Capitalism or the State- which one is the greater enemy?

[RedAthena1919]

I personally consider the State to be a far greater enemy than Capitalism itself. Capitalism is quite evil in it's current form, but in the hands of someone like Nietzsche or the LaVeyan Satanists it can be quite radical, and can appeal quite strongly to my sense of misanthropy (I have no illusions- I'm into Social-Anarchy for my own freedom and the survival of the natural world, the benefit to other humans is just a bonus). I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).

[robbo203]

I personally consider the State to be a far greater enemy than Capitalism itself. Capitalism is quite evil in it's current form, but in the hands of someone like Nietzsche or the LaVeyan Satanists it can be quite radical, and can appeal quite strongly to my sense of misanthropy (I have no illusions- I'm into Social-Anarchy for my own freedom and the survival of the natural world, the benefit to other humans is just a bonus). I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).


I think the question is a bit pointless. You can't have capitalism without a state . While you can have a state without capitalism - historically and needless to say, the state preceded capitalism - the modern state is quintessentially a capitalist state (as Fred Engels said). To advocate any kind of role for the state in the modern world is to endorse capitalism - or more specifically, state capitalism.


What we ought to be working towards instead is a stateless communist alternative

[MAVA]

state capitalism

[Misanthrope]

The state is the most vile, barbaric, unnecessary, coercive institution known to man. The state slaughters populations, steals from populations, tortures populations and incarcerates populations all in the name of justice. The state bastardizes any economic system.

What is practiced in America is not an ideal capitalist system, far from it. Capitalism, inherently exploits and enslaves the working population. Both are unnecessary evils and both should be seen as so but I believe the state to be more of an enemy than capitalism. Although, the same people that unjustly benefit from statism also highly benefit from capitalism.


I think the question is a bit pointless. You can't have capitalism without a state . While you can have a state without capitalism - historically and needless to say, the state preceded capitalism - the modern state is quintessentially a capitalist state (as Fred Engels said). To advocate any kind of role for the state in the modern world is to endorse capitalism - or more specifically, state capitalism.


What we ought to be working towards instead is a stateless communist alternative

You can most certainly have capitalism without a state. A stateless society can be based on private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise. You could argue that an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially just the privatization of the state which I don't think you are advocating. A state is a capitalist entity, whenever there is a state, there is a ruling social class and there is tyranny, socialism and the state are contradictory imo.

[ZeroNowhere]

They are inseparable, if by 'the state' you mean the modern state. The modern state is, of course, the capitalist state, and its actions correspond to the social system in which it is situated. You can get rid of the state as it is at the moment, but if you maintain capitalism all you're doing is changing the form of the state. And, of course, if you reform capitalism you're just reforming capitalism. If you abolish capitalism, the state disappears.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This question is like what do you hate more about being shot - the bullet or the gunpowder. Capitalism without the state can not exists and what's the point of a capitalist state without capitalism?

[Misanthrope]

This question is like what do you hate more about being shot - the bullet or the gunpowder. Capitalism without the state can not exists and what's the point of a capitalist state without capitalism?

I'm new to this forum, sorry if this post is considered taboo or off-topic.

Have you ever considered the theory of anarcho-capitalism? Where all the necessary government services are provided by private industry.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You can most certainly have capitalism without a state. A stateless society can be based on private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise. You could argue that an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially just the privatization of the state which I don't think you are advocating. A state is a capitalist entity, whenever there is a state, there is a ruling social class and there is tyranny, socialism and the state are contradictory imo.

That would be the best capitalism ever!

My new One Act Play

My landlord: pay your rent.

Me: No.

My Landlord: Ok, I'll pay a bunch thugs to kick you out.

Me: I'll get guns and my friends to stop them.

My landlord: Just try it.

Me: Ok.

(Class war ensues and if the landlords win they'll be sure to set up some kind of system for enforcing their rules about private property (i.e. a state). If we win, then why go back to work for the capitalists, why not keep pushing until we have worker's power?)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm new to this forum, sorry if this post is considered taboo or off-topic.

Have you ever considered the theory of anarcho-capitalism? Where all the necessary government services are provided by private industry.

We more or less had that - think private Fire protection in the 1800s or private healthcare today. In general, capitalists decided that that does not suit their needs - they need a state for police to stop uprisings and property theft and a military to open up trade routes and get resources and so on. Even capitalist countries that do not have a large military rely on the US military to protect their status quo.

"States" are the results of certain classes of people needing to promote a certain kind of social order. The working class ultimately does not need a state because once the capitalists have no power over us and production is done democratically, we, as workers, have no need to exploit any other groups to produce goods.

[Misanthrope]

That would be the best capitalism ever!

My new One Act Play

My landlord: pay your rent.

Me: No.

My Landlord: Ok, I'll pay a bunch thugs to kick you out.

Me: I'll get guns and my friends to stop them.

My landlord: Just try it.

Me: Ok.

(Class war ensues and if the landlords win they'll be sure to set up some kind of system for enforcing their rules about private property (i.e. a state). If we win, then why go back to work for the capitalists, why not keep pushing until we have worker's power?)

I'm sure the anarcho-capitalist would then say that this dispute would be settled by a private court. There must have been a contract between you and your land lord so inevitably you would have to pay the land lord the amount of currency you voluntarily agreed upon. If you choose not to pay the land lord you will suffer the consequences of a bad credit report and crime report and a bad reputation, you will have trouble finding a new apartment I would say.

I do agree though, the state's only purpose is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority. (to quote James Madison)

[Il Medico]

I personally consider the State to be a far greater enemy than Capitalism itself. Capitalism is quite evil in it's current form, but in the hands of someone like Nietzsche or the LaVeyan Satanists it can be quite radical, and can appeal quite strongly to my sense of misanthropy (I have no illusions- I'm into Social-Anarchy for my own freedom and the survival of the natural world, the benefit to other humans is just a bonus). I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).
Well it depends on what you mean by State. If you mean a form of government, then Capitalism is far worse. Their will be a temporary state after the revolution called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat" or basically a modified form of Athenian Democracy (direct democracy). However, if you mean nation states, then it is a closer matter. Nation states are a product of capitalism, but is also it's means of survival. Capitalism has evolved with the nation state. When capitalism first began to emerge and the bourgeois overthrew the nobility, the governments at the time were semi-feudalistic. The basis of power had rested in the concept of 'divine right'. However, having overthrown this justification for the upper class the bourgeois promoted the idea of nationalism. This assured division among the proletariat and allowed the bourgeois to legitimize their rule. As capitalism evolved the most developed nation states started to abandon a production based economy (exploitation of one's own proletariat) to a consumer based economy. Consumer economies require imperialism, so that the non-producing nation state's economy can be supported by the plunder of the producing nation state. This imperialism is as Lenin said "The highest form of capitalism". Thus the state (nation state) is not only the 'life-support' of capitalism and it's legitimization, but also it's greatest tool in the oppression of the world wide proletariat. Both are equally 'evil' and both will be overthrown by the revolution.

Love,
Captain Jack

[Kassad]

The term state does not have one solid definition. Broadly speaking, there is the bourgeois state; the capitalist state of exploitation and imperialism and there is the workers state; a state based on human needs where the proletarian class is emancipated from the shackles of exploitation. The 'state' is not inherently evil, but of course, Anarchists are going to dispute that.

[Il Medico]

The term state does not have one solid definition. Broadly speaking, there is the bourgeois state; the capitalist state of exploitation and imperialism and there is the workers state; a state based on human needs where the proletarian class is emancipated from the shackles of exploitation. The 'state' is not inherently evil, but of course, Anarchists are going to dispute that.
This I find very agreeable. However, I am curious to know if Marxist-Leninist stay true to the Marxist concept of the workers state only being temporary? A necessity to build a workers society to a point were the state is no longer needed.

[New Tet]

I'm a little surprised that no one here has, as of yet, mentioned what Marx said about the state. He said, and I'll paraphrase, that the modern political state is the executive committee of the class that controls the economy.

You can no more hate the state than the economic system that supports it.

That said, the only way we can overthrow the tyranny of capitalism and its political adjunct is to adopt a two-pronged strategy that channels in the same direction the political and economic might of the working class in its struggle for emancipation.

Karl Marx told me so, and Daniel De Leon (http://www.slp.org/De_Leon.htm) repeated it (in its simplest form for dumb-asses like me).

[robbo203]

You can most certainly have capitalism without a state. A stateless society can be based on private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise. You could argue that an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially just the privatization of the state which I don't think you are advocating. A state is a capitalist entity, whenever there is a state, there is a ruling social class and there is tyranny, socialism and the state are contradictory imo.

Yes I agree that socialism and the state are contradictory. However capitalism without a state is not possible. In principle, a free enterprise version may in itself appear to dispense with the need for a state
but in practice free enterpeise necessarily operates within geopolitical context of the nation state that is a construct of capitalism. There is not a square inch of the the global capitalism that does not come under or threatens to come under, the jurisdication of some state or even statelet, Somalia included (a favoured example used by some anarcho-caps). If it ever happened that you could have a practicing free enterprise system independent of any any kind of state encompassment (if not direct penetration it would simply amount to a vacuum that would be speedily filled. Capitalism like nature abhors a vacuum

[robbo203]

The term state does not have one solid definition. Broadly speaking, there is the bourgeois state; the capitalist state of exploitation and imperialism and there is the workers state; a state based on human needs where the proletarian class is emancipated from the shackles of exploitation. The 'state' is not inherently evil, but of course, Anarchists are going to dispute that.


The "workers state" you talk of is a complete impossibility. By definition the working class is the exploited class in capitalism. How is it possible for the exploited class to assume control of the state and yet permit its continued exploitation? If it frees itself from the shackles of exploitation then - again by defintion - it no longer exists as the working class in which case there cannot be a "workers state". Elementary Mr Watson!

[New Tet]

The "workers state" you talk of is a complete impossibility. By definition the working class is the exploited class in capitalism. How is it possible for the exploited class to assume control of the state and yet permit its continued exploitation? If it frees itself from the shackles of exploitation then - again by defintion - it no longer exists as the working class in which case there cannot be a "workers state". Elementary Mr Watson!

In The Civil War In France (The Paris Commune), Mar[x] pointed out:
But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)

[Jimmie Higgins]

How does a worker's state exist? Well, for example: workers take over factories, they decide things collectively in regards to that work site. they still need to coordinate with other work sites and so they elect a representative to meet with other work and community representatives who get together and make sure power still gets to the factory commune in one part of the city and shops can still get food to feed people. This organization would be a state.


How is it possible for the exploited class to assume control of the state and yet permit its continued exploitation? If it frees itself from the shackles of exploitation then - again by defintion - it no longer exists as the working class in which case there cannot be a "workers state". Elementary Mr Watson!

So in your version of a revolution, the bourgeois disappear, shop-keepers disappear, Homeless disappear?

There will still be different classes when the working class is on top, the point is that they do not need to exploit others, they can decide things collectively and divide up shit-work and so on. Since workers don't need to exploit other groups then their goal (unlike any other ruling class in history) will be to bring everyone into the ruling (working) class. Capitalists have an interest in keeping a large powerless labor force as did Stalinist bureaucrats - but there's nothing in it for workers, so the goal would be to make thing better for all workers as fast as we can.

[LinusRed]

Well I am no anarchist, far from it actually... So I'd say Capitalism is worse.

[obsolete discourse]

There will still be different classes when the working class is on top, the point is that they do not need to exploit others, they can decide things collectively and divide up shit-work and so on.There is no communism with the state. There is no revolution unless the working class abolishes itself. Communism is the embodied potentiality of the proletariat. The proletariat can only manifest this potentiality as a rupture with being and time--the being of being-proletarian who is structured by the time of capitalist time (history).


Since workers don't need to exploit other groups then their goal (unlike any other ruling class in history) will be to bring everyone into the ruling (working) class. You are laying out the original objective of fascist revolution through "corporativismo", as declared by Benito Mussolini. Mussolini become politically active in the revolutionary syndicalist movement and recognized the state and capitalism as road blocks to (fascist) utopia, and concluded in a particularly Hegelian (and Marxian) fashion that only a synthesis of the state and capitalism could abolish both. It was thus, that fascism developed its program to abolish the state by embodying it in every aspect of society. Everything in Italy during the reign of fascism was organized as corporations of the state (from unions, to police, to the butchers shop). There can be no synthesis. There can be no inclussion. The only method of communist revolution is dissolution.

[yuon]

You can most certainly have capitalism without a state. A stateless society can be based on private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise. You could argue that an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially just the privatization of the state which I don't think you are advocating. A state is a capitalist entity, whenever there is a state, there is a ruling social class and there is tyranny, socialism and the state are contradictory imo.
Anarcho-capitalism is no anarchism at all, due to the hierarchy inherent in it. As others have pointed out, a "state" will arise if you try and have the social and economic structure of capitalism without a state.

Once the workers have abolished the state though, why would they bother to keep around the oppressive social and economic system of capitalism? They won't.


They are inseparable, if by 'the state' you mean the modern state. The modern state is, of course, the capitalist state, and its actions correspond to the social system in which it is situated. You can get rid of the state as it is at the moment, but if you maintain capitalism all you're doing is changing the form of the state. And, of course, if you reform capitalism you're just reforming capitalism. If you abolish capitalism, the state disappears.
Others have "abolished capitalism", but failed to notice that states exist without capitalism. States are simply a structure with a means to enforce the existence of that structure (the military). Is not Cuba a state without capitalism?

I fear that your analysis is overly simplistic (though I admit, so might mine be...).


This question is like what do you hate more about being shot - the bullet or the gunpowder. Capitalism without the state can not exists and what's the point of a capitalist state without capitalism?
You can have states that aren't capitalist states though, I would direct you to North Korea for example. Or, maybe, Cuba?

And, if capitalism can not exist without a state, surely you can destroy the state, and watch capitalism crumble with out it's defender? And thus the state is the worse enemy?


Well I am no anarchist, far from it actually... So I'd say Capitalism is worse.
Oh, so simply because you aren't an anarchist you think that capitalism is far worse? Surely you have more to your argument than that...

[robbo203]

How does a worker's state exist? Well, for example: workers take over factories, they decide things collectively in regards to that work site. they still need to coordinate with other work sites and so they elect a representative to meet with other work and community representatives who get together and make sure power still gets to the factory commune in one part of the city and shops can still get food to feed people. This organization would be a state..

What you are talking about is an administration, not a state. Of course there would be admoinistration and coordination in a communist society but there wouldnt be a statist form of adminsitration. A state is a social institution rooted in class society. A classless communist society can only be a stateless society. If a state still exists it aint communism




So in your version of a revolution, the bourgeois disappear, shop-keepers disappear, Homeless disappear?

There will still be different classes when the working class is on top, the point is that they do not need to exploit others, they can decide things collectively and divide up shit-work and so on. Since workers don't need to exploit other groups then their goal (unlike any other ruling class in history) will be to bring everyone into the ruling (working) class. Capitalists have an interest in keeping a large powerless labor force as did Stalinist bureaucrats - but there's nothing in it for workers, so the goal would be to make thing better for all workers as fast as we can.

No this is all based on a quite false premiss. Classes are collectivities that have a particular relationship to the means of production. Necessarily the relationship between classes is antagonistic since their interests are divergent and opposed. The very existence of a working class means that you have a class that is exploited and therefore logically another class that exploits it. Like Marx said wage labour and capital condition each other . They call forth each other. They are two sides of the same coin.

The working class is defined by the very fact that it the exploited class in capitalism. It is illogical to say that once the working class make themsleves the ruling class there will be no more exploitation. There will only be no more exploiation if and when all classes disappear. Similarly , it is not sensible to say that "since workers don't need to exploit other groups then their goal (unlike any other ruling class in history) will be to bring everyone into the ruling (working) class". If everyone is in the ruling class who is it going to rule over?

[Jimmie Higgins]

What you are talking about is an administration, not a state. Of course there would be admoinistration and coordination in a communist society but there wouldnt be a statist form of adminsitration. A state is a social institution rooted in class society. A classless communist society can only be a stateless society. If a state still exists it aint communism

No this is all based on a quite false premiss. Classes are collectivities that have a particular relationship to the means of production. Necessarily the relationship between classes is antagonistic since their interests are divergent and opposed. The very existence of a working class means that you have a class that is exploited and therefore logically another class that exploits it. Like Marx said wage labour and capital condition each other . They call forth each other. They are two sides of the same coin.

The working class is defined by the very fact that it the exploited class in capitalism. It is illogical to say that once the working class make themsleves the ruling class there will be no more exploitation. There will only be no more exploiation if and when all classes disappear. Similarly , it is not sensible to say that "since workers don't need to exploit other groups then their goal (unlike any other ruling class in history) will be to bring everyone into the ruling (working) class". If everyone is in the ruling class who is it going to rule over?

I'm not talking about communism, I'm talking about socialism: a democratic worker's state immediately following a revolution. I believe socialism is necessary before communism for the working class to improve production and establish it's hegemony over the other temporarily existing classes. Capitalism did not overcome Feudalism like the dawn overcomes the night, it was a long process and remnants of feudalism persisted for a long time before capitalist hegemony was firmly rooted. It should take a lot less time for workers since it is the majority coming to power rather than one minority ruling class replacing an older minority ruling class.

"If everyone is in the ruling class who is it going to rule over?" that's the damn point! Going from a worker's state to communism! Since a working class that becomes a ruling class after the revolution, as they bring other groups (in some countries the renaming peasantry in many countries the middle class and small business owners) there will be less need for a state because class distinctions are disappearing!

[robbo203]

I'm not talking about communism, I'm talking about socialism: a democratic worker's state immediately following a revolution. I believe socialism is necessary before communism for the working class to improve production and establish it's hegemony over the other temporarily existing classes. Capitalism did not overcome Feudalism like the dawn overcomes the night, it was a long process and remnants of feudalism persisted for a long time before capitalist hegemony was firmly rooted. It should take a lot less time for workers since it is the majority coming to power rather than one minority ruling class replacing an older minority ruling class.

"If everyone is in the ruling class who is it going to rule over?" that's the damn point! Going from a worker's state to communism! Since a working class that becomes a ruling class after the revolution, as they bring other groups (in some countries the renaming peasantry in many countries the middle class and small business owners) there will be less need for a state because class distinctions are disappearing!

Pendantically speaking socialism and communism are synonyms not different kinds of society in the marxian schema. But that aside, the more important point you make or appear to making is that there is still going be a time period of some length - shorter admittedly than the transition from feudalism to capitalism but a time period neverthless - in which something called a workers state will prevail. It is precisely this that I am questioning. A workers state means the existence of a working class and therefore a capitalist class that exploits the working class since that is the definition of what is meant by a capitalist class. Just as what is meant by the working class is the class in capitalism that is exploited. But this self-same exploited class according to you is supposed to be in control of the state and yet somehow will consent to continue being exploited. To me this makes absolutely no sense at all.

I dont have a serious problem with the idea of the workers capturing the state. Thats fine. But the problem is what happens then. The notion of a workers state suggests the prolongation of capitalist relations of production after the seizure of power by the workers. That is hugely problematic. Any genuine socialist revolution must entail that the seizure of state power goes hand in hand with the abolition of classes at the same time. Otherwise you are still left with capitalism which means a socialist revolution has still to happen. There cannot really be in any meaningful sense a transition period after this seizure. Like Marx and Engels, said communism is the most radical rupture with traditional property relationships. It is not something that be can phased in Fabian style

If there is a transition I would argue it makes much more sense to talk about it being BEFORE and not after the seizure of political power. What is the point of a transition period anyway. According to yous it is becuase the working class needs to "improve production and establish it's hegemony over the other temporarily existing classes". But we dont need to imporve production- the productive potential for communism has been around for yonks and the growth of the socialist movement culminating in the capture of political amounts to the establishment of working class hegemony anyway. So there is no reason to prolong capitalism existence any more in the form of a so called workers state when the capture of the state by the workers presupposes the preconditions for abolishing capitalism outright have already been met

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let's be clear: I am not saying "take over the existing capitalist state" I am talking about a workers state probably run through worker's councils based in factories. It is a totally different state just as a parliamentary government is totally different than a feudal mini-kingdom.

Where do I say that I want to keep capitalist realtions? You seem to think I want a Stalinist beurocracy or a reformist Social Democracy with a parlement or something - I want nothing of the sort.

Ok, fine they're "Not workers" in the sense of the Proletariat in capitalist in that they are not being exploited by the capitalists any more. At any rate the revolutionary-working- people-who-now-have-control-over-production-in-a-democratic-fasion, will have to create hegemony and bring the other non-laborers into the working class thereby eliminating class divisions and creating classless stateless communism.

The revolutionary workers who were once prolitariet under capitalist social relations will have to work together to hammer things out if only for the sake that capitalism is so wasteful. People will have to be given acess to education, some jobs will be more necissary while other jobs like building warships or selling products to stores.

Fabianism... captureing the Capitalist State... I never said any of this. If your comments are sincere I apologize for what I'm about to say... but with all the semantic and straw-man arguments, it feels like you are trying really hard to fit what I am saying into your preconcieved idea of what my politics are. If this is the case, save us both some time and simply resort to calling me an "authoritarian".

Let's clear things up: you want to get rid of the capitalist state and arrive instantly at a classless society.

1. What do you do with all the non-prolitariet? How do you ensure that they see themselves as better under this new society? You can't simply decree classes are gone - you can take the means of production away from the capitalists and that's obviously the first thing. But what about small business people and professionals who do not hire workers or run a family shop? What about homeless people - how do you ensure that the ones that are just disadvantage can get jobs and homes and the ones with health or substance problems can get help - who determines this? How do you organize to make sure that people who need jobs can find them and be placed in them or get training if they need it?

2. Is production already perfected in capitalism? Capitalism provides the potential to feed the world, but it also is not set up to because it is only set up to make profits. After a revolution a lot of things will be easy for workers to just take over and hit the ground running. A lot of other things will take a lot of organizing and rebuilding. It might be fine to place homeless people in empty office buildings in the short-term, but eventually people will want to have a nicer place with better plumming and other things an empty office space can not provide.

3. Because capitalism produces so much inequality a lot of coordination will have to hapen to make up for differences between tradditionally poor areas and wealth areas. How do we handle education for example - we would need to make sure that education is rebuild totally differently to meet our new needs. This can not be done locally unless you want crappy schools in poor areas to persist.

There are going to be a lot of things that need a lot of coordination and can't be handled locally from induvidual work places and communities. Just as the capitalist state is a place for collective decision making of the capitalist class, there will need to be a worker's state which (while totally different) will also be a place for collective decision making of the (former) working class.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I believe that they are equally evil and work together to spread their evil like when the government topples dictators so oil companies can take the oil and when u.s. capitalists do huge p.r. missions that make the U.S. as a whole look good.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You can have states that aren't capitalist states though, I would direct you to North Korea for example. Or, maybe, Cuba? True, but I specifically said capitalists state since comparing capitalism and a Stalinist state or a feudal state is like comparing apples and oranges. North Korea is a Stalinist state and is state-capitalist, so even though it doesn't have capitalism, it still has a system of exploitation. But this is part of my point, you can not separate the system and the state that they system has built.


And, if capitalism can not exist without a state, surely you can destroy the state, and watch capitalism crumble with out it's defender? And thus the state is the worse enemy? You can always destroy the capitalist state (not that it's easy) but that doesn't make communism/anarchy. Capitalist states fall all the time, but since capitalism remains, the capitalist ruling class simply replaces the fallen state with a new capitalists state - usually through the broken elemints of the old state... like a military dictatorship.

But in a way, I agree with what you are saying. A sucsessful worker's revolution in my view will have to disable the capitalist state in order to take over the means of production. But the worse enemy is not the pitbull (the state) it's the one who sends the pitbull after you (capitalism).

[robbo203]

Let's be clear: I am not saying "take over the existing capitalist state" I am talking about a workers state probably run through worker's councils based in factories. It is a totally different state just as a parliamentary government is totally different than a feudal mini-kingdom.

Where do I say that I want to keep capitalist realtions? You seem to think I want a Stalinist beurocracy or a reformist Social Democracy with a parlement or something - I want nothing of the sort

Ok, fine they're "Not workers" in the sense of the Proletariat in capitalist in that they are not being exploited by the capitalists any more. At any rate the revolutionary-working- people-who-now-have-control-over-production-in-a-democratic-fasion, will have to create hegemony and bring the other non-laborers into the working class thereby eliminating class divisions and creating classless stateless communism. .

Well Ok youve qualified your remarks so it is a little clearer what you are driving at. But even so, why do you call these people working class? You ask "Where do I say that I want to keep capitalist relations"? The answer is that it is implied in the very existence of a working class. Working class is an economic category relating to capitalism. Therefore, your comments imply the continuation of capitalist relations. Why dont you just call these people , the people or the public - rather than workers or working class. That would make it much clearer that you do not intend for there to be continuation of capitalist relations in this situation.

Unfortunately, the problem does not end there. You talk about this being a "workers state". Then you go on to talk about the workers creating "classless stateless communism". Now anyone familiar with Marxian theory will know that a state is social institution grounded in class divided societies. So a workers state necessarily implies a class based society and hence also classes even if the long term intent is to get rid of classes and the state. And that is precisely the problem. There is a very real risk that a so called workers state will imperceptibly return to being just a normal capitalist state. Becuase capitalism (which will continue under a workers state) cannot be run in the interests of workers will necessarily be run against those interests and the agency that will have to do that is none other than the ..."workers state"




Fabianism... captureing the Capitalist State... I never said any of this. If your comments are sincere I apologize for what I'm about to say... but with all the semantic and straw-man arguments, it feels like you are trying really hard to fit what I am saying into your preconcieved idea of what my politics are. If this is the case, save us both some time and simply resort to calling me an "authoritarian"..

No I dont wish to prejudge you by calling you authoritarian. I am not having a go at you personally. It would be presumptuous of me even to attempt that. I dont know you and you dont know me. All I am concerned with is what youve written which with all due respect appears to me to be illogical for the reasons stated


Let's clear things up: you want to get rid of the capitalist state and arrive instantly at a classless society.

1. What do you do with all the non-prolitariet? How do you ensure that they see themselves as better under this new society? You can't simply decree classes are gone - you can take the means of production away from the capitalists and that's obviously the first thing. But what about small business people and professionals who do not hire workers or run a family shop? What about homeless people - how do you ensure that the ones that are just disadvantage can get jobs and homes and the ones with health or substance problems can get help - who determines this? How do you organize to make sure that people who need jobs can find them and be placed in them or get training if they need it?"..

I am not quite sure if we are talking about the same thing here. For me communism is a society in which goods and services are made freely available at the point of distribution and all labour is performed on a voluntary basis. There is no more economic exchange of any kind. Exchange phenomena such as markets, wage labour, employers, money and so on will completely disappear from communism. Some of your comments seem to imply the persistence of "employment" in communuism - your reference to "jobs" for example. There will not be any "jobs" in the sense that we understand it today. Nobody will be working for an employer becuase there will be no employer or for that matter, employees - just free men and women cooperating to produce for their individual and social needs


2. Is production already perfected in capitalism? Capitalism provides the potential to feed the world, but it also is not set up to because it is only set up to make profits. After a revolution a lot of things will be easy for workers to just take over and hit the ground running. A lot of other things will take a lot of organizing and rebuilding. It might be fine to place homeless people in empty office buildings in the short-term, but eventually people will want to have a nicer place with better plumming and other things an empty office space can not provide...

Of course but remember even today under capitalism there are literally millions of empty homes, let alone offices. In Spain where I live there are reckoned to be something like 3 million empty homes and yet you have migrant workers having to live in plastic greenhouses along the coast between Almeria and Adra. The productive potential for a future communist society is literally oozing everwhere through the very pores of this system. Masses of food are wasted , dumped , becuase the market demand is not there. Ive seen tonnes of cherry tomatoes dumped in dry river beds near where I live. Most of the work done in capitalism today is related to purely monetary matters - from bankers to ship till assistants to social security personnel and a thousand and one other kinds of useless work. All this will disappear instantly in a communist society releasing masses of labour and resoruces for useful work



3. Because capitalism produces so much inequality a lot of coordination will have to hapen to make up for differences between tradditionally poor areas and wealth areas. How do we handle education for example - we would need to make sure that education is rebuild totally differently to meet our new needs. This can not be done locally unless you want crappy schools in poor areas to persist.

There are going to be a lot of things that need a lot of coordination and can't be handled locally from induvidual work places and communities. Just as the capitalist state is a place for collective decision making of the capitalist class, there will need to be a worker's state which (while totally different) will also be a place for collective decision making of the (former) working class.

Well you see I think the term workers state is totally inappropriate for the reason that any kind of "state" is incompatible with communism or socialism. Administration is not the same thing as running a state. But I understand the point you are driving at - there needs to large scale coordination. Yes up to a point. But production will be organoised at many different levels from large scale right through to small scale. Planning in that sense will be a multi-tiered process not just large scale. There are very definite limits as to how far you can centralise decisionmaking as I have explained elsewhere on this list

[Jimmie Higgins]

Have you read much engels - I would suggest reading some of his writings: "ThOrigin of the Family, Private Property and the State" comes to mind.

You have a very ridged view of the state - you seem to think that all states are not connected to the needs of the rulers of the society. Instead, the state seems to you to be an automatically authoritarian and in the interest of a minority and so you try to fit all history and societies into this view - I believe this is why you need to make semantic arguments such as "it's administration, but not a state". An administrative body is a state!

Capitalist, Stalinist, and Feudal states are necessarily authoritarian and brutal because these states are tools for imposing the minority ruling class's will on the rest of society.

Ok, one more time. There is no state in Communism - this is the goal. The period of Socialism (not as a synonym for Communism) is the period after a revolution where the working class - or those who were the working class have to make up for all the failings of capitalism - education, housing, health care, inequality and so on. There is no state in communism, but the question is how do we get there. If you get rid of the state in capitalism and don't replace it with a worker's state, then the small business people, unemployed and all the other smaller classes - what do they do? They still exist and so we still have to make them become part of the working class - thus eliminating class difference and allowing stateless communism.

This, going from capitalism to communism will take a great effort and can not be done without a lot of organization. This is administration and I call it a state and the transition I call Socialism: worker's rule.

Now, let me ask you some questions:

1. How did the state come about since you believe it is a separate entity from class forces in society. Just some bastards decided to oppress some people one day for no reason?

2. Why did the French Revolution happen? Why did the English revolution happen? Why did these revolutionaries have to get rid of the old state? Why not just keep a King or make yourself a King?

3. States fall appart all the time - why didn't the fall of the USSR cause communism? Workers took over factories and got rid of the President in Argentina, why no communism then?

[robbo203]

Have you read much engels - I would suggest reading some of his writings: "ThOrigin of the Family, Private Property and the State" comes to mind.

You have a very ridged view of the state - you seem to think that all states are not connected to the needs of the rulers of the society. Instead, the state seems to you to be an automatically authoritarian and in the interest of a minority and so you try to fit all history and societies into this view - I believe this is why you need to make semantic arguments such as "it's administration, but not a state". An administrative body is a state!

Capitalist, Stalinist, and Feudal states are necessarily authoritarian and brutal because these states are tools for imposing the minority ruling class's will on the rest of society.

Yes I have read Engels book, as it happens, and if anything it substantiates the claim that the state is a product of class society and the tool by which a minority ruling class imposes its will on the majority. Show me a single instance in history where a state is NOT authoritarian and does NOT involve the imposition of the will of the minority on the majority. The very insertion of the state into a class based mode of production - classical antiquity, feudal or capitalist - inevitably means it sides with interests of the ruling minority class. Its a load of liberal tosh that the state can ever be "neutral" . Engels said the modern state no matter what its form is a capitalist state. This would apply equally to the so called workers state which despite its good intentions, would sooner or later reveal its capitalist nature

Adminstration is NOT the same thing as a state. Since you mentioned Engels here is another quote from him
'The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things " (Socialism Utopian and Scientific).

All swans are birds but not all birds are swans. All states are administrations but not all administrations are states!



Ok, one more time. There is no state in Communism - this is the goal. The period of Socialism (not as a synonym for Communism) is the period after a revolution where the working class - or those who were the working class have to make up for all the failings of capitalism - education, housing, health care, inequality and so on. There is no state in communism, but the question is how do we get there. If you get rid of the state in capitalism and don't replace it with a worker's state, then the small business people, unemployed and all the other smaller classes - what do they do? They still exist and so we still have to make them become part of the working class - thus eliminating class difference and allowing stateless communism.

Well you are adopting a leninist terminology in saying socialism is not synonymous with communism. I am not a leninist and dont go along with the Leninist take on socialism. But this is a secondary matter. You statement above reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. I am not proposing to get "rid of the state in capitalism". I am proposing to get rid of the state and capitalism becuase I hold that the two are inextricably intertwined. Again I cannot understand the logic behind your remarks about the "other classes" in society - like the unemployed - which you say need to be made part of the working class. This is misleading anyway because the unemployed ARE part of the working class as are most small shopkeepers (who are effectively mutifariously employed as agents of the big distributions companies, selling their wares in their little shops)




Now, let me ask you some questions:

1. How did the state come about since you believe it is a separate entity from class forces in society. Just some bastards decided to oppress some people one day for no reason?

I dont believe the state is a separate entity fromthe class forces in society. On the contrary, I have been at pains to point out to you that its is a product of class society and implies a class divided society. I am truly baffled by your comment



2. Why did the French Revolution happen? Why did the English revolution happen? Why did these revolutionaries have to get rid of the old state? Why not just keep a King or make yourself a King?

These capitalist revolutions like the capitalist revolution in Russia 1917 undertaken by the Bosheviks, basically happened as a result of the growing antagonism between two very different different modes of production - the Ancien regime and the bourgeois system of production. Of course this is to simplify the process drastically but it says in a nutshell what happened



3. States fall apart all the time - why didn't the fall of the USSR cause communism? Workers took over factories and got rid of the President in Argentina, why no communism then?

Becuase there was no widespread support for or understanding of communism without which you simply cannot have communism. QED. And also in Russia´s case, becuase the Russian economy was so backward and undeveloped, not to mention plagued by problems of a devastating war and famine, that there simply was not the infrastrucutre to sustain a communist society even if the people (the vast bulk of whom were not workers but peasants) wanted it

[Manifesto]

Both are pretty great enemies but if I had to choose which was more evil it would probably be Capitalism because they only do things to protect their own interests.

[Manifesto]

But then again same can be said for the State.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes I have read Engels book, as it happens, and if anything it substantiates the claim that the state is a product of class society and the tool by which a minority ruling class imposes its will on the majority.Exactly. So why is the "tool" automatically evil? Wouldn't a "state" be necessary for a majority ruling class to protect itself from the remains of the capitalist class? Since the working class the majority and does not need to exploit other classes for production, it would not need to exploit others or have repressive measure to enforce its own rule on itself.

The state is the tool of whatever class is on top, therefore, those minority classes, not some abstract notion of the state is the real enemy. It's like saying that all hammers are weapons because a thug hit someone on the head with a hammer. A democratic "state" made up of worker's councils is not the same as the modern (capitalist/state-capitalist) state which - as you rightly point out is the tool of a minority class enforcing it's order on the rest of us.


Show me a single instance in history where a state is NOT authoritarian and does NOT involve the imposition of the will of the minority on the majority.Show me an instance where the ruling class is the majority - i.e. workers. Capitalist states are not so oppressive if you are a capitalist!


The very insertion of the state into a class based mode of production - classical antiquity, feudal or capitalist - inevitably means it sides with interests of the ruling minority class. Its a load of liberal tosh that the state can ever be "neutral" . Engels said the modern state no matter what its form is a capitalist state.[[quote]The important word is "modern" so he would be speaking about Bonapartist, Republic, Parlementary, or Bizmakian. WHat is the context of this quote - was he, for example, talking about how the exsisting state can't be reformed into a tool of the working class? I agree with that since the modern state is formed to protect capitalist relations and interests.
[quote]This would apply equally to the so called workers state which despite its good intentions, would sooner or later reveal its capitalist naturePlease explain. Why do you assume it is inevitably and inherently capitalist and inherently a minority? You need to explain what the mechanisms are that cause this - saying it doesn't make it so. Again a democratic system based on councils from worker-controlled workplaces would mean a "ruling class" that is the vast majority of people. It would form new ways of administration to suit the needs of the working class. As class distinctions are done away with, the state itself would no longer be needed.


You statement above reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. I am not proposing to get "rid of the state in capitalism". I am proposing to get rid of the state and capitalism becuase I hold that the two are inextricably intertwined.No argument here - I'm sorry I misunderstood your position because this is my exact position - you can't get rid of the capitalist state without getting rid of capitalism and visa versa. Therefore the "state" is not the ultimate enemy, the exploiting minority ruling class is.


Again I cannot understand the logic behind your remarks about the "other classes" in society - like the unemployed - which you say need to be made part of the working class. This is misleading anyway because the unemployed ARE part of the working class as are most small shopkeepers (who are effectively mutifariously employed as agents of the big distributions companies, selling their wares in their little shops)You go on and on about the relationship to production defining class, and then you completely throw it out here. Unless you are advocating imprisioning or killing all people who are not connected to production in the same way as the working class in order to get rid of class distinctions, the revolutionary workers will have to figure out what to do with people who are not onnected to production in the same way as the working class. Personally, I think that kicking all small shop-owners or private doctors or contractors out of their shops and fishing boats and so on would be a recipie for creating an army for a counter-revolution. Instead, I think workers will have to win-over the inbetween classes to seeing that working class rule will be better rule by the capitalists. After the revolution, the working class would then want to figure out how to eliminate class distinctions by bringing theses semi-classes into the same realtions of production.


I dont believe the state is a separate entity fromthe class forces in society. On the contrary, I have been at pains to point out to you that its is a product of class society and implies a class divided society. I am truly baffled by your commentAnd the same class divisions will exist the day after the Revolution - so how do you get rid of the divisions? Capitalists need thoes divisions, workers do not and it is in their interests to not have class divisions.


These capitalist revolutions like the capitalist revolution in Russia 1917 undertaken by the Bosheviks, basically happened as a result of the growing antagonism between two very different different modes of production - the Ancien regime and the bourgeois system of production. Of course this is to simplify the process drastically but it says in a nutshell what happened Well, this is a different discussion. But I'll just ask: if the Bols really wanted capitalist modernization of Russia, why didn't they just support the Parlementary government? The capitalists seemed more than happy with that. Why would a party representing capitalist interests want "all power to the soviets" when historically capitalists groups would rather close ranks than allow the possibility for the worker's movement to gain more power. What you describe fits more with the Marxist-Lenninist parties that came later as a combination of nationalist revolts and the workers movement to gain independence from colonization and "modernize". These groups also tended to not want workers to strike - they relied on gurilla armies rather than working class power and put the party in power not workers - as if they could.

[Misanthrope]

Both are pretty great enemies but if I had to choose which was more evil it would probably be Capitalism because they only do things to protect their own interests.

and the state can't? :confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

and the state can't? :confused:What are the states interests? So, if the state has interests of its own that are not connected to capitalism, then the state can be against capitalism? So the anarcho-capitalists are correct that the state hurts "real/true" capitalism? The Stalinist too (since the state can be used against capitalism in their view)?

In my view the modern state's only intrests are to garentee the interests of capitalism. Look at the American Revolution, when the Articles of Confederation were in place, the eliete of the colonies decided to throw it out and create a much more centralized state with a national currency and militia and uniform trade rules.

[yuon]

What are the states interests? So, if the state has interests of its own that are not connected to capitalism, then the state can be against capitalism? So the anarcho-capitalists are correct that the state hurts "real/true" capitalism? The Stalinist too (since the state can be used against capitalism in their view)?

In my view the modern state's only intrests are to garentee the interests of capitalism. Look at the American Revolution, when the Articles of Confederation were in place, the eliete of the colonies decided to throw it out and create a much more centralized state with a national currency and militia and uniform trade rules.

I personally think that the state has an "interest" in perpetuating itself. Even if that goes against the interests of the capitalist class.

Venezuela, for example, is taking steps against capitalism, and damaging capitalism. That's the state that's doing that. So, since the state can be used against capitalism (as evidenced by Venezuela), it is obvious that capitalism and the state are separate. It only takes some ideologues to take the reigns of the state to turn it against capitalism.

Of course, "anarcho"-capitalism isn't correct that capitalism can occur without a state. As, a new state would be created.

So, while the state may protect capitalism, it doesn't have to.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I personally think that the state has an "interest" in perpetuating itself. Even if that goes against the interests of the capitalist class. How/why? Saying it doesn't make it so. Capitalists often get rid of states and replace them with new ones - why would the state capitalists of the USSR dissolve their state and then restart it with the same people on top? Maybe because their old state model wasn't working and they needed a new model - hence the state is subordinate to the needs of the ruling class.


Venezuela, for example, is taking steps against capitalism, and damaging capitalism. That's the state that's doing that. So, since the state can be used against capitalism (as evidenced by Venezuela), it is obvious that capitalism and the state are separate. It only takes some ideologues to take the reigns of the state to turn it against capitalism. FDR upset many capitalists enough that they were willing to consider a coup - but while he hurt some sectors of the capitalist economy, his goal was to rehabilitate the entire system because (as in the USSR) the old models for the economy were not working. In his own words, his goal was to save capitalism.

Chavez is not dismantling capitalism in Venezuela - many capitalists support him even though the hard-line neoliberalists oppose him violently. In the 3rd world, the little capitalists can not compete with Imperialist capitalists and often turn to dictators or "strong-men" in order to build up national infrastructure and industry or unburdon them from debt.


So, while the state may protect capitalism, it doesn't have to.No, it can be feudal and protect the aristocracy or it can be state-capitalist and protect the power of the state burocracy, but states are systems to keep the ruling order in power, they are not independant animals.

[RedAthena1919]

You can most certainly have capitalism without a state. A stateless society can be based on private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise. You could argue that an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially just the privatization of the state which I don't think you are advocating. A state is a capitalist entity, whenever there is a state, there is a ruling social class and there is tyranny, socialism and the state are contradictory imo.

This was basically why I asked. Anarcho-Capitalism presents difficluties for the theory that Capitalism must be protected by a State. I'm sure the wealthy are infact perfectly capable of protecting themselves with their money. The State is not neccesary to Capitalism at all.

[CommunityBeliever]

What kind of a question is this? Of course the greater enemy is the capitalist, in fact it is the capitalists who want you to blame the state and blame people like Bush. Put all your faults on Bush, that way you will not realize the real problem is the capitalists.

The capitalists are the ones in charge of making all the evil decisions that go on in the American empire such as the wars I mean Bush didn't decide to go the Iraq War because he was personally insulted by Saddam Hussein. The capitalists decided to go to war because Iraq is the natural resource center of the world, I mean it is mesopotamia where human civilization was originally cultivated because of its resources. People have wanted to profit off Iraq since before the Persian empire 2700 years ago.

The capitalists are the driving force behind all the bad things the state has done so as such I don't see how anybody could blame the state. At least the state is a means by which some good things have happened such as minimum wage laws.

[mel]

What kind of a question is this? Of course the greater enemy is the capitalist, in fact it is the capitalists who want you to blame the state and blame people like Bush. Put all your faults on Bush, that way you will not realize the real problem is the capitalists.

While I agree that the question is probably stupid, this isn't about whether a particular state's leadership, or a particular type of state, is better or worse than capitalism, but rather if it were possible to have capitalism without a state, if that would be less oppressive and more acceptable than a state without capitalism. If a state without capitalism is better than capitalism without a state, then the state is the less oppressive institution. I don't think capitalism without a state is possible, so it's a nonsense question.

[CommunityBeliever]

if it were possible to have capitalism without a state, if that would be less oppressive and more acceptable than a state without capitalism.

Well sure you could have something close to capitalism without a state but that would complete slavery because people would be private property too (slavery) and that would not be more acceptable then anything else. One thing they would probably do is have factories where they produce healthy humans just to give their organs to rich people anyways it is sickening to think that we would ever allow a society where the capitalists are not put in check even a little bit. Although we will never get the capitalists to give up a state for all of its pro-capitalist institutions and we will never get the people to go back towards slavery so the capitalist state is not going to reduce in size much.

A state without capitalism would be a good state because it would just be something like Cuba in that it distributes Health Care, Education, etc and it is basically a state in transition to stateless communism but we, the people of the world, need to help out Cuba out before that will ever happen.

[mel]

Well sure you could have something close to capitalism without a state but that would complete slavery because people would be private property too (slavery) and that would not be more acceptable then anything else.

A de-facto state is formed wherever a collection of entities have private property and the means with which to protect that property (guns). A state is merely a group of people who control property and the means to defend it. It would not take long for a new state to form under "stateless" capitalism as people pooled their property and hired groups to defend it in order to better protect themselves.


One thing they would probably do is have factories where they produce healthy humans just to give their organs to rich people anyways it is sickening to think that we would ever allow a society where the capitalists are not put in check even a little bit. Although we will never get the capitalists to give up a state for all of its pro-capitalist institutions and we will never get the people to go back towards slavery so the capitalist state is not going to reduce in size much.

What?


A state without capitalism would be a good state because it would just be something like Cuba in that it distributes Health Care, Education, etc and it is basically a state in transition to stateless communism but we, the people of the world, need to help out Cuba out before that will ever happen.

In your not particularly nuanced analysis of the situation in Cuba and in your opinion that it is "good" completely unsubstantiated. In any case, the US "distributes health care, education, etc" just based on money and not on egalitarianism. A socialist sees that state of affairs as inherently unjust.

[CommunityBeliever]

A de-facto state is formed wherever a collection of entities have private property and the means with which to protect that property (guns). A state is merely a group of people who control property and the means to defend it. It would not take long for a new state to form under "stateless" capitalism as people pooled their property and hired groups to defend it in order to better protect themselves.

Yes I agree with you I said before that I believe Anarcho-Capitalism is a delusion that could never really occur because capitalists want a state for the highly profitable war industry and they need somebody to protect themselves from socialists.

I was just trying to explain that the capitalists would not mind going back to slavery too if there was no state to keep them in check. Slavery was a highly profitable industry, in fact one of the richest capitalists in history was Crassus who got his money from the slavery industry in Rome.


What?

Capitalists would not mind going back to the immense profits of slavery if they could and if they could they probably would farm humans just like Cattle, they grow them and use them as slaves and then slaughter them and sell their organs, just a more modern form of slavery I guess.


In your not particularly nuanced analysis of the situation in Cuba and in your opinion that it is "good" completely unsubstantiated

By good state I mean it is a state that is fighting against the evils of capitalism and one of the greatest evils that is the capitalist war industry I hope too someday that Cuba will no longer have a state and I was saying it is up to people like you and me to help Cuba get rid of its state.


In any case, the US "distributes health care, education, etc" just based on money and not on egalitarianism. A socialist sees that state of affairs as inherently unjust.

Please excuse me if I misunderstood but are you saying that you do not support that Cuba provides Universal Health Care to its citizens? You don't support that Cuba provides College free of charge and that it educates all its citizens with a much better education system then here in the United States?

You do not support that Cuba has created its own Linux Distribution called Nova? Hmmm... You do not support the Cuba in its efforts to do good for humanity? :(

[mel]

Yes I agree with you I said before that I believe Anarcho-Capitalism is a delusion that could never really occur because capitalists want a state for the highly profitable war industry and they need somebody to protect themselves from socialists.

I was just trying to explain that the capitalists would not mind going back to slavery too if there was no state to keep them in check. Slavery was a highly profitable industry, in fact one of the richest capitalists in history was Crassus who got his money from the slavery industry in Rome.



Capitalists would not mind going back to the immense profits of slavery if they could and if they could they probably would farm humans just like Cattle, they grow them and use them as slaves and then slaughter them and sell their organs, just a more modern form of slavery I guess.

While this sounds unlikely for a variety of reasons, I'm just going to leave it be. We were apparently just agreeing with different words.


By good state I mean it is a state that is fighting against the evils of capitalism and one of the greatest evils that is the capitalist war industry I hope too someday that Cuba will no longer have a state and I was saying it is up to people like you and me to help Cuba get rid of its state.

Please excuse me if I misunderstood but are you saying that you do not support that Cuba provides Universal Health Care to its citizens? You don't support that Cuba provides College free of charge and that it educates all its citizens with a much better education system then here in the United States?

You do not support that Cuba has created its own Linux Distribution called Nova? Hmmm... You do not support the Cuba in its efforts to do good for humanity? :(

I don't really know enough about Cuba to intelligently comment, but I am skeptical of any state which claims to have achieved socialism, even in a transitory phase, when it exists in a world entirely surrounded by Capitalism. In my understanding Cuba has what is for now a "benevolent dictatorship", but which can turn sour quickly.

Just because it is possible for a king to rule with compassion, mercy, and kindness, in the interests of his people, it does not follow that a Monarchy is a proper setup for government, ya dig? Cuba may be okay for now, but there is no guarantee that it will always be that way, and until I've had a chance to research it in more depth, I have to remain skeptical of its claims to a "worker's state" in which workers are not the primary agents of state control. If "socialism" needs to adopt dictatorial rule (by a single person, not the class) in order to survive out of historical necessity, it is not socialism in my mind. Socialism REQUIRES worker control of the means of production, and as far as I know, that is not the case in Cuba, although conditions are arguably materially superior for workers in that country than in many others.

[robbo203]

Exactly. So why is the "tool" automatically evil? Wouldn't a "state" be necessary for a majority ruling class to protect itself from the remains of the capitalist class? Since the working class the majority and does not need to exploit other classes for production, it would not need to exploit others or have repressive measure to enforce its own rule on itself..

But if the capitalist class remains and the working class remains that means you still have capitalism. And if you still have capitalism then you still have a capitalist class exploiting the working class despite the latter allegedly constituting the new ruling class. Of course the working class by defintion does not and cannot do the exploiting - it would be another class if it did!



The state is the tool of whatever class is on top, therefore, those minority classes, not some abstract notion of the state is the real enemy. It's like saying that all hammers are weapons because a thug hit someone on the head with a hammer. A democratic "state" made up of worker's councils is not the same as the modern (capitalist/state-capitalist) state which - as you rightly point out is the tool of a minority class enforcing it's order on the rest of us...

The state is the tool of a class society. If workers councils were to constitute a form of non-class or post class society then you would not be talking about a state - by definition



Show me an instance where the ruling class is the majority - i.e. workers. Capitalist states are not so oppressive if you are a capitalist!..

That is not my argument. My argument is that once a genuine working class revolution takes place, capitalism goes - and do does the working class and the capitalist class with it. The working class does not and cannot linger on as a "ruling class". It abolishes itself as the exploited class and, with that, class society



[quote]The very insertion of the state into a class based mode of production - classical antiquity, feudal or capitalist - inevitably means it sides with interests of the ruling minority class. Its a load of liberal tosh that the state can ever be "neutral" . Engels said the modern state no matter what its form is a capitalist state.[[quote]The important word is "modern" so he would be speaking about Bonapartist, Republic, Parlementary, or Bizmakian. WHat is the context of this quote - was he, for example, talking about how the exsisting state can't be reformed into a tool of the working class? I agree with that since the modern state is formed to protect capitalist relations and interests....

Quite . And that is precisely why the perpetuation of a state beyond its capture and revolutionary destruction by the working class is completely inappropriate. The state goes along with capitalism and just as soon as the working class capture the state to get rid of capitalism



Please explain. Why do you assume it is inevitably and inherently capitalist and inherently a minority? You need to explain what the mechanisms are that cause this - saying it doesn't make it so. Again a democratic system based on councils from worker-controlled workplaces would mean a "ruling class" that is the vast majority of people. It would form new ways of administration to suit the needs of the working class. As class distinctions are done away with, the state itself would no longer be needed.....

You are still not making sense here. Look, a class-based society no matter what its form always operates in the interests of a minority. It is not possible to talk about the ruling class constituting the majority. Yes in formal legalistic sense you can talk about the working class capturing the state and thereby constituting itself as a ruling class but this is merely a kind of legal finction. It is not intended to denote a temporal de facto state of affairs. Or at least it is illogical to think that it can. An exploited class (the workers) cannot possibly rule over the exploiting class (the capitalists) in any meaningful sense. Its an absurdity. Surely you can see this?



No argument here - I'm sorry I misunderstood your position because this is my exact position - you can't get rid of the capitalist state without getting rid of capitalism and visa versa. Therefore the "state" is not the ultimate enemy, the exploiting minority ruling class is......

Yes but I would go further. Even the so called workers state will turn out to be a capitalist state becuase it implies the existence of workers and therefore capitalists and it is in the interests of the capitalists that such a state in the end will inevitably operate



You go on and on about the relationship to production defining class, and then you completely throw it out here. Unless you are advocating imprisioning or killing all people who are not connected to production in the same way as the working class in order to get rid of class distinctions, the revolutionary workers will have to figure out what to do with people who are not onnected to production in the same way as the working class. Personally, I think that kicking all small shop-owners or private doctors or contractors out of their shops and fishing boats and so on would be a recipie for creating an army for a counter-revolution. Instead, I think workers will have to win-over the inbetween classes to seeing that working class rule will be better rule by the capitalists. After the revolution, the working class would then want to figure out how to eliminate class distinctions by bringing theses semi-classes into the same realtions of production.......

I think we have some major misunderstanding here. I certainly dont advocate imprisoning anyone. Socialism is about genuine freedom not authoritarian repression. The socialist revolution does not mean stopping people doing the kind of work they did before the revolution. Doctors, if they wish to, will continue to practice in their general surgeries of wherever, fishermen will continue to fish, small shop keepers will continue to operate in the distribution "business". What will change is the fundamental economic relationship. - production for the market will go and all the paraphanalia of the market economy - wages, buying and selling, money, banks, insurance. In fact, even before the revolution I would argue people would turning more and more to non market forms of cooperation and production


And the same class divisions will exist the day after the Revolution - so how do you get rid of the divisions? Capitalists need thoes divisions, workers do not and it is in their interests to not have class divisions..

No , with respect, this is completely wrong. If the same class divisions continue to exist then the revolution has not yet happened!



Well, this is a different discussion. But I'll just ask: if the Bols really wanted capitalist modernization of Russia, why didn't they just support the Parlementary government? The capitalists seemed more than happy with that. Why would a party representing capitalist interests want "all power to the soviets" when historically capitalists groups would rather close ranks than allow the possibility for the worker's movement to gain more power. What you describe fits more with the Marxist-Lenninist parties that came later as a combination of nationalist revolts and the workers movement to gain independence from colonization and "modernize". These groups also tended to not want workers to strike - they relied on gurilla armies rather than working class power and put the party in power not workers - as if they could.

I think it is importnat not to fetishize the forms of organisation. Soviet is just another word for council. It does not signify a different kind of society. By and large the soviets were run on a top-down basis - they were not very democratic. There were exceptions like Kronstadt and we all know what happened to that. The Bolsheviks crushed it ruthlessly on totally fabricated charges that it was linked with the Whites. But Lenin was quite clear that he wanted state capitalism. He was a great admirer of the state capitalism of the German War economy. The tragedy is that the Bolshevik Revolution came to be seen as socialist revolution when it was nothing of the sort

[CommunityBeliever]

Just because it is possible for a king to rule with compassion, mercy, and kindness, in the interests of his people, it does not follow that a Monarchy is a proper setup for government, ya dig?

Ya I agree I was never saying that Cuba is perfect or that it should stay the same forever I think we should try to support them and help them improve so that the last remnants of authoritarianism can be eliminated.


Cuba may be okay for now, but there is no guarantee that it will always be that way,

I am worried all the time that Cuba is moving towards capitalism I mean people have said that now that Fidel Castro is gone Raul Castro might be more capitalist. I really don't like that in Cuba so much power is put into the hands of one person, with Fidel Castro that was clearly okay. Another thing to worry about is that most people from the revolution such as Che Guevara are dead now so the people might start forgetting how lucky they are.

Well it would be horrible for Cuba to deteriorate. We better not let that happen! We need countries like Cuba to set an example so that the whole world can start moving towards socialism, if Cuba deteriorates then I am afraid many countries will be discouraged from pursuing socialism.

[robbo203]

I am worried all the time that Cuba is moving towards capitalism I mean people have said that now that Fidel Castro is gone Raul Castro might be more capitalist. I really don't like that in Cuba so much power is put into the hands of one person, with Fidel Castro that was clearly okay. Another thing to worry about is that most people from the revolution such as Che Guevara are dead now so the people might start forgetting how lucky they are.

Well it would be horrible for Cuba to deteriorate. We better not let that happen! We need countries like Cuba to set an example so that the whole world can start moving towards socialism, if Cuba deteriorates then I am afraid many countries will be discouraged from pursuing socialism.

Cuba IS a capitalist state like every other. It is not "moving towards capitalism" (any more than capitalism was "restored" in the so called Soviet Union) . It is firmly capitalist. There is production for the market - commodity production - with a view to profit. There is generalised wage labour - the hallmark of capitalism par excellence. Yes it is capitalism primarily run by the state but capitalism nevertheless. Like Fidel Castro said when urging Mexican businesspeople to invest in Cuba, in 1988, "We are capitalists, but state capitalists. We are not private capitalists."
(Daum, Walter (1990). The Life and Death of Stalinism; A
Resurrection of Marxist Theory. NY: Socialist Voice Publishing, p. 232).

The problem with so many on the Left is that they dont understand what capitalism is and they certainly dont understand what socialism is. Here we have yet another example.

[Lamanov]

I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).

They can't be.

Thus, the question is pointless.

[mel]

I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).They can't be.

Do you mean by this that capitalism and the state are identical, or just that they are inseparable? The way this is quoted makes it sound like you mean the former, and the latter might not even be true, because while I think a state can exist without capitalism (the existence of governments before capitalism is a wonderful example of this) I don't think capitalism can exist without a state (because a state is necessary to protect the property interests of the privileged class and will emerge in quickly in any theoretical capitalist society in which the former state has been "abolished").

[Lamanov]

Since we are talking about the modern state, and not state per se, I am free to say that state and capitalism are inseparable.

[mel]

Since we are talking about the modern state, and not state per se, I am free to say that state and capitalism are inseparable.

I thought the original question was about the state "per se" and not about the modern state. The original wording was unclear enough to support both interpretations, so I am also free to say that the state and capitalism are not necessarily inseparable, but that the latter always requires the former.

[CommunityBeliever]

Cuba IS a capitalist state like every other.

Whatever you call it they are not like everyone else they were brave enough to stand against the United States and that is admirable. They are one of the few countries in the world which reject the tyranny of evil corporations such as Microsoft. Cuba is amongst Antartica in that it is one few places that does not have a McDonalds so you clearly there is something special going on there, whatever you call it.


It is not "moving towards capitalism"

Well Cuba could move towards Capitalism in that it could allow foreign corporations to dominate the country, it could let corporations run health care and it could turn into a country with bourgeoisie millionaires with few rights for the proletariat so ya it could move towards capitalism.

I agree that it is not communist but you have to recognize that something special is going on there. The people there do not even believe in America or capitalism.

[mel]

Whatever you call it they are not like everyone else they were brave enough to stand against the United States and that is admirable. They are one of the few countries in the world which reject the tyranny of evil corporations such as Microsoft. Cuba is amongst Antartica in that it is one few places that does not have a McDonalds so you clearly there is something special going on there, whatever you call it.

Cuba might be progressive, but it isn't socialist. Those things don't necessarily go hand in hnad.




Well Cuba could move towards Capitalism in that it could allow foreign corporations to dominate the country, it could let corporations run health care and it could turn into a country with bourgeoisie millionaires with few rights for the proletariat so ya it could move towards capitalism.

I agree that it is not communist but you have to recognize that something special is going on there. The people there do not even believe in America or capitalism.

Capitalists can't "move towards capitalism", it doesn't really mean anything to say that Cuba could become less progressive.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalists can't "move towards capitalism"

Socialists can argue all day over semantics all day and never get anything done :cool:

[mel]

Socialists can argue all day over semantics all day and never get anything done :cool:

What can I say: I'm a pedantic asshole.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have tried to explin my position that a revolutionary working class will have to organize their own state after a revolution in order to reorganize society in their interests in order to build conditions for a classless and stateless society.

So far the only evidence you have given me that no such transition or organization is needed is: "It doesn't fit the anarchist definitions of the words you are using".

Instead, please explain to me how capitalism overthrown and replaced with communism.


That is not my argument. My argument is that once a genuine working class revolution takes place, capitalism goes - and do does the working class and the capitalist class with it. The working class does not and cannot linger on as a "ruling class". It abolishes itself as the exploited class and, with that, class society

Question: the day after the revolution, you say that all different classes will be gone. What happens to all the people who are not proletariat? The capitalists will have to loose their "ownership" of the means of production by the "ex-working class". This is CLASS OPPRESSION of the capitalists by the "ex-working class". the "administrative bodies" (the workers elected to organize the retaking of abandoned factories and empty houses) would be a state if you asked a capitalist. It takes a "state" i.e. democratically organized workers with control of the means of production to organize all this. If there's a revolution and you pronounce all classes gone - it doesn't mean that the classes or the tendencies of these classes is gone.

The day after the revolution, a local group of workers go to seize the property of a large condo-developer - the the former capitalist is all for this in your view? I mean classes no longer exist according to you. Or, more likely in my view, will the group of workers have to take over the condos, defend it against attempts by the owner to try and retake his property and thereby organize to defend the collective interests of the working class against the collective interests of the old capitalists.


Quite . And that is precisely why the perpetuation of a state beyond its capture and revolutionary destruction by the working class is completely inappropriate. The state goes along with capitalism and just as soon as the working class capture the state to get rid of capitalism

No argument that the working class has to get rid of the capitalist state since the capitalist state is based on private property, and structures for the dictatorship of the capitalists like the courts, military and so on. But on day 2, workers will have to impose their class will on the rest of society - i.e. worker's power in workplaces, the end of private ownership, redistribution of resources away from the useless capitalist production like tanks or advertising and toward things that are more useful for the interests of the population. But the working class - unlike any other class in history - does not need to exploit other groups in order to rule. therefore it is in their interest to get rid of class differences and run production for their own interests which is also the collective interests of all. This is why the working class is the most important class and has such a revolutionary potential.


You are still not making sense here. Look, a class-based society no matter what its form always operates in the interests of a minority.The working class is the vast majority of the world, so how could working class rule be "in the interests of a minority"?


It is not possible to talk about the ruling class constituting the majority. Yes in formal legalistic sense you can talk about the working class capturing the state and thereby constituting itself as a ruling class but this is merely a kind of legal finction. It is not intended to denote a temporal de facto state of affairs. Or at least it is illogical to think that it can. An exploited class (the workers) cannot possibly rule over the exploiting class (the capitalists) in any meaningful sense. Its an absurdity. Surely you can see this?TAKING OVER A FACTORY IS THE WORKING CLASS IMPOSING ITS WILL ON (OR RULING) THE CAPITALISTS! This is what a state is. Since it would only be a matter of time before the new social order under the workers is set up and since they are a majority and can easily bring unemployed or farmers into their ranks, this is the very process of creating the situation where a classless and stateless society can exist.


Yes but I would go further. Even the so called workers state will turn out to be a capitalist state because it implies the existence of workers and therefore capitalists and it is in the interests of the capitalists that such a state in the end will inevitably operateYou sound like someone who tries to sail a boat based on reading the blueprints. Sure you know where the rudder is, but you have no concept of how to navigate the water or capture wind in the sails.


I think it is importnat not to fetishize the forms of organization. Soviet is just another word for council. It does not signify a different kind of society.Ahh, another dodge! Soviet and council are the same fucking word, of course I know that! You are right that I do not know how workers will choose to organize themselves - but I was not predicting the future, I was responding to your assertion that all states are in the interests of a ruling minority class! Councils are something that have happened in Russia, Iran, Argentina, Portugal and so on and I was only bringing them up to show how a worker's society could organize that would be bottom-up, democratic and so on.

Start another thread on anarchist views of the Russian revolution if you want, I have no interest in stepping into a boreing side debate on that with Stalinists or Anarchists.

[A_Ciarra]

I'd almost have to say capitalism because it is the life blood of the state.

Capitalism makes the power of the state possible. What is the state without the money to fund the operation (nothing but unprotected wolves, sitting wide open and vulnerable)? It's my view that capitalism must first be knocked to it's knees to even get at the state, so crippling capitalism is in a way for me the greater enemy.

[robbo203]

Question: the day after the revolution, you say that all different classes will be gone. What happens to all the people who are not proletariat? The capitalists will have to loose their "ownership" of the means of production by the "ex-working class". This is CLASS OPPRESSION of the capitalists by the "ex-working class". the "administrative bodies" (the workers elected to organize the retaking of abandoned factories and empty houses) would be a state if you asked a capitalist. It takes a "state" i.e. democratically organized workers with control of the means of production to organize all this. If there's a revolution and you pronounce all classes gone - it doesn't mean that the classes or the tendencies of these classes is gone. .

Look I m sorry to be pedantic here but once again let me remind you what is meant by the terms working class and capitalist class. You are still not seeing the point. If there is class oppression that means you still have classes. If you still have classes that means you still have a capitalist class on the one hand that only exists as an economic category by virtue of exploiting the other class in capitalist society, the working class, on the other. So what you are saying effectively is that AFTER the revolution according to you the workers will continue to be exploited. But this is nonsense as you must surely be aware. If workers are still being exploited - in other words if there is still something called a working class - then it follows like night follows day - that there must still be capitalism. Which means you still have to carry out a revolution! I cannot fathom why you are making such heavy weather of this. Its a pretty strsightforward proposition




The day after the revolution, a local group of workers go to seize the property of a large condo-developer - the the former capitalist is all for this in your view? I mean classes no longer exist according to you. Or, more likely in my view, will the group of workers have to take over the condos, defend it against attempts by the owner to try and retake his property and thereby organize to defend the collective interests of the working class against the collective interests of the old capitalists.

.

No, you are doing it again! You are not being logically consistent here. If these are ex capitalists or old capitalists according to you then by the same token those who are defending the collective interests you refer to must be ex workers or old workers. Capitalists and workers are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. If one goes the other goes too since they only have meaning in relation to one another



No argument that the working class has to get rid of the capitalist state since the capitalist state is based on private property, and structures for the dictatorship of the capitalists like the courts, military and so on. But on day 2, workers will have to impose their class will on the rest of society - i.e. worker's power in workplaces, the end of private ownership, redistribution of resources away from the useless capitalist production like tanks or advertising and toward things that are more useful for the interests of the population. But the working class - unlike any other class in history - does not need to exploit other groups in order to rule. therefore it is in their interest to get rid of class differences and run production for their own interests which is also the collective interests of all. This is why the working class is the most important class and has such a revolutionary potential.
.

Of course. But it is not the case that the working class does not "need" to exploit others. What you are doing here is entertaining a kind of essentialist definition of class. What I am trying to get across to you is that classes are relational. They are defined in relation to one another in respect of the means of production. By definition the working class is the exploited class in society. This means it is not a question of it not "needing" to exploit others. Such a claim is meaningless in terms of the defintion of what constitutes the working class. Can you not see this?



TAKING OVER A FACTORY IS THE WORKING CLASS IMPOSING ITS WILL ON (OR RULING) THE CAPITALISTS! This is what a state is. Since it would only be a matter of time before the new social order under the workers is set up and since they are a majority and can easily bring unemployed or farmers into their ranks, this is the very process of creating the situation where a classless and stateless society can exist..

No, imposing its will on the capitalist class means and can only mean abolishing its status as a working class and ipso facto the status of the capitalist class as capitalist class. In other words this is what its will consists - the will to abolish class ownership of the means of production and hence classes as such. Also it is not a case of bringing the unemployed into the working class. The unemployed ARE part of the working class and the same might be said of most farmers

[Jimmie Higgins]

Robbo,

How do you go from capitalism to a stateless classless society? I've asked repeatedly but I don't feel like you've given an adequate answer.

You seem to view revolution as a simple mathematical theorem: If relations of production are x, then b = classless. The problem is that your formulas are flawed because they are constructed to work only if "State" = automatic oppression by a minority over the majority not matter what social conditions are in place or what forces are in power. Your pre-determined logic means you can only debate things on a semantic level.

[robbo203]

Robbo,

How do you go from capitalism to a stateless classless society? I've asked repeatedly but I don't feel like you've given an adequate answer.

You seem to view revolution as a simple mathematical theorem: If relations of production are x, then b = classless. The problem is that your formulas are flawed because they are constructed to work only if "State" = automatic oppression by a minority over the majority not matter what social conditions are in place or what forces are in power. Your pre-determined logic means you can only debate things on a semantic level.


I am working with the marxian definitions of state, working class and capitalist class to show up the illogical absurdity of such constructs as the "workers state". I think what you say above hints at a kind of acknowledgement that this is the case.

True. I haven't touched on the question of how you get from capitalism to a classless stateless society since this wasnt really what the main drift of the argument was about. However, I think have already hinted once or twice at what I consider to be a sort of answer to that question.

To me the whole way in which the "transitional period" has been posed by some on the left is cockeyed. It has been based on the assumption that it commences upon the capture of the political power of the state. I would say that is the wrong way of looking at it - it is focussing on the wrong thing. What we need to be focussing on is the period PRIOR to the capture of political power. THIS is properly speaking the transition to communism. The capture of political power is merely the culmination, the mopping up or end stage of the revolutionary process

The important thing to recognise here is that communism can only come into being when the majority of workers understand and want it. This is why with even the best will in the world the Bolsheviks could not possibly establish communism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. There was no mass communist understanding and the infrastructure was insufficiently developed to permit the establishment of communism anyway. But that is another issue.....

The transition to communism has therefore to be predicated upon the growth of communist consciousness and the interaction of this consciousness with forms of activity and struggle carried on inside capitalism. Marx talked about the new society growing up within the womb of the old. Though I think he was referring to the transition from feudalism to capitalism - somebody might correct me on this - I think it is also applicable to the transition from capitalism to communism.

What we need to be thinking of in other words is the growth of relationships that progressively transcend or go beyond the capitalist commodity relationship and find expression in the appearance of social arrangements that prefigure communist society itself - intentional communities , mutual aid projects, LETS type activities and the like. Of course, such things exist today. The point is that they need to become progressively infused with a communist consciousness and come to serve as a kind of material substratum in which communist consciousness can take root and with which it can interact synergistically.

What is clear to me is that high road to communism that has traditionally been advocated by many on the left - namely, via state capitalism - has now manifestly shown to be a complete dead end. The Left needs to fundamentally reorientate itself away from forms of thinking associated with this approach. The more or less complete irrelevance of the modern left is highlighted by that it should find itself trapped in a historical time warp obseessuively preoccupied with events like the Russian Revolution which happened nearly a century ago. The issue is so cut and dried to me: that revolutuion did not lead to communism and was never going to lead to communism anyway so why linger at this point. Lets move on. Lets explore other possibilities

I also believe that the kind of approach I have outlined above offers the possibility of a fruitful convergence or at least collaboration between anarchism and marxism, a healing of the great historical rift between them. To my way of thinking anarchists often seem to be closer to the spirit of a communistic outlook than many so called marxists (though there are important exceptions here like the SLP and the WSM for example).

But anarchists too need to do some fundamental rethinking - particularly in relation to the need to capture political power. I think they are wrong in rejecting this though they are not wrong in rejecting the state capitalist approach to achieving communism. What needs to happen is to reconceptualise what is entailed by the capture of political power and in particular to decisively reject the absurd notion of the workers state following the capture of political power. As I said the capture of political must involve at the same time the dismantling of the state and class society otherwise all we have is the indefinite perpetuation of capitalism into the future on the pretext that we still a supposed transition to communism. Thus does the so called transition becomes a means not for facilitating communism but rather a feeble excuse for endlessly postponing it. At some point a decisive break (Marx called it a "radical rupture" ) with capitalism has to be made given the nature of the system itself and the logical juncture at which this can be made is none other than the capture of political power itself

These are just a few random thoughts. I dont have the time to expand on them in great detail and I will be away from my computer for the next week but please feel free to message me if you want to..

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Capitalism is most evil. But then again, the state is a tool of capitalism. When capitalism i destroyed, one can exactly speak about a "state", because even in Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the "state" is no "state" anymore, sicne the state is inherently a tool of the capitalist class.
Under Dictatorship of the Proletariat one can however speak of a powerful "half-state", used by the Proletariat to oppress the capitalist class.

Only in the final stadium of Communism the "state" can totally be abolished.

[Qayin]

No state,no private property

They go hand in hand in my opinion

[Hydro]

What we need to be thinking of in other words is the growth of relationships that progressively transcend or go beyond the capitalist commodity relationship and find expression in the appearance of social arrangements that prefigure communist society itself - intentional communities , mutual aid projects, LETS type activities and the like. Of course, such things exist today. The point is that they need to become progressively infused with a communist consciousness and come to serve as a kind of material substratum in which communist consciousness can take root and with which it can interact synergistically.
I know this is off-topic, but I have to say that possibly the biggest and most communistic of them all are the free software and open source movements. We've discussed this kind of production over at the WSM forum on a couple of occasions and the Socialist Standard had a pretty good article on it recently. Other than that, there seems to be very little out there on the subject.

[Stel]

How do you defy "State" ?
Cause this word is quite misleading. The only "State" I know is the State of Plato.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The two factors are inherent in each other therefore they are equal enemies.

[robbo203]

I know this is off-topic, but I have to say that possibly the biggest and most communistic of them all are the free software and open source movements. We've discussed this kind of production over at the WSM forum on a couple of occasions and the Socialist Standard had a pretty good article on it recently. Other than that, there seems to be very little out there on the subject.

Yes, it is a pity. I think this is the area that we need to be focussing on - what happens BEFORE the capture of political power by the working class not AFTERWARDS. The whole notion of a transitional "workers state" after a successful socialist revolution is, in my view, a complete dead end. It belongs to the garbage can of old descredited ideas. Lets remind ourselves that the reason why it was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible. In these terms communism has long been technically possible - capitalism is the barrier to producing enough to satisfy human needs. A so called "workers state" implying the continuation of capitalism would soon enough degenerate into a kind of social democratic capitalist state overseeing the increased exploitation of the working class to facilitate capital accumulation in the name of "increasing the productive forces".

We should forget about all that and look instead to the present. The transition actually begins NOW - not some time in the indefinite future when the working class has becoming sufficiently socialist to mount a socialist revolution. We need to look for, and reinforce, forms of activity that prefigure the communist society we seek to establish and, yes, the free software and open source movements are indeed a good example of such an activity

[ZeroNowhere]

Lets remind ourselves that the reason why it was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible.I do not recall Marx or Engels saying this. Nor did they ever use the low level of productive output to justify some 'post-revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' concept.

[robbo203]

I do not recall Marx or Engels saying this. Nor did they ever use the low level of productive output to justify some 'post-revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' concept.

Its in the communist manifesto

"The proletariat will use it its political supremacy, to wrest by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoise, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as a ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible"

[ZeroNowhere]

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
I am aware of that sentence, and do not see how it backs up your point. Something that did would be more along the lines of, 'The main reason why the political rule of the proletariat is necessary is to increase the productive forces to a necessary level.' In fact, there is another reason mentioned there, that is, wresting the means of production from the bourgeoisie, and centralising them into the hands of the proletariat. There is nothing here saying that, "the reason why it was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible."

[JimN]

Its in the communist manifesto

"The proletariat will use it its political supremacy, to wrest by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoise, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as a ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible"


I've been giving this point a little thought recently.
Was the impediment to creating a socialist world in Marx's day really that the poductive forces weren't developed sufficiently or was it more to do with the absence of a class conscious socialist majority?
Did the contention that the productive forces needed to be rapidly increased as a prerequisite for a the establishment of a socialist world lay the corner stone for the tragic 'blind alley' of Leninism and all its off-shoots?
It is true that capitalism has shown that it is capable of rapidly expanding the productive forces of society and state capitalism has shown that it can do likewise for shorter periods of time. However, wouldn't a world socialist society with production organised solely for the needs of society and without the waste of money, finance, wars and state machinery be able to expand the forces of production far more rapidly and in the direction that benefits humankind and the planet?
If so, wouldn't this have been the case in Marx's day too?

[robbo203]

I am aware of that sentence, and do not see how it backs up your point. Something that did would be more along the lines of, 'The main reason why the political rule of the proletariat is necessary is to increase the productive forces to a necessary level.' In fact, there is another reason mentioned there, that is, wresting the means of production from the bourgeoisie, and centralising them into the hands of the proletariat. There is nothing here saying that, "the reason why it was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible."

I dont quite see the problem here. The quote from the Communist Manifesto says quite clearly that the proletariat will use its political supremacy to centralise the instruments of production AND "to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.". I think it is pretty obvious that the reason for wanting to increase the level of productive forces was to enable to the more speedily create the material conditions in which socialism (communism) would become technologically feasible.

There is incidentally a useful article on the "myth of the transitional society" by Adam Buick http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/english-pages/1975-the-myth-of-the-transitional-society-buick. In it there is to be fouynd a quote from Engels as follows:
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity".
F. Engels, Principles of Communism, Pluto Press, London, n.d., p.13.

[ZeroNowhere]

I dont quite see the problem here. The quote from the Communist Manifesto says quite clearly that the proletariat will use its political supremacy to centralise the instruments of production AND "to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.". I think it is pretty obvious that the reason for wanting to increase the level of productive forces was to enable to the more speedily create the material conditions in which socialism (communism) would become technologically feasible.

There is incidentally a useful article on the "myth of the transitional society" by Adam Buick http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/english-pages/1975-the-myth-of-the-transitional-society-buick. In it there is to be fouynd a quote from Engels as follows:
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity".
F. Engels, Principles of Communism, Pluto Press, London, n.d., p.13.Wait, what? I wasn't trying to comment on the reason why they were advocating the increase in the productive forces (in order to increase the productive forces to the level that would make socialism possible, and Engels would later admit that the low level of development of the productive forces actually had served to make revolution impossible at the time). Also, I believe that you had given that link during an earlier debate on whether Marx's initial phase of communism was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (in the absence of the bourgeoisie), during which there was also some discussion on that quote from the manifesto, as well as the Engels quote.
I was commenting on your statement that, "the reason why it [a post-revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat] was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible." That is, M+E didn't advocate a post-revolutionary "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat," and I do not recall them stating that the reason why the political rule of the producer was advocated was mainly in order to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism is possible.

Also:

The transition actually begins NOW - not some time in the indefinite future when the working class has becoming sufficiently socialist to mount a socialist revolution.This has rhetorical value, but not much else. What transition is this? The transition from capitalism to socialism certainly hasn't, since not only is socialism not inevitable, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about that except when referring to social revolution (since, of course, there is the time under capitalism where class consciousness must be raised, however, even when it is getting higher, capitalism would still remain intact until revolutionary transformation). If it's a transition from now to a period where there happens to be a socialist majority, then alright, then, but using the word 'the' implies that you're talking about the same transition, rather than just saying that making socialists is more important for now than theorizing about the details of a future revolution (though I generally think that debating possible tactics and such is helpful, since there's not much point just starting from scratch if a revolutionary opportunity should come up), which is fine. In fact, when it comes to discussions like that of the Zurich Congress (if socialists were to come to power, what legislation should be introduced and repealed?) it can get rather silly. On the other hand, I wouldn't accuse socialists of not focusing on things going on in the present, debates on the matter are why we're called 'impossibilists'.

[robbo203]

Wait, what? I wasn't trying to comment on the reason why they were advocating the increase in the productive forces (in order to increase the productive forces to the level that would make socialism possible, and Engels would later admit that the low level of development of the productive forces actually had served to make revolution impossible at the time). Also, I believe that you had given that link during an earlier debate on whether Marx's initial phase of communism was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (in the absence of the bourgeoisie), during which there was also some discussion on that quote from the manifesto, as well as the Engels quote.
I was commenting on your statement that, "the reason why it [a post-revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat] was basically promoted was to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism (socialism) was possible." That is, M+E didn't advocate a post-revolutionary "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat," and I do not recall them stating that the reason why the political rule of the producer was advocated was mainly in order to raise the level of productive output to the point at which communism is possible.
.

I am still not quite sure what the point is that you are driving at it but perhaps its just me being dense here:( You seem to be saying that M&E did see the need to raise the level of the productive forces to enable communism to be established but did not advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat as a way of expediting this. But I still cannot how this can be so. The statement in the Communist Manifesto is - to me - quite clear. The proletariat "will use it its political supremacy" (ie in the form of the proletarian dictatorship) , not only to "centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as a ruling class" but also to "increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible" . That seems to be saying in effect that this proletarian disctorshop will facilitate the rapid dvelopment of the productive forcess to the point at which communism will become possible. Am I missing something here or are we talking at crosspurposes?



Also:
This has rhetorical value, but not much else. What transition is this? The transition from capitalism to socialism certainly hasn't, since not only is socialism not inevitable, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about that except when referring to social revolution (since, of course, there is the time under capitalism where class consciousness must be raised, however, even when it is getting higher, capitalism would still remain intact until revolutionary transformation). If it's a transition from now to a period where there happens to be a socialist majority, then alright, then, but using the word 'the' implies that you're talking about the same transition, rather than just saying that making socialists is more important for now than theorizing about the details of a future revolution (though I generally think that debating possible tactics and such is helpful, since there's not much point just starting from scratch if a revolutionary opportunity should come up), which is fine. In fact, when it comes to discussions like that of the Zurich Congress (if socialists were to come to power, what legislation should be introduced and repealed?) it can get rather silly. On the other hand, I wouldn't accuse socialists of not focusing on things going on in the present, debates on the matter are why we're called 'impossibilists'.

You see, part of my argument is that with the growth of the socialist movement into something very significant capitalism cannot possibly remain intact in the sense that you seem to have in mind. In fact, I would argue that the scope and extent of capitalist relationships would, even before such a point had been reached, begin to sharply contract with the bottom-up emergence of prefigurative "communistic" relationships (this does not mean communism proper. of course). This is what I mean by the transition - a progressive incremental transformation culminating in the political overthrow of capitalism. What I cannot envisage is a transition happening post revolution. When the revolution happens, thats it - we will be into communism proper. No pissing about with half way houses or stages en route to a new communist world. I think that is a recipe for certain disater - to advocate a transition after the revolution - since this transitional society will not be a communist society but will still be basically capitalist and, as such will harbour within itself the very possiblity of the recuperation of capitalism notwithstanding the socialist revolutuion that preceded it

[ZeroNowhere]

But I still cannot how this can be so. The statement in the Communist Manifesto is - to me - quite clear. The proletariat "will use it its political supremacy" (ie in the form of the proletarian dictatorship) , not only to "centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as a ruling class" but also to "increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible" . That seems to be saying in effect that this proletarian disctorshop will facilitate the rapid dvelopment of the productive forcess to the point at which communism will become possible. Am I missing something here or are we talking at crosspurposes?No, it's fairly clear that they saw the increasing of the productive forces as something necessary during revolution. However, you had said that the 'reason why it [the DotP] was basically promoted' was to increase the productive forces, which implies that it was at least the main reason for them advocating it, which they never said. Either that or I misread your sentence, but that's at least how I had interpreted it.

[robbo203]

No, it's fairly clear that they saw the increasing of the productive forces as something necessary during revolution. However, you had said that the 'reason why it [the DotP] was basically promoted' was to increase the productive forces, which implies that it was at least the main reason for them advocating it, which they never said. Either that or I misread your sentence, but that's at least how I had interpreted it.


OK fair enough let me restate my position as follows - that increasing the propductive forces was a reason and not necessarily the main reason for installing a DotP. I seem to remember somewhere a reference to developing the productive forces in "hothouse fashion" in this context. Can you recall the reference?

[ZeroNowhere]

Fair enough. I'm not sure that I'd call it a reason for the DotP, really, seeing as the political rule of the proletariat is an important part of revolution, it's more of a task to be done during revolution. Still, that's a fairly minor complaint.


I seem to remember somewhere a reference to developing the productive forces in "hothouse fashion" in this context. Can you recall the reference?
To be honest, I only actually recall that quote (hothouse fashion) from the Eighteenth Brumaire and his letter to Zasulich on Russia. In the former, he is indeed talking about industry (as well as commerce), but not the DotP. In the latter, he's referring to the introduction of capitalism. I just searched it on MIA and also found a use of the term in Engels' intro to 'The Class Struggles in France'. He is again referring to industry, but again not to do with the DotP, "The war of 1870-71 and the defeat of the Commune had transferred the center of gravity of the European workers' movement for the time being from France to Germany, as Marx foretold. In France it naturally took years to recover from the bloodletting of May, 1871. In Germany, on the other hand, where industry was, in addition, furthered (in positively hothouse fashion) by the blessing of the French milliards and developed more and more quickly, Social-Democracy experienced a much more rapid and enduring growth." Again, though, nothing to do with the DotP.

For reference (since I'm on MIA anyways):
"From the time of the so-called emancipation of the peasants the Russian commune has been placed by the State in abnormal economic conditions and ever since then it has never ceased to overwhelm it with the social forces concentrated in its hands. Exhausted by its fiscal exactions, the commune became an inert thing, easily exploited by trade, landed property and usury. This oppression from without unleashed in the heart of the commune itself the conflict of interests already present, and rapidly developed the seeds of decay. But that is not all. At the expense of the peasants the State has forced, as in a hothouse, some branches of the Western capitalist system which, without developing the productive forces of agriculture in any way, are most calculated to facilitate and precipitate the theft of its fruits by unproductive middlemen."
-Letter to Zasulich.

"Industry and commerce, hence the business affairs of the middle class, are to prosper in hothouse fashion under the strong government: the grant of innumerable railroad concessions."
-Eighteenth Brumaire (I would not be surprised if some random person decided to ignore the context of that quote and use it as 'proof' that Marx wanted a 'strong government').

So yeah, it would seem that if there is one, it isn't on the MIA (it may be in the MECW, I suppose), though it still could exist. Certainly, they did refer to developing industry using the term.

Edit:

Marx talked about the new society growing up within the womb of the old. Though I think he was referring to the transition from feudalism to capitalism - somebody might correct me on this - I think it is also applicable to the transition from capitalism to communism.I do recall him saying in the Preface to the Contribution... that no new society comes about before the material conditions for its existence have matured in the womb of the old society. There's also this, "The chapter on primitive accumulation does not pretend to do more than trace the path by which, in Western Europe, the capitalist order of economy emerged from the womb of the feudal order of economy. It therefore describes the historic movement which by divorcing the producers from their means of production converts them into wage earners (proletarians in the modern sense of the word) while it converts into capitalists those who hold the means of production in possession." He was referring to feudalism and capitalism there, but not 'growing up within'. Engels had also once said, "But in the womb of feudalism the power of the bourgeoisie was developing."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Robbo,

I wanted to thank you for writing this you for writing this out - it helps clarify where you are coming from in your perspective so that further discussion could hopefully leave out semantic questions and get to the real meat of the political disagreements.

The transition to communism has therefore to be predicated upon the growth of communist consciousness and the interaction of this consciousness with forms of activity and struggle carried on inside capitalism. Marx talked about the new society growing up within the womb of the old. Though I think he was referring to the transition from feudalism to capitalism - somebody might correct me on this - I think it is also applicable to the transition from capitalism to communism.I very much agree with this - but I would worker councils and similar structures are coming up around the time of the revolution and they could be the decision making bodies through the revolution.


What is clear to me is that high road to communism that has traditionally been advocated by many on the left - namely, via state capitalism - has now manifestly shown to be a complete dead end. The Left needs to fundamentally reorientate itself away from forms of thinking associated with this approach.I think this is where we begin to diverge in our views. I would 100% agree that state capitalism and the Maoist and Stalinist "socialism" was historical detour away (or a roundabout back to capitalism even) from what I would view as a "worker's state" and cetratintly communism. I think we really need to go back to seeing it as it was originally thought of: the self-emancipation of the working class. In addition it needs to be international and from below rather than imposed from above through parlement or a liberation army alone or an "enlightened despot" dictator.


The more or less complete irrelevance of the modern left is highlighted by that it should find itself trapped in a historical time warp obseessuively preoccupied with events like the Russian Revolution which happened nearly a century ago. The issue is so cut and dried to me: that revolutuion did not lead to communism and was never going to lead to communism anyway so why linger at this point. Lets move on. Lets explore other possibilitiesYour entire analysis rests on your interpretation of the Russian Revolution and yet you think it should not be discussed?! I agree with you on state-capitalism and that the Russian Revolution failed, but how is it inherent? How was it predesitined to fail? I think this anaylisis is only based on heinsight. The Russian Revolution could have had any number of outcomes - it could have ended up like the German revolutions, it could have ended up with the social democrats wining, it could have endeded up with a multi-party organization of society run democratically through the soviets. I think there were some amazing achievements in the first months of the Revolution, but the weakness of the working class and Russia's isolation meant that it would fail - this is what the bolshiviks at the time said and you also suggested similar views. To me this suggests that a Revolution in Brazil or France or China would have a much better chance of actually establishing worker's power and spreading today than Russia did.

I too would like to see more of a coming together of marxists and anarchists and I see this happening around an agreement on "revolution from below" and working-class self-emancipation.

I think we actually have very similar views but we diverge on 2 main points:

1. The class struggle moves very fast during revolutionary times. We obviously will need to coordinate and organize and prepare, but I don't think it is possible to get our classless stateless ducks in a row and then have a revolution at the time of our choosing. History rarely moves in a steady progression. The capitalist revolutionaries were mostly not conscious that they were going to need to get rid of the king or the nobility at the start of the French or American Revolutions - these events happened in spurts where there would be a step forward and then a step back or hesitation because of unanticipated circumstances and then a few steps forward again. In our class struggle it is the same - most general strikes in the US have not been planned out before hand but came as the result of a single strike leading to some kind of impasse or event that then spread the strike and lead to a mass revolt.

Major hesitation at the height of a revolutionary upsurge dosn't just mean that you stop making progress, it means you end up like the Paris commune or Germany - the opposing establishment uses the state to crush you, the people who thought that a revolution might come soon get demoralized and look to other solutions (like mystacism and romanticism after the French Revolution).

2. I simply don't think that it would be possible to regulate revolutionary sentiment among workers to prevent them from taking action as radical consiousness and understanding grows. If 15% of the working class had a communist/anarchist view, who would go around self-regulating or regulating other workers: "Ok comrades, we all believe that we are exploted at this job, and know that ultimately trade union reforms aren't enough, but since only 15% of the international working class understands communism, we are going to have to limit our tactics to things that won't cause a general strike or inflame the class war."

This approach almost seems to be calling for a kind of anarchist verison of social-democracy. How would you know when the time was proper for the revoluton if you have to wait until everyone understood communism? Who would tell the workers when that time was right and more troubbling, who would regulate the workers and tell them that the time was not right to strike or protest becuase it might provoke a revolution before there was "understanding of communism"?

[Hit The North]

I've enjoyed reading the discussion between comrades Gravedigger and Robbo203. However, the discussion seems limited to an incomplete conception of the state as only existing as a sum of the class relations over which it stands (i.e. the 'nation'). This, however, neglects the second reality of the state which is its relation to other states around it - that is, the international dimension where it competes and cooperates with other nation states. The question of whether a victorious working class revolution will require a political state will, in part, depend on what states exist around it. Are they friendly? Antagonistic? Hostile? Of course, because capitalism is global, the crisis which will make revolution possible in France or Iran, for example, will be part of a generalised economic and political crisis for the whole global bourgeoisie. However, history shows us that the revolutionary struggle opens in uneven ways, strong in one place, weaker in another. It may be necessary for the socialist workers revolution in France to defend itself, or negotiate time and space for itself with the still capitalist, perhaps fascist, regimes, to its borders and beyond.

This, of course, is one of the primary reasons (alongside the chronic social and economic backwardness of Russia) why the Bolsheviks could not cast off the authoritarian habits of the centralised political state. Its isolation in a raging sea of international capitalist reaction, made it impossible to move forward and shrug off what Marx calls the "weight of dead generations".

[Communist Theory]

The State to me seems the greater evil due to the fact that when it starts to lose support it turns Authoritarian in order to keep control of the masses.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would have to say that they're both about equal, considering they work with each other to keep the current system in place. You can't have Capitalism without a state. As we know, Capitalism is full of exploitation. This is required for Capitalists to make their money. Without a state this whole system would quickly fall apart since the state is designed to keep order(when really it's to keep the exploited workers from rising up against the Capitalists). Cops could just arrest a group of workers who tried this. However, without a state the workers could rise up without too much opposition(thus Anarcho-Capitalism fails).

[Nwoye]

It depends what we mean by "The State". And that's being discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html).

[samizdat]

I guess it depends on who or what you identify as the "enemy."

However, for the sake of argument, my vote goes for the capitalism.

The state, from my understanding is simply the endorser of Capitalism itself. The idea of 'Capitalism' preceeds (although not in its modern form) political organization dating back to free markets, and inherited wealth through the production of labor intensive tangible objects for trade.

The state itself is simply an autonomous institution. Just as it can be the endorser of communism; it can also (in theory) produce an anarchist and become the very institution that can 'revolutioanize' itself*. The "state" is simply liquid in a glass jar, and fills the space of the object in which it is held.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Capitalism is more of an enemy than the State, but capitalism needs the State so the capitalists can enforce laws.


The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

[Outinleftfield]

I would have to go with the state. As evil as capitalism is it's just another system of exploitation and not even the worst. I'd prefer capitalism to the bureaucratic stalinist tyranny in the USSR and in other 'communist' states or to a feudal serf system or to chattle slavery. What all these systems have in common is they have states that protect the ruling class. The ruling class needs "states" to protect their interests. 'anarcho'-capitalists will tell you they don't but if they ever get their chance at an experiment some PDAs will take on roles that are clearly that of states. In fact that's already happening. Some anarchocapitalists praise Somalia as a "success" even though it is being run by warlords and gangsters that charge people protection money. The businesses in Somalia of course make sure the warlords and gangsters support them and protect their property and they can affoard to with their money. Just like states organizations charging protection money(tax) usually do make good on their promise to protect, since if you are paying protection money they consider you an investment. The warlords essentially perform the function states do in societies run by self-proclaimed states. The only difference is honesty. The state makes a pretense at "legitimacy" and "justice". Warlords and gangsters are usually open about their real intentions, though some in Somalia do have political agendas and want to become the state or form new ones.

[kalu]

Capitalism and the state are distinct, yet inseparable. Therefore, I can't say either is the "greater" enemy. They both function and exist through each other.

[StalinFanboy]

I personally consider the State to be a far greater enemy than Capitalism itself. Capitalism is quite evil in it's current form, but in the hands of someone like Nietzsche or the LaVeyan Satanists it can be quite radical, and can appeal quite strongly to my sense of misanthropy (I have no illusions- I'm into Social-Anarchy for my own freedom and the survival of the natural world, the benefit to other humans is just a bonus). I'm just slightly curious as to what others think- State or Capitalism? (That is, when and where they can be distinguished).
You are a nut.

[Tower of Bebel]

Both answers are correct if the relation between both is analysed correctly.

But if I had to choose it would be the state. The state arises from class contradictions while capitalism is merely a certain fase or stage in the development of class societies. Another worrying aspect of the state is the tendency to react to the actions comming from the revolutionary class in society. A major problem for today's society for example is the integration of the workers' movement in the capitalist state apparatus.

Also, just because the state forms the means of class rule that doesn't simply mean that there's no problem regarding the (concept of a) workers' state. A workers' state is not heaven on earth. It is also a product of contradictions within society; something which humanity (not just the working class) definately needs to overcome if it wants to liberate itself.

[JimN]

There is no choice.

You cannot have capitalism without the state.

Capitalism is a society based on the class monopoly of the means of wealth production. The state is the agent of the ruling, wealth owning class. The two have developed together and are inextricably linked.

Yes, the state did have its origins before capitalism, but it has always been the agent of the particular wealth owning class of a given stage in history.

A 'workers state' is a contradiction. The emancipation of the working class means the abolition of capitalism, state and all classes.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Personally I believe the coerciveness of capitalism creates a de facto state

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The state of course. Big governments provide huge benefits for giant corporate conglomerates that control it. If you take the state away from the capitalists, the capitalists have much less power. Of course completely ridding a nation of it's government isn't very likely, that's why free market libertarians simply support smaller government rather than a complete abolition of the government like anarcho-capitalists would. (I assume anyway, I'm not very familiar with anarcho-capitalism)

For this reason I can usually find a lot of common ground with free market libertarians as I would definitely prefer a smaller government that did not give out big corporate handouts, monopolistic government contracts, and the use of legal violence for corporate benefit. Smaller, non-interventionist government would also allow for more market competition which in turn would bring more benefits to the consumers and workers.

Government social programs may do a better job at looking out for the little guy than businesses do, but in essence they just try to force people to get along and constantly throw money at people who complain rather than actually fixing the problems.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Capitalism is only one of many varieties of class society, but the State has been an integral part of all class societies. So, I'd have to go with the State. Now, if the question was, "Which is the greater enemy--class rule or the State?" the answer would be neither, since each depends on the other.

[Misanthrope]

The state of course. Big governments provide huge benefits for giant corporate conglomerates that control it. If you take the state away from the capitalists, the capitalists have much less power. Of course completely ridding a nation of it's government isn't very likely, that's why free market libertarians simply support smaller government rather than a complete abolition of the government like anarcho-capitalists would. (I assume anyway, I'm not very familiar with anarcho-capitalism)

For this reason I can usually find a lot of common ground with free market libertarians as I would definitely prefer a smaller government that did not give out big corporate handouts, monopolistic government contracts, and the use of legal violence for corporate benefit. Smaller, non-interventionist government would also allow for more market competition which in turn would bring more benefits to the consumers and workers.



Then again, I think if the state is eliminated and capitalism is still maintained then the capitalists will simply form a new state to forcefully protect their interests.

I agree, whenever the state intervenes in the market it is always to benefit the upper classes.

The state is capitalism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Then again, I think if the state is eliminated and capitalism is still maintained then the capitalists will simply form a new state to forcefully protect their interests.

I agree, whenever the state intervenes in the market it is always to benefit the upper classes.

The state is capitalism.

Definitely. Thus why I'm an anarchist and not a free market libertarian. I just sympathize with them cause they're pretty much just anarchists with money. :p

[gilhyle]

Neither - the greatest enemy of mankind is its own economic poverty. Wealth is the only answer.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Definitely. Thus why I'm an anarchist and not a free market libertarian. I just sympathize with them cause they're pretty much just anarchists with money. :p

http://cantkeepquiet.com/wp-content/uploads/nogov.gif

[KC]

The state is not a thing-in-itself; it is inseparably bound up within the class struggle, and can not exist without it. In fact, the class struggle creates and maintains the conditions of the existence of the state, and is merely an extension of that struggle.

[BabylonHoruv]

Well it depends on what you mean by State. If you mean a form of government, then Capitalism is far worse. Their will be a temporary state after the revolution called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat" or basically a modified form of Athenian Democracy (direct democracy).

Love,
Captain Jack


So after the revolution there will be a government by rich landowning males? I don't think I like your revolution.

[BabylonHoruv]

would say the state is the real enemy. As has been stated several times capitalism cannot exist without the state. A state without capitalism meanwhile could be feudalism, or Fascism, or the model adopted the USSR and none of those sound good to me.

[mel]

So after the revolution there will be a government by rich landowning males? I don't think I like your revolution.

You're an idiot if you think that's what he meant by "athenian" direct democracy.

[Fidelista Reed]

I'd have to say Capitalism. Capitalism is always going to restrain the rights and progress of the working class, but the state has that slight chance to represent the working class until corrupted or broken by another revolution.

But I'd much rather have a stateless system, that's a story for some where else though.