>It’s core function of class domination is the same, because class domination is the defining feature of the Marxist understanding of the state.
Then why did Engels say the Paris Commune ceased being a state?
>the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term.
If the Commune was a DotP according to Marx, how can Engels say it had ceased to be a state?
States arise as forms of class domination 'out of' class struggle, but does that necessarily mean that what we consider a state is the 'only' form of class domination? For example, why can't a band of workers in a city get together and kick out, kill, exile all the land owners and appropriate their wealth? Is that not class domination in the absence of a state?
I don't know. Engels said the word "community" should be substituted for "state". I am asking why? Surely he didn't mean it as a stylistic choice, there must have been a reason why the word "state" and its definition became poorly suited for the task, for Engels, after the Paris Commune. Did Engels want to expand the definition of the "state" to include other forms of governing or did "state" refer to a particular historical form of class domination?
>Ruling classes' power needs constant maintenance, therefore it constantly needs a state, therefore letting the state wither one day would be full retard.
That's close to what I'm getting at. Humans will always need some sort of organisation, a system of reproduction of society. Unless we're all gonna become a linked super-brain and humans will coordinate and build society together just as easy as we lift a glass of water and drink from it alone
Why does organisation always have to be called a state, especially when Engels was ready to drop that term in 1875?
>it is about destroying bourgeois power. Therefore it will be "authoritarian," "totalitarian," "oppressive," etc. There can be no freedom until classes cease to exist and the state fades away.
Message too long. Click
to view full text.