Class and State: Is the Marxist conception too abstract?

[Questionable]

What do you all think about these statements?


It is certainly true that states strongly tend to favor certain parts of society, but to say that it is literally impossible to not have a state so long as any "classes" exist in society does not seem valid. The concept of class is too vague of an abstraction for this to be a meaningful axiom. I suspect that any stateless society will be discarded as being "not stateless enough to count" and any classless society discarded as "not classless enough to count". That is because both class and the state are extremely abstract concepts. They do not exist in hard limits and to quantify them as such is to assume in them quantitative qualities they do not actually possess. On a totally separate note, the "class struggle" interpretation of history does not seem to be the result of historical study, but rather, Marxist history seems to result from the assumption that human history is acted out through class struggle and works backwards from there finding ways for historical events to fit into their worldview. Needless to say this is pretty much the opposite of the scientific method. It bears little resemblance to an attempt to actually find truth, because those using this method of historical analysis assume they have already found the truth, and study from there.


I'm particularly interested in the bit about beginning at class struggle rather than discovering it, because that's something that has worried me about Marxism in the past, along with the conception of "class" being too abstract.

[jookyle]

The problem with this statement is that is using the terms class and state in an abstract way to make it's point. By that, I mean, that marxist thought gives straight forward definitions of what classes are and the state is and their relationship in class society. This statement is simply ignoring that part of marxist theory. As far as going into the past, you would have to as marxist analysis has not always existed. If marxist theory only came about in the middle of the 19th century, when you analyze events of the past as a marxist you're basically seeing what parts of pre-industrial societies fit into marxist and what do not.

[Marxaveli]

Marxism is the most objective and logical way of looking at human relations, social organization, and development. At what point in our history has there ever been a class society with NO State? Simple - there has never been such a thing, because scientifically there can't be. A ruling class will always need a State apparatus to uphold, protect and legitimize its material interests. If this weren't the case, it would be possible to reach socialism through non-revolutionary means, and we could all be democratic socialists or even social democrats. Likely we would have reached socialism by now. Anti-Marxists like to deny it and call Marxism a psuedo-science, but it hardly matters. Many people of faith use the same logic, and still think Darwin was wrong about evolution, but that hardly means he was - there has been countless evidence that has disproved creationist arguments time and again. Marx essentially did for the history of humanity what Darwin did for biological evolution.

And before anyone calls me a dogmatic Marxist - just, NO. I'm not dogmatic, nor is Marxism dogmatic. Anyone who has a problem with the Historical Material process of history needs to go take it up with the scientific laws of economics and social organization, because natural law IS dogmatic, and always will be.

[Rafiq]

Class and state are objectively defined phenomena. They are not concepts. They are terms existing to describe objectively existing phenomena.

[l'Enfermé]

Stupid worthless gibberish written by an idiot. Neither state, nor class, as far as the Marxist definition goes, are abstract concepts in the least. They are not concepts but concrete realities. For Marxists, a social class exists as a collectivity defined by its relationship to the means of production. In Hegelian and by extension Marxist thought, this definition is an abstract concept. But a concrete concept is the combination of many abstractions. Thus the Marxist conception of class is a concrete concept because Marxists have demonstrated various aspects of class, like the state of society it developed in, the historical nuances and circumstances of its development and rise, and so on. The same goes for the Marxist conception of the state also.

But this, I think, hardly matters for the author of the quote in the OP. For this idiot, the contrast between the abstract and the concrete is the contrast between the ideal and reality. The ignorance of this person is excused by virtue of them not being familiar with the dialectic.

As for the class struggle interpretation of history, whatever that is, not being the result of historical study, that's nonsense. Marx's and Engels' belief that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle was the result of intense historical study of English, French and German history and later the history of less civilized countries like Russia, India, etc, etc. Marx and Engels have written extensively on this subject and Marxists in the 20th and 21st centuries. It has long been proven that class struggle has been the driving engine of all civilized society. Take for example Alan Woods' 16 part study of class struggle in the Roman Republic. (http://www.marxist.com/class-struggles-roman-republic-one.htm)

And really, I'm not surprised that such a feeble attack on Marxism has lead you to doubt your beliefs. Stalinists are only partially Marxist in their outlook.

[Questionable]

And really, I'm not surprised that such a feeble attack on Marxism has lead you to doubt your beliefs. Stalinists are only partially Marxist in their outlook.Can you please point out where I said I was doubting my beliefs? I was interesting in the implications of the argument, which I felt deserved a rebuttal. I never once said I was about to give everything up over this, nor was I thinking that.

This wanton sectarianism is the parasite killing Revleft. And people say Marxist-Leninists are the dogmatic ones. I guess trying to learn now translates to being on the verge of giving up Marxism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Can you please point out where I said I was doubting my beliefs? I was interesting in the implications of the argument, which I felt deserved a rebuttal. I never once said I was about to give everything up over this, nor was I thinking that.

This wanton sectarianism is the parasite killing Revleft. And people say Marxist-Leninists are the dogmatic ones. I guess trying to learn now translates to being on the verge of giving up Marxism.

Personally I feel like we should ban the word Stalinist on this forum, there is no such thing as stalinism, it's nothing more than a derogatory slur against ML folks and MLM folks (which is ironic since many MLM folks don't even "uphold" Stalin)

[Ostrinski]

Stupid worthless gibberish written by an idiot. Neither state, nor class, as far as the Marxist definition goes, are abstract concepts in the least. They are not concepts but concrete realities. For Marxists, a social class exists as a collectivity defined by its relationship to the means of production. In Hegelian and by extension Marxist thought, this definition is an abstract concept. But a concrete concept is the combination of many abstractions. Thus the Marxist conception of class is a concrete concept because Marxists have demonstrated various aspects of class, like the state of society it developed in, the historical nuances and circumstances of its development and rise, and so on. The same goes for the Marxist conception of the state also.

But this, I think, hardly matters for the author of the quote in the OP. For this idiot, the contrast between the abstract and the concrete is the contrast between the ideal and reality. The ignorance of this person is excused by virtue of them not being familiar with the dialectic.

As for the class struggle interpretation of history, whatever that is, not being the result of historical study, that's nonsense. Marx's and Engels' belief that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle was the result of intense historical study of English, French and German history and later the history of less civilized countries like Russia, India, etc, etc. Marx and Engels have written extensively on this subject and Marxists in the 20th and 21st centuries. It has long been proven that class struggle has been the driving engine of all civilized society. Take for example Alan Woods' 16 part study of class struggle in the Roman Republic. (http://www.marxist.com/class-struggles-roman-republic-one.htm)

And really, I'm not surprised that such a feeble attack on Marxism has lead you to doubt your beliefs. Stalinists are only partially Marxist in their outlook.All very good points comrade, but that was a needless attack on Questionable. He's not like the other Marxist-Leninists. He's quite reasonable and open minded.

[Ostrinski]

Personally I feel like we should ban the word Stalinist on this forum, there is no such thing as stalinism, it's nothing more than a derogatory slur against ML folks and MLM folks (which is ironic since many MLM folks don't even "uphold" Stalin)Of course Stalinism exists. It refers to the political culture and social structure of the regimes that replicated the RSFSR under Stalin. It also refers to the people that uphold these states. Marxist-Leninist is a pain in the ass to type out, although occasionally I'll do it. It's also confusing to newcomers who might think Marxism-Leninism just = Marxism + Leninism.

It'd be like if said we had to ban the word Trotskyist and force everyone to start calling them Bolshevik-Leninists. It'd be a pain.

[Prometeo liberado]

All very good points comrade, but that was a needless attack on Questionable. He's not like the other Marxist-Leninists. He's quite reasonable and open minded.

You speak of "needless attacks"? I will question the need for needless hacks. Please.:rolleyes:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Of course Stalinism exists. It refers to the political culture and social structure of the regimes that replicated the RSFSR under Stalin. It also refers to the people that uphold these states. Marxist-Leninist is a pain in the ass to type out, although occasionally I'll do it. It's also confusing to newcomers who might think Marxism-Leninism just = Marxism + Leninism.

It'd be like if said we had to ban the word Trotskyist and force everyone to start calling them Bolshevik-Leninists. It'd be a pain.

First I'd like to thank you for responding respectfully.

And second, it's important to note how language alters our perception and our behavior. "Stalinist" has a negative connotation to it, now perhaps this is for a good reason or perhaps it is unearned, that is a worthy subject of debate. However we can not ignore that "Stalinist" is thrown around like an insult and at this point I don't think the word can be "reclaimed". Also "Stalinism" implies that the ideological core of Marxist Leninism is derived from Stalin, when in fact most Marxist-Leninist (And some Maoists) believe that Stalin was simply a contunity from Marx and Lenin, in the way that many revolutionaries uphold Che Guvera without calling themselves Guverists. It's not just a matter of convience, it's a matter of conceptual accuracy. "Stalinists" do not derive their ideology from Stalin, they simply count Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist. If we were to apply the principle of identifying every person with an ideology as a major figure that is worthy of inclusion into it's name, then we would have so many useless "isms" that we would be better off leaving Marxism to the dust bin than to bother with all of the confusion.

And lastly, simplicity is no good answer for constructing language. As Trotsky said in his The Struggle for Cultured Speech "Language is the instrument of thought. Precision and correctness of speech are indispensable conditions of correct and precise thinking." If we say Stalinists for the sake of being easier to the new people, then we are robbing them of the experience of having to learn what Marxist-Leninism is by themselves, and instead we simply give them a cliche that justifies their ignorance of Marxist-Leninism. I'm no Marxist Leninist, but we owe them better than that.

[Prometeo liberado]

Of course Stalinism exists. It refers to the political culture and social structure of the regimes that replicated the RSFSR under Stalin. It also refers to the people that uphold these states. Marxist-Leninist is a pain in the ass to type out, although occasionally I'll do it. It's also confusing to newcomers who might think Marxism-Leninism just = Marxism + Leninism.

It'd be like if said we had to ban the word Trotskyist and force everyone to start calling them Bolshevik-Leninists. It'd be a pain.

ML is even shorter than your "Stalinist" thing.

[Ostrinski]

First I'd like to thank you for responding respectfully.

And second, it's important to note how language alters our perception and our behavior. "Stalinist" has a negative connotation to it, now perhaps this is for a good reason or perhaps it is unearned, that is a worthy subject of debate. However we can not ignore that "Stalinist" is thrown around like an insult and at this point I don't think the word can be "reclaimed". Also "Stalinism" implies that the ideological core of Marxist Leninism is derived from Stalin, when in fact most Marxist-Leninist (And some Maoists) believe that Stalin was simply a contunity from Marx and Lenin, in the way that many revolutionaries uphold Che Guvera without calling themselves Guverists. It's not just a matter of convience, it's a matter of conceptual accuracy. "Stalinists" do not derive their ideology from Stalin, they simply count Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist. If we were to apply the principle of identifying every person with an ideology as a major figure that is worthy of inclusion into it's name, then we would have so many useless "isms" that we would be better off leaving Marxism to the dust bin than to bother with all of the confusion.

And lastly, simplicity is no good answer for constructing language. As Trotsky said in his The Struggle for Cultured Speech "Language is the instrument of thought. Precision and correctness of speech are indispensable conditions of correct and precise thinking." If we say Stalinists for the sake of being easier to the new people, then we are robbing them of the experience of having to learn what Marxist-Leninism is by themselves, and instead we simply give them a cliche that justifies their ignorance of Marxist-Leninism. I'm no Marxist Leninist, but we owe them better than that.Oh I don't deny that it is often used in a negative context. But this can be attributed more to the fact that non-Marxist-Leninists don't have very much good to say about Marxist-Leninists than the actual designation of the term 'Stalinist' as an insult or slur. We can make it more philosophical than it needs to be but at the end of the day, Marxism-Leninism as we know it historically and contemporarily is Stalin's baby. The flaw in the comparison with people who uphold Che Guevara not being called Guevarists, although I would have no such problem with the use of the term if there were actual followers of Guevara in relation to real political issues - their weren't and aren't.

If I'm referring to the actual ideology of Marxism-Leninism generally I will call it by its name. However, there is no reason not to refer to people who uphold Stalin, his regime, and all of the states that replicated as Stalinists. I would have to completely disagree with the idea that cutting to the chase deprives anyone of anything in this case. It saves them the trouble of exploring a fool's gold ideology and a deliberate misrepresentation of Lenin.

All previous complaints of Marxist-Leninists to stop being called Stalinists have fallen upon deaf ears. A ban on the word won't happen because there is only one Marxist-Leninist in the entire BA as far as I'm aware, and none on the actual admin team. Everyone else is either an anarchist or Trotskyist with a few token exceptions, all of whom have no qualms with the term. We don't owe them shit. No one owes anyone shit. Hell, they used to be a restricted tendency so they should be thankful if anything, if it wasn't for the generosity of whoever changed that policy they'd probably be over at Soviet Empire or something.

[Ostrinski]

ML is even shorter than your "Stalinist" thing.I say ML a lot

[The Jay]

I think that if you just pointed out the dynamic of the workplace: what to do, when to do, and what to do with the profits, then the class dynamic would become much clearer.

[Questionable]

I personally don't care if people call me a Stalinist because I think Stalin was a great theoretician. It's like when right-wingers call me a communist or socialist. If people are using the term as an insult then that's their own prerogative but doesn't offend me as much as the context does.

[Marxaveli]

The functioning of the workplace is unique to capitalist society though. Class dynamics are objectively defined by the existence of private property, which are not unique to capitalism, but are the defining element of all class based societies. This is why Marxism is the most objective and logical way of looking at class, because it is always formed by property relations - this has been the paradigm throughout the history of class society. The State is formed as an instrument to protect and legitimize the property owning class, regardless of the mode of production. This is something most idealists and anti-Marxists cannot seem to grasp, however.

[#FF0000]

Where is the quote from the OP from?

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you all think about these statements?

I'm particularly interested in the bit about beginning at class struggle rather than discovering it, because that's something that has worried me about Marxism in the past, along with the conception of "class" being too abstract.

Really it's not all that abstract, as other people have said. If you have classes, that is people who have different relationships to how the things that we all need are produced, and those different relationships cause these groups to have different and opposing, or competing interests in how production should be accomplished, then there needs to be some kind of over-arching structure to ensure that one way of producing things is legitimate - and this has often meant protecting the power of those who control production and the results of it against those who would want to do things differently.

So in early capitalism, the bourgeoise couldn't make money off of the peasant system and in addition communal customs made it hard to secure a stable wage-workforce. So peasants mostly just wanted to keep producing as they were, but without the oppression and exploitation of the nobels and landloards; the nobles wanted to maintain their power (though they often did begin to trade land for cash as the feudal system began to become outmoded) and those customs; the bourgeois wanted to replace custom and feudal relations with production for profit. So the state under feudalism tried to constrain the power of the bourgoise, make sure pesants didn't rebel, etc. The bourgeoise then needed to overthrow the feudal state (or radically alter it as in England) and create a "legal system" based around property ownership geared towards profit-making. So they created new states which then enforced a new order which pushed pesants off the common lands and created laws outlawing "vagrancy" and not having a master (not being a pesant and not having wage-labor). So this state was needed for one group to organize society around their own interests.

A state will not be necissary when people all produce for the same reasons - to fufil common needs.