Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn’t matter if the party brands itself as communist.
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
While this quote does not encapsulate marx’s entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
Yes. The German state at the time was antagonistic to the proletariat. The Feudal state in Germany was in the process of transferring power to the bourgeoisie and that process didn’t end up happening until after WW1 because the German revolution failed. The goal of the manifesto was to solidify that the new German state post revolution would be worker controlled and not controlled by the new German industrial bourgeoisie.
This quote says nothing about “The State” as a concept or entity being bourgeois, only that the state is an opressive/antagonistic force that is currently bourgeois.
If you want to try and claim that Marx said “All States are Bourgeois”, you’re going to need to dig a lot deeper than the Manifesto and you’ll not find any consistent answer as his views on that changed throughout his life and after the revolutionary movements in Germany (Revolutions of 1848 the first failure and when the Manifesto was written), America (Civil War 1865 see The Civil War in the United States), and France (Paris Commune 1871 see The Civil War in France).
As he saw how the bourgeois power structures maintained themselves through these successive revolutions, he began to become much more clear on the role of a workers state in maintaining the revolutionary movement.
The state is inherently antagonistic to the proletariat, because their controlling society gives rise to them creating their own class within the bourgeoisie.
That very out of context quote is saying that under capitalism the state is used by the bourgeoisie to advance their common interests, not that the state “is inherently oppressive”.
The hurdle a lot of illiterate liberals have to get over when they read Marx is that his use of oppressive isn’t a moral assertion, it’s a dialectic.
Yes, a state is opressive. It is the oppression of one class for the benefit of another. As long as a state exists, there is an existing class divide in the place that state exists.
Do you think the bourgeoisie care that the state is oppressive? No. Because the current form of the state serves their interests. Should workers care that a bourgeois state is opressive? Yes. Because a bourgeois state will actively sabotage any attempt by the body of labor to free itself.
As long as this dynamic exists (either domestically or internationally) states will continue to exist, and the form of that state will take on the character of the class that controls it.
In “The Civil War in France” Marx directly condems the revolutionaries (though respects their lofty aims) for not taking over the State in Paris. For not opening the banks, exploiting the existing power structure, and then destroying the bridge behind them. The Paris Commune is one of the first direct examples of a suddenly stateless society failing in the face of an organized bourgeois state.
If you want a socialist project to survive, you have to learn from the mistakes of the Parisians and take hold of power and use the oppressive nature of the state to cement the new order or you risk reactionary movements that aren’t afraid to wield that oppressive power destroying all you’ve built.
And this is a hard thing for liberals to get their heads around because it’s something that Marx changed opinions on the second he saw what had happened in Paris. Unlike most liberal political economists who are dogmatic in their beliefs and theories, Marx was driven primarily by the state of things and analysis of reality. His theories changed as he saw them practiced.
Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn’t matter if the party brands itself as communist.
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Baking doesn’t cook down the ingredients and claim it’s heating them up.
In that case, why do they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food?
You could call any machine anything, yet it doesn’t become the thing.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
deleted by creator
You cooked him with this one 😭😭😭💀💀
Demolished
Where did he say that? Can you quote the passage?
Where in that quote does it say that, to use your words, ‘the state was inherently oppressive’?
While this quote does not encapsulate marx’s entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
chatgpt answer if I’ve ever seen one.
Nice response to the content there!
Why is it a nice response to the content there?
Because it’s sad that you can’t respond to the content of it
Yes. The German state at the time was antagonistic to the proletariat. The Feudal state in Germany was in the process of transferring power to the bourgeoisie and that process didn’t end up happening until after WW1 because the German revolution failed. The goal of the manifesto was to solidify that the new German state post revolution would be worker controlled and not controlled by the new German industrial bourgeoisie.
This quote says nothing about “The State” as a concept or entity being bourgeois, only that the state is an opressive/antagonistic force that is currently bourgeois.
If you want to try and claim that Marx said “All States are Bourgeois”, you’re going to need to dig a lot deeper than the Manifesto and you’ll not find any consistent answer as his views on that changed throughout his life and after the revolutionary movements in Germany (Revolutions of 1848 the first failure and when the Manifesto was written), America (Civil War 1865 see The Civil War in the United States), and France (Paris Commune 1871 see The Civil War in France).
As he saw how the bourgeois power structures maintained themselves through these successive revolutions, he began to become much more clear on the role of a workers state in maintaining the revolutionary movement.
deleted by creator
The state is inherently antagonistic to the proletariat, because their controlling society gives rise to them creating their own class within the bourgeoisie.
deleted by creator
Power = authority is wild. Was freeing slaves authoritarian because the majority didn’t support it?
deleted by creator
Watch out, we got a marxist ova’ here!!
It’s okay, I know you disagree with them.
Why do I disagree with ‘them’?
You’ve been opposed to fundamental Marxist concepts.
That very out of context quote is saying that under capitalism the state is used by the bourgeoisie to advance their common interests, not that the state “is inherently oppressive”.
The hurdle a lot of illiterate liberals have to get over when they read Marx is that his use of oppressive isn’t a moral assertion, it’s a dialectic.
Yes, a state is opressive. It is the oppression of one class for the benefit of another. As long as a state exists, there is an existing class divide in the place that state exists.
Do you think the bourgeoisie care that the state is oppressive? No. Because the current form of the state serves their interests. Should workers care that a bourgeois state is opressive? Yes. Because a bourgeois state will actively sabotage any attempt by the body of labor to free itself.
As long as this dynamic exists (either domestically or internationally) states will continue to exist, and the form of that state will take on the character of the class that controls it.
In “The Civil War in France” Marx directly condems the revolutionaries (though respects their lofty aims) for not taking over the State in Paris. For not opening the banks, exploiting the existing power structure, and then destroying the bridge behind them. The Paris Commune is one of the first direct examples of a suddenly stateless society failing in the face of an organized bourgeois state.
If you want a socialist project to survive, you have to learn from the mistakes of the Parisians and take hold of power and use the oppressive nature of the state to cement the new order or you risk reactionary movements that aren’t afraid to wield that oppressive power destroying all you’ve built.
And this is a hard thing for liberals to get their heads around because it’s something that Marx changed opinions on the second he saw what had happened in Paris. Unlike most liberal political economists who are dogmatic in their beliefs and theories, Marx was driven primarily by the state of things and analysis of reality. His theories changed as he saw them practiced.