Idea of the State in Marxism....

[RadioRaheem84]

I am trying to dispel some of the assertions libertarians have about socialism being all about the state; state control of everything. How would I go about doing this? Apparently, I am operating under the assumption that Marx meant that the State should just serve the interests of the working class as outlined in the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (and even then for a brief period of time). Other than that he called for the workers to take the means of production away from the owners. For some reason the libertarians I am talking to are mistaking that collective force for state force.

[Steve_j]

I think a good question is simply what do you regard the state to be? Is a federation of workers councils a state?

[RadioRaheem84]

I think a good question is simply what do you regard the state to be? Is a federation of workers councils a state?

Federation of Workers Councils, a state? I don't think so, no.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am trying to dispel some of the assertions libertarians have about socialism being all about the state; state control of everything. How would I go about doing this? Apparently, I am operating under the assumption that Marx meant that the State should just serve the interests of the working class as outlined in the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (and even then for a brief period of time). Other than that he called for the workers to take the means of production away from the owners. For some reason the libertarians I am talking to are mistaking that collective force for state force.

Well workers can take over the means of production, but ultimately I think it will take a state of sorts to aid this. But where libertarians are confused is the idea that states exist outside of class. Is the Feudal State the same as a capitalist state? If so, why did capitalists overthrow monarchys and princely mini-kingdoms to create much stronger states like modern France, unified Germany (I'm mean unified from feudal states in the 1800s not Stalinist East/Western Capitalist Germany), or even the US? Socialists want to destroy the modern capitalist state and eventually get rid of the state altogether (communism) but to do this, I believe the working class will have to organize itself and that could be called a "state" but it would be much different and much more democratic than what we have now.

Examples? Well you can quote Marx talking about the Paris Commue:


"The Commune," Marx wrote, "made the catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditure--the army and the officialdom [i.e. bureaucrats]." I got that quote from "State and Revolution" where Lenin talks about how the successive capitalist revolutions were all about creating a stronger more centralized state (think about the American Revolution and how first there was the articles of confederation, but the rulers decided that wasn't enough and so they created a stronger central governmnet. Then the Civil War (sometimes called the 2nd American revolution and seen as a progressive capitalist revolution by Marx) created an even stronger central state that then gave land to the rail roads to enable massive industrialization, used police and state and even national troops to put down labor uprisings in the 1880s onward. Then of course comes the age of imperialism where the US built up a huge Navy, went to war with Spain, took territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. And ever since WWII, there has been a permanent standing army and unending weapons buildup.

The capitalist state needs repressive special forces, according to Lenin's reading of Marx in this book, because any class society based on the rule of a minority of the majority needs that force to maintain control. A true worker's society where the majority, the workers in alliance with other opressed classes is in control does not need this. If a minority group in this society, tries to take power, the majority can defend its own rule without hireing a bunch of armed men like the monarchists and capitalists have had too.

In addition, "officildom" in the version of the quote above that I cut and pasted from Marxists.org reads "beurocracy" in my copy of the book. Lenin said that beurocracy is not needed in a worker democracy because there isn't the need for a special group of people who have a privilaged position. Instead, in a more radically democratic society, we will just need some representatives (not all the staffers and lobbyists and bill-writers and so on) to carry out simple tasks that the majority has voted for them to do.

(I'm not explaining this 2nd part very well, but check out State and Rev in the section about the Paris Commune for a fuller explaination.)

Of course, this is all the state in tranistion from capitalism to socialism. Eventually as Marx and Lenin believed when classes are gone, the state is no longer needed - or could even function like a state as we know it.

So I think you can have a stateless society, but not while classes still exist - if libertarians want to get rid of government, they better drop their bullshit politics and fight for a working class revolution because only workers (the producers in society) can get rid of classes and the state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Federation of Workers Councils, a state? I don't think so, no.Why not - if it's an organization for one class (workers) to protect their interests and project it to the rest of society, in marxist terms, that's a state.

[RadioRaheem84]

On my response that perfect competition and lassiez faire capitalism is a pipe dream:


No pipe-dream at all. I practice it every day. Each time I exchange goods and services with people without sticking a gun in their faces, or they sticking guns in mine, we're practicing laiseez-faire capitalism. We're letting each other be ("laisez-faire") until we freely choose to interact with each other, and then only on a non-coercive basis.

A Libertarian response.

[Steve_j]

There are more forms of coercion than a gun, such as monoply of wealth. Ie i have everything, and if you dont want to starve, do as i say how i say for what price i say. Pretty fucking brutal in my book.

[RadioRaheem84]

There are more forms of coercion than a gun, such as monoply of wealth. Ie i have everything, and if you dont want to starve, do as i say how i say for what price i say. Pretty fucking brutal in my book.

What about property rights? The state protects the monopolists or capitalist right to coerce wage slavery at gunpoint.

Care to elaborate on your point thought?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course, Marx's intent with regards to the state was that it was a useful tool to aid the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and the general cause of the workers i.e. their hegemony over the Capitalist class. However, there is a clear problem with translating this from theory to praxis. You will see that it is too easy to sit here and say 'we will use the apparatus of the state to kill, maim and destroy the Capitalist class, and then we will allow the state to wither away and establish a society full of peace love etc.' The ironic maxim 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' might be raised here.

Personally, whilst Socialism must always remain an economic mode of hegemonising the interests of working people, we must not dissipate the importance of a working, logical political system; that being, one which empowers people at the lowest possible level, allows the people to be the vehicles of democracy and most importantly cements the people as a whole as the political class, rather than some abstract representatives sitting in a national assembly, whose relative popularity the 'ignorant masses' are allowed to exercise an opinion on every few years.

[Steve_j]

Well the given interaction your Libertarian friend stated could be the exchange of labour lets look at nike.

Kids in a nike sweatshop may not be forced by gunpoint but they are forced to in inhumane conditions due to factors out of their control, factors imposed upon them against their will. May not be a gun, but it is coercion, and its the reality of capitalism without any form of government intervention.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well the given interaction your Libertarian friend stated could be the exchange of labour lets look at nike.

Kids in a nike sweatshop may not be forced by gunpoint but they are forced to in inhumane conditions due to factors out of their control, factors imposed upon them against their will. May not be a gun, but it is coercion, and its the reality of capitalism without any form of government intervention.

Thanks guys for all the responses but I don't think I am going to pursue this libertarian in debate any further. I already know that I am going to read more a priori reasoning like the state is the reason for the sweatshop as the corporation is a state creation, in a world of perfect competition the state wouldn't do that. OR the kid can leave whenever he wants to. OR the sweatshop is the best option for him as the only other options are starving, crime or prostitution.

The libertarian always begins at the present situation and moves back. The leftist begins with a historical perspective and moves forward. To step into his world, you have to keep scaling back a long with him. His perception of things is whacked out that I don't think that one can have a conversation with him. It's so chock full of presupposed ideas that it's difficult to break them.

[RadioRaheem84]

1. As the dictionary states "Socialism is political and economic theory". You cannot reasonably divorce Socialism from state, because there is no such thing as 'unorganized community'. Community is either organized, and therefore a formal authority, or it is disorganized, and therefore just a bunch of individuals with no formal authority. State - government - is simply an organized community. If you can manage to come up with some intelligent way of proving otherwise, scholars will be amazed.


2. Marxism and Socialism diverge most on the concept of ownership. Marxism would have 'community' (the state) own everything. Socialism is satisfied if the 'community' just controls (the production, distribution, and exchange of) everything. The net result is essentially the same. An individual is expected to surrender their rights of choice and property to the 'community' (viz. state). No arguments you might care to say "that's not what we mean" will change the facts or definition of the words.


3. If you want to believe that Socialism, as it has clearly been defined (not by me) and understood (by everyone), is a better system, then you are more than entitled to believe it. The only problem Socialists will get from me (and, I think, a LOT of others) is when they try taking my property, telling me what insurance policy I must buy, telling me who I must donate charity to, and telling me it is my obligation ' for the general good'. Individual rights come first. Ethics comes first. There are no 'community rights'.

Better response that I had hoped. Any thoughts?

[RadioRaheem84]

I say inhuman because, as in the book, I view the ideas behind socialism as contrary to human nature. Socialism kills ambition--and ambition is the drive that makes human civilization possible. To see over the next hill, to climb a higher mountain, to touch the stars.

The old human nature canard.

[Steve_j]

You cannot reasonably divorce Socialism from state, because there is no such thing as 'unorganized community'. Community is either organized, and therefore a formal authority, or it is disorganized, and therefore just a bunch of individuals with no formal authority.So my football club, which was technically an organised community, was actually a state? Oh my god this guys logic is amazing!!


State - government - is simply an organized community.Just because a state could be regarded as an "organised community" doesnt mean that all organised community is a state!

Thats like saying because football is a sport so all sports must be football.
Thats actually such a silly argument. Where did you find this guy?


If you can manage to come up with some intelligent way of proving otherwise, scholars will be amazed.Proving what? That the state isnt a community? Who gives a fuck if it is or isnt. He is backing his statement with an irrelevant question.

The question should not be if the state is an organised community, but is an organised community by defult a state, which was his inital argument and which the answer is no. Ie my football example, im sure you can come up with some better ones... im drunk :)

[Patchd]

Why not - if it's an organization for one class (workers) to protect their interests and project it to the rest of society, in marxist terms, that's a state.
No it's not. In Marxist terms, the state is simply a tool of class oppression, a tool which statist socialists believe can be utilised by the working class to consolidate power as a class. Obviously there has been no example for this, and any logical analysis of the state will lead you to realise that there is no possibility for those elected to 'represent' people, once they are in a position of authority and privilege, to just 'wither away'. They are in a position of authority and privilege, their material conditions will have changed dramatically from that of a worker.

In addition, the state has historically been highly centralised and hierarchical, something which a Federation of workers does not suggest.

[syndicat]

I would read Engels, On the Origin of Private Property, Family and the State. There Engels says that the state is a separate apparatus apart from direct control by the mass of the population. It is not simply the whole community organized to make and enforce rules. The state is apart from but presides over the society. The separation of the state from control by the mass of the people became necessary, according to Engels, with the emergence and development of class society, because the dominating and exploiting classes need an institution of political power that the masses can't effectively control. Thus under the present socalled "democratic" state, the capitalist elite is still dominant influence over the state.

If the state is a bureaucratic and hierarchical apparatus apart from the direct control of the people, then it's not clear how a "proletarian state" would be a possibility. Any bureaucratic class will tend to preserve and entrench its own class interests.

Working class rule would require a more directly democratic form of popular power, such as worker congresses or councils answerable to assemblies.

[Steve_j]

Ok... lost my reply to your other two post,,, they were quite a rant though, so probably for the best

:) these points i will get in though.


The only problem Socialists will get from me (and, I think, a LOT of others) is when they try taking my propertyEven if its the democratic will of the majority? So this person likes "democracy" when if favour him or her economically, but not when it favours the majority.


telling me what insurance policy I must buy Haaa haa is this one of those crack pots that thinks obamba is a socialist!!!


Individual rights come first.I agree and i am excercising my right as an individual to not be expolited by wage labour so me and my fellow workers will be relieving you and your fellow capitalists of the means of production and am glad you support my individual rights.


Ethics comes first.I assume they mean ethics like these?


Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility): that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

I think im starting to like this person a little more :laugh: Maybe they are a closet commie.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would read Engels, On the Origin of Private Property, Family and the State. There Engels says that the state is a separate apparatus apart from direct control by the mass of the population. It is not simply the whole community organized to make and enforce rules. The state is apart from but presides over the society. The separation of the state from control by the mass of the people became necessary, according to Engels, with the emergence and development of class society, because the dominating and exploiting classes need an institution of political power that the masses can't effectively control. Thus under the present socalled "democratic" state, the capitalist elite is still dominant influence over the state.

If the state is a bureaucratic and hierarchical apparatus apart from the direct control of the people, then it's not clear how a "proletarian state" would be a possibility. Any bureaucratic class will tend to preserve and entrench its own class interests.

Working class rule would require a more directly democratic form of popular power, such as worker congresses or councils answerable to assemblies.

Your argument is exactly the argument Lenin says that reformist social democrats make regarding a Marxist understanding of the state. The State in CAPITALISM is alienated from the WORKERS as you describe - hence we can not rely on good parliamentary representatives to institute socialism for workers from above, but the CAPITALIST state is not "Above" or "Seperate" from all of society since it is not apart from the CAPITALIST class.

The state does not exist in a vacuum separate from society, it is the organized will of one class. In capitalism this means creating security for property rights and trade and everything else needed to keep business running (so sometimes they will use Keyensian methods regading the economy while other times they will be more lazzie faire (sp?)). The capitalist state also needs an armed force to compete with other state in the imperialist age but also to keep down uprisings representing the majority class interests.

When workers controll the means of production, take over factories and so on, they will necissarily do this in some kind of organized way - since this act is one class FORCEING it's will and interests over the whole of society it is a STATE in essence. This can be done more or less centrally or more or less autonomous/federally - since we are dealing with a large number of people, I think it will need to be done democratically.


Any bureaucratic class will tend to preserve and entrench its own class interestsAgain Marx and Lenin wrote about this - read "State and Revolution" in the sections I quoted above. Marx saw in the Paris Commune that representatives needed to form a working legislature, be paid workingman's wages and be instantly recallable.

If workers controll the workplaces, there would be no way for a beurocratic "class" to evolve and come along to take power in its own name. I understand that folks here see the USSR and don't want that so they fear any kind of state power will somehow magically turn into a Stalinist nightmare, but this happened because the working class was not able to maintain controll due to the weakness of the Russian working class compounded by famine, civil war, and so on. I think the bolsheviks at first tried sincerely to keep things together but as history shows, it fell apart and I'll leave it to the billion other threads about when/how the revolution failed to take on the rest of the story.

But essentailly any organized revolution of workers is a "state in essence" and when workers institutionalize their new order, that's a state no matter how they decide to organize it. If it's a minority class (of burocrats) over the majority, it isn't socialism - it's something else as in the USSR.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would read Engels, On the Origin of Private Property, Family and the State.I have. You are misreading his arguments against reformists and liberals who see the state as a neutral body in society. His arguments are about the state in CLASS SOCIETY and how these developed TOGETHER. He was not talking about the state as some separate force in society as, ironically, you seem to think.

We need to smash the capitalist state, and replace it with workers power (which will be some kind of state in the sense of society being organized in order to ensure worker control of production and the attempt to remove all class inequality and distinctions). When class is finally overcome by the victorious workers, the state will not serve any function and will become less and less useful/necessary.

[Lyev]

I hate conflation of socialism with state-ownership of the means of production, it really annoys me. It just proves that mistrust and hatred stems directly from ignorance. Why not argue that the Britain is socialist because of the NHS? It's just bloody poppycock. Cool Engels quote: "... since Bismarck adopted state ownership a certain spurious socialism has made its appearance here and there even degenerating into a kind of flunkeyism which declares that all taking over by the state, even of the Bismarckian kind, is itself socialist. If, however, the taking over of the tobacco trade by the State was socialist, Napoleon and Metternich would rank among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, constructed its own main railway lines, if Bismarck... took over the main railway lines in Prussia, simply in order to be better able to organise and use them for war, to train the railway officials as the government’s voting cattle, and especially to secure a new source of revenue independent of immediate votes - such actions were in no sense socialist measures. Otherwise the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal Porcelain Manufacturer, and even the regimental tailors in the army, would be socialist institutions." Although I dunno about state-ownership and mass ownership what with the transitionary stage. (I'm not to well read on Lenin, though.) However I believe no-one can simply represent the prols and the masses. I suppose state-ownership isn't mass ownership. Furthermore, state-ownership is definately not socialism but socialism can, under some premises, be state-ownership. It depends how the state is run and how it comes about I reckon. When the mass up rising of the workers is conducive to the bringing about of a new "state", if state's what you wanna call it, then, yeah, that's definately socialism. Oh and when I say state in inverted commas I think a "state" bought about by a workers uprising is just organisation and administration controlled by the majority of society, it just so happens that you can call it a state. Although, for me, the whole idea of state kind of hints towards the idea of a bureaucracy and a minority controlling the means of production and whatnot. Sorry for the rambling post.

[RadioRaheem84]

,
be rational - at the point that the 'community' "OWNS OR REGULATES the means of production, distribution and exchange" IT IS GOVERNMENT.

If your football club, or church were to have authority to do these things, then yes they would be government. If you confer this authority to the Mayberry Ladies Knitting Club, then they would government. You need to at least respect that words have specific meanings if you care to carry on a productive conversation. You can't make up your own definitions and hope to accomplish anything.

Another response. Apparently, if football clubs have the authority then they're a state.

[Steve_j]

Is this a friend or just someone your are debating with online?

Owning (or controlling) the means of production does not equate to a state. In the US the "state" doesnt own the means of production, the capitalists do, does that mean that the capitalists are the state and not the workers or the government?

To be honest if you hope to get anywhere with this argument i suggest you define words. Pick a dictionary. One you can both agree on.

Then define words like "state", "country", "government". You need to set definitions to the words that you can both agree on otherwise the argument will be based around interpretations of what the words mean, and will go nowhere.

[RadioRaheem84]

He is a friend that I am exchanging emails with. He is staunchly Libertarian. Here is latest response after I told him that we need to find common ground on definitions.



The definitions... are not mine. You can look them up in any dictionary. The illogic of "socialism but not government" would be obvious to most other people. I really can't imagine why you don't recognize it. As to my definition of morality and ethics, I can easily explain how those are deduced. Can you coherently explain the philosophical basis (epistemology) for imposing Socialism on human endeavors? I can also point out some of the more practical plusses and minuses of Capitalism, with examples of its success. Can you (even) find one historical anecdotal evidence supporting Socialism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Here is another one:


LOL. I'm a businessman occupying a small segment of my industry - as are most businessmen. My loyalties are to facts and ethics, which demand absolute respect for individual rights.

:rolleyes:

[Steve_j]

Mate this friend is tying his or her own noose. Did they check my link regarding ethics?

Ethics are a form of philospohy... there are lots of differnt options to persue. And many forms of ethics contradict each other. So maybe he also needs to specify which branch of ethics he follows.

As for the defintions, look them up in the dictionary, pick your definitons and build your arguments around those defintions. Game over :)

To be fair perhaps its best to agree on dictionary defintions first.

[RadioRaheem84]

Can you coherently explain the philosophical basis (epistemology) for imposing Socialism on human endeavors?

Steve J., can you? What exactly is our philosophical basis for imposing socialism on the world?

[blake 3:17]

There are two key elements to a Marxist understanding of the state, neither one being sufficient.

1) The state is an expression of class dictatorship. One social class expressing its collective will through legal violence.

2) The state is a product of class struggle. If there were no class conflict, a state would be unnecessary. The ruling class would simply rule and that would be that.

To accept one but not the other leads to failure for radicals and revolutionaries. The primary function of the capitalist state is to maintain bourgeois property laws and help bourgeois class fractions find a common expression. But that's only necessary because non-capitalists resist those rules in both common and distinct ways.

One of the ironies I find with libertarians is how statist they are. How do you maintain property laws without police and armies? Why do they support ultra bureaucratic forms of healthcare and education? The neo-lib/con right governments ring up waaaay huger bills than anybody else largely on things that nobody really wants.

Edited to add:
Another response. Apparently, if football clubs have the authority then they're a state.

And if my head is rubber and filled with helium then I'm a balloon.

[JohnnyC]

If there were no class conflict, a state would be unnecessary. The ruling class would simply rule and that would be that.

Actually, if ruling class exists then there also must exist a class that is ruled over.In that case, state must be there to keep the status quo.The very existence of rulling class means class conflict occurs.

[robbo203]

I. Although, for me, the whole idea of state kind of hints towards the idea of a bureaucracy and a minority controlling the means of production and whatnot. Sorry for the rambling post.



I think thats right. Those who control the state, control and therefore own (since you cannot separate de facto "ownership" and "control") the means of production which fall into the hands of the state. State ownership is sectional ownership - that is , ownership by a section of the population - and therefore not common ownership. If you argue against this interpretation then you are saying in effect that the state is "the people" which is not a particularly logical or marxist thing to say...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think thats right. Those who control the state, control and therefore own (since you cannot separate de facto "ownership" and "control") the means of production which fall into the hands of the state. State ownership is sectional ownership - that is , ownership by a section of the population - and therefore not common ownership. If you argue against this interpretation then you are saying in effect that the state is "the people" which is not a particularly logical or marxist thing to say...

You are correct: a capitalist state, a parliamentary system, is not and can not be controlled by "the people". The capitalist state is created for the needs of a ruling minority to rule the people and preserve the interests of the working class. For workers to try and use this kind of state would be like trying to toast bread with a DVD player or play a DVD on a toaster.

However, if a body set up by elected representatives of worker or community councils, such as during the Paris Commune or during the revolution in Russia, then this organization could be considered a state in that it is an organization by workers to dismantle the remnants of capitalism. This kind of state would have no need for professional bureaucrats set apart from the rest of the population or a military/police/court system for the purpose of a minority controlling the majority classes.

But to argue that "the state" in abstract has it's own interests apart from class (as some anarchists do) or to argue that "the state" in the abstract has no class interests and is therefore neutral and can be used by the working class to dismantle capitalism (as most social-democrats and liberals and conservatives do)... is not a Marxist or class-based understanding of the role of the state.

Yes, the MODERN CAPITALIST STATE, is characterized by bureaucrats but they work in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. When they grant reforms it is to preserve the system, when they make cuts it's to help the system. The same thing goes for China or the USSR: the bureaucrats weren't mearly interested in their own private wealth through corruption or what not, they represented the interests of a certain class of Russians who were benefiting from industrial modernization and a strong Russian state.

[JohnnyC]

I think thats right. Those who control the state, control and therefore own (since you cannot separate de facto "ownership" and "control") the means of production which fall into the hands of the state. State ownership is sectional ownership - that is , ownership by a section of the population - and therefore not common ownership. If you argue against this interpretation then you are saying in effect that the state is "the people" which is not a particularly logical or marxist thing to say...
I think Marx would disagree with you on this one. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)


If there is a state [gosudarstvo], then there is unavoidably domination [gospodstvo], and consequently slavery. Domination without slavery, open or veiled, is unthinkable -- this is why we are enemies of the state.
What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?
It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared.

Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?
In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin's constitution, will all 'from bottom to top' be 'at the top'? Then there will certainly be no one 'at the bottom'. Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.

The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.

Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.
i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.

[Steve_j]

Steve J., can you? What exactly is our philosophical basis for imposing socialism on the world?

Edit, its not imposition, its democracy but utilitarianism could be and ethical example.


Can you coherently explain the philosophical basis (epistemology) for imposing Socialism on human endeavors? No one is talking about imposing anything on humans endevours

Just on the capitalists

ie the minority

This is democracy!!!!!! If the democratic will supports it and it does not impose on idividuals rights who the fuck is he to say no? (the right to control people via wage labour is little differnt to wage slavery, therfore his rights to protect his property via capitalism, is little differnt to the rights of slave owners to protect their property) Because he is some greedy little prick? Fuck him. And it is attidues like his that will ensure a rise of fascism that will mean arms need to be uptaken when the situation arises inorder to protect democracy.

Please note democracy is not ticking a box once every 4 years.

[RotStern]

The State in its Capitalist form is a tool of the ruling class to repress the working class with. They do this through Army and police.
The army and police act as an organ of state oppression of the working class or state appartatus.
During the revolution it is a task of the Proletariat to seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie, using the smashed state.
This separates them from Anarchist as they do not simply abolish the state, they smash it, seize it, and wither it away.
Engels once said that under a Communist society the word state should be replaced with the word ''Community'' as a state is incompatible with Communism.
State ownership would be more like Community ownership of industry.

[RadioRaheem84]

So in essence, I have been arguing with a person who is simply advocating the subjugation of one class (the many) by the few (the capitalist)? And in doing so masks his philosophical assumptions under the veil of individual liberty?

[RotStern]

Yup.

[Steve_j]

So in essence, I have been arguing with a person who is simply advocating the subjugation of one class (the many) by the few (the capitalist)? And in doing so masks his philosophical assumptions under the veil of individual liberty?

If only i was smart enough to put it that way in the first place.

[RadioRaheem84]

In my philosophy, Objectivism, no one has a right to use force against anyone else except in self defense.

One is not entitled to violate another's individual rights, which necessarily (philosophically, morally) include the right to own property.

In practice, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe (even the wild-eyed Socialists), so long as the do NOT violate the rights of others.

Interesting.

[RadioRaheem84]

Your entire Socialist rhetoric is based upon the violation of individual rights. You haven't said 'the workers get together and build a factory'. You've said the workers "take over" the factory. By your advocacy of force, you are violating individual rights. An you haven't offered any philosophical principal to support this concept - only your one unsupported conclusion. What philosophical principle do you think he is looking for? It seems like the concept of exploitation I explained to him isn't good enough reason for workers to take over the factories. He needs some sort of philosophical explanation. Something grounded in "reason" to please his oh so "rational" brain. I mean do not the workers get together to build the factories anyways? The workers get together to build everything, it's just that there is always an owner to take away the profits.

[Dave B]

As it was mentioned at the beginning I think later M & E distanced themselves from the ten point plan in the communist manifesto;

Preface to the 1872 German Edition



However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ch02.htm). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today.

In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "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/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm)

And perhaps something relevant to it;


1875 Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau





All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear.


Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one's enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people's state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French "Commune".


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm)


As it has been mentioned from; Frederick Engels ; Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State



The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage.

We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm)

Also quoted by Lenin under a section called ‘socialism’ before ‘socialism’ became synonymous with state capitalism.


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/KM14.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/KM14.html)

And by uncle Joe with an additional;


Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

[Steve_j]

In my philosophy, Objectivism, no one has a right to use force against anyone else except in self defense.

One is not entitled to violate another's individual rights, which necessarily (philosophically, morally) include the right to own property.

In practice, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe (even the wild-eyed Socialists), so long as the do NOT violate the rights of others.

Self defence? The government takes taxes from my pay. That is my property, so does that mean i can attack the government based on the grounds of self defence?

I think not.

He keeps talking about morals and ethics and rights, all these things are constructs, there are many differnt interpretations and he just picks and chooses ones a in favour of his interests as opposed to what is favorable to the majority, Its actually very sad:(


What philosophical principle do you think he is looking for? It seems like the concept of exploitation I explained to him isn't good enough reason for workers to take over the factories. He needs some sort of philosophical explanation. Something grounded in "reason" to please his oh so "rational" brain.

He is not looking for anything.. Did he check the ethics link i gave earlier? He is justifying his actions because it suits him better, perhaps he wants to get rich (or may be from a rich family) so he will abide by what ever reasoning he can find to justify that. Self interest.


Ask him what he thinks about slavery.

[Dave B]

I forgot to mention that Lenin of course did the bronze ax quote in ‘The State and Revolution’ as well

1. The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms




Engels gives a general summary of his views in the most popular of his works in the following words:


"The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into a museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."


We do not often come across this passage in the propaganda and agitation literature of the present-day Social-Democrats. Even when we do come across it, it is mostly quoted in the same manner as one bows before an icon, i.e., it is done to show official respect for Engels, and no attempt is made to gauge the breadth and depth of the revolution that this relegating of "the whole machinery of state to a museum of antiquities" implies. In most cases we do not even find an understanding of what Engels calls the state machine.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm)

And although much is made of ‘The State and Revolution’ Lenin hardly ever mentioned it in his later works. In fact his last major comment on it I think, was in his infamous state capitalist speech; after Bukharin had thrown in back in his teeth by giving a ‘flattering review’ of it.


(He mentioned it in a letter to Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst in an attempt to butter her up in 1919 and on what a great bunch of guys the Russian anarchists really were.)


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm)


Anyway from;

"Left-Wing" Childishness





Second remark. The first issue of Kommunist contained a very flattering review by Comrade Bukharin of my pamphlet The State and Revolution (http://www.revleft.com/1917/staterev/index.htm). But however much I value the opinion of people like Bukharin, my conscience compels me to say that the character of the review reveals a sad and significant fact. Bukharin regards the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship from the point of view of the past and not of the future.

Bukharin noted and emphasised what the proletarian revolutionary and the petty-bourgeois revolutionary may have in common on the question of the state. But Bukharin "overlooked" the very thing that distinguishes the one from the other.

Bukharin noted and emphasised that the old state machinery must be "smashed" and "blown up", that the bourgeoisie must be "finally and completely strangled" and so on. The frenzied petty bourgeoisie may also want this. And this, in the main, is what our revolution has already done between October 1917 and February 1918.


In my pamphlet I also mention what even the most revolutionary petty bourgeois cannot want, what the class-conscious proletarian does want, what our revolution has not yet accomplished. On this task, the task of tomorrow, Bukharin said nothing.

And I have all the more reason not to be silent on this point, because, in the first place, a Communist is expected to devote greater attention to the tasks of tomorrow, and not of yesterday, and, in the second place, my pamphlet was written before the Bolsheviks seized power, when it was impossible to treat the Bolsheviks to vulgar petty-bourgeois arguments such as: "Yes, of course, after seizing power, you begin to talk about discipline."

". . . Socialism will develop into communism . . . since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination." [The State and Revolution, pages 77-78]; thus, "elementary conditions" were discussed before the seizure of power.)

". . . Only then will democracy begin to wither away . . ." when "people gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims; they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state" [The State and Revolution, page 462.]; thus mention was made of "copy-book maxims" before the seizure of power).

". . . The higher phase of the development of communism" (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs) ". . . presupposes not the present productivity of labour and not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky’s stories, are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth just for fun, and of demanding the impossible" [The State and Revolution, pages pages 469-470.]

"Until the higher phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labour and the measure of consumption . . ." (ibid.).

"Accounting and control—that is mainly what is needed for the smooth working, for the proper functioning of the first phase of communist society" [The State and Revolution, page 473.] And this control must be established not only over "the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits", but also over the workers who "have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism"[The State and Revolution, page 474.] and over the "parasites, the sons of the wealthy, the swindlers and other guardians of capitalist traditions" (ibid.).
It is significant that Bukharin did not emphasise this.

Lenin
May 5, 1918


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)