[PhiloChan]

. . . I already have my answer but would like to hear others .

It seems that a lot of common themes about a socialist state is that is somehow requires obedience to the government since the government is in effect the primary provider instead of the people themselves. Of course any real socialist yet alone communist knows this is not particular the truth in most instances and especially on an ideological/theoretical level.
So do you think there should be loyalty, reverence, and servility towards the state in any degree?

[One Degree]

Only if the state is less than 10,000 square kilometers and the population freely chooses to do so.
Citystates! Citystates! Citystates!

[mikema63]

Not automatically, no. Of course its in a states interest to get total submission, I think a little rebellion (little r) is good for a state in the long run. It would help keep it honest and help a bit to keep the people at the top of said state from sticking it to everyone else.

[Atlantis]

"Submission" is the wrong word since it suggests a master/slave relationship. What we need is "identification". In other words, the individual identifies with the state. And I don't think it has anything to do with socialism in particular. A nation with a high degree of social cohesion, in which the individual identifies with the state, will be more successful than a nation which is torn apart by political factions or becomes dysfunctional due to revolt against the state.

If people understand that the duality between individual and state (or the collective) is an illusion, there will be perfect harmony and we don't even need socialism. In other words, there is identity of interest between the state and the individual. For the state to prosper is in the interest of the individual and for the individual to prosper is in the interest of the state.

PS: Replace "state" by "collective" and it becomes a general rule.

[SolarCross]

Every government / state regardless of the ideology with which it is infected demands, and can have while it maintains military hegemony, submission to the state from all the people standing on its territory. The only thing civilised people can hope for is that the state will not be too demanding and will exercise restraint. Governors infected with socialism, have "a kid in a candy store" syndrome when comes to the exercise of power, restraint is never considered, hence why critics of socialism call it totalitarian.

[nonesuch]

Thanks for the interesting question, PhiloChan.

Should there be "submission" to the state?

I don't believe one should be submissive to the state unless it is truly "august". Even a nickels' worth of corruption would make it unworthy of humility. Now, 'loyalty'- yes, 'reverence- no, 'servility'- never.

[One Degree]

self deleted: strayed off topic

[PhiloChan]

Thanks for the interesting question, PhiloChan.

I don't believe one should be submissive to the state unless it is truly "august". Even a nickels' worth of corruption would make it unworthy of humility. Now, 'loyalty'- yes, 'reverence- no, 'servility'- never.

This is why I propose the "archaic" concept of state ideology. All governments have one and it is mostly made by the people. China for example had the conception of "pragmatic socialism/communism." The idea is that the ideology is solid but the conception of praxis is static in form of relevance.

[The Immortal Goon]

Posts with content limited to, and responding to, "Marxism is not the Answer" have been moved to the appropriate thread.

Please stay on topic.

-TIG

[quetzalcoatl]

You owe not submission, but an appropriate deference, to the state. You didn't get where you are on your own. You stand on the shoulders of generations who have come before, and your actions will affect generations after you are long gone.

'You didn't build that', in other words...although you may have lifted a brick or two. Or you may have paid someone to lift the brick. That part doesn't matter so much, as long as you acknowledge that you are part of a collective as well being an individual. Those who reject this responsibility, no matter their reasons, are outlaws - outside the law - and have therefore given the rest of us permission to treat them as such.

Integral to this responsibility is a deference to a supra-individual legal authority, call it 'the state.' This deference is not optional, contingent, or even really part of any social contract; it is simply the consequence of being human and all that necessarily entails. The precise nature and limits of this deference are part of the social contract, not the existence of the deference itself. Thus the adjective 'appropriate' in the first sentence.

I am a statist, as I have always acknowledged. The state will continue to be considered a necessary condition of civilization, until history proves it to be false.