Embed Notice

@Radical_EgoCom @JoeChip @MikeDunnAuthor ok, if using this terms: As the state is a tool of class oppression, it requires classes of oppressor's and oppressed. That far I agree.

I would also argue that a state always works towards this class division to preserve it's existence, and to resolve it is directly opposed to the state itself. So if one oppressing class is toppled, another takes it's place.

In theory with the so called DotP the classes just switched places. I would argue that very soon after the revolution in russia, no significant part of the bourgeoisie was present in russia, either fled or executed, the MoP taken.

Therefore with the new state in place two classes formed. One of Bolshevik party functionaries, dissolving the sovjets and centralize control over the MoP and the once more disenfranchised proletariat, while the former claimed to speak for the latter.

I assume you would most likely disagree with the last part. I would be honestly curious, how anyone can ever work towards liberation of the working class, if said working class has no control whatsoever over it?