Statism

[AK]

Communists, by advocating a transitionary socialist state period, after which the state somehow withers away, are we statists? I've also looked at the difficulties of the state withering away in a prevous thread of mine (http://www.revleft.com/vb/difference-between-communism-t127037/index.html?p=1652295#post1652295).

[Left-Reasoning]

Comrade, it is important to note that not all communists advocate a transitional state period. See Kropotkin.

[AK]

Hmm, I'm not exactly against the idea of a socialist period, it's more of the difficulties that may arise due to state-institutions being kept in place during an attempted transition to communism and I wonder how they can be overcome.

[Tablo]

As an Anarchist I oppose the idea of a "Socialist" state, but I do see that as a radical improvement upon current conditions and would embrace it for the most part(while criticizing heavily so as to ensure transition to Communism).

Yes, I do think that is somewhat statist, but the idea is to help people transition into the stateless society we all desire to exist. So it is mildly statist, but not as statist as the bourgeois democracy we are currently chained to.

[CELMX]

Comrade, it is important to note that not all communists advocate a transitional state period. See Kropotkin.

Kropotkin was an anarcho-communist.

Yes, there are others, like council communists, that don't advocate socialist states.

I would say that the masses would either overthrow the new socialist state, if it becomes too oppresive, or the leader would step down from power, knowing it would best for his people.
As an anarchist, I would say that power corrupts, and once a socialist state is established, the elite "communist party" or socialist dictator would want to remain in power, and refuse to transition to communism, making them hypocrites.
Look at the soviet union, for example. Though there were very good aspects of social changes, the leaders never really got closer to communism after Lenin. Especially when the good leaders die, sometimes unexpectantly (cough lenin) then very oppressive leaders come in (cough stalin) that claim their rightful possession of the "throne" and make this socialist state even worse.

[AK]

Kropotkin was an anarcho-communist.

Yes, there are others, like council communists, that don't advocate socialist states.

I would say that the masses would either overthrow the new socialist state, if it becomes too oppresive, or the leader would step down from power, knowing it would best for his people.
As an anarchist, I would say that power corrupts, and once a socialist state is established, the elite vanguard party would want to remain in power, and refuse to transition to communism, making them hypocrites.
Look at the soviet union, for example. Though there were very good aspects of social changes, the leaders never really got closer to communism after Lenin. Especially when the good leaders die, sometimes unexpectantly (cough lenin) then very oppressive leaders come in (cough stalin) that claim their rightful possession of the "throne" and make this socialist state even worse.

I do support a vanguard party, but I hope it would take on an advisory role and to keep society's ideology in line with Marxism more than anything and direct democracy should be implemented so no individuals get power.

[CELMX]

I do support a vanguard party, but I hope it would take on an advisory role more than anything and direct democracy should be implemented.

Yeah, I should probably edit that to say something along the lines of socialist dictator.
Sorry, there's a big difference between stalinism and trotskyism, and I should probably change that bit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hmm, I'm not exactly against the idea of a socialist period, it's more of the difficulties that may arise due to state-institutions being kept in place during an attempted transition to communism and I wonder how they can be overcome.

If the state set up by victorious workers is really just a reflection of their rule, then the state will become less necessary as society becomes ordered to reflect the popular needs of the victorious working class. For example, at first there will be a strong need to build hospitals and schools in regions that have been left undeveloped from capitalism. There will need to be a lot of intense debate and decision making in regards to what our priorities should be. As the scarcity of some services and housing and jobs from capitalism becomes less of a problem, the workers won't need to spend as much time and energy trying to get hospitals or homes built and so planning will become less necessary and more based on population growth than on easing regional inequality. If the state truly is based on what workers need and want, then there will simply be no need to have a lot of organizational bodies to fix problems that no longer exist the extent they did in capitalism.

Or, think about an all volunteer revolutionary police or army: at first workers may need to organize militias to stop a counter-revolutionary group organized by the disposed ruling class. Once this threat is gone, why would workers want to keep the militia? Unlike minority ruling classes, the working class has no interest in controlling other oppressed people, they have an interest in winning over other opressed groups and bringing them into the workforce with equal rights with everyone else.

A "transition state" should only be seen as scaffolding for a classless society... build it in some areas where it is needed to create conditions for communism and then once it has done its job, toss it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, first you need to define "statism". And there is also the question of what exactly counts as a state.

[Kaze no Kae]

A revolution doesn't end with the overthrow of capitalism, participatory democracy is crucial to the revolutionary project throughout the state socialist period and when the time came the state would cease to exist simply because the people would cease to facilitate its existance. It wouldn't happen all at once of course, aspects of the state would be cast aside as the people decided democratically that they had outlived their usefulness and eventually there would just be nothing left.

[AK]

A revolution doesn't end with the overthrow of capitalism, participatory democracy is crucial to the revolutionary project throughout the state socialist period and when the time came the state would cease to exist simply because the people would cease to facilitate its existance. It wouldn't happen all at once of course, aspects of the state would be cast aside as the people decided democratically that they had outlived their usefulness and eventually there would just be nothing left.

Pretty much exactly what I was hoping to hear. I was afraid I might become an...anarchist! :crying:

[Kaze no Kae]

lol, there's nout wrong with being an anarchist. It's a little naive maybe, in my opinion, but some of the most principled and dedicated comrades I know are anarchists.

Of course, it might also transpire that the proletarian state degenerates and has to be overthrown through antagonistic revolutionary action like the bourgeois one (and we're ready to simply do away with statism at that point)... but I'd like to think we can avoid that sort of degeneration, especially having the lessons of the USSR to learn from.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes you are statists. To abolish the current government and capitalist system just to replace it with a centralized state that has full reign over the economy is to create a collectivist state where everyone is enslaved to the government. The "socialist state" that you advocate will not wither and will be incredibly tyrannical to the individual and will have to be overthrown in another revolution.

[AK]

Yes you are statists. To abolish the current government and capitalist system just to replace it with a centralized state that has full reign over the economy is to create a collectivist state where everyone is enslaved to the government. The "socialist state" that you advocate will not wither and will be incredibly tyrannical to the individual and will have to be overthrown in another revolution.
The state I endorse, has a decentralized, planned economy. The state is run by the workers with a system of direct democracy alongside the Vanguard, which serves only an advisory role (and it's actions within the party are democratic). The state will disappear once all its responsibilties, actions and roles are taken up by the working class.

[Weezer]

The state I endorse, has a decentralized, planned economy. The state is run by the workers with a system of direct democracy alongside the Vanguard, which serves only an advisory role (and it's actions within the party are democratic). The state will disappear once all its responsibilties, actions and roles are taken up by the working class.

Why is a vanguard needed exactly? Aren't the proletariat strong enough on their own?

[AK]

Why is a vanguard needed exactly? Aren't the proletariat strong enough on their own?
The Vanguard isn't necessary imo, it depends on if the proletariat knows how to build a socialist system or not. If it doesn't the Vanguard will be there to advise actions.

[Kaze no Kae]

Yes you are statists. To abolish the current government and capitalist system just to replace it with a centralized state that has full reign over the economy is to create a collectivist state where everyone is enslaved to the government. The "socialist state" that you advocate will not wither and will be incredibly tyrannical to the individual and will have to be overthrown in another revolution.
I don't deny being a statist to the extent that I see a democratic, constitutional state as a legitimate means of preventing more oligarchial and/or more intrusive impositions of power, but there's a large current in 'statist' left opinion - which I agree with - that says the majority of nationalised enterprises should be run locally by their workers and the users of their services (or elected councils of their representatives if it becomes apparent that direct democracy is unworkable) and that the only part of the economy that should be run by the central government is the global distribution of resources.


Why is a vanguard needed exactly? Aren't the proletariat strong enough on their own?
A vanguard party as I understand it is a mass organisation of the proletariat which serves the sole purpose of faciliting debate and mass action. I don't think it's needed, necessarily, but I can see how it would be useful.