Marx believed the state was inherently a tool of class domination and would always favor one class over the other. The Fascists and Syndicalists believed the state could exist above class and be used to unite and mediate class conflict. Whom do you think was correct when it came to the nature of the state? Does the states existence necessitate the existence of two classes in opposition or can the state actually mediate and resolved class conflict?
In the end Marxism is merely organization around resentment. In happy prosperous times there are no Marxists. When people are successful and well adjusted, there are no Marxists.
The state itself originates from the way an elite holds the will and being of its inhabitants, who in turn receive certain benefits such as protection. The state is only interested in the people because of this commitment (since just as the people gave their will and being to the state, they can also take it away). If the state manages to break this social contract without receiving its sanction from the people, it will continue to do so. This is why Nazism and Fascism promote discourses of unity and collectivism, so that both social classes are guided not by their own interests but by those of their ethnic/racial/cultural group.
>>18498789This doesn’t dispute Marx’s theory, in fact Marx himself stated that the working class will go through periods of relative contentment and acceptance of the social order.
>>18498669>the government as it currently exists is a tool used by the propertied classes to protect their interestspeople dispute this? In Marx's own time they were even more open about it with most countries limiting the vote to property owners, and then often just the richest property owners. Also I used to be of the opinion that Fascism being capitalist was just commie cope until doing more research into the topic and finding out that Mussolini dropped basically every left leaning part of his agenda after taking office to do a deal with the industrialists and small business owners (his real base of power). In fact even his corporatism phase, which was really just put on for show and never truly genuine, only began after the Depression and during that time the Italian Business owners, latge and small, remained as wealthy and powerful as ever.
>>18498669Well, yeah, but whoever runs the state is going to make themselves a propertied class. Take a bunch of poor peasants from Ethiopia and make them the rulers of an area over a larger population, and they’ll give themselves a property, even if they have good intentions.
>>18498669I guess if you deny the existence of the ruling class as a class you can argue the Fascist ruling class is just resolving class conflicts. Otherwise it's trivially a case of one class having a total dominion over every other class and positioning itself as the ultimate authority that gives the final judgment and takes the liberty to enforce it.
>>18499642I guess the question is more so if the state can operate autonomously from class interests or if it is inherently a tool of class domination. Even fascists like Oswald Mosley acknowledged that the state was captured by the interests of capitalists who were selling out the nation for profit. A lot of mainstream political theorists and economists argue the state can, in theory, be autonomous since certain states do occasionally pass laws that restrict or do not benefit the ruling class, wether or not this is truly valid is debatable.
>>18498669It's funny how Engels is always portrayed as taller but in reality he was shorter than Marx
>Was Marx correct No
>>18498669Wealth is a poor indicator off class.Power is more apt.
>>18498669>The Fascists and Syndicalists believed the state could exist above class and be used to unite and mediate class conflict.Eh, syndicalists were much more anti-statist than the Marxists were, but then there were national syndicalists who emerged and often became fascists later on, which was pretty strange considering their origins.Basically the rub of it is that Marxists saw communism as abolishing the state but the proletarian revolution would first capture state power. That's contradictory but the idea is that in between there is a phase period. Syndicalism was supposed to skip directly to rule by workers' organizations like councils, unions.>>18499642>In fact even his corporatism phase, which was really just put on for show and never truly genuine, only began after the Depression and during that time the Italian Business owners, latge and small, remained as wealthy and powerful as ever.Yeah it was a meme. I read "A History of Fascism" by Stanley Payne and essentially what corporatism amounted to was setting up advisory bodies in the government comprised of leading business owners organized by sectors of the economy they belonged to. What came across to me as most distinct and innovative about fascism was the oddball 1920s/1930s sci-fi Orwellian goofiness they were on, like wearing sleek uniforms with badges and calling each other General Inspector and setting up ministries with names like MinCulPop. Like they just wanted to do Starship Troopers, really:https://youtu.be/3cktmS-yaxM>>18499838>I guess the question is more so if the state can operate autonomously from class interests or if it is inherently a tool of class domination. Well I think Marx thought the state could operate autonomously to some degree iirc. Like that's the whole theory of Bonapartism.
Also, on "Bonapartism." The idea here is that the bourgeoisie remains the dominant class economically, but politically it cannot rule in a stable way (like it's relatively disorganized) because of "contradictions," so the executive state appartus expands and comes to appear to stand "above society." You get a Bonapartist leader (the term refers to Napoleon III) who balances between different classes but is also partially detached from the capitalists, while still preserving the underlying capitalist order.>Pic unrelated
>>18500159Isn’t this the ideal form of a state? Like say what you will about Russia but its current political system is likely to go on for ages. It’s totally stable.
>>18500173ntaThe ideal form of state.governance. Is a lottery system,
>>18498669Why should we care about what Marx believed when all his ideas ended up in failure and he never worked a day in his life?
>>18500195I’m just asking a question.
>>18500207Me too
>>18500159Could there not be a state that is organized by a sort of "class above classes" whose sole purpose is to administer the functions of the state. I'm thinking of something similar to the guardians from Plato's Republic, in that scenario could the state not act as an effective mediator?
Marx believed the proletariat would magically form a utopian "stateless" "classless" society, but there must always be a state since humans will use violence to get what they want and a monopoly over violence is the only way to prevent lawless chaos.During the Stalinist era the USSR tried to solve this Hobbesian problem by creating the "New Soviet Man" and "New Soviet Woman". They were to be imbued with communist principles such that even if detached from the law of the Soviet Union would still act in the interest of the revolution, they were to be well educated, fit and healthy with self-discipline and a disinterest in alcoholism, gambling, promiscuity and other such degenerate vices, preferring art, literature, sports, constructive projects and charismatic socializing to enrich their lives.He was to be a communist übermensch of sorts, but no egoist, rather viewing all others as equals. However the Soviets did not succeed in applying the intensive indoctrination from infancy required, since the indoctrination was full of holes. The "New Soviet Man" would not only need to desist from poor behavior themselves, but also deal with it in others, which is a difficult task even for the most worldly and well rounded individuals and more difficult to teach. When faced with reality most people's values crumble. though if enough people like this could be raised then they might not need a state, since they will automatically act for the common good and self-regulate whatever organization they develop such that there is no need for a final arbiter over violence, rather problems are resolved by bringing all the facts of the matter and the group quickly reaching a consensus due to shared values and shared ability to reason.
>>18500173Idk, I don't like to make predictions about the future like that. Like maybe it's totally stable, until it isn't. Remember Prigozhin sending a tank column towards Moscow? Putin survived but it just came out of nowhere, and whatever caused that wasn't obvious but there had to have been some real fractures and a lot of resentment under the surface. Napoleon III's rule seemed quite stable and he built infrastructure and monuments and so on, and then eventually bumbled into a war and went down in a military defeat in which Paris was occupied and then exploded in a proletarian uprising called the Paris Commune (which was then brutally crushed by still).>>18500683The "New Soviet Man" reminds me of the joke about a Soviet machine gunner named Ivan Ivanovich who runs out of bullets, and he asks his political commissar what to do, and the commissar says "Comrade Ivan Ivanovich, remember that you are a communist." And then his machine gun magically began firing again at a faster rate than before.
>>18498669The State exists because of class division, as you say Marx said, "the State was inherently a tool of class domination and would always favor one class over the other." That was the case in fascist nations; the fascist State continued to favor the bourgeoisie and repressed all workers' uprisings. If there were no class conflict, there would be no need for police, juries, or the military because their task is precisely to repress any movement that seeks the abolition of the State.
>>18499838Even if the State acts "neutral", it indirectly continues to defend the interests of the ruling class.
>>18499975You mean like Marx's definition which is about relationship to the means of production?
>>18500149>Basically the rub of it is that Marxists saw communism as abolishing the state but the proletarian revolution would first capture state power. One clarification: that statement is actually a misinterpretation of Lenin, and even more so of the Stalinists, regarding the question of the state. Marx, after the experience of the Paris Commune, said that the conquest of political power and the establishment of a one-party dictatorship were not enough (because logically that would replace a bourgeois class with a bureaucratic class). So, is socialism the first phase? Yes, but it is the phase where the abolition of capitalist relations is actually sought.>Well I think Marx thought the state could operate autonomously to some degree iirc. Like that's the whole theory of Bonapartism.Oh, I didn't know that. I looked into it, and it usually happens when the bourgeoisie can't agree among themselves and the military decides to stage a coup to maintain social order.
