Marxism and the state | What did Lenin really stand for?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2022
- Far from being a neutral force standing above society, Marxists understand that the state is a tool for the suppression of one class by another. In this talk from the recent Marxist Student Federation summer school, Fiona Lali discusses the origins of the state, and refutes the views of the reformists and anarchists on this question.
🔗 Want to learn more about the Marxist view of the state? Head to our education hub: www.socialist.net/the-state.htm
📚 Get a copy of Lenin's classic text 'The State and Revolution' from Wellred Books, Britain's Marxist bookshop: wellredbooks.net/state-and-re...
✊ Get involved in the fight for socialist revolution! Join Socialist Appeal today: www.socialist.net/join
“Less than five years after the Russian revolution, Lenin pondered why the new soviet order had quickly become so bureaucratic and oppressive. On his deathbed he somberly concluded that he had witnessed the resurrection of the old Tsarist bureaucracy to which the Bolsheviks “had given only a soviet veneer.” Lenin’s worst fears were soon realised with the massive bureaucratization of the soviet state and society during the Stalinist era, and the unleashing of what Isaac Deutscher called “an almost permanent orgy of bureaucratic violence.” - Maurice Meisner
Great talk
This is all spot on!
"A revolution which is inspired by state socialism and adopts this form even 'provisionally' and 'temporarily' is lost : it takes a wrong road down an ever steeper slope. All political power inevitably creates a privileged position for those who exercise it.
Having taken over the revolution, mastered it, and harnessed it, those in power are obliged to create the bureaucratic and repressive apparatus which is indispensible for any authority that wants to maintain itself, to command, to give orders, in a word : to govern.
All authority seeks to some extent to control social life. It's existence predisposes the masses to passivity, it's very presence suffocates any spirit of initiative. 'Communist' power is a real bludgeon. Swollen with 'authority' it fears every independent action. Any autonomous action is immediately seen as suspect and threatening, for such authority wants sole control of the worker. Initiative from any other source is seen as an intrusion upon it's domain and an infringement of it's prerogatives and, therefore, unacceptable."
- Volin
I was with the speaker til trade unions are called the embryo of a workers state. Soviets yes. Otherwise excellent content and well worth hearing.
It's good content apart from its assumption that Marxism is entirely true; it isn't.
Good discussion! I might not agree with everything but it's still good to listen to different perspectives on Lenin as opposed to saying that my type of marxism is the only correct one and therefore you're wrong and stupid like some other people in the comments.
There are a number of different types of Marxism, but they all make the same mistake; in assuming that profit is made by underpaying wages. It isn't true.
@@lochnessmunster1189 How is profit made? By smart entrepreneurship 🤣?
@@tusharsingh4543 Yes, often. How do you think it's made, regarding wages?
@@lochnessmunster1189 Profit is derived from extracting surplus value from labour.
@@tusharsingh4543 No, it isn't. This assumption was disproved even while Marx was alive, and it is endlessly repeated on Socialist channels such as this one.
All inputs into a production, must yield a greater return for the investor as a result; otherwise, it isn't worth incorporating them into the production in the first place.
Each input increases in value because it is integrated with another. A factory which makes radio, and sells them for $50, might buy antennas for these radios, from another supplier. They cost $5 each. But without these antennas, the radio isn't worth $45; it's worth far less, because people are reluctant to buy them.
Has the producer of the antennas, been 'underpaid' for them?
Bakunin and the anarchists:
All Marxist countries will become one-party dictatorships over the proletarian, not by the proletariat.
Its kind of hard to argue after all that....
Enjoyable talk, comrades. The “voting trick” is a huge joke. I’m not sure about the UK but, in the US you’ll often literally have 3 candidates running for a particular office but there are 3 positions to fill and 3 running. How democratic!
The US is not a democracy, it's a de facto one-party state pretending to be a democracy. The "winner takes all" voting system will always result in a two-party system, with no chance of other voices to have a representation. The difference between the two parties is mostly artificial. They agree basically on all important issues. Almost half the population won't even vote now, bc it really does not matter much
Whereas in Communist countries, there were always an abundance of candidates, from right across the political spectrum, for the people to choose from.
Different socialist countries did it in different ways but generally, you vote for the candidate based not on their party affiliation but on their positions on particular issues. Also, the ruling billionaire class makes up only around 0.1% of the world’s population, whereas the working class makes up the majority. Why should parties that represent the will of a tiny minority constitute the majority or totality of options?
@@VivaCubaRoja Cheers. But could you vote for a pro-Capitalist candidate, in any Socialist country?
Why can't we reform the state and seek to take it over at the same time?
At that point "reform" just isn't the accurate word to use. Like sure, algebra is a useful system for every day calculations, but it's hardly the right word to describe the end goals of rocket science
@DAL30505 OK how about we make it less bad if we can now while trying to dismantle it, is that simple enough? lol
@@jesseweideman4247 The state sits independently above society and class interests. If, at times, its interest to self perpetuate itself align with the bourgeois interest to expand property and capital, it is purely coincidental. Any reform is purely an attempt to ameliorate the irreconcilable class antagonisms that arise from capitalism. It will do this on it's own, with or without socialists in government.
@robsonbarstow9355 I understand capital will always attack or roll back changes that are made. That said, there is plenty of sociological and qualitative data to show policy changes have tangible effects on material distribution. I think leftist movements can walk and chew gum at the same time.