Is being pro state, an opposing ideologie on revleft?

[Comrade_Stalin]

I would like to know if using the state as a means to the end of a better worker state, an opposing ideology on revletf?

Also is it a opposing ideology to believe in keep the state around, even if it is to enforce the workers state.

[danyboy27]

I would like to know if using the state as a means to the end of a better worker state, an opposing ideology on revletf?

Also is it a opposing ideology to believe in keep the state around, even if it is to enforce the workers state.

no, revleft dosnt restrict people who believe in a communist state.
even tho i think both words are so uncompatible.

[Comrade_Stalin]

no, revleft dosnt restrict people who believe in a communist state.
even tho i think both words are so uncompatible.

"Both words are so uncompatible", I need you to explain this part of your view to me.

[danyboy27]

"Both words are so uncompatible", I need you to explain this part of your view to me.

communism: a claseless stateless society

[Comrade_Stalin]

So is their a word, for a classless State society?

[danyboy27]

So is their a word, for a classless State society?

communism

[Comrade_Stalin]

This is counter to what your just posted. Ok, what are the name of the poeple who wish for a classless stateless society as their ends, and what is them name for those who wish of a classless stat society for their ends.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Danyboy, you've just contradicted yourself. Your answers are confusing.

Comrade_Stalin, the answer to your question is no. "Pro-state" people are not restricted here. In fact, most of us are not anarchists, so most of us believe that a state is temporarily necessary during the long transition period from capitalism to communism (a transition period that is sometimes also known as "socialism").

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is counter to what your just posted. Ok, what are the name of the poeple who wish for a classless stateless society as their ends, and what is them name for those who wish of a classless stat society for their ends.
Marxists and anarchists define "the state" as an organization that exists for the purpose of enforcing the rule of a certain class over the rest of society. Therefore, a classless society is by definition incompatible with the state - because if there are no classes, then there can be no organization that enforces the interests of a certain class, so there can be no state.

As a result, all of us agree that a stateless, classless society is the ultimate goal. But some of us believe that a state will be necessary for some time (maybe a long time) before that stateless society becomes possible.

Of course, if your definition of "the state" is different, then you might believe that a classless society can have a state - because what you call "the state" is not the same thing that we call "the state". So, what exactly is your definition of the state?

[Bud Struggle]

Marxists and anarchists define "the state" as an organization that exists for the purpose of enforcing the rule of a certain class over the rest of society. Therefore, a classless society is by definition incompatible with the state - because if there are no classes, then there can be no organization that enforces the interests of a certain class, so there can be no state.

As a result, all of us agree that a stateless, classless society is the ultimate goal. But some of us believe that a state will be necessary for some time (maybe a long time) before that stateless society becomes possible.

Of course, if your definition of "the state" is different, then you might believe that a classless society can have a state - because what you call "the state" is not the same thing that we call "the state". So, what exactly is your definition of the state?

Quibbling.

RevLeft is a quirky little place. It allows "statists" even though it is directly opposed to Marxist ideology yet it disallows prolifers--who only in the most distaff reagions of reason might not be considered Communist.

Go figure. We are just here for fun anyway.

[danyboy27]

Danyboy, you've just contradicted yourself. Your answers are confusing.

Comrade_Stalin, the answer to your question is no. "Pro-state" people are not restricted here. In fact, most of us are not anarchists, so most of us believe that a state is temporarily necessary during the long transition period from capitalism to communism (a transition period that is sometimes also known as "socialism").

hoo shit just noticed i didnt properly read stalin sentence.
tanks for the head up!

[Comrade_Stalin]

Marxists and anarchists define "the state" as an organization that exists for the purpose of enforcing the rule of a certain class over the rest of society. Therefore, a classless society is by definition incompatible with the state - because if there are no classes, then there can be no organization that enforces the interests of a certain class, so there can be no state.


As a result, all of us agree that a stateless, classless society is the ultimate goal. But some of us believe that a state will be necessary for some time (maybe a long time) before that stateless society becomes possible.

Of course, if your definition of "the state" is different, then you might believe that a classless society can have a state - because what you call "the state" is not the same thing that we call "the state". So, what exactly is your definition of the state?

So the state cannot enforce classless society? I define the state as a tool, whose results, change by how ever uses it. It much like a gun to me, and I think that there will never be a time, when we are not in need of one. We all way say that there will be a war to end all wars, but I all I see are new wars, after each war to end all wars.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Quibbling.

RevLeft is a quirky little place. It allows "statists" even though it is directly opposed to Marxist ideology yet it disallows prolifers--who only in the most distaff reagions of reason might not be considered Communist.

Go figure. We are just here for fun anyway.

Your will have to explain what "statists" means to you, so I can understand what you just posted.

[danyboy27]

i fail to see how a state could be without classes.

[robbo203]

The state in marxist theory is an instrument of class rule. Therefore, a classless society must also be a stateless society - communism.

Those who talk about the need for a so called "workers state" are frankly confused. By definition the workers as a class are the exploited class in capitalism. Indeed the existence of a working class as an economic category necessarily implies the existence of capitalism - you cannot have a working class just existing on its own without capitalists. But there is only one way in which you can admiminster capitalism and that is in the interests of the capitalists themselves.

Therefore the "workers state" is nothing more than a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the workers. That is why no socialist can ever support this ludicrous concept of the workers state

[Comrade_Stalin]

The state in marxist theory is an instrument of class rule. Therefore, a classless society must also be a stateless society - communism.

Those who talk about the need for a so called "workers state" are frankly confused. By definition the workers as a class are the exploited class in capitalism. Indeed the existence of a working class as an economic category necessarily implies the existence of capitalism - you cannot have a working class just existing on its own without capitalists. But there is only one way in which you can admiminster capitalism and that is in the interests of the capitalists themselves.

Therefore the "workers state" is nothing more than a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the workers. That is why no socialist can ever support this ludicrous concept of the workers state

So to you, the workers state of the USSR was nothing more then a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the worker? And will never have communism until all states are gone?

[Bud Struggle]

So to you, the workers state of the USSR was nothing more then a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the worker? And will never have communism until all states are gone?

I'm not the above poster--but the Comrade hit the proverbial Worker's Hammer on the head of the problem.

Hey Comrades--if being Communist is being anti-state then let's be anti-state. What is the problem?

[robbo203]

So to you, the workers state of the USSR was nothing more then a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the worker? And will never have communism until all states are gone?


Yep the USSR had nothing nothing to do with socialism or communism. It in fact had all the hallmarks of capitalism identified by Marx - commodity production, generalised wage labour , capital accumulation, the pursuit of profit and so on. It was also a highly unequal society in which a small minority, by virtue of its absolute control of the state machine, effectively owned the means of production in de facto terms

Socialists argue that what existed in the USSR was in fact capitalism but a variant of capitalism called "state capitalism". The people who were primarily responsible for ditching state capitalism and embracing corporate capitalism when the Soviet Union collpsed were precisely the people who Lenin would count as the Party "Vanguard". This is a salutory lesson in the folly of vanguardism.

Anyone who argues the need for any kind of state - including a so called workers state - is in effect arguing for the retention of some kind of class society (which basically boils down to capitalism in one or other form). That is indeed why we say you will never have communism as long as you have the state. Capitalism and the state must go - together.

[Comrade_Stalin]

So Lenin from your point of view was a "State capitalist" and the Vanquard party was nothing more the a new type of capitalist? So you view and that of the anarchist are one in the same.

[Drace]

I think OP means a socialist state. In which private property is abolished but yet a central ruling body exists.

Something similar to Cuba, the USSR, etc.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I think OP means a socialist state. In which private property is abolished but yet a central ruling body exists.

Something similar to Cuba, the USSR, etc.

So a Socialist state is a oppoding ideologie on revleft.

[danyboy27]

So a Socialist state is a oppoding ideologie on revleft.

no, but a certain number of people think its absurd.

dont worry man, you can praise stalin, lenin or even kim jong il, you wont be restricted.

feel free to join the many existing groups that support those idea and have a blast.

[Drace]

So a Socialist state is a oppoding ideologie on revleft.

No, I doubt so.
As long as your anti-capitalist your a socialist.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Ok, guy, you are making me more lost. Is being pro-state, anti-capitalist or pro. Because I'm find more people on this fourm who think that a worker state is state capitalism.

[danyboy27]

Ok, guy, you are making me more lost. Is being pro-state, anti-capitalist or pro. Because I'm find more people on this fourm who think that a worker state is state capitalism.

may i suggest you to do not try to find yourself a side to be in and just explore the multiples views and ideologies on this forum.

learn, that all i have to suggest. if during your learning process you are restricted, no big deal, you can learn more and be unrestricted then.

[#FF0000]

Ok, guy, you are making me more lost. Is being pro-state, anti-capitalist or pro. Because I'm find more people on this fourm who think that a worker state is state capitalism.

It depends. Anarchists are against the state because they see it as unnecessary and unjust hierarchy, while marxist socialists support the establishment of a worker's state because they see it as vital to furthering the revolution.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hey Comrades--if being Communist is being anti-state then let's be anti-state. What is the problem?
The problem is that a revolutionary who opposes all use of state power is going to have about as much success as a revolutionary who opposes all use of guns - and for the same reasons.

If you're "anti-state", you lose. It's as simple as that.


So the state cannot enforce classless society?
No, because there will be nothing to enforce. A classless society is a society without class conflict. There is no revolutionary class in communism - in other words, there is no large group of people with an interest in changing the established order. So the established order has no need of defense.

(of course, that assumes that communism is worldwide - and indeed, a classless society can only exist if it encompasses all of Humanity)


I define the state as a tool, whose results, change by how ever uses it. It much like a gun to me, and I think that there will never be a time, when we are not in need of one. We all way say that there will be a war to end all wars, but I all I see are new wars, after each war to end all wars.
But wars are caused by class forces. In a society without classes, there will be no more wars. There will still be some occasional violence, of course, but not wars. There may still be reasons for individuals to kill each other, but there will be no reason for large numbers of people to kill each other en masse.

[robbo203]

Ok, guy, you are making me more lost. Is being pro-state, anti-capitalist or pro. Because I'm find more people on this fourm who think that a worker state is state capitalism.

Someone who advocates a statist set up includung the so called workers state is almost certainly pro-capitalist since the eixtence of a state *and indeed a working class) implies the existence of capitalism

[Yazman]

Its not an Opposing Ideology. We have fuckloads of leninists (including derivatives of leninism) here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So to you, the workers state of the USSR was nothing more then a capitalist state that uses the rhetoric of socialism to screw the worker? And will never have communism until all states are gone?Many anarchists and trotskyists argue it was state-capitalism which basically means it was nationalized industry under the control of a government. In some examples, these state-capitalist countries granted reforms on behalf of workers and in other instances the state exploited (screwed) workers in order to use the surplus wealth to build up the national economy (rather than achieving the same thing through private profits).

Other, tradditional, Trotskyists argue that the USSR was a "deformed" worker-state and that the nationalization of the economy basically meant that if workers could reform the government and make it democratic and responsive to the working class then the USSR could become a legitimate socialist state.

As to the original question, supporting the capitalist state (even if you eventually want it to become socialism through reforms) will get you banned. Believing that a transition state under control of workers building towards communism (classless and stateless society) is ok here and this is what I think would be the best way to achieve stateless and classless communism.

What you said about states being a tool, is correct in my opinion. But it is a tool, as Robo said, of class oppression. Robo thinks that workers will not need a state because the revolution won't happen until after the working class collectively comes to socialist-consciousness. But I think that there will be a period of time where workers will need to use "state-power" to establish their class interests and hegemony over society - this means winning the smaller non-working classes over to trusting that the working class's interests are in their interests. It also means that workers will have to organize to undo a lot of the structrual problems created by capitalism - different levels of development in different regions, artificial scarcity of housing and food created by the markets and so on. The working class will use the state power to get rid of the reminents of capitalism and then they will simply not need the state "tool" to enforce the majority class will becuase there will no longer be the need for it. Because of this I agree with other people here who said that communism without classes but with a state is a contradiction.

I think people like robbo and me agree on what needs to happen for real communism to happen, we just disagree about how the process will need to play out to ensure that communism and not another USSR can be created. The process I call "socialism" (the transition from capitalism to communism) I think will happen after the capitalist have been defeated and workers self-consiously take control of the means of production. Robbo thinks this and the full development of socialist-consciousness will precede the revolution and be the culmination of this process.

[ComradeMan]

The Socialist States that Drace mentions were for whatever reason or other blocked on their path to stateless communism.

For arguments about states see Malatesta.:)

The problem is with the word. Many people automatically think of state as being synonymous with country and indeed our everyday language does suggest that- fortunately in Italian the difference is clearer "stato" "paese" etc.

I understand "state" as being the mecchanisms of statist rule within a geographically delimited "statosphere":D.

Does "statosphere" exist? LOL!!! New word... perhaps, you saw it here first! LOL!!!

[Ovi]

Ok, guy, you are making me more lost. Is being pro-state, anti-capitalist or pro. Because I'm find more people on this fourm who think that a worker state is state capitalism.
Do you think that a classless stateless society can be created using a more powerful state? That people are too dumb to think for themselves and they need masters to tell them what to do? (this is the most common capitalist argument against genuine socialism, whether it's coming from someone like Glenn Beck or a hardcore stalinist). If not, then the state is an organ of one class rule over another: the ruling class over the working class and needs to be abolished along with private property and every other tool of capitalism.

[robbo203]

I think people like robbo and me agree on what needs to happen for real communism to happen, we just disagree about how the process will need to play out to ensure that communism and not another USSR can be created. The process I call "socialism" (the transition from capitalism to communism) I think will happen after the capitalist have been defeated and workers self-consiously take control of the means of production. Robbo thinks this and the full development of socialist-consciousness will precede the revolution and be the culmination of this process.

I think it is axiomatic that a socialist revolution can only happen if and when the majority of workers want and understand it. Socialism can only work on that basis. And if you dont achieve socialism then the "revolution" that you have had cannot possibly qualify as a socialist revolution.

Let me quote from Keith Graham's excellent book Karl Marx: Our Contemporary. Social Theory for a Post-Leninist World University of Toronto press 1992). The future society, he says

must be sustained by people clearly aware of what they are doing, actively and voluntarily cooperating in social production. It is literally unthinkable that a population should organise its affairs according to such principles without being aware that this is what they are doing. People can be coerced or duped into doing what what they themselves do not comprehend or desire but they cannot be coerced or duped into doing what they voluntarily choose to do (p134-5)

If you simply seize power in advance of the development of mass socialist consciousness all that will happen is that you will be compelled by circumstances to administer capitalism (since you cannot establish socialism). However in administering capitalism you will be compelled to side with the interests of capital against those of wage labour. That is inevitable. How else can capitalism be run except in the interests of the capitalist class? It matters not how fervantly you cling on to the rhetoric of socialiat emancipation, you will effectively help to shore up capitalism.

History vindicates this conclusion completely. The Social Democrat reformists and the Labourites who naively thought they could run capitalism in the interests of working people ending up being indistinguishable from their conservatiive opponents. The vanguard elite in whom Lenin entrust repsonsibility to lead the workers in Russia to socialism ended up ditching state capitalism and embracing corporate capitalism and in some cases transforming themselves into the Russian oligarchs of today.

In short, there is no short cut to socialism. We have to obtain majority conscious support for socialism before we attempt a revolution because without that, we will simply be foredoomed to adminster capitalism. And we all know now with the benefit of hindsight what happens when you try to run capitalism in the interests of the majority!

[synthesis]

Its not an Opposing Ideology. We have fuckloads of leninists (including derivatives of leninism) here.

Yeah, but Leninism isn't really pro-State in an absolute sense. The state is more of a necessary evil than an end in itself. I think this guy should probably clarify what exactly he means by "pro-State" before anyone jumps to conclusions.

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/office_space.jpg

[Comrade_Stalin]

I went and talk with other Marxist-Leninist, The problem, I have is that I define the State and the goverment as one in the same. After talking to them I found out that a State as it is, is there to keep the goverment from the workers. The state and the goverment are two diffent things to them.

[Comrade_Stalin]

By the way, this means that I am anti-state now as it is a system to keep away tools(one of the tools in the form of the goverment) from the workers. So does this mean that Statist are people who keep the mass from controling the goverment?

[StalinFanboy]

So is their a word, for a classless State society?
This is not possible.

[Comrade_Stalin]

This is not possible.

I see you did not read the whole post. I agree now but, I first need someone to explain to me that there was a difference between state and government. Also I needed them to explain to me what the state was from the lefts point of view.

Very much like this last post.




The problem is with the word. Many people automatically think of state as being synonymous with country and indeed our everyday language does suggest that- fortunately in Italian the difference is clearer "stato" "paese" etc.

I understand "state" as being the mecchanisms of statist rule within a geographically delimited "statosphere" .

[Sendo]

Jesus Fucking Christ! He comes in here with a question and the fucking left commies or whomever come on and try to propagandize their position.

Every time a new member comes on with Leninist or derivative leanings I can expect people to preach their ideology and confuse her/him.

Simple Question: Is pro-state an opposing ideology?
Simple Answer: No.

Long answer: Revleft is open to revolutionary leftists. This theoretical family roughly breaks into anarchists, libertarian communists, and authoritarian communists. Only the third group is pro-State. They are authoritarian in the sense they (we) believe a transitional state called "socialism" (likely led by a vanguard, or party, representing the working class) is needed to remove the material conditions for class and the state itself, hopefully. (Personally I don't care as much as others, I'm just so desperate to get us away from the apocalypse that capitalism is bringing us to, that I would tolerate a transitional, mostly socialist world for the rest of my life and then some).

Additionally one must be anti-discrimination in all its forms, and not chauvinist, homophobic, anti-choice, sexist, racist, nationalist, etc.

[Bud Struggle]

. Only the third group is pro-State. They are authoritarian in the sense they (we) believe a transitional state called "socialism" (likely led by a vanguard, or party, representing the working class) is needed to remove the material conditions for class and the state itself, hopefully.

The problem there is that that type of Socialism isn't complete. It's a means to something not and end in itself. All good, but it really isn't anything in itself--it doesn't answer the question about the fate of mankind. It just presents an authoritarian world run by some shady guys called the "Vanguard" who give us a copy of Das Kapital and say "trust us."

That idea is a bit frightening to some--but I guess if sold properly some people buy into it.

Unfortunately it's a Capitalist world (and thus forum) and all these theories have to compete in the marketplace if ideas for followers so hense the competition for followers seen above.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Jesus Fucking Christ! He comes in here with a question and the fucking left commies or whomever come on and try to propagandize their position.

Every time a new member comes on with Leninist or derivative leanings I can expect people to preach their ideology and confuse her/him.

Simple Question: Is pro-state an opposing ideology?
Simple Answer: No.

Long answer: Revleft is open to revolutionary leftists. This theoretical family roughly breaks into anarchists, libertarian communists, and authoritarian communists. Only the third group is pro-State. They are authoritarian in the sense they (we) believe a transitional state called "socialism" (likely led by a vanguard, or party, representing the working class) is needed to remove the material conditions for class and the state itself, hopefully. (Personally I don't care as much as others, I'm just so desperate to get us away from the apocalypse that capitalism is bringing us to, that I would tolerate a transitional, mostly socialist world for the rest of my life and then some).

Additionally one must be anti-discrimination in all its forms, and not chauvinist, homophobic, anti-choice, sexist, racist, nationalist, etc.

Look I’m happy that you are pointing out that most of the post around here turns into people "preach their ideology" instead of answering as question. But the mistake was my understanding of what the state means to those on the left. When I first came here I believed that the state and the government where one in the same. Now I understand that they are two different things. In fact, I now understand that being anti-government is the same as being pro-state.