This would be using the master’s tools to break the master’s house, and then expecting the master’s tools to self destruct.
The state is a hierarchically built, tool for one class to opress another, seizing it won’t work for several reasons but the most likely one is that the state, as a structure (even in the abstract sense), is self preserving, thus cannot be appropriated for self destructive ends, the state will always tend to favor an oppressive class that will keep the hierarchy intact, or even recreate hierarchy inducing tendencies.
I’ll try to be more specific and less theoretical, to seize the state means being part of it, to be part of it is using its tools, solutions, and ideology, that’s to say that facing an issue, a person who works for the government, will have to use the tools the state uses like concentration of power, military and the police, apply its solutions like propaganda, cracking down on dissent and surveillance, and adopt its ideologies like patriotism, tyranny and elitism.
That same individual cannot help build communism as they would embody the old world’s tendencies and ruling class, and the worker class wouldn’t be able to build communism for a lack of experience in what communism requires, as in a strong community building values, conflict resolution skills, and honestly so much more than i can think of myself.
Anyway excuse the long and late reply, also i am willing to say more but for a 2 week old comment this is getting long enough and might be considered rude already, have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s rude and I appreciate a good faith discussion.
Although I think there has been a misunderstanding, it never was about seizing or appropriating the bourgeois state and it’s bureaucracy, which brings with it all the problems you mentioned (which in turn is why Marxists despise reformists BTW, because they believe they can magically wrestle control of the bourgeois state apparatus and peacuflly convince the ruling class of socialism).
It’s about destroying it and then – as a necessity against global capitalism encirclement – building a proletarian state to resist and oppress the bourgeoisie.
Marxism has the global POV of wiping capitalism off the face of the earth, and thus is willing to use the necessary means to achieve that end.
I agree that one must be cautious when building a worker’s state, one must learn from history to prevent the same mistakes as made in the past (though a lot of them arose from historical conditions), which is why I find the analyses of “degenerated/deformed workers state” to be vital.
I must apologise that I don’t have the necessary energy to continue this discussion further, but I believe ComradeSharkfucker made a good comment in this thread regarding the topic.
This would be using the master’s tools to break the master’s house, and then expecting the master’s tools to self destruct.
The state is a hierarchically built, tool for one class to opress another, seizing it won’t work for several reasons but the most likely one is that the state, as a structure (even in the abstract sense), is self preserving, thus cannot be appropriated for self destructive ends, the state will always tend to favor an oppressive class that will keep the hierarchy intact, or even recreate hierarchy inducing tendencies.
I’ll try to be more specific and less theoretical, to seize the state means being part of it, to be part of it is using its tools, solutions, and ideology, that’s to say that facing an issue, a person who works for the government, will have to use the tools the state uses like concentration of power, military and the police, apply its solutions like propaganda, cracking down on dissent and surveillance, and adopt its ideologies like patriotism, tyranny and elitism.
That same individual cannot help build communism as they would embody the old world’s tendencies and ruling class, and the worker class wouldn’t be able to build communism for a lack of experience in what communism requires, as in a strong community building values, conflict resolution skills, and honestly so much more than i can think of myself.
Anyway excuse the long and late reply, also i am willing to say more but for a 2 week old comment this is getting long enough and might be considered rude already, have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s rude and I appreciate a good faith discussion.
Although I think there has been a misunderstanding, it never was about seizing or appropriating the bourgeois state and it’s bureaucracy, which brings with it all the problems you mentioned (which in turn is why Marxists despise reformists BTW, because they believe they can magically wrestle control of the bourgeois state apparatus and peacuflly convince the ruling class of socialism).
It’s about destroying it and then – as a necessity against global capitalism encirclement – building a proletarian state to resist and oppress the bourgeoisie.
Marxism has the global POV of wiping capitalism off the face of the earth, and thus is willing to use the necessary means to achieve that end.
I agree that one must be cautious when building a worker’s state, one must learn from history to prevent the same mistakes as made in the past (though a lot of them arose from historical conditions), which is why I find the analyses of “degenerated/deformed workers state” to be vital.
I must apologise that I don’t have the necessary energy to continue this discussion further, but I believe ComradeSharkfucker made a good comment in this thread regarding the topic.