what do you mean by it? And how is the state not a central part of this "civil society"?
>trade unions are useless because they aren't part of the state
unions are useful only to the degree that they are militant, ie willing to challenge the state monopoly on violence
generally no society would tolerate the undermining of this fundamental principle of monopolized violence, at least not for a long time
so either trade unions challenge this monopoly and win and become the new state, or they get btfod and pacified
As you may guess, so far it was always the latter, therefore we can conclude that they are limpdick useless for all intends and purposes
A conclusion that was made by Lenin a century ago already
>The aim of social democracy has traditionally been to achieve socialism through state mediation of proletarian interests.
The aim of social democracy in practice always was to pacify the proletariat so that capitalism can keep on going.
>The point is to illustrate how the government doing stuff in the interests of the proletariat isn't good enough.
Again, social democracy is government still doing staff in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It's no coincidence that it collapsed the moment post-war boom ended and profit margins got threatened.
>But the state is not the totality of society. This collapse of economy and civil society into the state is an illusion.
The large corporations are essentially a part of the state. I don't see what kind of "civil soyciety" is left there when you take out this whole government-corporate complex. With the internet of things and the death of the general computing it's only gonna get worse lol.
But you keep chasing that chimera of independent "civil society" somewhere out there lmao.
>I can't read
nah, you just can't express your thought for shit
>Workers don't have to fire a single weapon in order to go on strike and make demands to their bosses.
You can demand whatever you want lol. But if you overstep your boundaries and forget your place you will get a Thatcher and Reagan treatment. Or something even worse like south american death squads lol.
As long as capital can move out to somewhere with more repressive labor laws you have nothing to worry about other than losing your job, but if there is no way to let out pressure - you better do what you are told if you're not ready to die lol.
>Likewise, the bourgeoisie doesn't have to fire a single weapon to destroy class consciousness.
I'm sure all that militarized police and massive propaganda efforts is because they don't expect to fire a single weapon lol.
Pity that bourgs are not as retarded as you are.
>Violence is only used precisely when such forms of power break down.
Violence is used every day to maintain capitalist system. You just live in a bubble with your blinkers on.
>The proletariat is forced by the bourgeoisie to use violence in order to achieve revolution, not because violence is the only means of exerting power.
Proletariat is forced to use violence because bourgeoisie is forced to use violence. Exploitation can't exist without violence. Violence is the only way to change anything in such a situation.
>You are avoiding the reason why he advocated for socialism in one country.
He advocated it because that was just a fact of reality. USSR was just a country.
>The working class must seize control of the state, economy and civil society.
how are all those things not just a part of the overall state? wtf is a civil society? how can there be some civil society without laws? and how laws are not permeating every aspect of this mythical "civil society" already?
>Thus requiring more than just a socialist party seizing state power.
That requires civil state administration, laws, courts, government bodies, research institutions etc etc, ie the many constituent parts of what one would call a "state". It doesn't require some amorphic "civil soyciety" lol
>Again, the point is that the state is not the only instrument of class struggle. How many times do I have to repeat this?
It is the only instrument that actually matters in the final analysis, because of its monopoly on violence.
You're free to present actual arguments anytime instead of repeating your dogmas like a broken record.
>I agree. But state policy alone will not result in socialist transformation.
State policy can fundamentally transform society, because state is an expression of society, it's what gives it structure to transform human environment. That's the sheer power of state as a mechanism of complex political human organization.