The Marxist theory of natural State disintegration is false
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
| Started: | 7/21/2012 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 9 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 640 times | Debate No: | 24806 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)
 Pro ===Definitions=== The "Marxist theory of natural State disintegration" may be aptly summarized by Marx and Engels themselves from the Manifesto of the Communist Party: Political power [the State], properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat in its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away the old conditions of production by force, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of class generally and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.[1] The clear implications of this point is that since the State is only existent as an institution for one class to oppress another, if the proletarian were to destroy the bourgeois as a class, then there would be no reason for the State to exist and it would naturally wither away (ushering in stateless communism). The Pro will argue against this position while the Con will defend it against Pro's criticisms. ===Rules=== 1. Drops will count as concessions. 2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted. 3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted. 4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2. 5. Primary BoP is on Pro. ===Sources=== [1] Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Ch. 2, Proletarians and Communists. Available online at: (http://www.marxists.org...)  Con |
 |
|
Pro socialpinko forfeited this round.
Con It is true that the control of the state over the classes keeps classes in existence. Therefore when classes are destroyed the natural conclusion is that the state will be destroyed by its unnecessary role. Also one must concede that so long as there are classes there will be class antagonism, and so one can also conclude that such organizations of society (means of production) must then be unstable. One then must assume that since classless societies (communism) having no such class antagonisms must therefore be inherently more stable. Being that things in nature and society move from a state of instability to a state of stability it must then be assumed that the society that lacks instability will come into existence over a period of time. For example the Soviet Union came into existence as the first socialist state, but it still retained a system of classes. The old expropriators were simply replaced. That government was ultimately to collapse, just as all attempts at enforcing class restrictions upon the people of the world. In conclusion the state cannot survive the stresses of class antagonism simply because it is inherently unstable, and thus by simple reasoning will be replaced by the more stable classless society. |
 |
|
Pro socialpinko forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
|
Pro socialpinko forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
Let's not forget that many vile and evil leaders have distorted religious teachings in a similar way in the past. Saddam Hussein did, Col. Qaddafi did and, even today, the Israeli Government uses the "teachings" of the Torah as an excuse to persecute Arabs and to justify Jewish expansion into Arab lands.
Of course, we now know that communism was not an unmitigated success, but had Marx and Engels doctrines been followed more faithfully then the outcome may have been very different.