Question for all people who are not Anarchists?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Of course Marxism's ultimate goal is a stateless society but there are some who believe in state socialism. I want to ask those who do oppose Anarchism why it is they do? Do you dispute the ability of this society to function, do you think it is not a godd idea, if so please explain.

[Coggeh]

Of course Marxism's ultimate goal is a stateless society but there are some who believe in state socialism. I want to ask those who do oppose Anarchism why it is they do? Do you dispute the ability of this society to function, do you think it is not a godd idea, if so please explain.
Marxists and anarchists oppose one another because of disagreements on how to organise (the party etc) and also on what is to happen after the revolution . Workers state or communism .


I'm a marxist(leninist) because i support the idea of a vanguard party and also support the creation of a workers state (socialism) after the revolution .Basically.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Marxists and anarchists oppose one another because of disagreements on how to organise (the party etc) and also on what is to happen after the revolution . Workers state or communism .


I'm a marxist(leninist) because i support the idea of a vanguard party and also support the creation of a workers state (socialism) after the revolution .Basically.

Ok so why do you oppose a stateless society?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ok so why do you oppose a stateless society?

I don't think it's that he opposes a stateless society, but the way he feels it'll come about. If I read his answer correctly he was referring to the fact that the worker's state would be the stage after the revolution. This would later develop into Communism, the stateless society.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think it's that he opposes a stateless society, but the way he feels it'll come about. If I read his answer correctly he was referring to the fact that the worker's state would be the stage after the revolution. This would later develop into Communism, the stateless society.
Um, it looks like whenever anybody looks at this quote, they immediately see 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and lock out all of the rest, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Emphasis mine.
Also, the OP asks for explanation of positions, rather than just stating them.

[Asoka89]

I am a Marxist--- I draw from Luxemberg, Trotsky, Draper, etc. I have deep respect for anarchists and their ideas. I am drawn to Marx's though, even though I have read from the great anarchist thinkers, I think that their critique of buercracy and hierarchy back in the 1800s had great significance and a lot of it was proved right, but the abject disaster that was statist "socialism"

Anarchism just doesn't hold up too well, I think Trotsky called it a nice looking umbrella with holes in it.

For example during the Spanish Civil War the CNT/FAI had power, they had a strong organization with real democracy, worker councils, farm cooperatives, worker militias--- so why didnt they sieze power totally and build a state based on these institutions on worker control. They said "we don't believe in the state"

So instead the social democrats and the stalinists got ne state power and fucked everyone else... they don't see that you can have a democratic state, a worker's state-- this is not all anarchists just some.

Also they have a naive view towards electoral politics. Its a cess pool socialists need to jump into to engage with the polity, anarchists stay clean of this cess pool but its one we need to engage in. Let's not forget that liberal bourgeois democracy is an advance over other forms of class rule, anarchists seem to all lump them together as if the state is equal in all forms. Marx found socialism by way of liberal democracy.

I could go on.

[Nwoye]

For example during the Spanish Civil War the CNT/FAI had power, they had a strong organization with real democracy, worker councils, farm cooperatives, worker militias--- so why didnt they sieze power totally and build a state based on these institutions on worker control. They said "we don't believe in the state"

establishing a state wasn't necessary.


So instead the social democrats and the stalinists got ne state power and fucked everyone else... they don't see that you can have a democratic state, a worker's state-- this is not all anarchists just some.

anarchist ideology is primarily one against coercion, hierarchy, and centralization. the state does all three of these things.

established political bodies are easily corruptible. and the means by which they operate is highly inefficient. you basically have to balance majoritarian oppression of minorities with ruling class oppression of the majority. no thank you.


Also they have a naive view towards electoral politics. Its a cess pool socialists need to jump into to engage with the polity, anarchists stay clean of this cess pool but its one we need to engage in. Let's not forget that liberal bourgeois democracy is an advance over other forms of class rule, anarchists seem to all lump them together as if the state is equal in all forms.

i partially agree with this.

[Steve_j]

In regards to the op, why do you assume that someone who is not an Anarchist is opposed to it?

[Afro]

i have always been curious how an anarchist society can be achieved? if people have been brought up to be selfish than don't we need an in-between bit were people can be accustomed to changing way of life and thought. if i could personally get my head around that bit i would proly be a signed up non-card carrying anarchist.

[Sam_b]

Ok so why do you oppose a stateless society?

Marxists are not opposed to a stateless society.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

establishing a state wasn't necessary.



anarchist ideology is primarily one against coercion, hierarchy, and centralization. the state does all three of these things.

established political bodies are easily corruptible. and the means by which they operate is highly inefficient. you basically have to balance majoritarian oppression of minorities with ruling class oppression of the majority. no thank you.

So what would have been necessary for anarchist success in Spain? Marxists also oppose coercion, hierarchy, and centralization (states); but what, if not a political apparatus controlled by the working masses (a workers' state), is going to prevent the ruling class from re-establishing a state that represents their interests during a revolution?

[Nwoye]

So what would have been necessary for anarchist success in Spain?

not having the entirety of spain in addition to the USSR against them would have been helpful.

besides, even if they did establish a political entity during the revolution, how would that have helped them survive the counter-revolution?



Marxists also oppose coercion, hierarchy, and centralization (states)

obviously not if they support a state.


but what, if not a political apparatus controlled by the working masses (a workers' state), is going to prevent the ruling class from re-establishing a state that represents their interests during a revolution?


i don't know. the answer would be dependent on the situation at hand.

however, the thought of a state ever "withering away" seems improbable.

[Invincible Summer]

For example during the Spanish Civil War the CNT/FAI had power, they had a strong organization with real democracy, worker councils, farm cooperatives, worker militias--- so why didnt they sieze power totally and build a state based on these institutions on worker control. They said "we don't believe in the state"


So what would have been necessary for anarchist success in Spain? Marxists also oppose coercion, hierarchy, and centralization (states); but what, if not a political apparatus controlled by the working masses (a workers' state), is going to prevent the ruling class from re-establishing a state that represents their interests during a revolution?

This is possibly a silly question (then again I'm also trying to write a sociology paper), but...
What was anarchist Spain, then? If it had all those characteristics, would it not be a worker's state?

What differentiates anarchist Spain and a "worker's state?"

[Bilan]

establishing a state wasn't necessary.


Nonsense. How can the class exert its power without a proletarian state? Workers Councils? State. Federation of Syndicates? State. etc, etc.
These manifest as organs of the working classes power. A state was paramount.
And besides, despite the purism which underlies your post, a bourgeois state-coalition was formed anyway, with the CNT joining the bourgeois state.

[Black Dagger]

How can the class exert its power without a proletarian state? Workers Councils? State. Federation of Syndicates? State. etc, etc.
These manifest as organs of the working classes power. A state was paramount.


I don't understand the purpose of recouperating this misleading term, the DoP is a much better term to use (though still silly) than 'state' or the odious 'workers state'.

The state is not a 'workers council' or a 'federation of syndicates' - the state is a form of political rule perfected by the bourgeoisie or ruling class. Federations of syndicates or workers councils are federations of workers councils - federations not 'states' - and if we wanted to be unnecessarily oblique we could say 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
However, If we wanted to talk in a more concise way (the word 'dictatorship' like 'state' has connotations that only confuse people given the intended meaning here is rather more libertarian than authoritarian) we could say, worker rule or something of that nature. It's only dogmatism (or to be kinder, 'tradition') that this clumsy jargon is still doing the rounds, we really need to be as clear as possible when we speak and avoid leaving the door open for jargon-based arguments, 'oh that's not a state!' 'Well i don't mean 'state' like that i mean it like this! It's a state, but not that sort of state understand'? etc.

If however someone says 'workers state' and they actually mean a centralised authority which under some pretense takes control over society - administers its resources or attempts to make rules over people etc. Then yes, 'state' would be an appropriate term to use. But if you mean a society based on workers control (with no separate political caste of decision-makers) than using the term 'state' only obfuscates the reality; and i might also suggests is probably more about political enmity than linguistic precision - an attempt by marxists to distinguish themselves (really without need) from anarchists ('state' sounds more powerful, credible and organised than federations of councils i guess) even though we both really mean 'communism'.

[Bilan]

I don't understand the purpose of recouperating this misleading term, the DoP is a much better term to use (though still silly) than 'state' or the odious 'workers state'.

I think its pointless worrying about connotations when its in discussions like this. A state is an organ of class rule. That's it.



The state is not a 'workers council' or a 'federation of syndicates' - the state is a form of political rule perfected by the bourgeoisie or ruling class.

That's a bourgeois state, and is certainly not the only form of a state. The manifestation of a proletarian state, and a bourgeois state, are completely different, as they emerge out of different relationships to production. One exists as means of suppressing one class by another, the other for suppressing class itself. The latter is still a state, as it is still an organ of class rule.



Federations of syndicates or workers councils are federations of workers councils - federations not 'states' - and if we wanted to be unnecessarily oblique we could say 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.


Federations are still 'states'. Upon that presumption, Australia, which is a Federation, would not be a 'state'. Such a presumption is ludicrous, as we both know. FoS are organs of proletarian power; they exert the power of the class as a means of its liberation. That's class power, that's a state.



However, If we wanted to talk in a more concise way (the word 'dictatorship' like 'state' has connotations that only confuse people given the intended meaning here is rather more libertarian than authoritarian) we could say, worker rule or something of that nature.

We could, but in this circumstance, there's no point, as the OP is asking asking about 'state socialism' and 'a stateless society'. The former is meaningless, as socialism is a state.


It's only dogmatism (or to be kinder, 'tradition') that this clumsy jargon is still doing the rounds, we really need to be as clear as possible when we speak and avoid leaving the door open for jargon-based arguments, 'oh that's not a state!' 'Well i don't mean 'state' like that i mean it like this! It's a state, but not that sort of state understand'? etc.

That's not whats happening though. If a comrade misunderstands what a state is, it should be, and is corrected. How this corresponds to our activity and propaganda is a different thing.



If however someone says 'workers state' and they actually mean a centralised authority which under some pretense takes control over society - administers its resources or attempts to make rules over people etc. Then yes, 'state' would be an appropriate term to use. But if you mean a society based on workers control (with no separate political caste of decision-makers) than using the term 'state' only obfuscates the reality; and i might also suggests is probably more about political enmity than linguistic precision - an attempt by marxists to distinguish themselves (really without need) from anarchists ('state' sounds more powerful, credible and organised than federations of councils i guess).

I don't see it as a means of 'distinguishing' from anarchists, but of identifying it within its historical context; and identifying it within the class struggle.

[Black Dagger]

I think its pointless worrying about connotations when its in discussions like this. A state is an organ of class rule. That's it.

Firstly, connotations are important - the way someone communicates their ideas is important. Connotations in language mean that intended meaning and the one comprehended by the reader/listener diverge dramatically - that's bad. I want interested people to understand my views.

Secondly, there are no extra points for brevity when providing definitions. To say that the state is simply 'an organ of class rule' obscures which class constructed the state, how a state functions - indeed how its very existence renders those outside of its structure irrelevant, without decision-making power etc.

The state is not 'an organ (more archaic jargon) for class rule' it is the organ of a ruling class- that's all it has ever been. It's nothing but the legacy of Liberalism to imbue the 'state' as it is - just a form of social organisation or control with some kind of noble classless worth (an idea to be wielded by any class) - or as the ultimate or even as a desireable form of social organisation. The nature of a 'state' is that the whole class is not in control of the structure (in any sense) - but representatives of some kind.
The fact is in a state system decision making power is as a matter of course taken from the many and handed to the few - whether it be the bureaucracy of the communist party or the Liberal Party. The state system is not a system that is analogous or compatible with grassroots decision-making or any kind of bottom-up process.

The authority is placed at the top of the state - which forces the rungs below to abide by its decision in a hierarchal fashion. It became the only legitimate authority (outside of religious institutions) in society - it was the same in the USSR or in china today (where independant unions or syndicates are illegal). A state system means that only those within the state structure can make decisions (because the state is meant to be the 'organ' of rule) - and that these decisions will be enforced on the people, it relies on coercion to function. It requires a police force and military to achieve this.


One exists as means of suppressing one class by another, the other for suppressing class itself. The latter is still a state, as it is still an organ of class rule.


So despite having a completely different structure and purpose it's 'still the same thing' - that makes no sense at all to me. At once you said that the state is an organ of class rule and now you have said that the state exists to abolish class - which is it?


Federations are still 'states'. Upon that presumption, Australia, which is a Federation, would not be a 'state'. Such a presumption is ludicrous, as we both know.


It's only ludicruous because of the distortion of my words here. I said federations of workers councils are not states - not 'a federation of any kind cannot be a state'. Obviously a federation of states AKA a nation-state - such as australia is still a state - this really was an irrelevant point to make Bilan.



FoS are organs of proletarian power ; they exert the power of the class as a means of its liberation. That's class power, that's a state.

What's a 'FOS'?

'Exerting the power of the class' means someone is 'exerting' themselves on my behalf. In some situations i might be grateful for such assistance, but we're talking about my life here - and the lives of all workers - all premised on a victory that we have won. Any proletarian state (and this is demonstrated by every proletarian 'state' in history) makes the same claims to representation that a bourgeois state makes - the point is that both function on the basis of an authority that positions 'the state' above that of ordinary people. Someone rules on my behalf, with my power and interests in mind (apparently).

But what if i disagree with the proletarian state?

What if i reject its decisions or laws? What if a whole workplace or community does? Well history has a few lessons for us on that score, the independant workers lose - often they ended up dead or in jail. But hey, who knows? Maybe the next 'proletarian state' will be the one to break the mould the last ten all recreated faithfully.


I don't see it as a means of 'distinguishing' from anarchists, but of identifying it within its historical context; and identifying it within the class struggle.

Sorry, could you please rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean by that.

[Hiero]

You could read Lenin's State and Revolution. It shows the Marxist understanding of what the state is. To cut it short the state is inevitable in class society.

I guess Leninst and Anarchist have reveresed ideas of state and society.

[sanpal]

That's a bourgeois state, and is certainly not the only form of a state. The manifestation of a proletarian state, and a bourgeois state, are completely different, as they emerge out of different relationships to production. One exists as means of suppressing one class by another, the other for suppressing class itself. The latter is still a state, as it is still an organ of class rule.


Indeed, the bourgeois state and the proletarian state (DotP) are conceptually differ from each other. Revolution act is replacement of the bourgeois state apparatus with the proletarian state apparatus i.e. the replacement of the bourgeois democracy with the proletarian democracy or as one of the part of such transformation - creation of proletarian parliament instead of bourgeois parliament ( see post #17 http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-supporters-dop-t45540/index.html?t=45540).
One more important reason for a state to be during transition period is to be existing of the monetary system for a while while a communist (nonmarket/moneyless self-management) economic sector could be developed enough for gradual replacement of state capitalist sector of economy (see scheme http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=252 ). Monetary system absolutely needs in a state whether it is a bourgeois state or it is a proletarian state.

Excluding of this transition period brings with it 'transformation of capitalism into communism by one stroke' (anarchist way?) But there is no other way as described above, i'm sure.

[Cumannach]

Of course Marxism's ultimate goal is a stateless society but there are some who believe in state socialism. I want to ask those who do oppose Anarchism why it is they do? Do you dispute the ability of this society to function, do you think it is not a godd idea, if so please explain.

I oppose anarchism because it has no realistic program for creating a classless society. Capitalists have to be repressed by a working class state while the working class carries out the work of abolishing classes.

[Bilan]

Firstly, connotations are important - the way someone communicates their ideas is important. Connotations in language mean that intended meaning and the one comprehended by the reader/listener diverge dramatically - that's bad. I want interested people to understand my views.

Yes, but in this context, it becomes pointless to worry about it, since the OP is enquiring about people reject 'stateless socialism' as opposed to 'state socialism', despite the statement having no meaning what so ever. Sort of like Cold Ice Cream.



Secondly, there are no extra points for brevity when providing definitions. To say that the state is simply 'an organ of class rule' obscures which class constructed the state, how a state functions - indeed how its very existence renders those outside of its structure irrelevant, without decision-making power etc.

Which class constructed the state? The emergence of class society itself constructed the state!
It obscures nothing. Recognizing the state as an organ of class rule is the general conception of the state, not a portrayal of the exact manifestations of a state. For example, saying the bourgeois state is an organ of class rule represents that the state, in bourgeois society, is an organ of its rule, and a means of perpetuating its rule.



The state is not 'an organ (more archaic jargon) for class rule' it is the organ of a ruling class- that's all it has ever been.

What point is there in that distinction? Class rule, ruling class. The former is a manifestation of the exertion of the power of the latter.



It's nothing but the legacy of Liberalism to imbue the 'state' as it is - just a form of social organisation or control with some kind of noble classless worth (an idea to be wielded by any class) - or as the ultimate or even as a desireable form of social organisation. The nature of a 'state' is that the whole class is not in control of the structure (in any sense) - but representatives of some kind.

What does desirability have to do with this?
And are you implying that the Bourgeois state is not made up of the entirety of the bourgeois class, but only select individuals from it?



The fact is in a state system decision making power is as a matter of course taken from the many and handed to the few - whether it be the bureaucracy of the communist party or the Liberal Party. The state system is not a system that is analogous or compatible with grassroots decision-making or any kind of bottom-up process.

That's only if the model of the state in which you work from is that a state necessitates a 'represenative structure' in which it is antithetical to "power from below". Indeed, that the state, in all cases, has one form.



The authority is placed at the top of the state - which forces the rungs below to abide by its decision in a hierarchal fashion. It became the only legitimate authority (outside of religious institutions) in society - it was the same in the USSR or in china today (where independant unions or syndicates are illegal). A state system means that only those within the state structure can make decisions (because the state is meant to be the 'organ' of rule) - and that these decisions will be enforced on the people, it relies on coercion to function. It requires a police force and military to achieve this.

Surprisingly State Capitalist states removed power from below? These aren't examples of the proletarian state.



So despite having a completely different structure and purpose it's 'still the same thing' - that makes no sense at all to me. At once you said that the state is an organ of class rule and now you have said that the state exists to abolish class - which is it?

Is it an organ of class rule? Yes.
Is it of the same form as the bourgeois state, or previous states? No.


“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."






What's a 'FOS'?

Federation of Syndicates.



'Exerting the power of the class' means someone is 'exerting' themselves on my behalf. In some situations i might be grateful for such assistance, but we're talking about my life here - and the lives of all workers - all premised on a victory that we have won. Any proletarian state (and this is demonstrated by every proletarian 'state' in history) makes the same claims to representation that a bourgeois state makes - the point is that both function on the basis of an authority that positions 'the state' above that of ordinary people. Someone rules on my behalf, with my power and interests in mind (apparently).

What proletarian states?



But what if i disagree with the proletarian state?

What?



What if i reject its decisions or laws?

Just what do you think a proletarian state is? Some sort of bureaucratic shit hole a la the USSR?



What if a whole workplace or community does? Well history has a few lessons for us on that score, the independant workers lose - often they ended up dead or in jail. But hey, who knows? Maybe the next 'proletarian state' will be the one to break the mould the last ten all recreated faithfully.

This is such a simplistic analysis. And who are these independent workers? Independend of the working class? Independent of the state (as if that makes any sense)? Independed of who? and of what? And why?
But if you want to blame the degeneration of the USSR on 'the proletarian state', that's your call, even if its totally simplistic and you know it.




Sorry, could you please rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean by that.

Okay, you said this:


But if you mean a society based on workers control (with no separate political caste of decision-makers) than using the term 'state' only obfuscates the reality; and i might also suggests is probably more about political enmity than linguistic precision - an attempt by marxists to distinguish themselves (really without need) from anarchists ('state' sounds more powerful, credible and organised than federations of councils i guess).

I said:


I don't see it as a means of 'distinguishing' from anarchists, but of identifying it within its historical context; and identifying it within the class struggle.

Meaning, identifying the proletarian state as a 'state'is not a means of 'confusion' or 'distinguishment' from anarchists, but as a means of understanding what the proletarian revolution is within history - the revolution to suppress class itself - and identifying what the "state" is, and in particular, the "proletarian state" within the struggle between classes - both within capitalist society, and within the historical class struggle.

[Asoka89]

Sorry to the anarchists, you HAD a state.

You had MILITAS, FARM COOPERATIVES, WORKER OCCUPIED FACTORIES, ETC.

That is a worker's state. It's a different kind of a state, so they should have taken that opportunity to openly proclaim that a libertarian state was formed and then organized to fend off counter revolution. Instead they left state administration to the Stalinists and the Republicans, and fought along side them in defense of a bourgeois state against fascism. Obviously once they lost their chance they were right to defend against fascism, but they could have seized power.

And Lenin's own actions show a betray of a lot of the ideas in "State and Revolution"

I would recommend reading "The Bolsheviks and Worker's Control"

[Charles Xavier]

Of course Marxism's ultimate goal is a stateless society but there are some who believe in state socialism. I want to ask those who do oppose Anarchism why it is they do? Do you dispute the ability of this society to function, do you think it is not a godd idea, if so please explain.


We oppose anarchist on the basis that its utopian. Not because we don't like anarchism. Its tactics and programs are unattainable, and on that basis we oppose it. Just like we oppose everything that doesn't work.

If anarchism was practical and attainable, even I would be an anarchist.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

We oppose anarchist on the basis that its utopian.

Unlike of course putting a bunch of people in power and waiting until they are nice enough to hand power over the the workers :rolleyes:

[Charles Xavier]

Unlike of course putting a bunch of people in power and waiting until they are nice enough to hand power over the the workers :rolleyes:


We didn't wait they were the working class in power.

[Pogue]

We didn't wait they were the working class in power.

Huh?

[apathy maybe]

We oppose anarchist on the basis that its utopian. Not because we don't like anarchism. Its tactics and programs are unattainable, and on that basis we oppose it. Just like we oppose everything that doesn't work.

If anarchism was practical and attainable, even I would be an anarchist.

Funny thing see, you oppose anarchism 'cause it doesn't work you say. Except, it seems that you (and lots of other people), just hate it.

OK, if we accept your idea that anarchism is not practical, and not attainable, then obviously you don't think that when the worker's state "whithers away", it will result in anything like anarchism.

Which, sort of gets to the point of the OP (as I understand it at least).

Marxists want a system without a state, without classes etc.
So do anarchists.

Both also want the workers to be in control of the means of production.

The thing is, anarchists are a lot more clear than that, they want an end to all hierarchy and power. Don't you want that? Do you want to have a high priest, perhaps? Or police chiefs?

In your perfect society?

[Q]

Ok so why do you oppose a stateless society?

Marxists are on the stance that a stateless and classless society cannot just be declared. It takes time to grow into such a society, develop the cultural level, etc. That's the point of socialism: a transitionary step between capitalism and communism. In the west this is a relatively easy step, because of the already existing level of industrialisation, infrastructure, education, etc.

Furthermore, a workers state isn't a "state" in the proper sense of the word. We're talking about having the working class as the ruling class after all, the vast majority of society is in power. Talking about a highly centralised state under these circumstances is absurd. It is more a direct democracy as society is organised via workers' councils. However, such an organisation still acts as a state in the sense that it oppresses the disowned and dieing capitalist class.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Of course Marxism's ultimate goal is a stateless society but there are some who believe in state socialism. I want to ask those who do oppose Anarchism why it is they do? Do you dispute the ability of this society to function, do you think it is not a godd idea, if so please explain.

You're confusing opposition to anarchism as a movement with opposition to an anarchist society. As has been said, it's preference for different theories or tactics, not opposition to the goal of anarchy.

[*PRC*Kensei]

My direct 'gutt-feeling' anser would be that socialism has...actually done things & anarchists are STILL talking about grassroots mumbojumbo without making anything happen for over 100 years. - but well on other side they also din't do anything wrong :) Don't want to start debate, just my opinion ^^

Socialism can actually do something for people. and has done so.

+ people kinda tend to long for power & organisation.. those who have ambitions to lead can do so via the state. Anarchism is working in the little communities they have, but if you're into politics socialism just has more options to change the world...while you are still alive to see it change.

[Charles Xavier]

Funny thing see, you oppose anarchism 'cause it doesn't work you say. Except, it seems that you (and lots of other people), just hate it.

OK, if we accept your idea that anarchism is not practical, and not attainable, then obviously you don't think that when the worker's state "whithers away", it will result in anything like anarchism.

Which, sort of gets to the point of the OP (as I understand it at least).

Marxists want a system without a state, without classes etc.
So do anarchists.

Both also want the workers to be in control of the means of production.

The thing is, anarchists are a lot more clear than that, they want an end to all hierarchy and power. Don't you want that? Do you want to have a high priest, perhaps? Or police chiefs?

In your perfect society?


We don't have a prefect society, only a more just and fairer society, where the people who do the work profit collectively for their labour.

Four big questions big things Marxists and Anarchist disagree on,

The question on organization.
The question on how to obtain social revolution.
The question on will the revolution need to be defended
The question on how that defense will be.

I would love to be an anarchist, but these are big questions that are left to guess work by anarchists.

I cannot accept guess work. I can only accept a scientific explanation.

[Nwoye]

Sorry to the anarchists, you HAD a state.

You had MILITAS, FARM COOPERATIVES, WORKER OCCUPIED FACTORIES, ETC.

none of those things are examples of a hierarchical, coercive, or authoritarian process by which laws are enforced over a set geographical area, so none of those things qualify as being a state.

[Asoka89]

The state is armed bodies of men--- how are worker MILITAS not coercive? When they seized land from the landlords on orders of peasant assemblies--- that is a state

[Black Dagger]

Sorry for the delayed reply...


Which class constructed the state? The emergence of class society itself constructed the state!

The modern State is the child of the bourgeoisie.



It obscures nothing. Recognizing the state as an organ of class rule is the general conception of the state, not a portrayal of the exact manifestations of a state. For example, saying the bourgeois state is an organ of class rule represents that the state, in bourgeois society, is an organ of its rule, and a means of perpetuating its rule.

Yes this is all true, but its forgoing an analysis of the State in favour of description. Describing it merely as an organ of class rule implies that any class may wield it - the State is just a tool to be used for the ends of any particular class - be it the bourgeoisie or workers. That in a revolutionary society the State will just be an organ of rule for the workers.

But what is a State as a form of organisation? What principals operate in a State system?

The State is the historic product of bourgeois hegemony containing within it the principals of their class which are counterposted to our own. States are premised on the centralisation of authority (as opposed to its elimination); that is the centralising of decision-making (as opposed to its disperal amongst the local, regional and 'national' federations following a bottom-up approach) and as such necessarily requires the subordination of the majority to a minority - and the control of the latter through coercive instruments (a centralised authority cannot be maintained and function unless its authority is upheld).


What point is there in that distinction? Class rule, ruling class. The former is a manifestation of the exertion of the power of the latter.

The distinction between saying 'the State is an organ of class rule' and 'the State is an organ of the ruling class' is important because the latter conception i have suggested spells out clearly the social relationship upon which a State system functions.
That states are always a tool of a ruling class be they communist bureaucrats or bourgeois politicians, a State is by definition never 'in the hands of the people'. To believe that one has to believe that rule by a political party (of any kind, communist or otherwise) is the same as rule by the people or a class they claim to represent. When workers rule there will no need for parties or States - these are merely relics of bourgeois society, politics, and of the perception that society must be managed by an enlightend minority.


What does desirability have to do with this?

I was talking in terms of the social revolution, that the state (as in a 'proletarian state' or a 'workers state') is not IMO a desireable tool of that process even if it is supposedly efficient in this task.


And are you implying that the Bourgeois state is not made up of the entirety of the bourgeois class, but only select individuals from it?


I'm not sure i understand the point of your question? Obviously the state is not made up of every individual member of the ruling class - it doesn't have to be in order to be or function as a tool of their hegemony.


That's only if the model of the state in which you work from is that a state necessitates a 'represenative structure' in which it is antithetical to "power from below". Indeed, that the state, in all cases, has one form.

I'm sorry but what other States do you know of? If we are describing a form of social organisation that is premised on the centralisation of authority within a single body - that is a body which retains decision-making power or control over all that is subject to it however benevolent it claims to be - then we are talking about a State. You can talk about a theoretical idea of Marx or Engels, but you have to elaborate how this states structure will be different to a regular State - not just its purpose.

You're suggesting that a State can exist that does not conform to the definition of a State, but then we would not be talking about a State at all but something else. States are a form of social organisation which have as their core premise the centralising of authority into the the hands of a minority group of some kind (selected, elected or otherwise) who excercise a monopoly on decision-making, laws, violence etc.

As in:


State

–noun the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.

-adjective
15.of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.


As an anarchist i regard the idea of a central governing authority as incompatible with the principal of free-association and thus inherently oppressive.


Is it an organ of class rule? Yes.
Is it of the same form as the bourgeois state, or previous states? No.

Quoted stuff from engels

Engels described this state as a 'special coercive force' - the only difference then is that this coercion is meant to be directed at abolishing class rather than upholding permanent rule by a class; but the anarchist concern is whether the ends justify the means. Anarchists do no think that an authortarian revolution (one in which class is abolished via a central authority or state) can create a libertarian society. I'm not interested in what you think the purpose of this state would be but rather how it functions, what is it's structure? I.E. What will this state look like until it 'withers away'? And how can we be sure that this will occur? Historically speaking, authority however benevolent in its birth rarely disappears quietly.

I don't have any qualms with abolishing class - this certainly makes the Proletarian State 'different' in its stated purpose to other states but how is this difference manifested in its structure? The passage you have quoted does not elaborate on this point but rather on the purpose/role of this temporary entity.

Can you not sympathise with these concerns? I think they are perfectly valid given the history of revolutions inspired by these same ideas of marx and engels.

I just want real liberty, workers emancipation - by our own hands.


What proletarian states?

All the states in history that have made this same claim to be the rule of the proletariat or ruling in their interests.


Just what do you think a proletarian state is? Some sort of bureaucratic shit hole a la the USSR?

No, but my fear is that is what it would become. Not precisley like the USSR, but that the Proletarian State will not just wither away as Engels suggests because authority does not just wither away - it is abolished by force, the armed people. I am talking about what has happened when people who have the same ideas as you (marxists) have seized power with the same engels quotes in mind. The problem is that rather than 'withering away' these states became more centralised over time.


What?

If a proletarian state exists what authority does it have if any over individual workers?


This is such a simplistic analysis. And who are these independent workers? Independend of the working class? Independent of the state (as if that makes any sense)? Independed of who? and of what? And why?
But if you want to blame the degeneration of the USSR on 'the proletarian state', that's your call, even if its totally simplistic and you know it.


You have called me 'simplistic' a few times here but you never actually explained why this is so.

By 'independant workers' i meant workers who tried to organise themselves independant of the state in so-called socialist countries, like the workers who try to organise illegally today in China outside of the official CCP union. I also never blamed the 'degeneration of the USSR' on the proletarian state, though obviously the permanent Soviet state was an obstacle to workers power.


Meaning, identifying the proletarian state as a 'state'is not a means of 'confusion' or 'distinguishment' from anarchists, but as a means of understanding what the proletarian revolution is within history - the revolution to suppress class itself - and identifying what the "state" is, and in particular, the "proletarian state" within the struggle between classes - both within capitalist society, and within the historical class struggle.

I understand everything here except why using the term 'Proletarian State' is necessary.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Anarchism just seems really infantile.

I liken it to the distinction between "rejecting" this or that -ism and -archy and actually organizing to end oppression. Sure, we all would like to see a world with classes, patriarchy and the oppressive state. However, at some point one has to grow up and examine how to best and most effectively abolish these things on a global scale.

Quite frankly, anarchism has a horrible track record in all of this. There has never been an successful anarchist inspired revolution. Most of the anarchists I know are either comically dogmatic or absorbed in subreformism (vegan potlucks). I don't see any historical or empirical reason why I should, as a revolutionary, line up and say I'm an anarchist or even claim that anarchism is a revolutionary ideology.

Theoretically, since any revolution- born out of today's conditions- is naturally going to resolve only so many structural forms of oppression while leaving others intact and likely creating the basis for new ones, the whole notion of an "anarchist revolution" is limited to the 'neat idea when I was 15' shelf. The anarchist ideal and conception of revolution will never match up with the conditions imposed by a revolution against the current system. "Anarchist Revolution," outside of one occuring under socialism and against the last forms and mechanisms of oppression, is an essentially an oxymoron.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism just seems really infantile.

I liken it to the distinction between "rejecting" this or that -ism and -archy and actually organizing to end oppression. Sure, we all would like to see a world with classes, patriarchy and the oppressive state. However, at some point one has to grow up and examine how to best and most effectively abolish these things on a global scale.

Quite frankly, anarchism has a horrible track record in all of this. There has never been an successful anarchist inspired revolution. Most of the anarchists I know are either comically dogmatic or absorbed in subreformism (vegan potlucks). I don't see any historical or empirical reason why I should, as a revolutionary, line up and say I'm an anarchist or even claim that anarchism is a revolutionary ideology.

Theoretically, since any revolution- born out of today's conditions- is naturally going to resolve only so many structural forms of oppression while leaving others intact and likely creating the basis for new ones, the whole notion of an "anarchist revolution" is limited to the 'neat idea when I was 15' shelf. The anarchist ideal and conception of revolution will never match up with the conditions imposed by a revolution against the current system. "Anarchist Revolution," outside of one occuring under socialism and against the last forms and mechanisms of oppression, is an essentially an oxymoron.

Imagine a picture of a dinosaur playing basket ball... Or maybe baseball would be better. Wait, don't imagine it! Look at the picture attached instead.

This whole post I am responding to shows a shocking ignorance of anarchist theory and history. So AvanteRedGarde, what is an "anarchist revolution" anyway? Maybe a better idea, explain two ways a revolution might proceed according to different anarchist strands (syndicalist and communist are the easiest).

And then, to get in before everyone else does, go and look up Catalonia and the Spanish Civil War. Also, investigate the Platformists in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War/Revolution (though not all anarchists accept Platformists as anarchists, Plaformists still call themselves anarchists). That should do for a start.

[JohnnyC]

Sorry for the delayed reply...



The modern State is the child of the bourgeoisie.


Yes.And its purpose is, to maintain the rule of bourgeois through its laws, military and police.Proletarian State, for the time it exist, will do the same for as long as there are reactionary forces that threaten proletarian rule.




Yes this is all true, but its forgoing an analysis of the State in favour of description. Describing it merely as an organ of class rule implies that any class may wield it - the State is just a tool to be used for the ends of any particular class - be it the bourgeoisie or workers. That in a revolutionary society the State will just be an organ of rule for the workers.


State is just an organ of class rule but proletarian class cannot wield bourgeois state for its own interest.


But what is a State as a form of organisation?
What principals operate in a State system?

Working class will manage the economy through the workers councils while the workers militias will stop any attempt of counter revolution.When there is no threat, internationally, to the proletarian rule any more the state has fulfilled it's function (to destroy all other classes), and will therefore wither away.Organizations such as worker councils and militias, of course, will not cease to exist but they will lose their political function (to abolish all classes).



The State is the historic product of bourgeois hegemony containing within it the principals of their class which are counterposted to our own. States are premised on the centralisation of authority (as opposed to its elimination); that is the centralising of decision-making (as opposed to its disperal amongst the local, regional and 'national' federations following a bottom-up approach) and as such necessarily requires the subordination of the majority to a minority - and the control of the latter through coercive instruments (a centralised authority cannot be maintained and function unless its authority is upheld).

Let me quote Engels, I will bold the important parts:

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away."




I'm not sure i understand the point of your question? Obviously the state is not made up of every individual member of the ruling class - it doesn't have to be in order to be or function as a tool of their hegemony.
Proletarian state is. :)
Workers councils and militias will be controlled by the whole class, not by few elected individuals.Working class will not rule through the same organizations as bourgeois.

Here is what Lenin said:

"In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.
Secondly, the state is a “special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state". This is precisely the “act” of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) “special force” by another (proletarian) “special force” cannot possibly take place in the form of “withering away"."



States are a form of social organisation which core premise is the centralising authority with a minority group of some kind (selected, elected or otherwise) who excercise a monopoly on decision-making, laws, violence etc.
Not all states.



I just want real liberty, workers emancipation - by our own hands.

Same as all Marxists.
"emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself"



I understand everything here except why using the term 'Proletarian State' is necessary.
Read Lenin's State and Revolution.He explained that much better than I did.

[el_chavista]

Every human being who dares to confront a privileged elite is an anarchist. Vanguardism is a refinement of the class struggle to make revolutionary actions more globally effective.
If socialism (or the DoP) is meant to extinguish the State, so the party will have to fade. And cyclic history would complete a turn when what be left of the revolutionary forces will be the old good anarchists constructing the communist society. It's all dialectic.

[Black Dagger]

Yes. And its purpose is, to maintain the rule of bourgeois through its laws, military and police.Proletarian State, for the time it exist, will do the same for as long as there are reactionary forces that threaten proletarian rule.

Okay, but if we are in the grips of social revolution, the proletarian state has been established and the proletariat is the 'new ruling class' - over whom shall we rule?

The birth of the so-called 'proletarian state' in fact marks the extinction of the bourgeoisie (and proletariat for that matter) as a class, their existence being premised on the existence of capitalist social relations.

So then who will be subject to this 'new ruling class'? That leaves just ordinary people, the workers will have new masters in our name.

There's just a level of ambiguity in this approach - phrases are used like 'we will be the new ruling class' but the meaning of these terms is not really explained. How will the proletariat (now archaic?) rule 'as a class' - will each of us be members in a huge assembly? How is the proletarian state to be organised? Will it have leaders? Central Committees? Who will make the decisions that are to become the official decisions of the proletarian state - based on what authority? If we are to start talking about electing 'representatives' to this 'state' then all we are talking about is government of a fairly familar variety complete with a political caste to represent 'the people'.

Also, if this state is to be the 'proletarian' or peoples state on what basis is it to be abolished? If it is libertarian rather than authoritarian in character, a true expression of proletarian rule then who will abolish it? Not the proletarians! It is 'our' state, a peoples state after all? If we will not be truely free until the 'proleterian state' is abolished then it was never really a 'proletarian state' (or a tool of our liberation) at all, merely a new system of domination set-up and controlled by a minority to control the 'freedom' of the workers (though i suspect a marxist might argue that this negation of freedom is 'necessary' in order to 'properly establish' the conditions of 'real' freedom, communism).


Let me quote Engels, I will bold the important parts

Some beat you to it, i've already replied to these quotes.


Not all states.

Yes, all states. You can't just hijack established terms and concepts and redefine them to make sense of marx' writings, States are premised on the centralising of authority. This does not prevent federalist state systems from functioning for example, where authority is centred on a more regional level - the point is states are the centralising of authority over a particular territory.

If you're talking about 'workers councils' etc. then what you are talking about is anarchist revolution, a system of federations from local to 'national' (in the sense of territory covered rather than any pretension to the maintenance of formal nationhood) level based on recallable delegates. That is not a 'state' system by any means, it's premised on decision-making power that flows from a local level upwards, carried by delegates.

This is the kind of stuff that made Marx go all gaga after the Paris Commune and revise some sections of the communist manifesto (see The Civil War in France). Yet so many marxists still think that the anarchist alternative is some kind of 'overnight' transistion to utopia, when in reality they are just repeating long-held anarchist viewpoints on social revolution, i.e. marx's conclusions after the Paris Commune - that rather than empowering a 'proletarian state', 'the Communes essential principal was that the centralisation of a state had to be replaced by self-government of the producers, by a federation of autonomous communes to which had to be afforded... the initiative hitherto devolved to the State.' The goal of the Commune after all had not been to let the State 'wither away' but to abolish it immediately with no intention of putting another in its place, and to help in the creation of a federation of communes built on the Paris model. That's anarchism baby.

[JohnnyC]

Okay, but if we are in the grips of social revolution, the proletarian state has been established and the proletariat is the 'new ruling class' - over whom shall we rule?
We will rule over those forces who oppose us, such us ex bourgeois and supporters of capitalism. Proletarian state exist only to suppress counter revolution.When there is no resistance any more state will simply wither away.



So then who will be subject to this 'new ruling class'? That leaves just ordinary people, the workers will have new masters in our name.

You seriously don't expect that remaining supporters of capitalism will just give up and accept they're defeated, do you?During the revolutionary period and shortly after there is most likely going to be many attempts of re-establishing capitalism, workers state exist to prevent it.If there are no such attempts, then there is also no need for a state.



How will the proletariat (now archaic?) rule 'as a class' - will each of us be members in a huge assembly? How is the proletarian state to be organised? Will it have leaders? Central Committees? Who will make the decisions that are to become the official decisions of the proletarian state - based on what authority? If we are to start talking about electing 'representatives' to this 'state' then all we are talking about is government of a fairly familar variety complete with a political caste to represent 'the people'.

Let me quote myself:



Worker councils and militias will be controlled by the whole class, not by few elected individuals.Working class will not rule through the same organizations as bourgeois.





Also, if this state is to be the 'proletarian' or peoples state on what basis is it to be abolished?

This shows you don't understand Marxist definition of state.Capitalist state will be abolished immediately, unlike proletarian state which can only wither away when there is no more opposition to workers rule.



merely a new system of domination set-up and controlled by a minority to control the 'freedom' of the workers
This surely can't be proletarian state in any sense.




(though i suspect a marxist might argue that this negation of freedom is 'necessary' in order to 'properly establish' the conditions of 'real' freedom, communism).

Restrictions of freedom is only going to apply to opponents of socialism, if workers decide so.




Yes, all states. You can't just hijack established terms and concepts and redefine them to make sense of marx' writings, States are premised on the centralising of authority. This does not prevent federalist state systems from functioning for example, where authority is centred on a more regional level - the point is states are the centralising of authority over a particular territory.

First of all you are only talking about states that existed so far, and second, what do you think was the reason first state in human history appeared?



If you're talking about 'workers councils' etc. then what you are talking about is anarchist revolution, a system of federations from local to 'national' (in the sense of territory covered rather than any pretension to the maintenance of formal nationhood) level based on recallable delegates. That is not a 'state' system by any means, it's premised on decision-making power that flows from a local level upwards, carried by delegates.

Anarchists are not the only one that fight for workers power, you know. :)
If the job of worker councils and militias is to suppress counter revolutionaries than they are state.When they don't do that anymore they lose their political character, and therefore only administer economy.



Yet so many marxists still think that the anarchist alternative is some kind of 'overnight' transistion to utopia

Maybe there are such Marxists, but I'm not one of them.I fully understand that the whole state problem is just misunderstanding based on different interpretations of the word state, unlike some Anarchists... :rolleyes:



The goal of the Commune after all had not been to let the State 'wither away' but to abolish it immediately with no intention of putting another in its place,

We all want to immediately abolish bourgeois state, don't we...



and to help in the creation of a federation of communes built on the Paris model. That's anarchism baby.

It's not only anarchism. ;)
And those federations of communes would also be the state for as long as they fight against counter revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

We will rule over those forces who oppose us, such us ex bourgeois and supporters of capitalism.
What. Anyways, on the proletariat as ruling class:
"It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."
Also, when it attains "government power", it must forcibly hasten the transformation of "economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive", this requiring "forcible means, hence governmental means." Only, however, so long as "the other classes, especially the capitalist class" still exist.

Unless the bourgeoisie voluntarily give up the means of production, forcible means must be employed, that is, enforcement of collective ownership of the means of production. That is, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." (Bold mine, italics Marx's). Treating the rule of the proletariat as some kind of stage after revolution is bullshit, though 'Marxists' often seem rather eager to do so. After there is no bourgeoisie, then apparently we are to enforce class rule over the ex-bourgeoisie... Who are not a class? The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat lasts only as long as the 'expropriation of the expropriators', that is, revolution. After that, there may be some opposition, sure, but are we to somehow have class rule without classes? Or, if those opposed to socialism (because, face it, the ex-bourgeoisie alone wouldn't be able to do much) are a separate class, then are socialists now a separate class as well? Perhaps anybody who wanted feudalism back would also be a separate class?


Yet so many marxists still think that the anarchist alternative is some kind of 'overnight' transistion to utopia
Apparently, the ICC (or at least the person who wrote their articles on De Leonism) also think that us De Leonists "deny the necessity of a period of transition between capitalism and communism, and, like the anarchists, believe that the state will disappear overnight." Blah. So I can empathize with you here.


If you're talking about 'workers councils' etc. then what you are talking about is anarchist revolution, a system of federations from local to 'national' (in the sense of territory covered rather than any pretension to the maintenance of formal nationhood) level based on recallable delegates.
Not necessarily, actually. Anarchism is against all hierarchal authority, a socialist revolution is not necessarily anarchist. Then again, I'm just nitpicking here, so anyways.


Read Lenin's State and Revolution.He explained that much better than I did.
Eh, that book bored me half to death, but anyways, it does raise more questions than it answers, for example, with statements like this: "In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism and, therefore, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination." I mean, even if he was using the word 'socialism' to refer to the initial phase of communism, there is no state in the initial phase of communism, so what he is talking about is somewhat confusing.


You can't just hijack established terms and concepts and redefine them to make sense of marx' writingsUm, Max Weber was only born in 1864.

[Cynical Observer]

I don't think anarchism will work because i don't trust people enough to govern themselves responsibly, i believe it would desolve into anarcho-capitalism.

[Leo]

There's been lots of discussions on this question around the concept of state. This article attempts to clarify the marxist position on the state: http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648 Bilan made very good points on this question so I don't really have anything more to add except this link.

On the other hand, I actually would like to sort of return to the original question, since I don't think things like the question of the state etc. express the differences in depth, and are often either a result of a very superficial comparison or that of a comparison between degenerated forms of both ideologies. The key difference between marxism and anarchism is the difference of method. While marxists by definition uphold a historical method, anarchists either don't hold anything as such or even if they have some sort of an understanding of a historical method, they do not use it on theoretical/practical questions, disregard it etc. While this might seem to be a more or less minor aspect, it is in my opinion the key one. Using the historical method, marxists managed to form and maintain a dynamic, always drawing lessons from the past, always seeing things not only in what they are but in what they were and what they will or can become. It became a living dynamic, an ever-developing one. Anarchism, on the other hand, due to this lack of method, has always been a more or less static ideology in all its forms, unable to draw historical lessons, unable to prevent the momentary, daily conditions determining the line of thought and action, unable to develop as an ideology, unable to improve itself through series of self-criticisms. All this makes anarchism a very confused ideology. This is the principle difference in my opinion between genuine marxism and all sorts of anarchism. This of course doesn't in any way negate the fact anarchists can be revolutionary internationalists in which case we would work with them, be in the fullest solidarity with them as we are in several different countries. It does on the other hand mean that revolutionary internationalist anarchists walk a thinner line due to all the weaknesses of anarchism, which are what inherently makes anarchism anarchism.