The current state must be changed, but not destroyed...
Once the bourgeois no longer have control of society the society doesn’t have to change any further...
I'm not sure that either of those things work that way, tbh.
To be in conflict with Capitalism is to be in conflict with the Bourgeois State; to refuse to destroy an opponent in conflict is to ensure one's own defeat.
The removal of the ruling class from power necessarily opens the proverbial floodgates to waves of social change such that the resulting society may not look at all like the one which preceded it.
The current state must be changed, but not destroyed.
"Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon 'liberty', in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, 'the precondition for every real people's revolution' is the smashing, the destruction of the 'ready-made state machinery'."
Nations exist as a people with a common culture, a shared history.
Capitalism ignores this, it sees only the individual and not the society.
Any successful Communism in the future of these countries will take elements from the cultures it arises in.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is not a meme. It is form of socialism that was made specifically to work within historical Chinese canon and thinking. It is materialistic.
Why liberate the country when you could liberate the oppressed?
The people are the country. It is Capitalism that seeks to detach them.
Hmm... There are Nations, and then there are States, and there are also valid Non-National social groupings. It would be folly to confuse all three.
The current state must be changed, but not destroyed. The nation can live once that is done.
Once the bourgeois no longer have control of society the society doesn't have to change any further unless through the will of the people.
I'm not sure that either of those things work that way, tbh.
To be in conflict with Capitalism is to be in conflict with the Bourgeois State; to refuse to destroy an opponent in conflict is to ensure one's own defeat.
The removal of the ruling class from power necessarily opens the proverbial floodgates to waves of social change such that the resulting society may not look at all like the one which preceded it.
When I say "the state" I mean it's apparatuses and such. Definitely not the people who ran it into the ground in the first place.
I don't think the structures themselves are awful, but bourgeois influence certainly is.
"Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon 'liberty', in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, 'the precondition for every real people's revolution' is the smashing, the destruction of the 'ready-made state machinery'."
Read State and Revolution.
Lmao. That's some serious ideology.
Not sure I follow.
Nations exist as a people with a common culture, a shared history.
Capitalism ignores this, it sees only the individual and not the society.
Any successful Communism in the future of these countries will take elements from the cultures it arises in.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is not a meme. It is form of socialism that was made specifically to work within historical Chinese canon and thinking. It is materialistic.