**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read state and revolution by Lenin on this. Your question is basically what the book is about. Ill give some quotes, but its not the same as reading it, and if you want to understand you must read the books themselves.
The state:
>“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without... 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)[1]
>This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
>It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.
>On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, “correct” Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors.
On bourgeoise democracy
>Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty”--supposedly petty--details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,--we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.
>Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!
>But from this capitalist democracy--that is inevitably narrow and stealthily pushes aside the poor, and is therefore hypocritical and false through and through--forward development does not proceed simply, directly and smoothly, towards "greater and greater democracy", as the liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists would have us believe. No, forward development, i.e., development towards communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way.
This is a bit more complicated then some make it out to be but ultimately the government of a capitalist country is primary concerned with preserving and replicating capitalism and the capitalist class.
But that’s a basic answer because the reality is that the capitalist class isn’t united, there are issues between them as well.
Imagine all the capitalists whose capital is tied to national industries, their interests lie within that nation and that is their primary concern.
No think about all the capitalists whose capital is international.
They’re both capitalists but they have opposing interests. Now who does the state favor in that situation.? Well the national capitalists include the petty bourgeois and that means votes so obviously politicians are going for those.
But simultaneously those national capitalist need the international capitalist because that’s where the cheap commodities they sell come from. In a country like the US we also have this massive military that exists to protect the international capitalists interests.
That means someone’s going to support that international capital and that military, but doing that shrinks the national capitalists power.
There’s also the working class which for the last 50ish years the state has ignored.
So what you see is that the state has to negotiate between the capital class and the working class, but it also has to negotiate interclass conflict as well.
I’m making this complicated to explain why governments act so weird and sometimes the way we frame stuff doesn’t match reality. Because any petty bourgeois business owner you meet will insist that the government is actually anti capitalist because the petty bourgeois gets screwed over by the government in favor of the larger bourgeoisie.
Either way read state and revolution
According to Marxist theory, the government is the owner class (the bourgeoisie). Paraphrased from the Communist Manifesto, "the executive of the state is a commitee of the bourgeoisie."
There was a Lincoln speech that talked about this
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-9
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
> No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
— Matthew 6:24
From a Fascist or Liberal point of view, no. From a Communist point of view, yes.
Fascists seek the subordination of both workers and capitalists to the state, bound together by Race, Ethnicity, National Spirit and/or something similar. The Fascist state will guide the economy with the Capitalist class having a much greater amount of economic power and freedom than workers, but still restricted by policies put in place by the Fascist government. Fascists see Capitalists and Workers as working together for the betterment of the Nation.
Liberals view the relationship between Worker and Capitalist as voluntary and symbiotic. However Liberal politicians certainly place greater emphasis on the wishes of the Capitalist class as they see them as the main drivers and developers of the Economy and rely upon a faith in the Market to regulate itself. They generally oppose State intervention as they view even positive interventions, such as Welfare, as potentially having long-term negative effects on the Economy. Workers are paid lip service to, but have very little, if any, economic or political power in comparison to the Capitalist class.
And of course Communists are hostile towards the Capitalist class. Communist governments have allowed different forms of Private Property relations throughout history, China, Yugoslavia, and Poland come to mind, but even Stalin's USSR allowed some form of private property relations within the countryside, albeit as a temporary fix and of course Lenin enacted the NEP. So while Communists are, and should be, hostile towards the Capitalist class. There are plenty of instances where a Communist government has allowed some form of private property, or Capitalism, to operate.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read state and revolution by Lenin on this. Your question is basically what the book is about. Ill give some quotes, but its not the same as reading it, and if you want to understand you must read the books themselves. The state: >“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without... 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)[1] >This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable. >It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins. >On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, “correct” Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors. On bourgeoise democracy >Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty”--supposedly petty--details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,--we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy. >Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament! >But from this capitalist democracy--that is inevitably narrow and stealthily pushes aside the poor, and is therefore hypocritical and false through and through--forward development does not proceed simply, directly and smoothly, towards "greater and greater democracy", as the liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists would have us believe. No, forward development, i.e., development towards communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way.
This is a bit more complicated then some make it out to be but ultimately the government of a capitalist country is primary concerned with preserving and replicating capitalism and the capitalist class. But that’s a basic answer because the reality is that the capitalist class isn’t united, there are issues between them as well. Imagine all the capitalists whose capital is tied to national industries, their interests lie within that nation and that is their primary concern. No think about all the capitalists whose capital is international. They’re both capitalists but they have opposing interests. Now who does the state favor in that situation.? Well the national capitalists include the petty bourgeois and that means votes so obviously politicians are going for those. But simultaneously those national capitalist need the international capitalist because that’s where the cheap commodities they sell come from. In a country like the US we also have this massive military that exists to protect the international capitalists interests. That means someone’s going to support that international capital and that military, but doing that shrinks the national capitalists power. There’s also the working class which for the last 50ish years the state has ignored. So what you see is that the state has to negotiate between the capital class and the working class, but it also has to negotiate interclass conflict as well. I’m making this complicated to explain why governments act so weird and sometimes the way we frame stuff doesn’t match reality. Because any petty bourgeois business owner you meet will insist that the government is actually anti capitalist because the petty bourgeois gets screwed over by the government in favor of the larger bourgeoisie. Either way read state and revolution
According to Marxist theory, the government is the owner class (the bourgeoisie). Paraphrased from the Communist Manifesto, "the executive of the state is a commitee of the bourgeoisie."
There was a Lincoln speech that talked about this https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-9 "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
> No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. — Matthew 6:24
From a Fascist or Liberal point of view, no. From a Communist point of view, yes. Fascists seek the subordination of both workers and capitalists to the state, bound together by Race, Ethnicity, National Spirit and/or something similar. The Fascist state will guide the economy with the Capitalist class having a much greater amount of economic power and freedom than workers, but still restricted by policies put in place by the Fascist government. Fascists see Capitalists and Workers as working together for the betterment of the Nation. Liberals view the relationship between Worker and Capitalist as voluntary and symbiotic. However Liberal politicians certainly place greater emphasis on the wishes of the Capitalist class as they see them as the main drivers and developers of the Economy and rely upon a faith in the Market to regulate itself. They generally oppose State intervention as they view even positive interventions, such as Welfare, as potentially having long-term negative effects on the Economy. Workers are paid lip service to, but have very little, if any, economic or political power in comparison to the Capitalist class. And of course Communists are hostile towards the Capitalist class. Communist governments have allowed different forms of Private Property relations throughout history, China, Yugoslavia, and Poland come to mind, but even Stalin's USSR allowed some form of private property relations within the countryside, albeit as a temporary fix and of course Lenin enacted the NEP. So while Communists are, and should be, hostile towards the Capitalist class. There are plenty of instances where a Communist government has allowed some form of private property, or Capitalism, to operate.
yep, in order for owners to profit they need to exploit there employees. the extent of the exploitation varys but it is all exploitative.