpopular dictatorship.
If it ever started to reemerge, I hope the USA nukes it into the Earth.

I mean, communists who fetishize the USSR are like Christians who fetishize medieval monarchy.

It's not religious. You need to change your ideology only when it provably ineffective (which is why SocDem change their opinions so much).

We are still living in industrial society. It's no wonder Marx's observations stay relevant.

Now that's just strawmanning.

It was popular when it collapsed and it is still popular.

Oh, it will. I expect at least a decade of USA's open nuclear terrorism.

It will not end pretty.

I just don't see the notion of the resurrection of the USSR as a good thing.
Tankies will hail it as a 'return' to communism, when it might be the most deceptive act by capitalism yet. I mean, capitalists can point to a modern USSR, that kills dissidents, sends dissidents to gulags as a dictatorship and turn even more people towards liberal democracy.

It's not that popular, especially among Russia's nationalistic and religious crowds.

It is fanatical.
I don't see such obsession with Marx anywhere else, its like when muslims talk about Allah.

"It's not religious. You need to change your ideology only when it provably ineffective (which is why SocDem change their opinions so much).
We are still living in industrial society. It's no wonder Marx's observations stay relevant."

It is religious, as such an ideology is fanatical, it rigidly sticks to Marx's writing as a holy gospel and that you think it can be used for all time.
Actually, did Marx write about space exploration, the internet, entrepreneurs, new technology, etc?
No. Yes, I know most of the worker-capitalist relations exist, yet you can't decide whether to replace it wth a commune, an oppressive USSR regime, a decentralized labour with a party leader overseeing everything like Chavez in Venezuela.

The other problem is determining value for every job, if it's sweeping a floor, a cashier to a brain surgeon. Many jobs aren't so easy to calculate the labour of.

The alternatives either sound like an oppressive Soviet regime with mandatory quotas, and with imprisonment or death if people fail them or an anarchist commune where laws are difficult to enforce without having a hierarchy.

I wonder if all leftists realize how much envy and jealousy will explode in such societies, that preventing the most productive people from getting paid more will kill off incentive.

...

In such a way that I am sure that it's just pure magical coincidence that the nomenklatura got stinking rich while the rest experienced relative immiseration…

Just like any system with private property.

That show shits all over Game of Thrones.

Incest porn was better without all of the talking.

Definitions change over times.

Winners write history.

...

My God, pure sophistry

If that's really how it is please don't be upset when we win.

I'd like to add to emphasize my point:
When, at one of the first sessions of the States General, representatives of the nobility and clergy alluded to the historical right of conquest being the basis of their muh privileges, the bourgeois theorist abbe Emmanuel Sieyès proudly answered them:
“Rien que cela, Messieurs? Nous serons conquérants à nôtre tour.” (And is that all, gentlemen? We shall become conquerors in our turn.)