I have some probably dumb questions to ask about marxism and wasn’t sure where to go. Is there like a ask marxists or debate marxists forum? Anyway
What and how many branches of marxism want state socialism during the socialist transition period before Communism? I was under the impression that all (or most) leninists wanted state socialism during this period. I have since been told that Trotskyists don’t want this. Is this correct if so what do they want instead? How does this all relate to vanguardism?
Furthermore how does marxism define a state? Is this different from how other groups define statehood?
I still don’t fully grasp the difference between marxists and anarchists. I thought the difference was mainly that anarchists don’t want a state, and encourage mutual aid. Now that I hear not all marxists want a state I am pretty confused.
You don’t know the difference between solipsists and sophists do you? It’s okay to admit you don’t know something rather than invent words that don’t exist.
Lol fair enough. My apologies, I made some bad errors. I was definitely mixing up the terms for the Socrates comment, I forgot that solipsists aren’t always sophists, though the two are deeply connected in my mind. Look, my point is that egocentrism is not great because it is a losing metaphysical battle against nihilism (and by that I don’t mean will to power, I mean will to live). The fact of the matter is that you can’t even be sure that your own perception of your mind is an illusion, you have to take a leap of faith somewhere or else you may as well commit yourself to starvation and destitution. The fact is that you haven’t, so you should work to explore why that is.
I would do that before you decide to look into communism or socialism.
That being said, what do you think the state is? The original question I asked you oh so many posts ago.
Honestly to me it essentially just means big centralized governments that run a country and have things like police, armies, civil servants, and so on. That and a badly used concept from computer science - no google a Chromebook isn’t stateless it very much has state. If they try that again I will leave them in a right state.
Generally the same reason nihilistists, absurdists, and existentialists continue to exist. Heck even moral relativists (like most marxists I think) shouldn’t technically have any reason to do anything by this line of reasoning. Humans are fickle creatures that don’t need concrete, logical reasons to do anything. Heck logic and facts never provided a motivation to do anything ever, they provide the means and the method. If anything things like nihilism and solipsism can be used to point out how absurd trying to use logic to understand motivation is.
It is always interesting to me that for most people the state always has to be a large centralized entity.
Marxists and anarchists believe that the ‘state’ in political science terms is any entity that can legalize the use of violence as a method of compliance. And that can mean any number of things, including financial dispossession (though not terms such as emotional violence, as those are not quantifiable material (at least as of me writing this)), but usually is the backstopped with physical force and deprivation.
Marxists are not morally relativist, we just believe that moral calculation for action is not as easy as deontological statements or utilitarian calculations, mostly because we disagree that those standards are, in fact, universal or have been applied in a universal manner historically. Perhaps relativist is the right word, but I’ve always found “historically particular” or “morally contextual” to be a more useful terms. Marxists believe, much like Hegelians that people naturally seek to be liberated, just that morally we must seek to create the material.conditions that allow for freedom, and not assume that it will arise out of thin air. Saying Marxists don’t have a reason to exist and act is an absurd statement. There is only this life, this world, this perception, so we must fight as best we can to improve our conditions within it. To live is to struggle.
As for your statement on nihilism and solipsism, that is correct, yet to assume meaninglessness is also logically fraught, and most absurdists, existentialists and nihilists are living the partially examined life, examining their lives and what makes it worth living and how to expand and share those things with others. Even the absurdist comic is compelled to post and make a fool of themselves. Even the ubermensch values the power of society to make their will reality. Even the existentialist can find solace in a Christian God. Even the nihilist doesn’t say to themselves, I will kill myself on a coin flip, because it doesn’t matter anyway.’
Humans are sensual rational beings. Not perfectly rational, and most of our rationality is post-hoc at best with imperfect information, but we absolutely have the capability for considered, effective, action. Perhaps someday we will use it. I’m not holding my breath, but there are good things coming.
Well yes that’s how most states work. I don’t see how this is surprising. If anything the definition you use about having a monopoly on violence is a somewhat unusal definition.
I don’t see how assuming meaninglessness is logically frought. To assume there is meaning would be to believe something without evidence. Same with morality. At least this is the case if you don’t consider personal feelings to be morality or cosmic significance which I don’t.
I am not 100% sure we actually agree what rationality is. To me rationality is a means to an end, this I think is compatible with Hanlon’s razor. Rationality is never the motivation behind something, it creates instrumental goals to reach a terminal goal. The terminal goal is the actual motivation. Rationality just tells you what you need to do to work towards your terminal goal, not what the goal is.
That’s assuming you believe in the very concept of rationality and it’s not just an illusion or something made up by people to denigrate women and minorities. Personally I am not sure if I believe in it anymore, I think it’s a limited understanding of how intelligent systems operate. It’s better to think of intelligent things in mathematical, engineering, or biological/evolutionary terms than philosophical ones. Either an intelligent system gives an optimal answer or a suboptimal one, calling it rational or irrational isn’t really helpful.