Communist transfer to Statelessness

[Idealism]

So i was reading the communist FAQ, #18: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html
and i see how this would elimanite private property, making the country classless, but how does such country become stateless?

[Matina]

You have to understand the role of the state. The capitalist state is armed bodies of men, for the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.
This state will be replaced with a workers state, a state where the workers through their workers council exert political power. This workers state will be there in order to repress the bourgeoisie. Once the bourgeoisie and other classes start to disappear then the role of the state, as a tool of repression will fade away.

Now you might ask, who will do the administrative functions etc. In a workers state this will be done by workers delegates, elected from the workers and recalable at any time. Also the bureaucratic tasks will rotate. As old Engels said, if everyone is a bureaucrat then no one is a bureaucrat. Another important point is that there would be no army but armed people. This will create workers militias which will enable the workers to hold power and diminish the chances of that power being taken away by the bureaucrats or the reaction.

These were the conditions set by Lenin in his marvelous book, "State and Revolution", which I recommend it, if you wish to understand the mechanics of a workers state.
Also it is obvious that in the Soviet Union, the attempt to create workers democracy failed, as the bureaucracy took over and established a totalitarian political system.

The view that "it will always happen that way" and "communism is impossible etc" is a very idealist view. It does not take into account the objective material conditions, created by backwardness and isolation in the Soviet Union.

I would like to remind you that in the first capitalist revolution, there was a reaction like that. The "Thermidor" which found Bonaparte being the head of State. Does that mean that capitalism (back then) , was impossible? Certainly not. History is not static, nor does it progress in a straight line. It progreses in spirals, with ups and downs. Inevitably though, socialism will prevail, just like capitalism prevailed over feudalism.

But unfortunately capitalism will not fall on its own. There is a need for a revolutionary party, which will guide the proletariat to victory. That is what our duty is as communists.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, I hope this helps.

[Niccolò Rossi]

i see how this would elimanite private property, making the country classless, but how does such country become stateless?

In addition to Trotsky II's post which I think covers a lot there is a very important point he has forgotten.

Your question has a narrow, national context, that is, you ask "how does such country become stateless?" and "i see how this would .... mak[e] the country classless". This is a method completely antithetical to Marxism and communism. From even the time of Marx and Engels it was acknowledged by revolutionaries that it is impossible to build socialism, let alone communism, in a single country or bloc of ****ries. This thruth has been solidly confirmed by history and reaffirmed by all real revolutionaries since. This is explicitly stated in the Communist FAQ itself:


19. Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. In addition to what has been said by Trotsky II on this matter, I think it is useful to quote Engels here in giving a general overview of the theory of the state in post-revolutionary society:


Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organization of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, 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 our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society-the taking possession of the means of production in the name of the state-this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away 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 ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand. - Engles, Anti-Dhuring

[Idealism]

You have to understand the role of the state. The capitalist state is armed bodies of men, for the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.
This state will be replaced with a workers state, a state where the workers through their workers council exert political power. This workers state will be there in order to repress the bourgeoisie. Once the bourgeoisie and other classes start to disappear then the role of the state, as a tool of repression will fade away.

Now you might ask, who will do the administrative functions etc. In a workers state this will be done by workers delegates, elected from the workers and recalable at any time. Also the bureaucratic tasks will rotate. As old Engels said, if everyone is a bureaucrat then no one is a bureaucrat. Another important point is that there would be no army but armed people. This will create workers militias which will enable the workers to hold power and diminish the chances of that power being taken away by the bureaucrats or the reaction.

These were the conditions set by Lenin in his marvelous book, "State and Revolution", which I recommend it, if you wish to understand the mechanics of a workers state.
Also it is obvious that in the Soviet Union, the attempt to create workers democracy failed, as the bureaucracy took over and established a totalitarian political system.

The view that "it will always happen that way" and "communism is impossible etc" is a very idealist view. It does not take into account the objective material conditions, created by backwardness and isolation in the Soviet Union.

I would like to remind you that in the first capitalist revolution, there was a reaction like that. The "Thermidor" which found Bonaparte being the head of State. Does that mean that capitalism (back then) , was impossible? Certainly not. History is not static, nor does it progress in a straight line. It progreses in spirals, with ups and downs. Inevitably though, socialism will prevail, just like capitalism prevailed over feudalism.

But unfortunately capitalism will not fall on its own. There is a need for a revolutionary party, which will guide the proletariat to victory. That is what our duty is as communists.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, I hope this helps.

that did help alot, but has there ever been a successful example of a democratic worker's state?
sorry if thats an ignorant question

[Invincible Summer]

that did help alot, but has there ever been a successful example of a democratic worker's state?
sorry if thats an ignorant question


I would say the closest would have to be Anarchist Spain in 1936.

[Matina]

that did help alot, but has there ever been a successful example of a democratic worker's state?
sorry if thats an ignorant question

That's not an ignorant question at all.
The Soviet Union in fact was the most democratic workers state and in fact the most democratic place in the world following the October Revolution.
Power was held by the workers, through their councils.
Unfortunately due to the extreme backwardness of Russia pre-revolution, combined with the 21 imperialist army invasion and the civil war, the Soviet Union degenerated and a bureaucratic clique took power, with its head being Stalin.

That was the time when the Communist Party and the Comintern, stopped being an agent of world revolution, but became an agent of the Soviet bureaucracy.
this led to the betrayal of many revolutions by the Stalinists, including Indonesia, Greece, China, Spain, France, Germany etc. This further contributed to the strengthening of the bureaucracy due to the Soviet isolation (isolation being a cause of degeneration).

In the countries that the revolutions succeeded, the newly formed government was created in the image of Stalinism and the Soviet bureaucracy, that is Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Germany etc.

But because these conditions of extreme backwardness etc. do not exist today, combined with the irrelevance of Stalinism in the proletarian movement, there is little possibility of having revolutions degenerate like it happened in Russia.

Nevertheless the standard of living of the Soviet Union and all the other "communist" countries was very high compared to the pre-revolution standard of living. The people benefited even by degenerated socialism and their lives were better than today under capitalism, for most of these countries.




I would say the closest would have to be Anarchist Spain in 1936.

Be careful with the term "Anarchist Spain". There was a part of Spain controled by the anarchists (but it was certainly not a classless stateless society, with no scarcity), a part controlled by Franco and the Provisional Government.

To be honest I don't think that Spain as a whole, or even parts of Spain were "Anarchist" although controlled by the anarchists, who latter subordinated themselves to the Provisional Government and the bourgeoisie. Only the Friends of Durutti were revolutionary.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

that did help alot, but has there ever been a successful example of a democratic worker's state?
sorry if thats an ignorant question

Yes. Look up the Paris Commune.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Since when has a classless society needed to be devoid of scarcity in order to exist, as Trotsky II claims?

That would kind of rule out the Paris Commune, though I personally believe the commune is more of a romanticized caricature of its true self these days.

[Idealism]

That's not an ignorant question at all.
The Soviet Union in fact was the most democratic workers state and in fact the most democratic place in the world following the October Revolution.
Power was held by the workers, through their councils.
Unfortunately due to the extreme backwardness of Russia pre-revolution, combined with the 21 imperialist army invasion and the civil war, the Soviet Union degenerated and a bureaucratic clique took power, with its head being Stalin.

That was the time when the Communist Party and the Comintern, stopped being an agent of world revolution, but became an agent of the Soviet bureaucracy.
this led to the betrayal of many revolutions by the Stalinists, including Indonesia, Greece, China, Spain, France, Germany etc. This further contributed to the strengthening of the bureaucracy due to the Soviet isolation (isolation being a cause of degeneration).

In the countries that the revolutions succeeded, the newly formed government was created in the image of Stalinism and the Soviet bureaucracy, that is Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Germany etc.

But because these conditions of extreme backwardness etc. do not exist today, combined with the irrelevance of Stalinism in the proletarian movement, there is little possibility of having revolutions degenerate like it happened in Russia.

Nevertheless the standard of living of the Soviet Union and all the other "communist" countries was very high compared to the pre-revolution standard of living. The people benefited even by degenerated socialism and their lives were better than today under capitalism, for most of these countries.



Be careful with the term "Anarchist Spain". There was a part of Spain controled by the anarchists (but it was certainly not a classless stateless society, with no scarcity), a part controlled by Franco and the Provisional Government.

To be honest I don't think that Spain as a whole, or even parts of Spain were "Anarchist" although controlled by the anarchists, who latter subordinated themselves to the Provisional Government and the bourgeoisie. Only the Friends of Durutti were revolutionary.

im sorry, but i dont understand the concept of "backwardness" or what "isolation" would mean

[Hit The North]

The Paris Commune wasn't a classless society. Neither could it be classed as a "workers state". It only lasted for two months before being drowned in blood by the forces of reaction.


Since when has a classless society needed to be devoid of scarcity in order to exist, as Trotsky II claims?



It is generally assumed by Marxists that a classless society can only flourish at a high level of the development of the forces of production. Therefore, actual scarcity of goods will be overcome by the technical means of production and artificial scarcity will be overcome through the abolition of relations of production and exchange based on the exploitation of one class by another.

[Matina]

im sorry, but i dont understand the concept of "backwardness" or what "isolation" would mean

Russia was very backward before 1917, due to the fact that capitalism had not developed fully (for reasons Trotsky explained in his theory of the permanent revolution, I can go into that if you want).
Due to that 80% of the population was peasants and illiteracy levels were very high. Also Russia did not have a developed industry, therefore its productive capacity was low. For that reason, it was backward, so that backwardness helped its degeneration.

As about isolation, you cannot have socialism in one country. Socialism needs to have a higher productive capacity than capitalism and due to that reason, there are not enough resources in one country in order to establish socialism. Lenin and Trotsky always said that a revolution in Russia, would only be the Spark for international revolution.

Were Lenin and Trotsky wrong? Certainly not. Right after the Russian revolution, we had the German Revolution, the Hungarian revolution, the Chinese revolution etc. But unfortunately due to the betrayal of the Social-Democrats and the inexperience of the communists, these revolutions did not have the leadership needed in order to bring about the overthrow of capitalism.

This isolation further benefited the already established bureaucracy to consolidate itself. So isolation was another reason for degeneration.

I hope this helped.

[Invincible Summer]

Be careful with the term "Anarchist Spain". There was a part of Spain controled by the anarchists (but it was certainly not a classless stateless society, with no scarcity), a part controlled by Franco and the Provisional Government.

I mean to refer to the part that was collectivized by anarchists, obviously.

There has been no "perfect" example of Communism - wholly classless, stateless and without scarcity. So if you're trying to build up points against Spanish Anarchism then it's redundant.


To be honest I don't think that Spain as a whole, or even parts of Spain were "Anarchist" although controlled by the anarchists, who latter subordinated themselves to the Provisional Government and the bourgeoisie. Only the Friends of Durutti were revolutionary.

I don't think that Soviet Russia on a whole was Marxist, although controlled by Marxists.

[Idealism]

Russia was very backward before 1917, due to the fact that capitalism had not developed fully (for reasons Trotsky explained in his theory of the permanent revolution, I can go into that if you want).
Due to that 80% of the population was peasants and illiteracy levels were very high. Also Russia did not have a developed industry, therefore its productive capacity was low. For that reason, it was backward, so that backwardness helped its degeneration.

As about isolation, you cannot have socialism in one country. Socialism needs to have a higher productive capacity than capitalism and due to that reason, there are not enough resources in one country in order to establish socialism. Lenin and Trotsky always said that a revolution in Russia, would only be the Spark for international revolution.

Were Lenin and Trotsky wrong? Certainly not. Right after the Russian revolution, we had the German Revolution, the Hungarian revolution, the Chinese revolution etc. But unfortunately due to the betrayal of the Social-Democrats and the inexperience of the communists, these revolutions did not have the leadership needed in order to bring about the overthrow of capitalism.

This isolation further benefited the already established bureaucracy to consolidate itself. So isolation was another reason for degeneration.

I hope this helped.

i thought where the rest of the revolutions went wrong is that they were copying the soviet's degenerated model?
and i have a question in regards to trotskyism, in the vanguard party, are things directly democracit? are all issues that need to be voted on, voted on? or is it bureaucratic centralism like the stalinists propose in a party?

[Matina]

i thought where the rest of the revolutions went wrong is that they were copying the soviet's degenerated model?

Ya sorry for not being clear. the revolutions before the Communist Party of the Soviet Union degenerated failed due to the betrayals of the social democrats and the inexperience of the communists.

The revolutions after the Communist Party of the Soviet Union degenerated, were betrayed by the Stalinists and the Social-Democrats. Those who succeeded one way or another, had workers states created as an image of the Soviet Bureaucracy.


and i have a question in regards to trotskyism, in the vanguard party, are things directly democracit? are all issues that need to be voted on, voted on? or is it bureaucratic centralism like the stalinists propose in a party?

In a Trotskyist party as far as I know, a Central Committee is voted in by the members of the "branches". The an Executive Committee is voted in by the CC. All of those positions are recalable and of course elected in the first place. To understand how a Party works read what is "Democratic Centralism on wikipedia" , or make a thread about it.

The Party is democratic, but when a decision is democraticaly made, everyone in the party has to follow it. We can't have one person doing one thing and another person doing something else. If that was the case we would be a group of individuals and not a Party.

You have to remember though that a Party is not a socialist society! The Party is the tool we need in order to achieve socialism. Think of it like this. A carpenter uses a saw in order to create a door. The saw is not a door though !

[Matina]

I mean to refer to the part that was collectivized by anarchists, obviously.

There has been no "perfect" example of Communism - wholly classless, stateless and without scarcity. So if you're trying to build up points against Spanish Anarchism then it's redundant.

I'm not trying to build up points against Spanish Anarchism by claiming that Spain wasn't anarchist. I just said that because you mentioned the "Anarchist Spain" which is a wholly contradictory term.
My points against Spanish anarchism are the class collaboration we saw from the FAI/CNT when they joined the capitalist government. I said that only the friends of Durutti were genuine anarchists. That is my critique, not the fact that Spain wasn't anarchist.


I don't think that Soviet Russia on a whole was Marxist, although controlled by Marxists.

I don't want this to end up as a debate between us, but the History of the Soviet Union wasn't homogeneous at all. You can't have this static view of it and associate the early Soviet Union with its opposite, that is the Stalinist carricature. Just like you can't associate the Thermidor in France, with the society followed by the French revolution of 1789. It is simply a ridiculous statement.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Soviet Union in fact was the most democratic workers state and in fact the most democratic place in the world following the October Revolution.
Um, most democratic? Workers only made up about 10% of the population, and bolshie workers even less. Also, when, exactly? During War 'Communism' or the NEP?

[Matina]

Um, most democratic? Workers only made up about 10% of the population, and bolshie workers even less. Also, when, exactly? During War 'Communism' or the NEP?

Why does the percentage of workers matter? The peasants too participated in the democratic process.
During 'war communism' certain freedoms were abolished out of necessity. That or the revolution would have drowned in blood.
Also what objections do you have to the NEP? Can you make another thread about it? I don't think this is an appropriate thread to talk about the NEP or war communism. Please don't derail the conversation.