My point is that that is physically impossible in the real world. Engels is fundamentally wrong when he says " The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State."
That first act of the State is just that, the first act of the State. Once the State seizes power, it will NEVER naturally lose it.
You cannot have people without governing the people. People aren’t robots. They are diverse individuals with wildly differing moral compasses and ideas, and you absolutely need some sort of governance to resolve disagreements among the people, and a system of authority that enforces those agreements. You cannot have a society without laws, because there will always be people that don’t want to cooperate in society. And you cannot have laws without a State enforcing those laws, through the threat of violence.
I mean, hell, we live in a society right now where there are PLENTY of people that commit violent crimes, pedophilia, thefts, sexual assault, murder, etc. That isn’t going to somehow disappear. There will always be people like that. And that requires a State with a monopoly on violence to keep under control. And as long as you have a State, you will never have a truly classless society, because by virtue of having an authoritative body that governs the people, those in power are in a separate class than the rest of the people.
Again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Marxism is not about the abolition of administration, but of class society. Administration is not a class, and your vulgarization of the definition of class is what your entire argument rests upon. In reality, class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, and as such administrators that share collective ownership with all of society do not form their own class, but instead represent a subcategory of the rest of the working class.
Really, your argument is that it’s impossible to collectivize all of production and distribution. I disagree with this notion, it’s rather obvious at this point that markets are erasing their own foundations and that production and distribution are indeed socializing as Marx predicted. However, you are taking Marx for an anarchist when you make the assertion that the state itself is a class, and are horrendously butchering Marxism to do so.
If you’re going to argue against Marxism, you should do so based on the points that actually exist in Marxism, not an absurd strawman concocted in your own imagination.
That’s not a strawman. Marx himself has stated this in his writings. The existence of a State is to oppress the proletariat. That’s direct from his own mouth.
You cannot talk about Marx without talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is FUNDAMENTAL to Marxism.
My point is that once you get there, that is the final stage. Transcending beyond that is impossible with humanity. You can disagree with that all you want. I don’t care.
You are still making a strawman of Marx and vulgarizing his theories.
The existence of a state is to support the ruling class and oppress the rest of the classes in society. In socialism, the proletariat is the ruling class. This forms the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, capitalist society.
To get to classless society, all of production and distribution needs to become collectively owned. As this happens, the instruments of the dictatorship of the proletariat used to keep capitalists in check fade, as there are no more capitalists. This does not translate into anarchy, but into collectivized, planned, stateless society. Administration remains.
You are arguing against a strawman and are unwilling to change your perspective, because it’s more convenient for you to retain that strawman image of Marxism than it is for you to confront it and recontextualize your understanding of communism. After all, there’s a good chance you’d become a communist if you weren’t so busy denying basic tenets of communism.
My point is that that is physically impossible in the real world. Engels is fundamentally wrong when he says " The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State."
That first act of the State is just that, the first act of the State. Once the State seizes power, it will NEVER naturally lose it.
You cannot have people without governing the people. People aren’t robots. They are diverse individuals with wildly differing moral compasses and ideas, and you absolutely need some sort of governance to resolve disagreements among the people, and a system of authority that enforces those agreements. You cannot have a society without laws, because there will always be people that don’t want to cooperate in society. And you cannot have laws without a State enforcing those laws, through the threat of violence.
I mean, hell, we live in a society right now where there are PLENTY of people that commit violent crimes, pedophilia, thefts, sexual assault, murder, etc. That isn’t going to somehow disappear. There will always be people like that. And that requires a State with a monopoly on violence to keep under control. And as long as you have a State, you will never have a truly classless society, because by virtue of having an authoritative body that governs the people, those in power are in a separate class than the rest of the people.
Again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Marxism is not about the abolition of administration, but of class society. Administration is not a class, and your vulgarization of the definition of class is what your entire argument rests upon. In reality, class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, and as such administrators that share collective ownership with all of society do not form their own class, but instead represent a subcategory of the rest of the working class.
Really, your argument is that it’s impossible to collectivize all of production and distribution. I disagree with this notion, it’s rather obvious at this point that markets are erasing their own foundations and that production and distribution are indeed socializing as Marx predicted. However, you are taking Marx for an anarchist when you make the assertion that the state itself is a class, and are horrendously butchering Marxism to do so.
If you’re going to argue against Marxism, you should do so based on the points that actually exist in Marxism, not an absurd strawman concocted in your own imagination.
That’s not a strawman. Marx himself has stated this in his writings. The existence of a State is to oppress the proletariat. That’s direct from his own mouth.
You cannot talk about Marx without talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is FUNDAMENTAL to Marxism.
My point is that once you get there, that is the final stage. Transcending beyond that is impossible with humanity. You can disagree with that all you want. I don’t care.
You are still making a strawman of Marx and vulgarizing his theories.
The existence of a state is to support the ruling class and oppress the rest of the classes in society. In socialism, the proletariat is the ruling class. This forms the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, capitalist society.
To get to classless society, all of production and distribution needs to become collectively owned. As this happens, the instruments of the dictatorship of the proletariat used to keep capitalists in check fade, as there are no more capitalists. This does not translate into anarchy, but into collectivized, planned, stateless society. Administration remains.
You are arguing against a strawman and are unwilling to change your perspective, because it’s more convenient for you to retain that strawman image of Marxism than it is for you to confront it and recontextualize your understanding of communism. After all, there’s a good chance you’d become a communist if you weren’t so busy denying basic tenets of communism.