It seems that the state acquires a prominent position in the socialist phase, but it isn't clear what function it has or what happens to it in the communist phase. — Apollodorus
There need not be a great number of these men. One hundred revolutionaries, strongly and earnestly allied, would suffice for the international organization of all of Europe. Two or three hundred revolutionaries will be enough for the organization of the largest country. — Bakunin, The Program of the International Brotherhood, 1869
Can anyone explain what is meant by concepts like the “withering away of the state” in Marxist theory? — Apollodorus
Can anyone explain what is meant by concepts like the “withering away of the state” in Marxist theory? — Apollodorus
Yeah, that's the theory that holds as much truth as, "I'll always love you." — synthesis
However, according to some analysts like Andrzej Walicki (Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom) both Marx and his successors like Lenin often use concepts inconsistently and the authors I quoted above, Adamiack and Bender, are of the same opinion. Have you read any of them? — Apollodorus
For example, it is said that “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the state dies (or withers) away" (Anti-Dühring).
But the state can't wither away if is assumes an administrative role, can it? — Apollodorus
Another related key concept is the "dictatorship of the proletariat". — Apollodorus
However, on this topic, I completely agree concepts are used inconsistently. — boethius
Well, you have no choice but to agree given that the statements are there, black on white. I would recommend you read the articles I suggested because the authors make some very interesting and very strong, in fact irrefutable arguments, in support of their findings. — Apollodorus
However, what happens when the thinker doesn't address the issue anywhere else or when the major published works do not support any alternative conclusion? — Apollodorus
As for it "not mattering much", I beg to differ. These are concepts that are central to Marxist theory. — Apollodorus
How can you advocate revolution and write thousands of pages justifying it and "forget" to clarify what the actual goal of the revolution consists of, apart from vague statements about "freedom", "equality" and the like? And even these are controversial because on closer scrutiny there are some glaring inconsistencies. — Apollodorus
?We can easily interpret the "withering away of the state" as the social democratic process of Europe. — boethius
Living in one Nordic country and knowing all my life the local Social Democracy, I'd say this is not true.Individual citizens in Switzerland and Nordic countries for instance, can genuinely be argued to be free from state oppression and managing their own affairs through fair, or then fair enough, political process. As local awareness increases and local political entities take more active rolls of government management, the "state" becomes less and less relevant to political life; — boethius
Yet this doesn't decrease the power of the public authorities, be they on the communal level or not. You see, to decrease the role of the state /public sector would simply mean to give freedom for people to act when before they had to ask permission from an authority. To do away with previous supervision and control. This isn't what modern Social Democracy has as it's objective.If we carry this social experiment of Switzerland, the Nordic's, New Zealand, forward, it is possible to imagine "the State" becoming less and less important, until it is, maybe nominally there as an administrative body of regional issues, but does not and essentially cannot exercise any real oppressive political power. — boethius
? — ssu
Living in one Nordic country and knowing all my life the local Social Democracy, I'd say this is not true. — ssu
Living in one Nordic country and knowing all my life the local Social Democracy, I'd say this is not true.
The central government might transfer authority to local communities, but that hardly takes away the role of public authorities, likely it simply increases it on another level. Great, you don't have to ask permission from a central ministry, but your local communal authorities. — ssu
To be clear, I wouldn't say Marx develops what we would here call "a philosophy" at all, as he never really addresses the question of "why get involved in politics" in the first place. — boethius
And fortunately (or unfortunately) to those that waited for the revolution to happen, it never came as the problems and the largest injustices were dealt with. Yet those demands from "socialist agitation" were taken to heart by other political factions too.I too live in a Nordic country, and if I compare to life in the 19th century, there is simply no way to get around the fact a large part of the demands of "socialist agitation" of the 19th century is realized in these countries. — boethius
I'm not so sure about that, when you look at the actual history in these countries or in Europe in general. Who created the first state social insurance program? Bismarck. Not a socialist, on the contrary.Capitalist or even just state agents sent to stop your "socialism but not" agitation would not at all care about whatever distinctions you are trying to make. — boethius
Yet the individual confronts that administrative process in his or her life. It's only optional (luckily!) to take part in the democratic process, the laws and the norms of the state aren't optional.Power is not simply administrative process, power is the ability to effectuate desired change in the real world. — boethius
I agree. And how effective was that power of absolute monarchies in the 18th and 19th Century or earlier?The effective power and who has it in Finland is simply in no way similar to the absolute monarchies of the 18th and 19th century — boethius
To be clear, I would not call myself "a Marxist", — boethius
The idea of the disappearance of the State arises as an ideal in Kant (as a cosmopolitan society) and explicitly in Fichte. Every state that serves what it claims to serve ends in the suppression of the state.... — gikehef947
Extrapolating your "reasoning": "What is the purpose of life if we don't even know what the objective is?" — gikehef947
In other words, the state is centralized power, somehow made possible by "the people" but without any effective influence on this centralized power and in every way their lived dictated from this center. This is in stark contrast to real "people power" who then might nevertheless elect some central authority over certain appropriate tasks. We would call both "a state" in modern political theory, but the second kind simply didn't exist in the remotest sense of the words and to explain that government was possible without oppression nor chaos without rules, the term "administration" as apposed to the state gives a glimpse of this meaning. Otherwise, if what you are talking about has never been seen to exist, it is easy to make the criticism that "we can't function without a state" and everyone having a clear idea of what a state "is", as there's only one kind of example. A similar example is that we might want to stop calling the country the "kingdom" if we aim to not have any kings. — boethius
That the majority is convinced of something does not determine the truth of that something. — gikehef947
Maybe this would be a good point to bring up how Marx saw society as structured by means of production. — Valentinus
Even what you claims to criticize is anecdotal — gikehef947
You talk about something anecdotal to criticize what you haven't bothered to read.You talk about something anecdotal to criticize what you haven't bothered to read. — gikehef947
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.