Marx and the state

[core_1]

Helloo
Did Marx see the abolition of the state as the final goal or did he want to ''keep it''?
I know Lenin did, but did Marx?

[manic expression]

Yes, the end of the state was a big part of Marx's writings. Lenin only refined the Marxist theory (and practice) of the dictatorship of the proletariat later on. Both only wanted to "keep it" so long as class conflict still existed.

[spice756]

Helloo

Did Marx see the abolition of the state as the final goal or did he want to ''keep it''?
I know Lenin did, but did Marx?

From my understanding communism will abolish the state and government.Every thing is down to the local level by worker council for better democracy.There no party or government rule over the people has all the people become government and deal with stuff by the worker council .

Has of now if you want to speed 80KM in school zone you vote for the government to pass a law, in communism the people by the school will go to the worker council a vote on it.There is no need for government has everyone is government and democracy is done by the worker council .

It is my understanding for trade or big stuff those small worker council will all go to some big worker council .You got smaller worker council in work place , district , village ,town, city or community.

In communism there no country or state .Some community 50KM may be limit by school or 70 KM by schools so on.

Here is the question what happence if some community or area are conservative , fascism or racist :cursing: Or girls cannot get jobs or go to school do to their belief or gays put in jail?

[ZeroNowhere]

What Marx meant by 'state' wasn't something like Soviet Russia. Generally, his usage of 'state' was to refer to basically the enforcement of one class' interests over another. Basically, any time when the revolution was taking place, but not yet internationally successful, there would be a 'state', in Marx's definition. Once the revolution was international, the state would not exist simply because there was no class (Basically, 'classless and stateless society' would be pretty much redundant).

Bakunin: "The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."
Marx: "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it, it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

Bakunin: "What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"
Marx: "It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."


Here is the question what happence if some community or area are conservative , fascism or racist
People can leave.

As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said private property
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
This land was made for you and me

[spice756]

What Marx meant by 'state' wasn't something like Soviet Russia. Generally, his usage of 'state' was to refer to basically the enforcement of one class' interests over another. Basically, any time when the revolution was taking place, but not yet internationally successful, there would be a 'state', in Marx's definition. Once the revolution was international, the state would not exist simply because there was no class (Basically, 'classless and stateless society' would be pretty much redundant).


Put it simple the way the state is now it does not represent the working class.The court and police represent the state .

The same with the army ans schools.Most 98% all government does not represent the working class.

Well Marx was just going on and on about the state and how evile it is.Not really explaining why the state is like that or how it works.

[BobKKKindle$]

Marx did support the eventual dissolution of the state, because he recognized that the state is a product of class antagonisms, and so once these antagonisms have been abolished through the abolition of private property the state will no longer have a political role and will eventually wither away. Marx also recognized that the proletariat would need to construct their own state once they had taken power, because in any revolutionary situation, even when the means of production have been expropriated and removed from the control of the bourgeoisie, the remnants of the ruling class will attempt to undermine the class rule of the proletariat and restore capitalism, especially when revolution has only occurred in a singe country and has not yet spread to the rest of the world, and so a state (which Marx defined as an organ of class rule) is necessary to preserve the gains of the revolution and defeat the forces of reaction. However, because the working class are numerically stronger than the bourgeoisie and are not dependent on the exploitation of any other class, this state will not be structured in the same as the state of the bourgeoisie - instead of exercising its power through groups of armed men which are separate from the rest of the population, the power of the workers state is based on a militia system which involved the whole of the working class and allows each individual worker to participate in the defense of the revolution. This is why Marx identified the Paris Commune as an example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DOTP) in action.

[gilhyle]

Marx did not either want to dissolve the state or not dissolve the state, he believed it would in time be dissolved - not by any action of his or the social democratic movement he put so much effort into building, but by the eventual course of history. He did believe that it was not within the realms of the practical to dissolve it at the time he lived, or any time soon thereafter.

[spice756]

Marx did not either want to dissolve the state or not dissolve the state, he believed it would in time be dissolved - not by any action of his or the social democratic movement he put so much effort into building, but by the eventual course of history. He did believe that it was not within the realms of the practical to dissolve it at the time he lived, or any time soon thereafter.

No communism has no state.

[Tower of Bebel]

No communism has no state.

You clearly misunderstood him. Marx didn't want to abolish the state because it would die out together with the dying out of antagonistic classes.