A point about Marx's theory of the state

[BobKKKindle$]

I find that when a lot of people talk about what Marx thought would happen to the state after the overthrow of capitalism, they tend to assume that whilst a state would continue to exist under socialism, based on workers democracy, and aimed at eliminating the resistance of the exploiters, once the remnants of the ruling class are eliminated on a global scale, the institutions that comprise the state under socialism will gradually disappear, resulting in a stateless society. This society is frequently characterized as the same society as that envisaged by anarchists, and as lacking in authority, in the sense of there being no formal institutions or political processes, such as elections, and so on. I bring this up because it suggests a profound misunderstanding of the Marxist theory of the state, and a good place to start to explain why this might be the case is the use of terminology. The term that Marx used to describe the process that the workers state would undergo is not "withering away", i.e. "Absterben" . Although this term is frequently used by contemporary Marxists to summarize Marx's theory, it was actually used by Engels, particularly in Anti-Duhring, as well as subsequent Marxists including Lenin and Kautsky, whereas the term that Marx used was drawn from Hegel's terminology, and was "Aufhebung", as part of the expression "Aufhebung des Staates", with profoundly dialectical overtones. This term incorporates both overcoming, and the preservation of that which has been overcome, and so is relevant to the issue of the state because it indicates that for Marx the state is absent under communism only insofar as it is no longer necessary for the emancipated proletariat (who have actually ceased to be proletarians as a result of their self-emancipation) to use violence and coercion in order to maintain their class rule. There are still political institutions, including laws, as well as punishments for those who break the law, even though enforcement might not be applied in the same way as the legal system under capitalism. This stands in contrast to the final goal that many anarchists seem to support, as is evident from this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tyranny-majority-t114567/index.html) thread - a world based on isolated communities, with the ability to wage war on each other, pass discriminatory laws against a section of the population, exercise violence against individuals and groups without concern for the rule of law, and generally act in a way liable to generate chaos and disunity. For some this will affirm Marx's supposed authoritarianism but for me it indicates that Marx's views on the state are far more grounded in reality than many people would otherwise believe. The "stateless" society that we as Marxists support is a society of self-government, lacking class antagonisms, not a society lacking in laws or authority.

A good thing to read for further exploration of these issues is chapter 8 of 'The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx', by Shlomo Avineri, which can be found here (http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=UG2bcaExDGkC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=aufhebung+marx+state&source=bl&ots=6E6T1Y2SHc&sig=ZW7dzmXbBSBA8b8uaYpJUOva8Lw&hl=zh-TW&ei=Sst6StPLEpSBkQXfgpD2Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=aufhebung%20marx%20state&f=false).

[Hit The North]

You make some interesting points, Bob.

I think another important distinction is in the different use of the word 'commune'. The anarchist - at least in the thread you link to - seem to consider the commune to be small scale group and an autonomous link in a network of other autonomous communes. For Marxists, on the other hand, the commune is the collective property of the mass of producers and is a society in itself.

In short, the anarchists seem to understand future communist society as a federation of communes. Marxists understand it as the transformation of society itself into one great commune.

If we were to be unkind, the anarchist view could be described as a petite bourgeois utopia - everyone owns their own shop.

[ls]

The anarchist - at least in the thread you link to - seem to consider the commune to be small scale group and an autonomous link in a network of other autonomous communes. For Marxists, on the other hand, the commune is the collective property of the mass of producers and is a society in itself.

This is frankly semantic nonsense.


In short, the anarchists seem to understand future communist society as a federation of communes. Marxists understand it as the transformation of society itself into one great commune.

Again with the semantic nonsense, what does that really mean anyway?

That you believe in a centralised party regulating everything, soviets with a super soviet? It's not hard to believe coming from your party.

On the other hand, real communists believe in communes as being autonomous insofar as they institute true communist standards, if one commune were to pass discriminatory laws then it would be up to other communes to intervene to stop that.


If we were to be unkind, the anarchist view could be described as a petite bourgeois utopia - everyone owns their own shop.

That makes no sense at all. It seems like a bunch of semantic nonsense dressed up as some kind of critique of anarchists.

In response to the OP, I find it weird that you would criticise such a stateless society, there are some disagreements of course, largely on how we would implement order - some people believe in a police force, there are other things as well.. some people believe that a transitionary stage should last for longer than others, some believe that labour vouchers should stay.

Overall, your post seems confused and weasel-worded though, there isn't much I feel I can respond to.

[BobKKKindle$]

That you believe in a centralised party regulating everything, soviets with a super soviet? It's not hard to believe coming from your party.This is just slander, it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It seems that if parties had any need to exist in a communist society they would have more in common with the parties that currently exist in capitalist democracies, in that their main role would be to act as electoral options, advocating different sets of policies, instead of seeking to overthrow the mode of production, which is the reasoning behind the revolutionary party. Whether a system of democracy based on economic units such factories as oppossed to geographical constituencies would lend itself to the existence of parties is an interesting question however and something that could be explored more. I've never encountered any communist or member of the SWP who's believes that a communist society would involve any centralized party having a monopoly on political power, and in fact this isn't true of the transition stage either, including the historical practice of the Bolsheviks, because the existence of multiple organizations is an effective check on any single organization accumulating excessive power.


On the other hand, real communists believe in communes as being autonomous insofar as they institute true communist standards, if one commune were to pass discriminatory laws then it would be up to other communes to intervene to stop that.This raises two questions. Firstly, how would you go about defining what actually constitutes a commune? There seems to be no way of evaluating whether a neighborhood choosing to constitute itself as a commune, so that it would not be made to obey the legislative authority of any larger geographical unit, is acceptable or preferable compared to the possibility of an entire city or region functioning as a single commune - and it seems quite possible that a society in which any group of people are able to freely declare themselves independent and invulnerable to laws that have been passed by other bodies would lead to the creation of new communes every time an existing commune passes a law that some group of people do not like, to the extent that an individual might decide to declare themselves their own commune and refuse to obey any laws whatsoever, simply because they are able, which is not something they would be able to do in a society based on a Marxist analysis of the state, as I shall show shortly. In connection with this, there is the second question of why it would be desirable for each commune to be given total legislative authority, being able to pass any laws that the majority agrees to, or even carry out acts of violence against a particular individual if they do something to annoy a larger group of people. You say that there would be a check on this ability in the ability of other communes to use military force but if this the case then how does your envisaged society differ from an international setting comprised of nation-states (along the lines of what we have now) or independent city-states, where the only constraint on the decisions of governments is the threat of humanitarian intervention, which does not involve the use of objective standards to determine when it is legitimate to intervene, and, in any case, takes time to execute, by which point discrimination against oppressed populations might already have occurred, leading to intense suffering? Given the horrific nature of contemporary international relations, why would we want to live in a world based on the same principles, or lack thereof? The fundamental problem of the society that you envisage - the threats that would be posed to vulnerable individuals, and the fragility of the means to address those threats - can easily generate a whole load of other problems, such as extended military conflict between communes with different laws and equal access to military resources, a lack of economic coordination between communes, the tragedy of the commons, the use of exclusive access to or control economic resources as a form of pressure against other communes relying on the same resources, and so on.

There is a definite difference with Marxism here because, as I understand it, Marx does not advocate a world divided up into ill-defined communes, each with total legislative authority. Marx advocates that the entire world be transformed into a single commune in the sense that for him and other Marxists, power in a communist society can only be exercised by the whole of humanity, acting as an association, with this power being exercised through institutions at a local as well as international level, comprised of delegates subject to the instant recall of those who elected them. This framework would most likely involve different spheres of legislative authority being divided between different institutions and levels depending on what is deemed most conducive to each individual being able to live as they please and maximize their opportunities for self-realization, not unlike federalism in contemporary states, so that whilst local institutions might be given the authority to govern transport and culture, only higher institutions would be able to pass laws on issues that concern the fundamental rights of individuals, with a constitution enshrining those rights which cannot be breached by any institution. The enforcement of laws and the protection of all individuals from harm would of course require a recognized and legitimate agent of coercion, unlike the brutal threat of external intervention, which is evidently what you advocate. This seems to me to form a sound basis for communist administration. In this respect I think that Marxists can draw on contemporary political structures when thinking about how a community society could be organized whilst also remembering that a key principle of any post-revolutionary society is that democracy should also be extended to the economic sphere, and individuals should not experience institutions as the alienation of personal sovereignty, but as the best means for self-government.

[Hit The North]

This is frankly semantic nonsense.



Again with the semantic nonsense, what does that really mean anyway?



That makes no sense at all. It seems like a bunch of semantic nonsense dressed up as some kind of critique of anarchists.



Did you get the word "semantic" for your birthday or something?

Of course my point is semantic because it relates to the different meanings anarchists and Marxists give to the word "commune".

Now, you might think that this is "semantic nonsense" because you think I'm mistaken in arguing that anarchists and Marxists employ different meanings to the word "commune". If so, you should just say so.

But I've got news for you, pal: throwing around the word "semantic" like it's going out of fashion is no substitute for an argument.

It'll be interesting to read your - and other anarchist - responses to the points Bob raises. In particular how you see the governance of the "network", or regulation of the relation and interaction between communes.

[ls]

This is just slander, it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It seems that if parties had any need to exist in a communist society they would have more in common with the parties that currently exist in capitalist democracies, in that their main role would be to act as electoral options, advocating different sets of policies, instead of seeking to overthrow the mode of production, which is the reasoning behind the revolutionary party.

How is it slander? Provide me a piece in the socialist worker refuting this, go ahead


Whether a system of democracy based on economic units such factories as oppossed to geographical constituencies would lend itself to the existence of parties is an interesting question however and something that could be explored more.

Why do you believe it would lend itself to the existence of parties?


I've never encountered any communist or member of the SWP who's believes that a communist society would involve any centralized party having a monopoly on political power, and in fact this isn't true of the transition stage either including the historical practice of the Bolsheviks, because the existence of multiple organizations is an effective check on any single organization accumulating excessive power.

Why you could say the same about New Labour if you so wish, because multiple organisations exist to monitor it, does that really mean they do it effectively?


This raises two questions. Firstly, how would you go about defining what actually constitutes a commune?

What requires a workers' council to govern it, to me that that would be workplaces, neighbourhoods (boundaries obviously decided by residents).


There seems to be no way of evaluating whether a neighborhood choosing to constitute itself as a commune, so that it would not be made to obey the legislative authority of any larger geographical unit, is acceptable or preferable compared to the possibility of an entire city or region functioning as a single commune

Horizontal associations, federations of communes are not impossible, obviously a great many communes will work together.

Your implicit assertion that it is all detached or something is absurd.


- and it seems quite possible that a society in which any group of people are able to freely declare themselves independent and invulnerable to laws that have been passed by other bodies

Within the federation, if it's felt there are issues with a commune and a democratic vote is passed in some way, then the right action should be taken.


..would lead to the creation of new communes every time an existing commune passes a law that some group of people do not like, to the extent that an individual might decide to declare themselves their own commune and refuse to obey any laws whatsoever

Ridiculous and baseless. Seeing as people live in neighbourhoods, it affects those people who are part of their neighbourhood's commune, therefore they can't just 'start another commune wherever' because it already encroaches upon others.


simply because they are able, which is not something they would be able to do in a society based on a Marxist analysis of the state, as I shall show shortly. In connection with this, there is the second question of why it would be desirable for each commune to be given total legislative authority, being able to pass any laws that the majority agrees to, or even carry out acts of violence against a particular individual if they do something to annoy a larger group of people.

You say that there would be a check on this ability in the ability of other communes to use military force

How a neighbourhood can provide an army to use 'military force' is far beyond me.


but if this the case then how does your envisaged society differ from an international setting comprised of nation-states (along the lines of what we have now) or independent city-states, where the only constraint on the decisions of governments is the threat of humanitarian intervention, which does not involve the use of objective standards to determine when it is legitimate to intervene

Oh, other than you know.. recallable delegates, direct democracy, the input from the people that it may unwarrantedly affect.... I'm sure anarchist Ukraine was just like Singapore.


and, in any case, takes time to execute, by which point discrimination against oppressed populations might already have occurred, leading to intense suffering?

Which is why communities should police themselves, if we take guns away from nutcases in communes for example then they don't have them. If we make sure racists are dealt with properly by the community then again, they will be relegated.


Given the horrific nature of contemporary international relations, why would we want to live in a world based on the same principles, or lack thereof? The fundamental problem of the society that you envisage - the threats that would be posed to vulnerable individuals, and the fragility of the means to address those threats - can easily generate a whole load of other problems, such as extended military conflict between communes with different laws and equal access to military resources, a lack of economic coordination between communes, the tragedy of the commons, the use of exclusive access to or control economic resources as a form of pressure against other communes relying on the same resources, and so on.

If we took an example like northern Ireland, the case would be that we have already dealt with people who are likely to make trouble in that commune - it is already preventive action that's been taken, of course all crime nor discrimination will magically have gone away, but it's fair to say that a scenario like that is quite impossible to imagine.

It's usually a significant minority who cause trouble like that, I'm sure you and your UAF ilk believe things like that Bradford riots were done by "almost everyone in Bradford" but that's typical of your ilk.


There is a definite difference with Marxism here because, as I understand it, Marx does not advocate a world divided up into ill-defined communes, each with total legislative authority.

What makes you think communes can pass bogus and crap laws? You don't think that other communes will intervene - more importantly, you believe that the foundations of the society will already be broken and corrupt enough for that to be happening.

I'm saying that your assertions from the off are wrong.


Marx advocates that the entire world be transformed into a single commune in the sense that for him and other Marxists, power in a communist society can only be exercised by the whole of humanity, acting as an association

Yes, an association.


with this power being exercised through institutions at a local as well as international level, comprised of delegates subject to the instant recall of those who elected them.

You're just stating obvious rhetoric that pretty much everyone on revleft agrees with.


This framework would most likely involve different spheres of legislative authority being divided between different institutions and levels depending on what is deemed most conducive to each individual being able to live as they please and maximize their opportunities for self-realization, not unlike federalism in contemporary states, so that whilst local institutions might be given the authority to govern transport and culture, only higher institutions would be able to pass laws on issues that concern the fundamental rights of individuals, with a constitution enshrining those rights which cannot be breached by any institution.

No, it should be federalised and horizontal, your assertion that it should be similar in the respect of a vertical structure as in contemporary states is bad.



The enforcement of laws and the protection of all individuals from harm would of course require a recognized and legitimate agent of coercion, unlike the brutal threat of external intervention, which is evidently what you advocate.

What makes you think that communes will not engage with each other? Do you think that external intervention is just going to happen one night, if that was the case then the foundations wouldn't be laid correctly because it isn't an anarchist-communist society, your scenario is completely bizarre and not something that's likely to ever happen on that scale, you can look for faults and cracks in that logic if you like, in old literature about anarchist spain or ukraine. It wasn't a worry there and it simply won't be a worry in the future.

Stop spreading FUD.


This seems to me to form a sound basis for communist administration. In this respect I think that Marxists can draw on contemporary political structures when thinking about how a community society could be organized whilst also remembering that a key principle of any post-revolutionary society is that democracy should also be extended to the economic sphere, and individuals should not experience institutions as the alienation of personal sovereignty, but as the best means for self-government.

Drawing on contemporary political structures eh, what like the SWP argued for a 'yes' vote to New Labour in 1997.

[ls]

Did you get the word "semantic" for your birthday or something?

The word nonsense? Sure after reading your response.


Of course my point is semantic because it relates to the different meanings anarchists and Marxists give to the word "commune".

I didn't get your point, that post was simply garbage and a play on words. You usually make better posts.


Now, you might think that this is "semantic nonsense" because you think I'm mistaken in arguing that anarchists and Marxists employ different meanings to the word "commune". If so, you should just say so.

I don't even know why I responded to that post in the first place. It was so irrelevant, much like this one.


It'll be interesting to read your - and other anarchist - responses to the points Bob raises. In particular how you see the governance of the "network", or regulation of the relation and interaction between communes.

Regulation? Communes must regulate themselves and only each other when necessary, that's the crux of the matter there, just for you.

[Hit The North]

Is, you really are a master debater. :rolleyes:

[Tower of Bebel]

Just a minor question:

BK, even though you clarified what Marx wrote, do you still think that "to die out", as used by Engels, is correct (as an alternative to aufheben)?

[Pogue]

I don't really think communes is an accurate description. Especially as communism as an end point is considered a uniform circumstance across anarchism and marxism. I think its just a directly democratic society in all spheres, with the people in control through communal ownership and control.

On the issue of the state, this is complex. My objection which moved me to libertarian thought was the rejection fo the Bolshevik model of a 'workers state' based upon the presumption made, in writing and words, by Trotsky and Lenin, that if the state is controlled by the 'workers party' it is a workers state.

As opposed to say, the view of a state which is any institution controlled by the working class with some contradictions in it used to fight the bourgeoisie and their 'state' (radically different from this 'state', because this one will be democratic, grassroots, etc), which most of the libertarian socialists call for (and even some Trots, albeit only in rhetoric. For example, the SWPs conception of a workers state is radically different from the original Bolshevik one, but then again the SWP can only use words as they are not going about setting up their state atm. I fear in setting it up they would concede to the ideas of traditional Bolshevism and the state that came from it).

[chimx]

Bobkindles is correct sort of. His criticism of Engels I think is off base. From Anti-Duhring:


As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.

My only criticism is that Engel's collaborated with Marx on Anti-Duhring, with Marx writing significant portions of it. And I think the "withering state" is entirely appropriate, given that Engels qualified this to mean that it is replaced by a (albeit vague) administration -- which implies he always thought authority of some kind would exist.

[BobKKKindle$]

How is it slander? Provide me a piece in the socialist worker refuting this, go aheadIt seems a bit odd that after you making an accusation without evidence, and me denying that accusation, you're asking me to provide evidence to back up my position. It seems logical that you should be the one to provide evidence that the SWP does advocate a single party having a monopoly on political power if you want your stance to be taken seriously. Nonetheless, this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=366) article on the causes behind the failure of the Russian Revolution, taken from a selection of articles entitled 'What we stand for', notes that "socialism and the most widespread democracy are indissolubly linked", which is an accurate description of the type of society that the SWP wants to attain.


Why do you believe it would lend itself to the existence of parties?At the most basic level, a party is simply an organization of people who share similar opinions and want to work together in order to achieve their shared aims. A communist society would still require discussion on a wide range of issues, including the allocation of scarce resources, and it seems likely that this would result in the formation of parties, which would try to win people over to the positions that the party advocates, and even stand candidates for election, when direct democracy is not sufficient.


Why you could say the same about New Labour if you so wish, because multiple organisations exist to monitor it, does that really mean they do it effectively?I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I pointed out that the SWP would not advocate one party having a monopoly on power because even if the leaders of that party had the best of intentions, the absence of any alternative would mean that they would be able to act as they wished and essentially abuse their mandate without facing the threat of being voted out of office by the people who elected them. This is a danger that exists under a Soviet system of democracy, which, as we can see from history, did involve parties contesting seats. I also pointed out that the Bolsheviks were aware of this danger because they went to great lengths to ensure that they were not the only party in government, even to the extent that they admitted parties which had previously plotted to overthrow the Soviet administration by carrying out attacks on Bolshevik leaders. For example, on November 30 1918, VTsIK - the highest legislative body, which by that point was almost entirely controlled by Bolshevik delegates - passed a resolution canceling the policy of excluding the Mensheviks, which had been passed before the October Revolution when a large number of Mensheviks supported the continuation of WW1. The Left SRs received the same lenient treatment in February 1919 on the condition that "all groups which directly or indirectly support external and internal counter-revolution" would be excluded, despite having threatened the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk by killing the German ambassador, and carrying out a series of attempts to seize power in Moscow, as well as a series of other important urban centers throughout the country, including Yaroslavl, in July of the same year.

How this relates to New Labour is beyond me. If you're suggesting that New Labour is all-powerful despite facing competition from other parties in an effort to disprove my position that multi-party democracy can constrain the decision-making of governments, then I would disagree with the assertion that New Labour is all-powerful.


What requires a workers' council to govern it, to me that that would be workplaces, neighbourhoods (boundaries obviously decided by residents).This doesn't seem to add much clarity. What a single workers council is capable of running surely depends on the size of the council in terms of how many people are members of it and the resources that it has access to. This doesn't come close to tackling the fundamental issue though which is why a single commune should be able to pass laws on literally anything and exercise sole control of its area of jurisdiction. The kind of system that seems more logical to me is a federal system in which some areas of responsibility are given to institutions representing larger geographical units, such as regions and maybe the entire world, so as to ensure greater cohesion, and prevent the rights of individuals being violated by their local commune. This has much more in common with the historical experiences of the working class, as when workers have created their own organs of power, they have, in addition to establishing bodies to manage their own factories, also created bodies to represent their city - such as the Petrograd Soviet - with similar bodies being created to represent regions, all the way up to a supreme legislature to make decisions on behalf of the entire country, in the case of Russia, although only within certain limits, in order to protect the decision-making power of lower bodies. You seem to be saying that you object to the existence of bodies like the Petrograd Soviet becaue you think that all decisions should be made at the level of the commune, with all forms of communication between communes simply taking place on a horizontal basis, with no bodies to represent larger areas.


Horizontal associations, federations of communes are not impossible, obviously a great many communes will work together.To continue the above, it seems that if you think an individual neighborhood would be able to function as a commune, then in what is currently the UK there would literally be thousands of communes, all with the ability to do whatever they like within their own territory, under your system. This poses problems because I don't see how it would be possible for all of these thousands of communes to deal with an issue that concerns the whole of Britain, and also has implications beyond Britain - for example, what to do with North Sea oil - solely on a horizontal basis. It seems both logical and inevitable that in order to deal with such issues, bodies representing a larger area (let's say Britain to continue this hypothetical example) would be created, and given the authority to legislate on areas that cannot be left to the control of individual communes, and to apply laws which they pass, even if there happens to be an individual commune within Britain that does not agree with the decision. I feel that this would be necessary both to manage the allocation of valuable resources (as in the example above) as well as to coordinate regional infrastructural projects and other developments, but most importantly a federal distribution of legislative powers would safeguard the rights of vulnerable individuals and minorities by preventing communes from passing discriminatory legislation.


Your implicit assertion that it is all detached or something is absurd.I don't think it's absurd, because you've already shown that each commune should have total legislative authority, so that if one commune decides to ban the use of (to take one policy issue) hard drugs, and another decides to distribute them for free, that would be fine, with each individual commune having different (and possibly incompatible) laws. In this sense you do believe that each commune should be detached.


Within the federation, if it's felt there are issues with a commune and a democratic vote is passed in some way, then the right action should be taken.I'm not sure what this is in relation to.


Seeing as people live in neighbourhoods, it affects those people who are part of their neighbourhood's commune, therefore they can't just 'start another commune wherever' because it already encroaches upon others.It could just as easily be argued that what a commune does affects the people who are part of the same city or region of that commune, in which case I see no reason why you should be oppossed to people who are part of an existing commune splitting away to form their own commune, and at the same time you accept that all neighborhoods should be able to make their own laws regardless of whether the laws they pass are in the interests of other communes, or indeed the world. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency here.


How a neighbourhood can provide an army to use 'military force' is far beyond me.We've already established that the only way you think communes could be stopped from passing discriminatory laws is through the use of armed intervention by other communes, but because each commune is responsible for organizing its own defense and policing, it seems likely that if a commune came under attack, its inhabitants would try to defend themselves, and would probably also look to other communes with similar laws for support, in which case there could easily be extended conflict, with loss of life. A system with layered institutions would avoid this firstly because discriminatory laws would not be allowed to pass in the first place due to the existence of a constitution, with laws being more uniform in general as a result of divided legislative competencies, and secondly because the implementation of laws (different laws would of course be decided at different levels, of course, depending on how legislative competencies would be divided) would be organized by institutions representing large geographical regions instead of being left to individual communes, and so there would be no possibility of violent conflict taking place.


Oh, other than you know.. recallable delegates, direct democracy, the input from the people that it may unwarrantedly affect.... I'm sure anarchist Ukraine was just like Singapore.You misunderstand. I never said that anarchist Ukraine (if it can be described as such - even Makhno admitted that most peasants did not support collective land ownership in his memoirs) was or would be like Singapore. I was suggesting that relations between communes would not be unlike those between existing nation-states (I brought up city-states purely because a commune would never reach the size of a nation-state) because we have already seen that there would be no higher authority with the ability or legitimacy to prohibit the passage and implementation of discriminatory laws, and to prevent communes from waging war on each other. This is exactly the same as contemporary geopolitics because governments are able to do whatever they like within the territory under their jurisdiction, and the means that liberals frequently promote to punish despotic regimes - humanitarian intervention - is not unlike the same means that you advocate to manage discriminatory communes, in that in both cases the means is ad-hoc (as oppossed to structured) and liable to cause violence and destruction.


If we took an example like northern Ireland, the case would be that we have already dealt withHow would they be "dealt with"? I also don't see how this relates to the post that you quoted - I was talking about problems between communes, not particular individuals within them.


What makes you think communes can pass bogus and crap laws? You don't think that other communes will interveneCommunes would be able to pass "crap laws" because, as we've already seen, you believe that each and every commune should be able to make its own laws, because you regard law-making authority being given to higher bodies as synonymous with communities being deprived of their autonomy and the creation of an oppressive state apparatus. If other communes did decide to intervene once a discriminatory law has been passed and implemented, or violence has been carried out against a particular individual who people happen to dislike (and this is by no means given - why would the members of another commune want to risk their lives solely to stop someone else from getting hurt, when they could otherwise continue living their own lives as before?) then this is problematic not just because it could easily lead to extended conflict, and would undermine coordination between communes, but also because this doesn't leave much room for communes being autonomous, which is evidently one of your goals. This could be a big or small problem depending on what criteria you would use to determine whether intervention is required - but you haven't told us whether any criteria would be used (the only thing we've had is "communist standards") or whether other communes would simply intervene on an ad-hoc basis, possibly using the excuse of stoping bad laws as a way of obscuring a desire to capture valuable economic resources, in much the same way as existing imperialist states.

I think that's enough for now.


For example, the SWPs conception of a workers state is radically different from the original Bolshevik oneActually the SWP's conception of a workers state has definite similarities with the Bolsheviks' ideas, it's just that you have a misinformed view of the history of Soviet Russia.


BK, even though you clarified what Marx wrote, do you still think that "to die out", as used by Engels, is correct (as an alternative to aufheben)?

I think "aufhebung/en" is a better formulation because it makes it clear that the transition to a state-less society involves continuity with the transition period in terms of the existence of institutions, albeit institutions that are not political in nature insofar as they do not exist for the purpose of maintaining proletarian class rule, but are instead concerned primarily with "the administration of things" - a phrase taken directly from Saint-Simon, by the way.