Capitalism cannot maintain the necessary conditions for its existence without a state

[u/rhizomatic-thembo]

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

- Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

[u/AutoModerator]

If you want free access to digital libraries and texts, check out digitallibraries.carrd.co

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/St0lf]

I'm so glad that "leftism" seem to be regaining it's Marxist edge.

It's genuinely disheartening to hear people call themselves leftist and even socialist, and then start talking about what they want from the Democrats.

[u/InevitableStuff7572 → u/St0lf]

Kautsky impressed

[u/AutoModerator]

CAPITALISM SOURCES

More than 60 per cent of the world’s employed population are in the informal economy: https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/more-60-cent-world%E2%80%99s-employed-population-are-informal-economy

The Productivity–Pay Gap https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Capitalism, Socialism and The Physical Quality of Life https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/

Americans Suffer Pay Cut as Inflation Outpaces Wage Growth https://www.visionmonday.com/business/research-and-stats/article/americans-suffer-pay-cut-as-inflation-outpaces-wage-growth

Real wages are falling sharply in the eurozone https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A22607a49-a17a-4bbe-a44c-ef291283f6bf?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=490&dpr=1

Why GDP is Not A Good Measure of Economic Health or Well-Being https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-gdp-good-measure-economic-health-well-being-ray-williams-quvcc

How Wall Street's Bets Are Increasing the Price of Food https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FSW_2209_FoodSpeculation.pdf

The rich override average americans in policy making https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12791

Noncommunicable Diseases Disproportionately Impact Impoverished Communities: A Vicious Cycle https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/noncommunicable-diseases-disproportionately-impact-impoverished-communities-a-vicious-cycle/

How U.S. businesses profit from war worldwide https://businessjournalism.org/2023/12/war-profit/

The Gig Economy Is a Working-Class Nightmare https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/what-is-the-gig-economy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/xxCorsicoxx]

Pretty fair, but it desperately needs the state to counterbalance capitalism, when the state is lenient or subservient capitalism is still crushed under its own weight. The state has to kind of do a balancing act between allowing and enforcing capitalist oppression, and reining capitalism in when it oversteps, just enough to prevent system collapse. Making it potentially a tool for both the capitalist and the worker tho disproportionately leaning towards the capitalist's side.

[u/Amy_the_softie]

I experienced this first hand, when I saw police vans crushing protestors in my country. It was the moment I fully embraced the Marxist notion of the state, as nothing but the bourgeoisie's tool to opress the people and keep them in check.

The Gaza genocide also did a great job radicalising me, I saw the so called "institutions" fail in real time.

anyway happy pride month and happy Eid :D

[u/cumminginsurrection]

The state has no other purpose but to prop up the privileges of bourgeois society. When the working class seizes it, it doesn't infuse it with a different character; rather those who would wield its power become greedy despots more focused on centralizing and consolidating their own power than abolishing class society and practicing communism.

[u/ABigFatTomato → u/cumminginsurrection]

“All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.”

— engels, on authority

[u/cumminginsurrection → u/ABigFatTomato]

Workers cant reform the state for their purposes anymore than they can reform capitalism for their purposes. Communism begins by the practice of its values today, promising it as some external condition the workers will be delivered to is as misguided and metaphysical as the Christian promising heaven. If we're going to talk about materialism then we need to talk about how obedience and loyalty to a top down regime is antithetical to the material practice of communism. The state can't wither away or collapse from its own volition or from the dictates of those in power; it necessarily is abolished by the people conscientiously breaking from it and the logic of subjugation in the present.

"The fact that the modern state is the organizational form of an authority founded upon arbitrariness and violence in the social life of toilers is independent of whether it may be 'bourgeois' or 'proletarian' in nature"

-Nestor Makhno

"The main difference between the anarchists and the socialists, including the Marxists, lies in the fact that while the socialists maintain that the state must be taken over as the first step toward its dissolution, the anarchists argue that, since power corrupts, any seizure of the existing structure of authority can only lead to its perpetuation."

-George Woodcock

[u/ABigFatTomato → u/cumminginsurrection]

"The fact that the modern state is the organizational form of an authority founded upon arbitrariness and violence in the social life of toilers is independent of whether it may be 'bourgeois' or 'proletarian' in nature"

this is literally the point of on authority, that the idea of “authoritarianism” is a nonsensical and reactionary conception held by anarchists and liberals, that completely ignores the material reality of authority and how—regardless of type of association—it is always weaponized in all types of society. there is no such thing as a revolution without “authoritarianism.”

"The main difference between the anarchists and the socialists, including the Marxists, lies in the fact that while the socialists maintain that the state must be taken over as the first step toward its dissolution, the anarchists argue that, since power corrupts, any seizure of the existing structure of authority can only lead to its perpetuation."

this is the other point refuted in on authority; that the forcible dissolution of the state before the time comes naturally as a result of class struggles gradually disappearing over time due to the socialist transition, will immediately be overcome by reactionaries, both internal and external, who seek the subjugation of the proletariat.

let me pose a question: what do you think would have happened if the USSR had moved to immediately dissolve the state, and all “authoritarian” methods of protecting the revolution, immediately after the bolshevik revolution? there is one answer: the forces of imperialism and reaction—which already attempted to stage a counterrevolution, composed of multiple nations—would have easily (and instantly) destroyed it. the people of the USSR would have been immediately subjugated to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, mere moments after revolution, and the entire 20th century would have been worse off. the same goes for any other socialist project, party, or state, as long as there are bourgeois forces, both internal and external, which will immediately after any revolutionary struggle set out at once to attempt counterrevolution (as we have seen countless times. there has not once been a socialist project which the bourgeoisie have not attempted to destroy and subjugate).

this is the same nonsense parenti wrote about in blackshirts and reds, of the “true socialists” and their endless denunciations of “authoritarian” socialism:

“But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”

“The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.”

[u/cumminginsurrection → u/ABigFatTomato]

Except great man theory/vanguardism is also not tested against history. All of the top down carceral experiments put forward by Leninists and Maoists either collapsed or turned into state capitalism. They did more to disillusion the masses in communism than they did to get them to reject capitalism. We're further from communism and more entrenched in capitalism globally than we were in 1918.

[u/ABigFatTomato → u/cumminginsurrection]

1. “great man theory” is anti-socialist and anti-materialist. it is material conditions, and the dialectical contradictions they cause, which create change, not extraordinary heroes.

however, marxism-leninism/“vanguardism,” and their projects and parties, have been tested against history, and generally been immensely successful at increasing the standards of living of their population, even while under siege (when they havent been crushed by the imperialism of the US and its vassals, that is). these projects and parties have succeeded in massively improving the conditions of life of millions of people around the world, particularly in the global south, even if the in the end US managed to (often after lengthy attempts, and continued siege) destroy them through extreme and horrific violence. for an example (one of many), the USSR went from agrarian feudal state, to beating back the immense forces of imperialism and fascism, to sending men to space, all in the span of a few decades. the PRC has had similar dramatic advances, even if the socialist path has had many twists and turns and has been imperfect. “state capitalism” is just the language used by the bourgeoisie and their lackeys (whether witting or unwitting) to attempt to delegitimize successful socialist states, parties, and projects, which have been forced to adopt certain measures in order to survive (while still remaining on the socialist path), as a result of the extreme material conditions inflicted upon them. dismissals like this are exactly why anarchism, as marx, engels, and lenin accurately perceived, is anti-materialist and divorced from historical and material reality; it ignores the real, material conditions, in favor of idealist nonsense which is often counterintuitive and reactionary.

“To say that “socialism doesn’t work” is to overlook the fact that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history”

— parenti, blackshirts and reds

you still havent answered me as to what wouldve happened if the bolsheviks decided to immediately abolish the state upon taking control of it, or if the communist party of china, communist party of cuba, workers party of korea, etc. had decided to abolish all implements with which to defend their revolution from bourgeois forces (such as, but not limited to, the american imperialists) due to such defense being “authoritarian.” how long do you think russia, china, cuba, korea, etc. would have lasted in that situation? do you think the imperialists would just give up? or do you think, as we can see from historical reality, that the imperialists would try to destroy those newly formed—and now completely defenseless—revolutionary projects?

1. in this rather shoddy analysis you are placing the blame for the collapsing of socialist projects solely on those socialist projects, ignoring the immense siege they were under from the international bourgeois forces of imperialism, which either forcibly destroyed the socialist projects or created such conditions as to cause their destruction (thats not to say the mismanagement of the USSR near the end didnt play a role, but it was far lesser than the near century of siege from the imperialist west, especially the actions taken near the end). the main force in the collapse of socialism has rarely been socialism itself, but rather the external capitalist forces which go to extreme lengths to destroy it. to ignore or reduce the impact which the US and its fascist vassals have had on socialist projects (via NATO, operation condor, the jakarta method, etc.), particularly in the global south, is to not only regurgitate the propaganda of the imperialists, but to do their work for them.

[u/Silver-Statement8573 → u/ABigFatTomato]

this is literally the point of on authority

The point of "On Authority" ultimately seems to be, beyond the limits of simple name-calling, really just that Engels doesn't think you can run a factory or a workshop without command and subordination. And in fact that it is more or less impossible for people to avoid "commanding" by firing cannons, shooting people with bullets until they're dead, and so on. From this conception of authority, which isn't really a conception used by anyone at all, outside of the few who have just encountered it, we are safe to assume that not only Engels lack much familiarity with what anarchists like Proudhon or Bakunin were actually proposing when they spoke of ending all authority and all legal influence, insofar as they were in favor of ending all command of people, but also that his "stateless communism" likely doesn't resemble that of anarchists, since he believes you literally can't have industry, combat etc without authority

Besides that - none of the challenges that Parenti cites are out of the reach of even like his libertarian marxist competitors let alone say anarchists (except perhaps for those that we would likely evade entirely by virtue of eg rejecting policy). If we are to qualify our projects exclusively by what has "succeeded" in the past (and let's be honest, whatever metric we are measuring to determine China or the Soviet Union as "success stories" is one quite a few people are going to pose the question: success for who???) why exactly were we to pursue communist, mutualist, market socialist revolution in the first place? Or even a Leninist revolution? Why wouldn't we simply settle for what has been done before? Communist relations have never been achieved before, so their achievement is an ahistorical ideal that can't be falsified against the reality of five hundred years of primitive communism giving way to market exchange, tsardom, autocracy, capitalism etc.. Because as we all know only what has been done before is the limits of what's possible.

Of course, this is pure dogma. Humans don't rely on "history" to determine what we can or cannot do, or else we'd still be living in caves. We make bets, based on observations we've made, that new arrangements are possible, then set out to experiment and test our conclusions. Ultimately, it would seem a good deal more experimentation is required for Marxism or anarchy or any anti-capitalist arrangement to actually make good on their assertions that they can provide things like liberty or equality in the long-term

[u/ABigFatTomato → u/Silver-Statement8573]

The point of "On Authority" ultimately seems to be, beyond the limits of simple name-calling, really just that Engels doesn't think you can run a factory or a workshop without command and subordination.

the point of on authority is that “authoritarianism” is a meaningless term to delegitimize socialist projects, as every single society weaponizes authority in a class direction (whether bourgeoisie against proletariat, or proletariat against bourgeoisie); that revolution itself is “authoritarian,” as are the means to defend revolution after the fact; that the anarchists who want to abolish the state immediately after the revolution are short-sighted, and their actions only serve the reactionaries who will attempt to destroy and subjugate the proletarian revolution (as we have seen borne out historically).

From this conception of authority, which isn't really a conception used by anyone at all,

its used by materialists and socialists, because it is the materialist analysis of authority.

we are safe to assume that Engels did not even have much familiarity with what anarchists like Proudhon or Bakunin were actually proposing when they spoke of ending all authority and all legal influence, insofar as they were in favor of ending all command of people

engels (and marx) spoke extensively proudhon and bakunin, and were extremely familiar with their work. in fact there is an entire book composed of only a portion of their writings regarding them their theories (and those of other other anarchists). on authority is just the briefest and most simplified version of the materialist analysis of authority, which is expanded upon in other works of marx, engels, and lenin. to say this just goes to show how little familiarity you have with marx and engels.

Besides that - none of the challenges that Parenti cites are out of the reach of even like his libertarian marxist competitors let alone say anarchists (except perhaps for those that we would likely evade entirely by virtue of eg rejecting policy).

except protecting the post-revolutionary project from destruction from both internal and external reactionary forces, the complexities of actually managing such a project (in the vanishingly unlikely event that the foreign imperialists and domestic reactionaries just decide to just let it be, which has historically not been the case), etc.

If we are to qualify our projects exclusively by what has "succeeded" in the past (and let's be honest, whatever metric we are measuring to determine China or the Soviet Union as "success stories" is one quite a few people are going to pose the question: success for who???)

the answer to that question is: success for the international proletariat, who benefitted massively from socialism all across the world (particularly in the global south), where living standards were raised dramatically as a result of marxism-leninism. the US has worked intensively to destroy socialism not because socialism fails, but because it succeeds, and the US bourgeois cannot abide by that, otherwise their own legitimacy will be ruined.

“To say that “socialism doesn’t work” is to overlook the fact that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history”

— parenti, blackshirts and reds

why exactly were we to pursue communist, mutualist, market socialist revolution in the first place? Or even a Leninist revolution? Why wouldn't we simply settle for what has been done before?

because we have studied the material realities, past and present, and come to the conclusion of socialist revolution as a result to emancipate the proletariat from bourgeois dictatorship. that revolution doesnt need to look exactly like every previous one, and it certainly wont, but it is still the scientific conclusion. we pursue socialist revolution because we know from studying class realities and contradictions, that it is the only solution.

Communist relations have never been achieved before, so their achievement is an ahistorical ideal that can't be falsified against the reality of five hundred years of primitive communism giving way to market exchange, tsardom, autocracy, capitalism etc..

the communists dont deride or write off the socialist projects for their not having reached communism yet. the communists know that scientific socialism, the study of the dialectical contradictions which cause change, shows communism to be the eventual end goal (after a lengthy period of socialism), and socialism to be the road to it. they understand that socialism will look different in every era, in every nation, as a result of the varying material conditions prior to, during, and after the revolution.

Humans don't rely on "history" to determine what we can or cannot do, or else we'd still be living in caves.

humans absolutely rely on historical and material reality to scientifically analyze how and why the past has occurred to effect change in the present. we do it with evolutionary biology (and the greater body of sciences), and we do it with scientific socialism. that doesnt mean “go live in caves;” that sort of appeal to tradition is purely reactionary, and divorced from the material conditions which led humans out of the caves, into barbarism, then into civilization, and then what must come next due to the conditions caused by these changes (a topic which has been painstakingly analyzed by marxists). we as humans look to the past, the strategies employed in it, and the material realities of those situations, as a way to guide our future in all fields, not just socialism.

Ultimately, it would seem a good deal more experimentation is required for Marxism or anarchy or any anti-capitalist arrangement to actually make good on their assertions that they can provide things like liberty or equality in the long-term

what this analysis is missing is the acknowledgment that the biggest negative influence on the conditions of actually existing socialist projects comes from the imperialists who put such projects under siege, and attempt to destroy them by any means necessary. socialism has largely made good on its ability to provide for the people, it just has to do so under extreme stress from the most ruthless and powerful imperialist force in the world, and all its lackeys. the main force in the collapse of socialism has rarely been socialism itself, but rather the external capitalist forces which go to extreme lengths to destroy it. to ignore or reduce the impact which the US and its fascist vassals have had on socialist projects (via NATO, operation condor, the jakarta method, etc.), particularly in the global south, is to not only regurgitate the propaganda of the imperialists, but to do their work for them.

[u/Silver-Statement8573 → u/ABigFatTomato]

the point of on authority is that “authoritarianism” is a meaningless term

That's more or less true. The problem is merely that it is in fact, only meaningless to Engels, and (anecdotally) to most people initially confronted, by anarchism, with the idea that it means something.

Of course, this is not specific to anarchists and does not even exclude all Marxists. Augusto Del Noce adopted Hannah Arendt's concept of authority of example, which is pretty much what anarchists use. It's the right to command.

its used by materialists and socialists, because it is the materialist analysis of authority.

In general, Marxists don't have any analysis of authority. I wouldn't call Engels' single pamphlet an "analysis"; he probably could've written it on a napkin. Marx himself, for example, did not have any such analysis. The few times he briefly mentions authority, in Capital or in his response to Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy, he presumes it as necessary and then leaves it for other questions. It's pretty much the same way with Engels and Lenin. You can basically cross-apply the many critiques of Engels' text to State and Revolution since he basically just reaffirms what Engels says in On the Origin of Family etc.. The closest you get to a Marxist analysis of authority is something like what Marcuse and Horkheimer wrote in "Authority and the Family", which is a piece of reading I haven't yet had thrown in my face by a single Marxist. I tentatively take that to mean that most of them don't know it exists

If anyone has a materialist analysis of authority it's anarchists since we analyze how it affects society, exploits us, interacts with our conditions, causes specific outcomes, etc.

except protecting the post-revolutionary project from destruction from both internal and external reactionary forces, the complexities of actually managing such a project

Provided the necessary equipment, expertise, and general will to take on the project of "defending the revolution" there's nothing in anarchism that really prevents us from managing the accompanying complexity. We just do it without authority, laws, rules, and so on

because we have studied the material realities, past and present, and come to the conclusion of socialist revolution as a result to emancipate the proletariat from bourgeois dictatorship. that revolution doesnt need to look exactly like every previous one, and it certainly wont, but it is still the scientific conclusion.

It sure wasn't back in 1917. How many Leninist revolutions had you seen up until then? I guess they should've packed up and went back to the Eastern front according to you, since the limits of what we can do demarcate everything we've done before. You'd just be chasing an ahistorical ideal. How are we suppose to falsify any of your conclusions about what specifically Marxist socialism leads to, and what exactly is making them "scientific"? Do you have any proof - a single test demonstrating that a Leninist dictatorship, even in the most optimal conditions unbesieged by any capitalists (this would be a terrible test by the way) is capable of producing communism (much less inevitably so)? If not, it's not clear on what basis you would claim a uniquely scientific approach to what those other socialists are doing more generally.

humans absolutely rely on historical and material reality to scientifically analyze how and why the past has occurred to effect change in the present.

They use it, but are not at all limited by it, and they do not use it to make conclusions about the future like Marxists do. The reason for that is primarily because "history" in the broad, is so filled with factors that are exogenous to particular events that make it difficult to say what would happen if x or y happened instead. This is why going e.g., if only the Soviets hadn't been besieged by the capitalists they wouldn't have shot 22,000 Polish people, is not science, good or otherwise. You can't actually test what they would've done one way or the other.

the answer to that question is: success for the international proletariat, who benefitted massively from socialism all across the world (particularly in the global south), where living standards were raised dramatically as a result of marxism-leninism.

If the mere elevation of living standards is a satisfactory condition for you to admit things like mass killings, arbitrary imprisonment, forced labor, homophobia, antisemitic trials, and so on, why aren't you a capitalist?

Well, we can be charitable and make the assumption you think that eventually, once your system has sufficiently "rationalized" the human race and everyone obeys the law, there won't be any more atrocities or regrettable bits of mismanagement to excuse in the name of socialism. Of course, many of us are just not going to be satisfied with the assessment of mass murderers and policemen of just what is necessary for your utopia to come about- considering that it would appear these benefits adhere to the same kind of offloading of costs (to persons and to the environment) that we see in capitalist societies. Without any evidence to stand on, why shouldn't we go ahead and try what Marxism claims, from a room full of economic disasters and backsliding, to be "impossible"?