[DDave3]

If you say there is a revolution needed, but a dictatorship is corrupt, how would you preserve the achievements of your revolution and prevent a restoration of old priniciples?

I'm honest enough to admit I just don't know Okonkwo.

The need for a violent revolution comes not from the working class, but the certainty that the ruling classes would use violence to maintain themselves in power. Even Marx looked at the prospect of a minimally violent revolution in the industrial centers of the country. However, would the State allow this to happen? Marx and Engels believed that socialism would be a stage in a linear model coming after the collapse of capitalism, but this has not been the case in any of the nations that have followed a socialist path. We are talking about a complete restructuring of the very economic relations that have taken centuries to be developed and preserved - this cannot be done within the institutions that have been erected to preserve those very relations. So, the prospect of a parliamentary revolution is naive, it would be just about impossible for a genuine socialist party to gain power and create socialism through reform because of how interconnected the state institutions are to the ruling class.

My thinkings are jumbled, I accept that.

[Decky]

the Liberal Party under Tony Blair

Tony has never lead the Liberal party.

[KurtFF8]

Interesting article KurtFF8. But I don't see why social democracy should "escape from the logic of capital" in a successful economy. In my opinion, socialists need to get behind something that works. Social democracy, which as you say is inadequate for you, is probably the closest thing you're gonna see in the near future. Otherwise you have shitty countries like Cuba with low living standards.

I suggest you read a book of which that article is a chapter in called "Build it Now: Socialism for the 21st century". It explains how the needs of capital are fundamentally at odds, or at least fundamentally different than the needs of human development (and thus why socialism is the way forward).

As for Cuba: their standards are actually quite higher than prior to the revolution, and when you compare Cuba to and of their...comparable countries, Cuba towers above the rest. Now you compare Cuba to something like the United States, well of course they're going to have lower standards, especially considering things like the embargo.

[Okonkwo]

I'm honest enough to admit I just don't know Okonkwo.

That's quite honourable.

So, the prospect of a parliamentary revolution is naive, it would be just about impossible for a genuine socialist party to gain power and create socialism through reform because of how interconnected the state institutions are to the ruling class.

Yes it would be impossible to do that within the framework of the modern democratic state. Your conclusion is wrong though, that does not make the state a bad invention but rather your view of socialism itself useless. There will be no way to create a communist utopia through normal means as there would be too many people opposing it, which would be fatal in a democracy.

[KurtFF8]

There will be no way to create a communist utopia through normal means as there would be too many people opposing it, which would be fatal in a democracy.

Who is arguing for a "communist utopia"? Marx argued against this quite a bit. And while that may seem incidental to you, it's quite important. The utopian socialists that preceded Marx thought that they could do things like abandon capitalism and move away..start their own little cities where everyone was equal and there were no classes.

The problem with this was that it ignored the fundamentals of economics and their scientific nature. They had no real analysis of the problems of capitalism and how to solve them.

Thus when trying to take an honest account of capitalism and how it remains, Marxists come to the conclusion that the state is inherently there to protect the interests of the ruling class, and taking over the state through politics to build socialism isn't the way to do it. Socialism comes from the working class, not the ruling class institutions.

[DDave3]

and taking over the state through politics to build socialism isn't the way to do it. Socialism comes from the working class, not the ruling class institutions.

But the ruling class will always have access to the mechanisms of the state that will enforce the status quo. The working class do not have the political power to change the standards of the economics, and they certainly do not - and foreseeably never will have - control over the instruments of state that could ultimately enforce these changes.

[Okonkwo]

Who is arguing for a "communist utopia"?

Mainly: Communists.
Withering away of the state? That's simply wishful thinking but is not going to happen. By setting up a strong apparatus of the state and introducing a new ruling class the state will never "wither away", it will grow far too powerful due to the functions it will assume.
Hence the conclusion that your idea of a future society is unrealistic and utopian.

[FallenRaptor]

There's nothing utopian about theory of the withering away of the state. It's based on the fact that the state did not exist until class society developed in order to keep the majority of society under the rule of the propertied classes. It is expected that in some time after the workers' revolution and establishment of their rule, class conflict will become non-existent. Since the social conditions that make the state necessary have vanished, what point is there of keeping it? Things like traffic cops and local security patrols/militias may still exist under communism, but besides that it would be stateless.

[Okonkwo]

It is expected that in some time after the workers' revolution and establishment of their rule, class conflict will become non-existent.

See, that is exactly the point where it gets utopian and unrealistic. 'It is expected', that expectation is based on wishful thinking. A dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't result in a classless society:

"(...) the pseudo-People’s State will be nothing but a despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudo-scientists. The 'uneducated' people will be totally relieved of the cares of administration, and will be treated as a regimented herd. A beautiful liberation, indeed!"

A serious implementation of your economic policies, especially the abolition of private property would always necessitate serious violent coercion. This will lead to state domination, as Mikhail Bakunin (by whom the above quote is) already predicted during Marx's time. Henry George did the same, to name only a few. Man is an evil creature, get used to it, to implement Marxist thought there would be much need for an entirely new man, completely oblivious to his own interest and devoid of individualism.
Apart from all that, Marxist historical materialism is not "scientific" as you always contend but rather a pseudo-science as it is not falsifiable. While Marx postulated a genuinely correct theory the Marxists could not keep up with the rapidly changing nature of the world and capitalism that was not alike to Marx's predictions. When Marxists tried to save Marxism from falsification they attempted to make it compatible with the new order of things by adding ad hoc hypotheses and it degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

[FallenRaptor]

See, that is exactly the point where it gets utopian and unrealistic. 'It is expected', that expectation is based on wishful thinking.

Nonsense. It is "expected" simply because capitalists and other reactionaries are not immortal. They will all die in a couple of years after the revolution(not necessarily by execution/assassination, though). Their political influence will dwindle as socialism becomes more grounded into society, just as the political influence of slavery and feudalism have dwindled under capitalism.

A serious implementation of your economic policies, especially the abolition of private property would always necessitate serious violent coercion. This will lead to state domination, as Mikhail Bakunin (by whom the above quote is) already predicted during Marx's time. Henry George did the same, to name only a few

Bakunin's quote only makes sense if the dictatorship of the proletariat means a dictatorship over the proletariat, and it would be extremely easy to prove that that is not what it means. I see no reason why the implementation of socialism will always lead to the domination of the state. It has happened in the past due to the fact that countries with socialist revolutions were isolated and backward countries that were under pressure from imperialist forces and domestic reactionary forces(usually backed by the former). A socialist revolution in America would not face nearly as much pressure as the socialist revolution in Russia did.

Man is an evil creature, get used to it

How do you define "evil"? And what proof do you have that shows this "evil" is an inherent part of man?

to implement Marxist thought there would be much need for an entirely new man, completely oblivious to his own interest and devoid of individualism.

I see no reason why any of this would be true.

Apart from all that, Marxist historical materialism is not "scientific" as you always contend but rather a pseudo-science as it is not falsifiable. While Marx postulated a genuinely correct theory the Marxists could not keep up with the rapidly changing nature of the world and capitalism that was not alike to Marx's predictions. When Marxists tried to save Marxism from falsification they attempted to make it compatible with the new order of things by adding ad hoc hypotheses and it degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

Just because Marx was wrong on a few things doesn't make Marxism wrong. It is possible to correct and expand aspects of Marxist theory without abandoning it entirely. A real Marxist would not just take anything Marx said as an absolute truth, but would use his scientific method(dialectical materialism) to analyze what he said and how it relates to reality. Not all Marxists just defended all of his claims regardless of reality as you claim. Several of the works of Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci, etc. contradict this.

[Dave]

How do you define "evil"? And what proof do you have that shows this "evil" is an inherent part of man?

Have you read any sociobiology or evolutionary psychology?

[FallenRaptor]

Not to a great extent, to be honest.

I don't deny that biology influences human behavior, but I think social factors and personal experiences have more influence on individuals. I don't think something like "evil" is written in the DNA of every human being either. If it is, I guess it could be fixed later when genetic engineering is perfected.

[Dave]

It's not an either or debate, really. Only lunatics put it that way. We are strongly constrained by our genes, but within those constraints quite a bit can be changed through environment, individual effort, or luck.

And while "evil" is a subjective term, anthropologists have identified some universal precepts of morality. For instance, every society regards murder and theft as wrong.

It will take a long time for us to figure out what every single gene influences, and longer to perfect genetic engineering. We'll get there I suppose. There is strong reason to believe that some people are just plain bad, but there is also very strong reason to believe that environment makes some people bad, or at least worse. One odd thing is that leftists commonly fail to recognize moral codes as an environmental influence, citing instead things like poverty (still relevant of course).

At any rate, this information shouldn't be a challenge to leftism per se. I've never understood those braindead leftists who think intelligence is a "social construct." Marxists of old seem to have recognized that people had inherently different abilities.

[KurtFF8]

But the ruling class will always have access to the mechanisms of the state that will enforce the status quo. The working class do not have the political power to change the standards of the economics, and they certainly do not - and foreseeably never will have - control over the instruments of state that could ultimately enforce these changes.

Hence the formation of revolutionary leftists.

Mainly: Communists.
Withering away of the state? That's simply wishful thinking but is not going to happen. By setting up a strong apparatus of the state and introducing a new ruling class the state will never "wither away", it will grow far too powerful due to the functions it will assume.
Hence the conclusion that your idea of a future society is unrealistic and utopian.

Not all socialists agree with the withering away of the state theory. But even those who do, their vision is certainly not "utopian".

A serious implementation of your economic policies, especially the abolition of private property would always necessitate serious violent coercion. This will lead to state domination, as Mikhail Bakunin (by whom the above quote is) already predicted during Marx's time. Henry George did the same, to name only a few. Man is an evil creature, get used to it, to implement Marxist thought there would be much need for an entirely new man, completely oblivious to his own interest and devoid of individualism.
Apart from all that, Marxist historical materialism is not "scientific" as you always contend but rather a pseudo-science as it is not falsifiable. While Marx postulated a genuinely correct theory the Marxists could not keep up with the rapidly changing nature of the world and capitalism that was not alike to Marx's predictions. When Marxists tried to save Marxism from falsification they attempted to make it compatible with the new order of things by adding ad hoc hypotheses and it degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

The "man is just evil" has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Nothing to do with the problems of the Soviet Union and its satellites either. Those were structural problems. And many would argue that we certainly did not see an actual "dictatorship of the proletariat" there anyway.

[Negotiator]

To me, a social democracy is simply a democracy with a strong social state that guarantees everyone equal access to education, allows people to live free of fear of unemployment or poverty in seniority, and which allows poor people to live not in wealth, but in dignity, even if they are unemployed or, for some reason, cant or dont want to work.

I dont see any reason why such a status should limit innovation. I see a lot of reasons why it would maximize innovation.

People would get the best education possible for their talents.

And with a strong state, i.e. high taxes, science can be funded by the administration, meaning science projects dont have to result in profit.

For example, you can have projects such as developing cheap medicaments for poor nations. There is little or no profit in such a project, so there would be no capitalist investor for it.