Yep, at that point waiting for the state to wither would be pointless as the fundamental nature would have shifted so profoundly that what we call a state would become unrecognizable and whether you want to call the networks and structures that develop at scale “councils” or “parties” is irrelevant
You’d require a whole new set of theories and terminology just to describe the economic logic and incentives that would emerge
My main problem with state structures is their monopoly on violence/power.
A fully decentralized network where the economy is not regulated/controled by one body would not be able to maintain a monopoly of violence that a revolutionary army holds initially.
I would not call the resulting borderless network a state, but discussing that would be semantics.
Have you heard of the companies Blackwater or Boeing? Wars are waged for the interest of private companies. The police are also regulatory functions that stem from the settler lynchings done by white people which are now part of the system as part of the 1960s compromise between Settlers and the bourgiosie to give a veneer of oversight, none of which are actually done by the "state" but local governments.
You can have an analysis about normalization and disciplinary violence which doesn't invoke relational class but still challenges liberalism by critiquing all of its institutions.
? It is all about class, it is why Engels writes that
"Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today"
I guess it does not have to be explicit about 'class' but you can read between the tea leaves and find the material basis is in class as long as you got historical materialism on your side.
Material basis is not the same as class. Class is often part of it, but the bourgeoisie at this point could end homophobia and keep their profits in tact. Maybe there's a material basis, but it could be too complicated to describe in language. There is use in describing power as it exists and not worrying about its basis.
The corpos control the state that gives them in turn legitimacy, so any violence originates from the corporations regardles. I get that.
But you can't deny the immense potential for abuse the Soviet state still had. With no looming imperial power ready to conquer the imperial core upon its fall, I see no reason how we could justify tolerating even that remaining shred of violence.
What "potential of absue" did the soviet state have? If you mean the abuse to repress capitalists then I am all for it. I'm interested in real concrete examples, not hypothetics or fantasies by liberals.
Exectutions with little justification, forced conscription, forced relocations, expropriation of grain beyond reason, restrictions on press and newspapers, massive failed agriculture projects, nepotism/the enabling of corruption through officials, the measures taken against the bag-men as concrete example... a lot of it done with war in mind, but why even keep the state without war?
But the real question is different. Why keep the state if you are a western imperial core? There is no fucking reason.
The implementation of a regimental system for a revolutionary army would largely eliminate those risks, while also playing to the strengths of a decentralized but coordinating series of networks that operate at scale
Yep, at that point waiting for the state to wither would be pointless as the fundamental nature would have shifted so profoundly that what we call a state would become unrecognizable and whether you want to call the networks and structures that develop at scale “councils” or “parties” is irrelevant
You’d require a whole new set of theories and terminology just to describe the economic logic and incentives that would emerge
My main problem with state structures is their monopoly on violence/power.
A fully decentralized network where the economy is not regulated/controled by one body would not be able to maintain a monopoly of violence that a revolutionary army holds initially.
I would not call the resulting borderless network a state, but discussing that would be semantics.
Stop reading Weber and read more Marx. Most violence comes from private companies and the workplace.
??? It ain't the corpos bombing the middle east, or shooting black teens.
Have you heard of the companies Blackwater or Boeing? Wars are waged for the interest of private companies. The police are also regulatory functions that stem from the settler lynchings done by white people which are now part of the system as part of the 1960s compromise between Settlers and the bourgiosie to give a veneer of oversight, none of which are actually done by the "state" but local governments.
Stop reading Marx and more queer theory. Most violence happens in the home.
That is true. Marxism is essential for queer theory.
Essential, but still wildly insufficient.
What's inefficient about it? All queetr theory is Marxism, the ones that dont and serve to affirm liberalism is not worth reading at all.
You can have an analysis about normalization and disciplinary violence which doesn't invoke relational class but still challenges liberalism by critiquing all of its institutions.
? It is all about class, it is why Engels writes that
"Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today"
I guess it does not have to be explicit about 'class' but you can read between the tea leaves and find the material basis is in class as long as you got historical materialism on your side.
Material basis is not the same as class. Class is often part of it, but the bourgeoisie at this point could end homophobia and keep their profits in tact. Maybe there's a material basis, but it could be too complicated to describe in language. There is use in describing power as it exists and not worrying about its basis.
The corpos control the state that gives them in turn legitimacy, so any violence originates from the corporations regardles. I get that.
But you can't deny the immense potential for abuse the Soviet state still had. With no looming imperial power ready to conquer the imperial core upon its fall, I see no reason how we could justify tolerating even that remaining shred of violence.
What "potential of absue" did the soviet state have? If you mean the abuse to repress capitalists then I am all for it. I'm interested in real concrete examples, not hypothetics or fantasies by liberals.
Exectutions with little justification, forced conscription, forced relocations, expropriation of grain beyond reason, restrictions on press and newspapers, massive failed agriculture projects, nepotism/the enabling of corruption through officials, the measures taken against the bag-men as concrete example... a lot of it done with war in mind, but why even keep the state without war?
But the real question is different. Why keep the state if you are a western imperial core? There is no fucking reason.
The implementation of a regimental system for a revolutionary army would largely eliminate those risks, while also playing to the strengths of a decentralized but coordinating series of networks that operate at scale