It made sense for early liberals to oppose the state, as it was usually an oppressive, aristocratic institution vs. the potential freedom of the market.
It made sense for early socialists to oppose the state, as it was controlled by capitalists, with voting highly limited.
It made sense for early socialists to oppose the state, as it was controlled by capitalists, with voting highly limited.
But these views are now both outdated. The market is the main aristocratic and oppressive force. States are complex, and voting rights are often under attack, but the same restrictions no longer exist. The state now can be, and is, regularly used as a tool for good by the people.
I think a lot of people get brainworms because they read some older texts that haven't grappled with the fact the state is fundamentally different nowadays. And they couldn't have grappled with it, the changes hadn't happened yet!
Do you think Marx would've said this about social democrats riding into power on a wave of union support, and proceeding to massively expand worker power and socialize wealth? I think not.
He was instead talking about the material conditions he was living in at the time.
He was instead talking about the material conditions he was living in at the time.
(There are still places where states are incredibly oppressive and aristocratic of course, liberalism's work is not complete worldwide, but that didn't fit in the tweet)
To be clear the same thing does not apply to anarchist critiques of the state, which are as far as I've seen about the nature of the state in and of itself. Not so much reliant on how it happens to be operating in a certain time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
