- cross-posted to:
- quotes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- quotes@lemmygrad.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1892258
Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1892258
Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm
Governments are a separate organization of people with its own goals and motives. Sometimes those goals align with those of companies (either particular ones or just large companies in general), sometimes they align with the people, and sometimes they align with those of ducks.
If you assume that every organization must necessarily be part of either the bourgeoisie or proletariat, and you assume that organizations in those classes all share all their interests, then a governments interests necessarily align with those of a class, but this isn’t very enlightening. It’s much more useful to view the government as a self-interested organization whose goals may or may not align with any particular group or individual.
If government interests don’t inherently perfectly align with those of a particular class, you’ve got to be pretty careful when giving them power. There is no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat (at least, not a stable one) because as soon as you have a dictatorship, the government no longer needs the proletariat. If there is any alignment of interests left at all it is only by coincidence.
Even if you had an extensive democratic system, all that does is incentivise some government officials to sometimes appear like they share interests with some of the people. It doesn’t actually change governments interests.
It may be useful to certain interests for us to view government that way, but it does not correspond to reality. This theory of government as a purely self-interested organization is insufficient and inadequate in explaining the behavior which we observe real states engage in.
Again i can only recommend that you do some reading on this subject first. Marx and Engels explained the nature of the state:
"By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer an estate, the bourgeoisie is forced to organise itself no longer locally, but nationally, and to give a general form to its mean average interest. Through the emancipation of private property from the community, the State has become a separate entity, beside and outside civil society; but it is nothing more than the form of organisation which the bourgeois necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests. […]
It is therefore obvious that as soon as the bourgeoisie has accumulated money, the state has to beg from the bourgeoisie and in the end it is actually bought up by the latter. This takes place in a period in which the bourgeoisie is still confronted by another class, and consequently the state can retain some appearance of independence in relation to both of them. Even after the state has been bought up, it still needs money and, therefore, continues to be dependent on the bourgeoisie;" -The German Ideology
“the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” -The Communist Manifesto
“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it ’the reality of the ethical idea’, ’the image and reality of reason’, as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ’order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.” -The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Lenin sums it up like this:
“According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order,” which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes”
Lenin elaborates further on this in The State and Revolution
And here is a more modern discussion of the Marxist understanding of the state using the US as a case study to illustrate the general points.
I’ve read everything in both those links and either I didn’t understand it or it was plainly contradictory and bad.
First, I never saw any reason that the group of people who make up the new government would serve the people. Not once was there a reason that a dictatorship for the proletariat would actually be for the proletariat. In fact, it seems like the exclusive role of the government is to oppress somebody, and the proletariat’s a really easy target. Even if you and all your friends pick up arms, overthrow the government, and try to set up a state that acts in the interest of the people, your new government is going to be made up of people who act in their own self-interest, and the interests of the government as a whole will reflect that.
The idea of the state withering away, as I understand it, is based on the idea that the state is an instrument of oppression by one class against another, and when a classless society emerges, the state will lose its purpose and role and then slowly vanish. BUT the very fact that there is an oppressive state (that’s busy oppressing the remnants of capitalism) means that there’s a class divide (rulers and ruled, oppressed and oppressed, that whole shebang). Thanks to the immeasurability of when the capitalists have been defeated (Lenin stated that he couldn’t know by what practical measures the defeat of capitalism will be known) the oppressive state is going to stick around indefinitely, oppressing more and more people.
In simpler terms, there’s some dictator in charge of the dictatorship of the proletariat (or at least, there are high ranking members in it). During the extinguishing of capitalism, this dictator will have lots of power and authority granted to him by the people. He won’t want to lose it. This man will do everything in his power to maintain total domination for himself forever. He will create imaginary threats, oppress people, frighten them, manipulate narratives, concentrate more power, punish insurrection, whatever it takes. If he doesn’t, someone who will will take his place. This is human nature, the human nature you see in the bourgeois.
Secondly, the idea that the state is created by one of the two classes to oppress the other is either not true or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Was Genghis Khan a false mediator? The state exists because people in pre-history had really big armies and wanted to control people to obtain wealth and power for themselves. It turned out that people being alive and prosperous was really helpful for that, so states started supporting that, so people often submitted. This isn’t the bourgeois creating a state to adjudicate disputes between them and the proletariat in the former’s favor, it’s just militaristic (or perhaps political or social) conquest.
I had lots of other problems with both the articles you linked, especially the article from Liberation School, but I don’t really want to write a full paper on the errors of communism.
Instead, let’s bring it back to the idea of freedom of the press. If the state is a purely oppressive tool used by one class to oppress another, a state-controlled press is bad. It doesn’t matter who you’re oppressing, or who you’re claiming or actually doing it in the name of, it’s bad because the result is truth is thrown out in favor of manipulation.
In a post-class society (I don’t think that this is possible, but that doesn’t matter right now) you actually would have a free press, because there’s no government or state restricting it, and this would be great. However, something like this wouldn’t come about through state oppression and control of the media. In fact, this dictatorship for the proletariat having power over the news ensures that there’ll always be stories about the new, evil things capitalists are doing that your loving dictator needs more money and authority to squash.
So…your whole argument boils down to “human nature”. Wow, very original, i’m sure none of us has ever heard that before.
Not really
-no one ever showed me why a dictatorship for the proletariat would be for the proletariat (adjacent to human nature, since there’s the assumption that they wouldn’t be) -a dictatorship for the proletariat would never wither away because its existence ensures the existences of an oppressor and oppressed, on top of never being able to tell when its intended job is completed -humans don’t want to sacrifice control (absolutely human nature, but I want to list it here as well just to list all my arguments) -governments aren’t exclusively the tool of oppression for the use of a separate class -if governments are purely oppressive, granting them control over media is always bad -in a society on the brink of becoming a post-class society, control over the press would be the perfect tool to perpetuate idea that more oppression is needed (again human nature adjacent, since there’s the assumption that governments would want to do that)
If my argument were entirely based on my idea of human nature though, what part of human nature am I wrong about?
If there is no Bourgeoisie or the government explicitally restricts the Bourgeoisie from controlling the media, who else but the proletariat would control the media?
Just because some people want to oppress others to feed their weak egos doesn’t mean that all of humanity wants that. I think most people actually want to live in a society that takes care of them, and in turn will love to help out and serve society. Once it becomes the norm to look out for the collective interest instead of self serving behavior, self serving individuals will either need to learn to adapt, hide or get ostracized by society.
Human nature is not static. Human nature is reacting to the conditions they live in.
The government, but I don’t think the line between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is that clean. I think the definitions of these classes is pretty fuzzy.
I think you underestimate the number of people who want power, and the variety of reasons someone might want to be an oppressor (wealth, control, security, status, fame, respect, not to mention people who think they’re doing the right thing). It only takes a handful of people anyway, and those are exactly the types of people that would be drawn toward working in the government so that they can oppress the remaining capitalists.
Even if you managed to make the kind of classless society you’re talking about I suspect that oppressive systems would grow out of it. Think of something like an HOA, people trying to control others “for the good of the community”. Without an authority structure above it, I suspect it would grow and bloat, granting itself more power and authority as time went on. Eventually you’ve got a new oppressive government explicitly built by people who want to control others.
Getting that from an HOA might be ridiculous, but HOAs demonstrate the desire for control I think is all too common.
Why do you think economic titans are subservient to their political figureheads?