you know how people, especially on twitter, try and share their absolute dogshit takes without a care for humility, just unbribled stubbornness
everybody seem so full of themselves and I just can't bring myself to trust anyone unless they show a hint of doubt over their own thoughts, and that's flat out absent from most social media
idk, I don't think I did a good jb describing what I feel, it's hard to accurately put into words
but like, do you have stuff you usually keep to yourself, because like you know the thought isn't well rounded or something and you don't want to say something incorrect. or like interrogations about stuff you can't really answer by yourself
I'm just spitballing but a "state" in Marx's terms is explicitly a tool of class control, is it not? I think that opens up the door for, like, free associations of people in the higher stage to build institutions that were might call a government but Marx wouldn't call a state? I might be wrong here tho
A state is an entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence, which uses that monopoly to create and enforce laws.
Getting rid of the state is a good thing, but power still exists and has a tendency to concentrate, and the natural outcome of this in agrarian civilizations seems to be states. There needs to be some other method of allocating power, which is resistant to concentration, or we end up in this same mess again.
Is that Marx's definition, though? Did he work from Hobbes' definition? Seems like the kind of thing Marx would be pretty specific about. Anyone in here read theory that can tell us?
Marx considers the state to be the tool of class oppression, under capitalism the bourgeoisie uses the state to oppress us. Under socialism we will use the state to oppress them. In Marxist thought the state "withers away" as it is no longer needed as a tool of oppression. Once we are free from class, the state ceases to exist in that sense. However, it would still exist for its administrative and organizational purposes, Marx no longer considers it a "state" because it's not being used for oppression and infers no political or class advantages on its members. The person you are replying to is using the state in more of an anarchist sense.
Right so my original point - that you could have a governmental body without class oppression after the class war - is fundamentally correct?
This is more or less how Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. viewed it. Whether it's fundamentally correct is hard to know, because of the nature of our interconnected world it's impossible for the state to wither away while other countries remain capitalist so we have no frame of reference. To Marx this was very much a thing that would have to be solved once it happened, he didn't spend a great deal of time writing on what communism could or would actually look like. Preferring to focus on the now and the past for analysis. I know this sounds a bit wishy-washy sorry, but yes you're correct in that is how Marx viewed it.