theres a reason its called the slippery slope fallacy lmaoo

No

man lol

there we have it fellas

might be interesting for you to read, especially if you dont care for lenin.

there's a lot of good content in it that contends with these ideas and you can see how these conclusions have come about?

ignore synopsis dunking on u, i think you'd find it really interesting
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev

They still remain their previous connections, they still try to fight back for what they lost, and the international bourgeois will try to help them regain their position of power. Also depending on the socialist state and the time the bourgeoisie and their allies were treated differently for example in the New Democracy period in China, the national bourgeoisie were treated less harshly due to their help in the revolution and as well needed them to build productive forces so China can prepare to get rid of them

"In these circumstances, in view of the unprecedently wide-spread distortion of Marxism, our prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state. This will necessitate a number of long quotations from the works of Marx and Engels themselves. Of course, long quotations will render the text cumbersome and not help at all to make it popular reading, but we cannot possibly dispense with them. All, or at any rate all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the state must by all means be quoted as fully as possible so that the reader may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of the founders of scientific socialism, and of the evolution of those views, and so that their distortion ... now prevailing may be documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated.

Let us begin with the most popular of Engels’ works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations, while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory.

Summing up his historical a***ysis, Engels says:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it ’the reality of the ethical idea’, ’the image and reality of reason’, as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ’order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.” (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)

"

From Kropotkin’s ‘Modern Science and Anarchy’

… “Following an error of judgment which truly becomes tragic, while the State that provides the most terrible weapons to impoverish the peasant and the worker and to enrich by their labour the lord, the priest, the bourgeois, the financier and all the privileged gangsters of the rulers—it is to this same State, to the bourgeois State, to the exploiter State and guardian of the exploiters— that radical democrats and socialists ask to protect them against the monopolist exploiters! And when we say that it is the abolition of the State that we have to aim for, we are told: “Let us first abolish classes, and when this has been done, then we can place the State into a museum of antiquities, together with the stone axe and the spindle!”

I would also say that this idea that a state is somehow ‘necessary’ and ‘inevetible’ is fallacious. It is a weapon used for oppression, end of

he's not saying that it is 'necessary' or 'inevitable' but the historic description of a structure designed to mediate between two ultimately insoluble classes.

to adventure beyond this idea without contending that it is artifact of historic progression that needs to be understood as such is how you have excesses such as those of the cultural revolution in mao's china.

Look I’m not gonna lie I 100% googled Kropotkin on the state and dug for a quote im learning everyday

what did u mean by the last paragraph

Lmao

read state and rev and if you can genuinely come with some fallacies as part of the theory come back.

nobody is born knowing thousands of words by people that died before you were born. it's a cycle that takes time that everybody here is participating in. you have a greater concept, come across specific information informing your greater understanding, and repeat.

Debate a fascist? So you’re literally just a liberal lol

Once I get done with my essay on PPW I want to get on a long term project of exploring the anarchist to fascist pipeline because it’s a thing that isn’t talked about enough

But I’m saying the classes aren’t insoluable and that the state is a capitalistic weapon. Honestly I think our definitions differ I really think it has to do more with the legitimate monopoly on violence

@op democratic republic is the way

id say the things that are most attributed to the negatives of the cultural revolution are the kind of negation that happened as a result of the capitalist roaders. essentially people trying to move beyond the ML formulation of the state before the conditions were possible.

id need to reread on the topic cuz this is pretty old stuff im remembering but id be interested on what you think about the excesses of the cultural revolution.

Not at all, I think punching nazis is great but when theyre at the burgeoning 4chan lurker phase its important to engage them in political discourse to try to sway them and then move to violence if necessary

So this contradicts your statement earlier where you said that violence against political opponents is always unjustified

Always unjustified by the state, not the people

by saying the classes are insoluble it just means that the bourgeois that leech off people and the people being sucked dry will never be able to hug it out and be happy with the situation. essentially what you said is what the marxist leninists mean when they say that the state will eventually dissolve, in the conditions that the bourgeois will no longer have the power to leech off the people.

the state is simply the mediation between classes that keeps the contradiction from fully boiling over, at which point the contradiction between classes would no longer remain a contradiction and the state will cease to exist.

and yea the definitions definitely differ, that's why i think you should give state & revolution a shot. plus it's a pretty interesting and fun read

You're talking about "we should admit this", "don't you believe in that", nigga it doesn't matter. You can't wish any of these things away. Unless they are transcended you will either reproduce them or be devoured by them, the fate of every "communist" or "anarchist" project.

Look my main thing is that I think a state is the legitimate monopoly on violence not a byproduct of society trying to right itsef between two insoulable clasees. I think using this legitimate monopoly of violence to do ANYTHING is coercive and anti-liberty and I disagree with it, even if it’s used against really really bad people. I think when people gain control of this they corrupt themselves morally and do reprehensible things, even if that one good guy made use of a state that one time. I just don’t believe that heiarchy is anything but coercive and oppressive, and I don’t think any of the things I just mentioned are wholly controversial or objectionable, to me they seem completely reasonsble, and something that I thinn people can surmise with common sense. In fact, its this kind of ubiquity of thought that I think makes anarchism so powerful, and why ultimately I think we’ll win out against the fash, both the conservative fash and the red fash

That’s fair, I’ll check it out