So the Marxist idea of state is essentially something that works in the interests of a given class. But isn't this a false premise? The theory of the state claims that it is the "mean average interest" working in favour of the bourgeoisie, but in terms of actually modelling it, can we really create a summation of what the state works in the interest of? This is something post-marxists have criticised in the past advocating there is an addition of relative autonomy to the state, or advocating we live in a post-capitalist (not to say not capitalist) society, where Marx's ideas have become increasingly inaccurate
As always, don't get your hair in a knot, it's just a question.
So basically post-Marxists are enlightened by Hobbes. Nice.
Bentley Morris
*hiss* Come on SocDem poster, I want to like you
Justin Rivera
And I want to get romantically involved with my first cousin, but neither of those things are going to happen.
So what denomination of Christianity you belong to? t. Eastern Orthodox Church member and Eastern(orthodox) theology major
Nathaniel Smith
W-what?
Catholic. Nice major you got there
Carson King
So you guys actually believe in god and Jesus and all that other stuff. What the fuck is wrong with you.
Ian Flores
...
Brody Robinson
...
Nicholas Hall
KEK IS THIS A REAL THING
Hunter Garcia
It started off as mutual teasing in high school, but few months ago she got herself a boyfriend. Additionally since I only have 3 years left to get married(before joining priesthood and you can`t marry post-priesthood) I`m bit worried.
I hope that someday our churches can reform and join each other, split of 1054 was a mistake
Ryan Young
The state mediates class conflict in the interest of the ruling class. You can see this every day in every action of the federal government and local government. Of course the state is autonomous of the ruling class, as it cannot act as a middleman if they are one and the same. That seems like a totally vacuous critique of the Marxist explanation of the state. Have you even read Lenin?
Can you actually name the ways that capital functions differently now than in Marx's time or is this one of those "lol we don't work in factories anymore" threads?
Ethan Stewart
You need to do better than this. "It's true despite this theory you presented which argues otherwise" is not an argument. Yes, I've read Lenin. I disagree with Lenin, and so do the theorists I'm presenting.
See this is the hair getting in knots I was talking about. I didn't say this.
Don't be so easily angered
Cooper Reed
You didn't present any theorists. You haven't presented how the Leninist model of the state is inaccurate. You've asked two questions.
Blake Perry
Have you never heard of the infamous Miliband-Poulantzas debate??? I said the post-marxists after all….
This is something post-marxists have criticised in the past advocating there is an addition of relative autonomy to the state
The state has its own interests, it's essentially a third class. There is definitely an autonomy to the state, but it's own interests and the capitalists' often coincide. The addition of democracy just makes the state a little more having interests in the workers' interests.
At the end of the day, whether people within the state are evil or not, they're helping a structure which is malicious.
Matthew Brown
YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE
ASKING IF MAN DESCENDED FROM THE SAME AS AN APE IS NOT THE SAME AS PRESENTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Adrian Phillips
So the general idea of slave is essentially something that works in the interests of a given owner. But isn't this a false premise?
The theory of the slave claims that it is the "person" working in favour of the owner, but in terms of actually modelling it, can we really create a summation of what the slave works in the interest of?
This is something neo-feudalists have criticised in the past advocating there is an addition of relative autonomy to the slave, or advocating we live in a post-slavery (not to say not slave-state) society, where ideas about have become increasingly inaccurate
As always, don't get your hair in a knot, it's just a question.
Charles Adams
You are being dogmatic, and your angry is unsightly.
Holy shit what is wrong with you?
What sort of shitty strawman is this
Joshua Gonzalez
Just ignore him. He's not here to argue in good faith. The moment people get worked up about his obstinate ignorance he declares victory like a true sperg.
Right on cue.
Andrew Ortiz
This is literally what every opportunist from Bernstein to Kautsky to Deng Xiaoping has claimed.
Nothing good has ever come of this.
Dylan Edwards
if your argument is ruled out a priori, you've lost. you don't need to be smug to know that there are no square circles.
Hunter Cox
Yes, and that's how Rebel walks away from every thread he participates in feeling a little better about himself.
Jonathan Clark
Seems to me you haven't understood it. It's a debate between an instrumental and a structuralist explanation of the state from a Marxist perspective. Both share the premise that the state is a tool of the bourgeoisie, the debate is about exactly how the bourgeosie rules.
Milliband argues for the state being comprised of people defending the interest of the bourgeoisie while Poulantzas claims the bourgeois state is inherently capitalist, no matter who holds office.
Christopher Howard
maybe you shouldn't make arguments that are incongruous with reality. all fathers are men.
Gabriel King
that's nice dear. Mind not stalking me just so you can whinge about how I called you out for being a sophist?
Yes yes, they do. But one of them is accepting of the premise of relative autonomy. That's what Poulantzas' argument is. That's my question, which of them is right?
Angel Turner
Way to miss the point.
It's not stalking when you're all over the front page, doing what you do best. And don't worry, I learned my lesson; others will too.
Kayden Jenkins
Waste of trips, thanks for giving me a reason to bump my thread, saltman.
Jaxson Bell
you still have presented no evidence as to why or how capitalism has changed since marx. typical oppurtunists "lol we don't work in factories anymore"
Michael Bennett
You mean the post-capitalist part in the OP? That one was more of an example than anything I think myself. I don't care about that. The structure of capital has not changed, Rosa is still right about it as far as I am concerned.
Kevin Brown
wew lad
Ayden Scott
state = legal monopoly on violence
Jayden Moore
I don't mind being stalked so long as they're contributing instead of just whining
Eli Bell
So in anarchy legitimate violence is diffused, distributed amongst communes or whatever? No bully.
Luis Parker
Fugg. Is it wrong to be actively looking for a wife just because you're running out of time? Seems like cheating the rules.
Adrian White
annils don't care about positive structure of a second system, we care purely about irony; breaking down the current one.
Yeah I think you could abolish classes (state socialism) and still have a single legal system and democratically determined laws and democratic executives and delegates (a state)
Anthony Williams
I think that this is just random Holla Forums spam.