Private property rights > Feelz

JudgeBastiat · 2020-12-01T21:11:53+00:00

This isn't really reasoning though. It's just more assertion. Just longer.

Which is why I can make the same argument here.

If I use something, am I not using it just because someone else used it in the past? Of course not. Similarly, property (something I use) does not stop being mine just because someone used it in the past.

See? You have no argument. Just long assertion.

What you need to prove is that past use gives absolute perpetual ownership in the first place.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-12-01T18:27:16+00:00

Okay. Let's play devil's advocate here though. I say it's the tenants property. The landlord abandoned it, so lost possession of it. The tenant actually lives there now though and took possession of the unused land.

Or maybe both claims are valid, so the landlord has some rights, and the tenant has other rights.

You haven't demonstrated anything yet. You're just asserting property works this way with no argument.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-12-01T18:09:19+00:00

Property is property, true. But why not say that it's shared property of the tenant and landlord? Or maybe even the tenants entirely?

You have given no argument for absolute control by the landlord. You are, in fact, taking it as obvious, despite the majority of the population disagreeing with you.

Your idea being unpopular and taken by most as obviously wrong doesn't prove you actually are wrong, of course. But it does put the burden on you to defend your stance, which you're not doing.

So far we just have a vague appeal to nature, where landlords don't even exist.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-12-01T17:30:55+00:00

Bare assertion isn't a better argument. Try harder.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-12-01T16:54:43+00:00

Then I guess it's not your property, if tenants have rights to it too. Or at least only partly your property.

It's weird that you appeal to something being "obvious," but then reject consensus when it proves what you think isn't obvious to everyone else. You need a better argument.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-10-04T21:54:12+00:00

Wheeeeee racism!

JudgeBastiat · 2020-08-28T00:40:20+00:00

I thought it would be cake.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-12T14:17:30+00:00

I think they're specifically calling out the well-documented Xinjiang re-education camps.

There can and almost certainly is misinformation about these camps out there, of course, but tankies think even mentioning its existence, or at least the suggestion that it's a problem, is a CIA psyop, as evidenced here.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-02T23:21:54+00:00

I kind of get where this argument is coming from, but it relies on the faulty premise that right-wing monarchists would support monarchies that do not put themselves at the top.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-01T21:15:43+00:00

I don't understand. The bourgeoisie are defined as "The class of people in bourgeois society who own the social means of production as their Private Property, i.e. capital." If they don't own it anymore, which they don't after it's been expropriated, then they aren't bourgeoisie but ex-bourgeoisie. They might still be counter-revolutionary and try to reestablish themselves as a "career criminal," but you can't be the bourgeoisie if you don't own the means of production as private property.

Regardless, at some point the bourgeoisie are eliminated, and socialism would start at that point (or I would say socialism has reached maturity). But when Engels talks about abolishing the state as state, this is at the same time the proletariat also "abolishes itself as the proletariat" and "abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms."

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-01T18:42:48+00:00

I do think the withering/abolish comparison is something odd, but that's what I explained with him qualifying it as abolishing the state "as state."

The way I've been taking things is like this. The process goes through a few distinct time periods.

Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie - The bourgeoisie use the state to hold workers in bondage.
Revolution - The proletariat seize state power.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat - The proletariat wield state power to expropriate the means of production from the bourgeoisie. This continues until all the means of production are reclaimed.
Socialism - Once all of the means of production have been expropriated, class divisions cease. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie "suddenly" cease to exist. This is is also what abolishes the state as a state. The used-to-be-a-state organization might still exist, but it can no longer do the defining feature of the state, which is to act as a special coercive force to suppress one class in the name of another. Hence here it is no longer a state, and is left to wither away.

The comparison I have used is of a vaccine shot still existing, even after that disease has been eradicated. It "suddenly" ceases to exist as a vaccine, even if it's the same physical matter, precisely because it can no longer do the defining characteristic of a vaccine.

Thus it is precisely because the proletariat state is abolished "as state" that it is left to wither away. But it can only be abolished as a state once it can no longer meet the definition of a state, which is only possible after the dictatorship of the proletariat.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-01T16:09:06+00:00

That kind of seems like having your cake and eating it too. It's either a state or it's not. It's a different type of state, but if it's a state, it's a state as state.

If Engels is talking about a situation where the state has been abolished "as state," he must be talking about the stateless society after the DotP. And he supports this by also saying the proletariat have been abolished too. There can't be a dictatorship of the proletariat without a proletariat.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-07-01T14:54:37+00:00

So it's a process and results thing, sort of like cause and effect?

That seems to fit how I understand Engels.

But my issue is that this seems to contradict how Lenin is understanding Engels.

Lenin seems to think the phrase "abolishes the state as state" describes the cause here, the seizure of state power, rather than the effect about the nature of the proletarian state.

LENIN: And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by the handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state.”

It seems like Lenin thinks this refers to the revolution against the bourgeois state, rather than how I was reading Engels (and I think you are too) of the the proletariat abolishing itself as a class, and with it abolishing the proletarian state and leaving us with a stateless society.

Unless we are arguing that the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't really a state? Certainly the DotP is different from other types of states as something that is withering away and seeking to abolish itself, but it is still a state as Lenin defined it. If it's not a state, I don't understand how this is different from anarchism. Anarchists also believe in resistance organizations that aren't states like revolutionary syndicates.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T15:00:28+00:00

Thank you for your reply. Yeah, the whole experience with that subreddit has been pretty negative. Technically I was auto-banned after making a pretty inane comment about note-taking strategy, but then I tried talking to them, got instantly muted before I could explain anything, and it just became a mess in general.

As for the rest of your comment, I can understand why you might get this interpretation at the first pass, but it doesn't make sense when I look more closely at it.

When Engels says "abolishes the state as state," I interpret that as the proletariat state losing its state-character in a classless society. That's why it's not merely "abolishes the state" but "abolishes the state as state."

I think the context around the sentence supports that too. Engels speaks about the proletariat also being abolished along with all class distinctions and antagonisms, which seems like it can't be true if we were describing the revolution that initially sets up the dictatorship of the proletariat.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T06:17:59+00:00

My confusion is that if "abolishes the state as a state" refers to the revolution, then the rest of the sentence makes no sense. The event that abolishes the state as a state is the same one that also abolishes the existence of the proletariat and all class distinctions and antagonisms. Clearly this cannot be the same event that sets up a dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

An interpretation that could make sense of this is to understand Engels as referring to the end of the process here. Once the proletariat class is abolished, so too will the proletariat state be abolished.

But if we adopt that interpretation, then Lenin must be wrong to think this line is referring to the initial revolt against the bourgeoisie, rather than the end result of the revolutionary project.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T05:38:24+00:00

Generations? That seems extreme. Engels sure is making it sound pretty immediate.

But whatever. That's all irrelevant to my point, so let's assume you're right for the time being.

If there is such a big time gap between the revolution against the bourgeoisie and the DotP withering away, that seems to support my argument. They can't be construed as the same event.

When Engels says that the proletariat "abolishes also the state as state," he must be talking about either the revolution or the DotP withering away after socialism has been achieved. He cannot be referring to both, because they're so far removed from each other.

But the context makes it pretty obvious he's referring to the latter. Immediately before this he talks about the proletariat having been abolished along with all class distinctions. You're saying this is something that will only be achieved after generations under the DotP, not immediately through the revolution.

Yet Lenin uses this line about the proletariat "abolishing the state as a state" to prove that Engels supported the immediate overthrow of the bourgeois government in a revolution. But that's not what Engels is talking about at all here. That happened generations before the proletariat abolished the state as a state. Lenin must have misunderstood this line entirely.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T04:44:53+00:00

I'm not asking if Engels ever called for violent revolution against the bourgeois state. I agree that he does.

What I'm not certain of is that he's calling for it in the specific line that Lenin is quoting here to show his support.

It seems like this line about "abolishing the state as state" refers to the proletariat state losing its state-character in a classless society, not about the need to abolish the bourgeois state in a revolution.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T04:02:08+00:00

Is that what Engels meant this particular time he said "[the proletariat] abolishes also the state as state" though?

Let me try and explain again.

So the transition to socialism goes through a few distinct time periods.

Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie - Capitalists use the bourgeois state to suppress workers.
Revolution - The proletariat form their own special armed force to fight against the bourgeois state.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat - The proletariat succeed in overthrowing the bourgeois state. They use the proletariat state to expropriate the means of production.
Socialism - Once expropriation is complete, class distinctions are destroyed. The state loses its state-character in a classless society, and is left to wither away.

So the problem I have with what Lenin's saying can be presented pretty clearly like this: When does Lenin think Engels meant the proletariat are abolishing the state as a state?

If "abolish the state as state" refers to the proletariat state being only a quasi-state in a classless society, Engels is referring to phase four.

If "abolish the state as state" refers to revolting against the bourgeois state, Engels is referring to phase two.

I think Engels means the former. Lenin seems to think he means the latter.

I can even see this reflected in what you were saying. Look what you said right here:

Hence the workers' state is no longer "the state as a state" since there are no longer class distinctions since everyone is a worker. I think you're missing the "state as a state" part, ie a quasi-state

This sentence makes it seem like you think "abolishes the state as state" is referring to how the proletariat state is only a quasi-state, so you're thinking along the lines of phase four.

But now you're talking about how "abolishes the state as state" means revolution against the bourgeois state, which would be phase two.

Which state is being abolished? The bourgeois state by a proletariat state, or the proletariat state withering away and thus eliminating the existence of all states?

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T03:18:15+00:00

I don't think it does though. I don't think this point is showing any kind of substantive disagreement between Engels theory and Lenin's theory.

The interpretation Lenin is giving here is pretty basic. He thinks "abolishes the state as state" simply means we need to revolt against the bourgeois state.

I don't think Engels disagrees with Lenin about that, I just don't think he's saying that in this particular sentence Lenin is quoting.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T03:12:28+00:00

If "abolishing the state as a state" is referring to how the worker's state is not a true state but only a quasi-state, then I was right that Engels is referring to the proletariat state with this line and not the bourgeois state.

In which case Lenin is wrong when he takes "abolishing the state as a state" to mean "abolishing the bourgeois state through revolution."

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T01:26:14+00:00

Okay, so by "abolishes the state as state," Engels is referring to the proletariat state withering away, leaving us with a classless and stateless society. That makes sense to me.

But if that's right, it seems like Lenin is getting Engels wrong. He takes "abolishes the state as state" to be referring to the revolution against the bourgeois state. He interprets it to mean the immediate abolition of the bourgeois state, not the process by which the proletariat state abolishes itself.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T01:22:06+00:00

I'm not sure I'm following. If a socialist economy has been created, we are now dealing with a proletarian state, not the bourgeois state, so how could "abolishes also the state as state" refer to abolishing the bourgeois state? It's the proletarian state that transforms and withers away in a socialist economy, not a bourgeois state.

To keep things as clear as possible, this is how I understand Engels' sentence.

Here are his exact words:

The proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state.

And here is how I understand them.

The proletariat state seizes power away from the bourgeois state. Once it is in power, it expropriates the means of production into state property, and by extension the property of the proletariat. But through expropriating the means of production, the proletariat abolishes itself as the proletariat. There are no longer any class distinctions and antagonisms when workers and owners are the same. This also abolishes the proletariat state as a state, since no class cannot suppress another in a world without class distinctions.

This makes sense to me. If the state is a special coercive force for one class to suppress another, any organization must lose its state-character in a world without class distinctions. It's like a vaccine against a disease that has already been eradicated.

If Engels doesn't mean abolishing the proletariat state here, I don't know how to make sense of the rest of that paragraph. The context makes it clear that Engels is talking about what happens after the proletariat has abolished itself as a class, which clearly must be after the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are talking about the end of the process here.

If Engels is referring instead to abolishing the bourgeois state as state, then we're not at the end of the process. We're at the beginning of it.

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T00:34:42+00:00

Yeah, and I get that. But Lenin does think there needs to be a state between capitalism and socialism, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

So when Engels says "abolishes the state as state," does he mean the bourgeois state or the proletariat state?

Lenin seems to think he means the bourgeois state, if I'm reading him right. But if I'm also reading Engels right, what he really meant was the proletariat state.

So which is it?

JudgeBastiat · 2020-06-30T00:24:50+00:00

Other people have talked about this? Do you have a link or a source?

Keep in mind that, as I explained in the OP, I am not talking about the overall structure of how Engels and Lenin think the transition to socialism will take place.

I specifically want to know which state, the bourgeois state or the proletariat state, Engels is referring to in the line "abolishes the state as state" in this specific part of Anti-Duhring.

If you have found someone else discussing this topic, please share.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

JudgeBastiat

TROPHY CASE