Counter-point; the State was created through a messy compromise between those who believed in democracy and freedom, and those who emphatically did not. They created a useful tool, we can take that tool, file the edges down so it stops hurting people, and then put it to use making things better for everyone but a select few rich assholes who have committed serious crimes to become rich assholes.
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone as assholes try to fill the power vacuum with violence, setting themselves up as warlords and pretenders to the throne.
The counter-counter point is that if your particular State was not created as such a compromise, and there’s no avenue for the People to have a voice in their government, then it is a moral imperative to express your voice in other ways, even if the State decides to kill you for it.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
The state is a product of class struggle, and exists to serve the ruling class. A bourgeois state will only serve a bourgeois state, reformism is a dead end. Smashing the state and replacing it with a worker state is the basis of socialism.
I support socialist democracy, not liberal democracy. I don’t oppose hierarchy as I see administrative labor as socially necessary, especially for large-scale production and distribution. I don’t know if that answers your question in a satisfactory way, but I don’t really think the “key model” is very accurate.
Smashing the state, so you too are in favor of a 12 sided civil war, ending in a totalitarian dictatorship where people like you are the first against the wall. Okay.
Me? I say that the State is a tool, nothing more nothing less, and control of the State is key to everything. The State is necessary to have a functional society in the modern world. 99% of what the State does is boring regulations that make the world function at all.
Smashing the State means smashing society. Which means instant, bloody civil war where no one knows who will come out on top, except that it’s almost certainly going to be a bloodthirsty dictator, who will almost certainly engage in some form of genocide. We have thousands of years of examples of such.
No, the only path forward where things are actually guaranteed to not descend into sectarian violence is through seizing the State through as legitimate of means as possible.
Control the State, and by extension, you control the means of production.
Also, reform has done a fucking lot over the years. It’s the only thing that ever has.
Hell, even a recent history book will do it. There are a fuckload of examples throughout the world of a functional society having their government either couped or otherwise toppled. Syria is a prime example.
And I know, you’re just going to blame external meddling. But news flash, it’s impossible to escape external meddling. Even going back to antiquity when a civil war kicked off, the neighboring countries would often meddle, sometimes as an invading army, sometimes by cutting deals to support one side or the other, sometimes secretly both, or more than both if it was a truly messy war.
The Syrian State lost control, resulting in a massive civil war where everyone meddled.
Loss of control is the destruction of a State. That’s what it looks like.
It became a quagmire of sectarian violence with about a dozen different sides. Some communities were actually doing cool shit, some were engaging in genocides.
In the end, a new State had to be created, and even now things are not quite peachy keen in the country.
So, you think the State is some vague magic conspiracy then? No, it’s the government and associated bureaucracies. The rules and regulations by which society functions.
It’s the tool of control, and when it’s not in control, it’s just a group of armed thugs.
The major problem here is that reform has never actually managed to change capitalism to socialism, and has only cemented bourgeois rule. Revolution has, on the other hand, successfully established socialism. Your depictions of revolution are highly biased against successful revolutions, and your analysis of the state puts it outside of class society, which isn’t how it works.
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Side note: Socialism in Power is slightly outdated, as the section on the DPRK was written before the democratic front was abolished and multi-candidate primaries have started rolling out in various jurisdictions in the DPRK. This development is very new, not at all ironed-out, and began in 2024, so while it’s useful for understanding how elections in the DPRK worked for the majority of their existence, it isn’t useful any longer for understanding how they work today.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
After siding with the Bolsheviks during the Ukrainian–Soviet War, the Makhnovists were driven underground by the Austro-German invasion and waged guerrilla warfare against the Central Powers throughout 1918. After the insurgent victory at the Battle of Dibrivka, the Makhnovshchina came to control much of Katerynoslav province and set about constructing anarchist-communist institutions. […]
Surrounded on all sides by different enemies, the Makhnovist line in the battle for the Donbas eventually fell to the advancing White movement in June 1919. The Makhnovists were subsequently driven into a retreat to Kherson, where they reorganised their military and led a successful counteroffensive against the Whites at the Battle of Peregonovka. With the White advance defeated, the Makhnovists came to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine in late 1919, even taking over a number of large industrial cities, despite being a predominantly peasant movement.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
The Russian Civil War was extremely messy. For a time, in 1919, Makhno joined an alliance with the Whites against the Red Army, though eventually turned back to allying with the Red Army. The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno talks about this flip flopping, describing Makhno as reluctant in the alliance against the Red Army but nonetheless participating in bandit raids for supplies.
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
Minor correction, the Soviet State destroyed the Provisional Government, which was the successor state to the Tsarist state. By technicality, 2 states were destroyed while one was solidified.
No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.
Counter-point; the State was created through a messy compromise between those who believed in democracy and freedom, and those who emphatically did not. They created a useful tool, we can take that tool, file the edges down so it stops hurting people, and then put it to use making things better for everyone but a select few rich assholes who have committed serious crimes to become rich assholes.
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone as assholes try to fill the power vacuum with violence, setting themselves up as warlords and pretenders to the throne.
The counter-counter point is that if your particular State was not created as such a compromise, and there’s no avenue for the People to have a voice in their government, then it is a moral imperative to express your voice in other ways, even if the State decides to kill you for it.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
The state is a product of class struggle, and exists to serve the ruling class. A bourgeois state will only serve a bourgeois state, reformism is a dead end. Smashing the state and replacing it with a worker state is the basis of socialism.
Hey, you are a ML right? Can I have your opinion on this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs]
I support socialist democracy, not liberal democracy. I don’t oppose hierarchy as I see administrative labor as socially necessary, especially for large-scale production and distribution. I don’t know if that answers your question in a satisfactory way, but I don’t really think the “key model” is very accurate.
Smashing the state, so you too are in favor of a 12 sided civil war, ending in a totalitarian dictatorship where people like you are the first against the wall. Okay.
Me? I say that the State is a tool, nothing more nothing less, and control of the State is key to everything. The State is necessary to have a functional society in the modern world. 99% of what the State does is boring regulations that make the world function at all.
Smashing the State means smashing society. Which means instant, bloody civil war where no one knows who will come out on top, except that it’s almost certainly going to be a bloodthirsty dictator, who will almost certainly engage in some form of genocide. We have thousands of years of examples of such.
No, the only path forward where things are actually guaranteed to not descend into sectarian violence is through seizing the State through as legitimate of means as possible.
Control the State, and by extension, you control the means of production.
Also, reform has done a fucking lot over the years. It’s the only thing that ever has.
Again, where’s your proof?
Go read a history book.
Hell, even a recent history book will do it. There are a fuckload of examples throughout the world of a functional society having their government either couped or otherwise toppled. Syria is a prime example.
And I know, you’re just going to blame external meddling. But news flash, it’s impossible to escape external meddling. Even going back to antiquity when a civil war kicked off, the neighboring countries would often meddle, sometimes as an invading army, sometimes by cutting deals to support one side or the other, sometimes secretly both, or more than both if it was a truly messy war.
Says the person who doesn’t seem to have read any.
A coup does not result in the destruction of the state, genius - that’s the whole point of a coup.
No, Syria still has a state… unless you have any proof that it has been destroyed that nobody else in the world knows about?
Why would I? You can’t even prove the basic assumptions your claims are based on.
The Syrian State lost control, resulting in a massive civil war where everyone meddled.
Loss of control is the destruction of a State. That’s what it looks like.
It became a quagmire of sectarian violence with about a dozen different sides. Some communities were actually doing cool shit, some were engaging in genocides.
In the end, a new State had to be created, and even now things are not quite peachy keen in the country.
No. That’s not how states work.
Nope. Again, that’s not how states work. Somebody else seizing a state does not mean the state has ceased to exist.
So, you think the State is some vague magic conspiracy then? No, it’s the government and associated bureaucracies. The rules and regulations by which society functions.
It’s the tool of control, and when it’s not in control, it’s just a group of armed thugs.
The major problem here is that reform has never actually managed to change capitalism to socialism, and has only cemented bourgeois rule. Revolution has, on the other hand, successfully established socialism. Your depictions of revolution are highly biased against successful revolutions, and your analysis of the state puts it outside of class society, which isn’t how it works.
Removed by mod
Capitalism is a mode of production and distribution where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. By “principal,” I mean rising and dominant. Contrary to your claims, socialism has been established and solidified through revolution, and reformism cannot and will not work because the capitalist state has evolved around capitalism itself. That’s why all successful revolutions have destroyed the old state apparatus.
Okay, first, Lenin couped the revolution, and then banned dissent. He seized control of the means of production for himself. Full stop.
He then wrote about how a vanguard party (Totalitarian rule by what might as well be a king) was somehow socialism.
It’s about as socialist as national socialism.
Actual socialism has been partially implemented in the form of universal healthcare, universal schools, and basic social safety programs.
The fascists hate these things, because they’re what leads to Marx’s dream, not Vanguard parties that are simply another name for the same old oligarchs, just in a coat of red paint.
This is, frankly, ahistorical jibberish.
First, Lenin did not coup the Tsar, nor the Provisional Government. The October Revolution was popularly supported, and in the aftermath and the ensuing Russian Civil War a democratic front coalesced around the Bolsheviks, who managed to be popular among both the proletariat and the peasantry, when most groups on the left only managed to win over one of those two groups. This resulted in the establishment of socialism in Russia.
Secondly, the vanguard party existed even in the time of Marx. Marx was a member of communist parties, and supported the organization of the advanced among the proletariat, seeing it as the duty of communists to bring the proletariat up to their level. Lenin wrote about the necessity of a vanguard well before the October Revolution, as it was necessary for the revolution in the first place! The Bolsheviks only became a vanguard after they had worked tirelessly to become one.
The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Side note: Socialism in Power is slightly outdated, as the section on the DPRK was written before the democratic front was abolished and multi-candidate primaries have started rolling out in various jurisdictions in the DPRK. This development is very new, not at all ironed-out, and began in 2024, so while it’s useful for understanding how elections in the DPRK worked for the majority of their existence, it isn’t useful any longer for understanding how they work today.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
What you call “actual socialism” is instead simply welfare, and you are using it to dress up western social democracies in socialist clothes. However, the truth of the matter is that these very social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund these massive welfare states while maintaining capitalism. This is the price of class collaboration, the creation of what Engels calls the “bourgeois proletariat.”
That you would accuse existing socialism as “national socialism” while espousing support for imperialist and neocolonial social democracies as “partial socialism” is incredibly dishonest. Marx did not live to see imperialism the way Lenin had, but even he saw the beginnings of such a system and as such hated proto-social democracies like Bismarck’s system. Marx was a revolutionary through and through, and attempted to form a vanguard in his time, even if he failed. Lenin succeeded by carrying the torch.
The fascists, meanwhile, love social democracy. They are twins, after all, both founded in class collaboration and maintaining imperialism and neocolonialism.
Removed by mod
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution, that has been done before.
The state has a monopoly of violence, what would stop it from just becoming yet another liberal oligarchy?
Er, for example?
This is the first thing that came to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.
Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com said:
Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?
@A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com did:
If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.
Lol!
Learn what the term anomie actually means, okay?
What could possibly be more destructive to social norms than armed conflict?
You’ll be happy to know that Makhno turned to banditry against the Soviets, which sparked a major conflict between the Bolsheviks and Makhnovshchina. Though, I don’t think anyone was claiming peaceful revolution was possible, just that revolution can result in a stable system post-revolution (which is true).
Your proof of this?
The Russian Civil War was extremely messy. For a time, in 1919, Makhno joined an alliance with the Whites against the Red Army, though eventually turned back to allying with the Red Army. The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno talks about this flip flopping, describing Makhno as reluctant in the alliance against the Red Army but nonetheless participating in bandit raids for supplies.
Tankie thumbsucking doesn’t qualify as proof.
Not banditry, armed resistance against the red totalitarians.
He was in a bad spot from the beginning, and could never truly win. It’s sad, and Tankies and Fascists both paint the man in the worst light, because what he was trying to build was something beautiful.
The man had to pick sides at a time when both sides were actively his enemy, proving that the enemy of my enemy is no friend at all.
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
Liberal oligarchy does not qualify as democracy.
If the people have a voice, then there’s a path forward.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand, but then again. I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
Then show me how your voice matters. Shouldn’t be too difficult, right?
Oh, sooo… liberals?
Sooo… like Makhno?
Makhno failed, and also famously never tried to force anything on anyone. He tried to build something new in a country that already had its government toppled by war.
Also, I don’t give a fuck about liberals. They’re just conservatives who like rules and order more than hurting people.
What’s your proof of this?
Zombie apocalypse movies?
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
A war of succession is a civil war.
Go read the war of the roses. Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War that Lenin started.
Or the Chinese Civil war.
Or read up on what’s happened in any country that’s had its government couped or toppled.
As I said, a history book, any one of them will do if they don’t gloss over shit that the Party doesn’t like.
As for destroying the State, every civil war does that, it’s the first thing to happen, the war is what happens next.
Guess what, Clyde? No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The Bolsheviks, quite literally, seized the state! History is amazing, isn’t it?
You have, so far, not managed to prove that you’ve read any, bright spark.
Lol! Do you even have the foggiest idea what it is you are talking about?
Minor correction, the Soviet State destroyed the Provisional Government, which was the successor state to the Tsarist state. By technicality, 2 states were destroyed while one was solidified.
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.