I think I'm becoming fashy, help

b-but it has socialist in the name :(

Capital will keep intensifying until the process becomes intolerable to the masses. That's when the revolution happens.

...

...

This

So, let me understand you very clearly.

In order to protect worker rights an integrity, you want a state that is yet controlled by the bourgeois who continue to acquire capital and will continue to trick the working class?

You want to make it more possible to reduce the exploitation of the working class by changing it from being heavily dependent on the state to it being entirely dependent on the state so that it's impossible for people to live without it, and at the same time, you want this state to be controlled by the very people you're claiming are destroying the working class.

If you seriously think the state is anything but a bourgeois tool, no matter who "controls" it, you're absolutely delusional.

State phobia is so passe.

Okay, I don't accept fascism as a leftist movement, and acknowledge that their will be class hierarchy's in it just like social democracy, but in reality if I had the choice between a pipe dream or something feasible, I will go with the latter. The monopoly over trade unions came from poor planning and legislation.

Shouldn't revolution have occurred in the 1930's and 2008 then? People are losing faith in the democratic system right now, yes, but who's to say that they're becoming class conscious and not reactionary?

It's like you completely ignored my point just to meme.

Who said anything about bourgeoisie controlling the state, the state is its own entity and the bourgeoisie are held by a chain. Capital will always be acquired and accumulated in society, the only difference is where the resources are going, i.e. into the hands of the wealthy, or into programs to aid the populace.
There's a big difference to how the state functions now, and what my conception of its functioning is. People are reliant on the state now to live through paying taxes to help propagate these businesses who then fuck them over while getting nothing in return. Some people are completely reliant on the welfare system to sustain them which just drains tax payer money anyways. My idea is to have the state allocate and apportion labor to meet demands in the market, and use money gained from taxes to subsidize businesses and new projects.
answered above.

Thats not at all fascism.

Okay, I want to make a very, very simple analysis of your own concept.

You have a state, you have the workers, you have the bourgeoisie, you have the means of production.

A. The bourgeoisie own the means of production and continue to exploit the workers. If the state allows this, then the state already has sided with the bourgeois' property rights to continue exploiting the workforce.

B. The bourgeoisie own the means of production and continue to exploit their workers. The state does not allow this, and as such it completely has destroyed the very property rights foundation to begin with and being bourgeoisie is effectively illegal

The state exists as a monopoly of legitimized violence in the interests of one group against another group. The continued existence of the state in the modern era is because it was more effective to split power while retaining control so that the proletariat would find its opposition seemingly divided while in reality it's going up against just one group, ie. abdication.

Since you do not believe that the workers are capable of seizing power by means of organized violence, your only alternative is to effective ask the bourgeois-controlled state to literally vote itself out of existence, even though the state and the bourgeois controlling it have literally zero reason to do so.

Your concept of a state that somehow protects workers' rights while allowing them to continue to be exploited is a literal self contradiction.

Oh Yui.

Not entirely, the evolution of the state as far as we have seen up to this point is a result of this, but as capitalism further antagonizes itself would it not make more sense for the state to completely forgo its own previous conception, and take the form of a new? The bourgeoisie in the case of this fascist state would not really be bourgeoisie as they would just be acting as a conduit between the state and the people, and ensure that the companies run smoothly, that wealth and labor is being allocated efficiently. The relationship the workers have with the state, and the relation the state has with its producers would become one-to-one in my mind.

As I said, I don't view how the workers would be exploited if there exists countermeasures from state regulation, to constitutionally protected rights. What would realistically be exploited, their surplus labor? That would then be used to subsidize or effectively cover the costs of social programs, or lend money to entrepreneurs to produce more businesses. My conception of this political theory seems like its a lower level form of socialism, and that's what I view it as.

That's hardly fascism unless you believe in memes like social fascism

Don't be afraid to take power friendos, ceding the area of statecraft to the bourgs is exactly what they want: for us to remain isolated little tribes, scared to death of nationally and globally organizing into something that could easily topple capitalism.

Please explain to me what your "new" state is.

Does it defend some people's desires against others by use of legal justification? Does it use violence to do so?

If you answer yes to both of these questions, then I fail to see how it seriously detracts from what the state as its own concept is.

Well let's see.

You are being stolen from. You have someone claiming that they are going to defend you because they don't allow the person stealing from you to physically hurt you. But they're not going to stop them from stealing from you.

Who is this person acting in the interest of?

from the perspective of the base sure it isn't, but I think that people require some form of faith in this experiment for it to work. The main reason being is that the state requires people to act in good faith towards it, and vice versa, and I think the easiest way to form that bond would be through cultural conservatism.

It's almost like that's not a state in the first place.

I know you're not this retarded.

Just become a vanguard commie

If the justification is legal and there is legitimate wrongdoing being conducted, yes
If the situation is dire, and no other solution is available, yes. I fail to see what point you are making, how would an anarchist government operate any different? Do you forget about what happened in Catalonia?
You're sounding like a libertarian, do you think people will just spontaneously transition from capitalism to communism in one full swing? Surplus labor is always going to be extracted and exploited because people are different and have different levels of labor productivity.

...

You can call it whatever you want but calling whatever you don't like in governing a state isn't going to change the fact that the idea of a state is so nebulous as to be completely meaningless when discussing actual political organization.

It's a meme, but the anarchist thing of 'let's make a state and not call it a state' still holds water. It's like saying 'let's exchange goods with each other, but not call it trade'. Play the name game because the name is so prolific to mean more than one thing, but don't act like a socialist government wouldn't do all the organization that capitalists governments do, and more despite that.

Those two usually correlate, but are not inherently tied with each other, just look at the US

Yes, but in order for the US to have existed in the first place and rebel they needed to forge an identity to inspire the revolution. That came from going back to their puritan roots, the natural rights of people (enlightenment), anti-taxation against the British, and dehumanizing the British. There was still this form of cultural supremacy that emerged from America, just look at Common Sense.

Do you even know what surplus labor actually is? Do you have any idea what the fuck any of what you're talking about is?

Your notion of a state is liberal bullshit. Your concept of capitalism is liberal bullshit. Your theory on surplus labor is liberal bullshit. Your entire theory is literally meme tier, you have never held any concept of what any of the socialist terms you're using.

You were never a socialist, you were a slogan-chanting slightly-progressive liberal who had delusions of being leftist in the first place.

With that out of my system.

Surplus labor is not "I can produce more than you!" It's that the bourgeoisie are able to use property rights enforced with violence by the state to force people to produce unpaid labor for private profit. It is literally theft and enslavement. You are defending the concept of a classed hierarchical state which means you're just defending capitalist exploitation of the workers and defending the continued theft of their labor in the name of private property. It doesn't matter how many social programs you tack on to this basic model, you're defending people being stolen from.

Alright Yui. Would you agree with this very commonly held definition of a state:
A state is a collective entity with the monopoly on justification of violence within its territory

Sounds reasonable to me.

I can actually call you retarded now, another philosophy fag bites the dust at his display of ignorance.

Now, what is a "monopoly"?

Is it possible for something to hold a "monopoly" against itself, or must there inherently be a "within" group that is part of this monopoly which holds itself sovereign against an "out" group which is not?

never said it was
As far as the current system goes, yes it is that way, and I've outlined my different policy and theory. This pseudo-bourgeoisie would own the means of production through the form of an agreement between state and worker in order to produce in order to meet market demand.
You are defending the concept of a classed hierarchical state which means you're just defending capitalist exploitation of the workers and defending the continued theft of their labor in the name of private property.
I said early on in my posts that this system would be hierarchical as far as the state's power went, but again I don't understand where this capitalist exploitation comes from when the surplus labor derived from production is liquidated into assets for the public. As for private property, it would be given by the state to entrepreneur's, and controlled by the state, but the very notion of private property implies there is profit being made from exploitation.
Who am I giving this wealth back to that I'm stealing from, oh that's right society. I think it's you that doesn't understand surplus labor, and how it takes form, much less the labor theory of value.

Okay.

Are there going to be people who make private profits off the labor of others?

So angry at a differing view, what gives?

In this case, an exclusive access to and production of technologies and techniques that allow for the distribution and use of force by governing bodies.
The monopoly can be both, I think. The first division is within that society, and the second one you've described eloquently. The logic of sub-groups, or 'races' being the source of societal division defines a lot of liberal political analysis, whether it's social classes, economic classes, cultural groups, biological groups, gender groups, etc.

But the monopoly is exerted upon these inner groups, and outer groups, typically based on differing criteria. For example, the West's monopoly on violence in the Middle East is done in the name of human rights, securing women's freedoms, secularism, etc, while huge portions of Western populations are having issues working out these very ideas in their home turf and Western governments utilize their monopoly of violence on both battlefields.

Nice.

You still managed to find that, every time, there is an "in" group that is exerting violence and an "out" group receiving said violence. At no point is the state holding any kind of "monopoly of violence" against itself, which is a frankly ridiculous notion.

Anarchos and libertarians are just power hungry, socially isolated faggots who are too stupid or socially awkward to win elections in authoritarian Marxist states.

Depends on how we define people who make private profits as. This new class of neo-bourgeoisie would be paid for their work of organizing and maintaining the production process like all other workers. The profits themselves as I stated would go to the state and out to whatever society requires. Would a distinction in wealth exist if that's what you mean, then yes as the demand for certain industries would require an incentive to organize, and those that follow would be paid more than those working in other industries.

I don't see how it would be ridiculous The state in this instance is a governing body, yes? And in the governing of individuals and groups which constitute collectively the body of this state, there are inevitably disagreements between parts of the state body and the governing class, because that would all be abolished for communism otherwise for this very problem, correct? So why wouldn't the state use it's monopoly on force against rebellious pieces of itself? That's literally what the police function as in modern Western societies

Hope I'm not coming across as aggressive, I'm honestly curious as to why an anarchist would see the violence always as being externalized

Do the citizens of the United States have legitimization over their own violence or are they subject to the federal and state governments' legal justifications?

The citizens of the US do not constitute the US state government. I am not talking about the entire concept of the nation state, which you've managed to conflate with the concept of the state government. The police are the agents of the state government against the citizens of the nation state.

If you take out the state you're still left with, effectively, the "nation" as a collective of people in so far as that can be talked about without resorting to social abstractions.

what made you start using a tripcode?
why are you deserving of name recognition?
have you created something for the board? where you a name before joining in here and had any reason to be known?

or are you just an attention whore that name- trip- and avatarfagged constantly to get undeserved recognition and start something with an autistic fanbase?

That isn't really talking about fascism though. What we're talking about is when the nation itself turns into an ideal rather than just a body of people under the same laws and influences and general behaviour.

I'm not talking about fascism, no. I'm talking about the state in and of itself. This is derailed from the original conversation but it's something that's been fairly pervasive without ever being actually addressed

in this entire thread, not even once had anyone posted any sources of philosophical works that actually define shit, you guys don't have the capacity to make any valid or interesting arguments yourself and fail at every basic shit

i hope you get run over by a bus, cunt

What were you before you had these fashy thoughts user?

How? American citizens are literally employed and do the work of that monopolization of violence and force that we're saying constitutes state power. If they don't constitute the state then what does? The law?

I made a post once with Yui and people liked it, so I kept posting Yui pictures until having a trip seemed like the logical thing to do as a filthy internet personality.
No idea!
Yeah, I make some OC from time to time and run RPG groups for people from here.
Nah.
Yep, I would say this is 100% true.

Because I totally need to act like I'm writing a college paper when talking to random people on the internet?
You actually put in the time and effort to say this, while complaining about low quality posting. Come on friend, you're better than this.

I was hovering between the borders of social libertarianism, and marxism.

if you can't fucking give anything at least for backing up the shit you say, you might as well just not post at all

you're on the fucking internet ffs, it's not even taking any effort to go through works of whatever fags writings you'd recommend on the issue and throw something in

just filthy opinion posting like this is utter Holla Forums tier cancer

and what do you find lacking in these systems?

kill yourself quickly

I outlined it in my earlier posts, but reading State and Revolution, Critique of the Gotha Programme and the first few chapters of the Capital made me question my stance towards the conception of the state and its relationship to socialism. I don't believe a full workers revolution can occur like it did in the 19th and 20th century because of the increased collusion between state and corporations, as well as globalization just making everyone docile. I also don't view the reality of a minarchist government with an enlightened mass of workers being left to their own devices to be sufficient in coordinating the exchange process compared to that of an organized state. I am still Marxist I suppose in some ways, but I don't view a stateless society ever becoming reality any time soon.

I love Yui senpai

Going back to
The state is the systemic effect of a collective.

If American citizens are the US government then how can it be determined what things the citizens do that are state sanctioned and what aren't?

Yes, it's what Kane is talking about.

That feel when you will never impregnate yui's boipucci

Why live?

You need the state to impose safety standards.