But I find it less a contradiction and more a complete ignoring of how humans create political structures.
Even after economic inequality is solved, there will likely also be issues with political inequality and it will require more attention than just trusting the leaders to make an equal system. There may also be a perverse incentive of political leadership to delay economic equality to prevent them having to implement political equality.
The socialist project is not to just solve economic inequality and then call it a day. In fact, and once again because or ideology is based on dialectics, we understand that to work toward economic equality you must also work toward political equality. Working out these things is a process of “resolving the contridictions” within our class relationships. The aim of this is a classless society, which would mean all contridictions have been resolved and class struggle ends
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.
I disagree that The Revolution will create this. It isn’t going to be a singular revolution to create this, so the barriers to prevent a transfer is power to the next revolutionaries need to be lowered to keep a push of permanent revolution and prevent the calcification of the government to become trapped by those wishing to create a less equal society.
The Revolution is not an event. It is an ongoing process. Its is not a singular event exactly like you say. We already believe that. “The witheting away of the state” is component of Marxist-Leninidt thought. The Revolution is the ongoing process where as i said earlier, we contnue to resolve the contridictions
But if it isn’t an event but a process, you need to build within the body politic a way to overthrow those who have wandered away from the goals of The Revolution. Having to resort to violence only creates a perverse incentive for those who stray from The Revolution to harden the state from overthrow rather than continue the reforms needed.
The beginnings of capitalism may go back as far as the 1300s. The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger, which documents this new semi global mercantile system goes to 1533. There was encirclements that began shortly after until much of the land in europe had become private property.
The English capitalists had their revolution/civil war from 1640-1660, supplanting the power of the monarchy, the French and the american revolutions near the end of the 1700s. These were the big capitalist revolutions. They happened at the end of hundreds of years of development, struggle, change, etc.,
When we talk about socialist revolution we aren’t talking about a war, we are talking about the replacement of a whole system of social relations. There are wars fought, and uprisings and all sorts of historic struggle and conflict. But those aren’t the revolution we are referring to.
I read it as the authority of the state does not dissolve when reformed into a socialist collective, which I don’t disagree with.
My disagreement is the assertion that said authority cannot be run without external oversight by the collective, which is an assertion that Engel makes.
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.
If they can’t handle this, how are they going to be able to handle an actual fascist in real life.
And the Allende government’s overthrow is a continuation of what I said; fascism isn’t capitalism but an overthrow of both the economic and political governments to preserve the status quo by empowering a minority to oppress the majority.
A socialist society widens democracy to accommodate for this.
The following is from a Marxist Leninist perspective - other socialist tendencies are available:
For MLs we want to maintain state power in order to defend against hostile capitalist states and internal counter revolutionaries. Lenin describes this as a state, but not a state. He views the state as smashed as power transfers from the bourgeois to the proletariat.
The class enemy being put down, state power no longer is used to oppress the proletariat. The democractic process can be used after this point to deal with the remaining/new contridictions that exist/arise.
The reason why liberal democracy cannot provide the same thing for the proletariat is because liberal democracy is designed for and controled by the bourgeois to enact their oppression upon the proletariat.
The revolution isn’t a singular event, but its also not a succession of violent conflicts. The class enemy being eradicated means true democratic process can exist
But I find it less a contradiction and more a complete ignoring of how humans create political structures.
Even after economic inequality is solved, there will likely also be issues with political inequality and it will require more attention than just trusting the leaders to make an equal system. There may also be a perverse incentive of political leadership to delay economic equality to prevent them having to implement political equality.
The socialist project is not to just solve economic inequality and then call it a day. In fact, and once again because or ideology is based on dialectics, we understand that to work toward economic equality you must also work toward political equality. Working out these things is a process of “resolving the contridictions” within our class relationships. The aim of this is a classless society, which would mean all contridictions have been resolved and class struggle ends
And the struggle is good, but…
I disagree that The Revolution will create this. It isn’t going to be a singular revolution to create this, so the barriers to prevent a transfer is power to the next revolutionaries need to be lowered to keep a push of permanent revolution and prevent the calcification of the government to become trapped by those wishing to create a less equal society.
The Revolution is not an event. It is an ongoing process. Its is not a singular event exactly like you say. We already believe that. “The witheting away of the state” is component of Marxist-Leninidt thought. The Revolution is the ongoing process where as i said earlier, we contnue to resolve the contridictions
But if it isn’t an event but a process, you need to build within the body politic a way to overthrow those who have wandered away from the goals of The Revolution. Having to resort to violence only creates a perverse incentive for those who stray from The Revolution to harden the state from overthrow rather than continue the reforms needed.
The beginnings of capitalism may go back as far as the 1300s. The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger, which documents this new semi global mercantile system goes to 1533. There was encirclements that began shortly after until much of the land in europe had become private property.
The English capitalists had their revolution/civil war from 1640-1660, supplanting the power of the monarchy, the French and the american revolutions near the end of the 1700s. These were the big capitalist revolutions. They happened at the end of hundreds of years of development, struggle, change, etc.,
When we talk about socialist revolution we aren’t talking about a war, we are talking about the replacement of a whole system of social relations. There are wars fought, and uprisings and all sorts of historic struggle and conflict. But those aren’t the revolution we are referring to.
You can you aren’t talking about a war, but the output of this instance says otherwise.
And I’m not commenting about that, just what gets proposed in the violent overthrow when capitalists are taken out to “have a good time”.
Hmmmm seems like you’re not actually interested in what Engels was trying to say
I read it as the authority of the state does not dissolve when reformed into a socialist collective, which I don’t disagree with.
My disagreement is the assertion that said authority cannot be run without external oversight by the collective, which is an assertion that Engel makes.
What am I missing?
They are messing with you. That and you are hamming it up a little. Its young people on the internet who read history, relax.
Google Victor Jara
If they can’t handle this, how are they going to be able to handle an actual fascist in real life.
And the Allende government’s overthrow is a continuation of what I said; fascism isn’t capitalism but an overthrow of both the economic and political governments to preserve the status quo by empowering a minority to oppress the majority.
A socialist society widens democracy to accommodate for this.
The following is from a Marxist Leninist perspective - other socialist tendencies are available:
For MLs we want to maintain state power in order to defend against hostile capitalist states and internal counter revolutionaries. Lenin describes this as a state, but not a state. He views the state as smashed as power transfers from the bourgeois to the proletariat.
The class enemy being put down, state power no longer is used to oppress the proletariat. The democractic process can be used after this point to deal with the remaining/new contridictions that exist/arise.
The reason why liberal democracy cannot provide the same thing for the proletariat is because liberal democracy is designed for and controled by the bourgeois to enact their oppression upon the proletariat.
The revolution isn’t a singular event, but its also not a succession of violent conflicts. The class enemy being eradicated means true democratic process can exist
I agree. We need a significant, worker led, social, uprising. A Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution if you will.
I am not memeing here. Read some Maoist stuff, you might actually tend towards that