Government in Communism?

[AK]

As btpound had pointed out to me in a previous thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-model-t127659/index.html?p=1658918#post1658918); government and the state are not one and the same. Communism is the stateless, classless, moneyless society. I ask of you, what do you consider the government to be and do you think it would exist under communism? (Maybe the conditions that allow the government to exist disappear, but I'm fucked if i know).

[Q]

The way I see it, workers councils will continue to exist under communism.

[Black Sheep]

Since according to Marx, the state is an instrument of class rule, when the classes disappear, the state (the instrument of class rule) will disappear as well.
Economic and social management , decision making will still be around, so the councils should be around as well.

[AK]

Since according to Marx, the state is an instrument of class rule, when the classes disappear, the state (the instrument of class rule) will disappear as well.
Economic and social management , decision making will still be around, so the councils should be around as well.
And these workers councils are formed during revolutions i believe, is that so?

[whore]

bleh, "government" and "state" are effectively synonyms. that is, they basically mean the same thing.

i do not wished to be ruled, whether by some government masquerading as a collection of "worker's councils" or by a parliament claiming to represent me.

i do not wish to be

... watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

i do not want your government, whether it claims to be for my own good or not. i do not want your government at all.

some may say it is mere semantics, but government is not any more part of the anarchist ideal than capitalism. yes, anarchists desire organisation, but not bureaucracy, hierarchy, regulation, and other hallmarks of government.

(side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism who knew? i like this theory more than the "state capitalist" one.)

[AK]

bleh, "government" and "state" are effectively synonyms. that is, they basically mean the same thing.

i do not wished to be ruled, whether by some government masquerading as a collection of "worker's councils" or by a parliament claiming to represent me.

i do not wish to be


i do not want your government, whether it claims to be for my own good or not. i do not want your government at all.

some may say it is mere semantics, but government is not any more part of the anarchist ideal than capitalism. yes, anarchists desire organisation, but not bureaucracy, hierarchy, regulation, and other hallmarks of government.

(side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism who knew? i like this theory more than the "state capitalist" one.)

I myself would much rather direct democracy with the vanguard serving only an advisory role for the running of the economy, but this seems to be impractical and illogical according to some.
EDIT: btw, i was wondering what your guys ideal view of a socialist government was, what would its structure be and how would it manage the economy and other government-like stuff.

[GPDP]

bleh, "government" and "state" are effectively synonyms. that is, they basically mean the same thing.

i do not wished to be ruled, whether by some government masquerading as a collection of "worker's councils" or by a parliament claiming to represent me.

i do not wish to be


i do not want your government, whether it claims to be for my own good or not. i do not want your government at all.

some may say it is mere semantics, but government is not any more part of the anarchist ideal than capitalism. yes, anarchists desire organisation, but not bureaucracy, hierarchy, regulation, and other hallmarks of government.

(side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism who knew? i like this theory more than the "state capitalist" one.)

I sincerely mean no offense to you when I say this, but this is part of the reason why I renounced anarchism as my ideology.

Unlike you and a lot of anarchists, I don't have the semantic hangups I used to have with words like "government." To me, government simply means an organized effort to get things in society running. As such, there are many different kinds of government, from dictatorship (autocratic) to bourgeois parliamentarian (oligarchic) to socialist (democratic), to name a few.

Obviously, I want a government that is thoroughly libertarian and democratic, and does away with hierarchy and unnecessary bureaucracy as much as possible. I suspect a lot of anarchists would agree with me on that, but due to the way they define "state" and even "government," many of them would look at something like that and say "well, that's not a government, so it's ok."

I would say yes, it is indeed a government. And trust me, it makes talking to people a lot easier when you can articulate your ideal form of government, instead of saying you want no government at all, when all you want is, well, an ideal form of government that you are intent on saying is something different.

Note: there are indeed anarchists who do not want any form of government whatsoever, and I have much less in common with them, so I do not claim to speak for them here.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

There would be no central government under communism. However this doesnt mean there wouldnt be organisation. Workers councils would still exist, and these groups would be volentarily federated with each other.

[GPDP]

There would be no central government under communism. However this doesnt mean there wouldnt be organisation. Workers councils would still exist, and these groups would be volentarily federated with each other.

See, and what's wrong with calling that a form of government? You can call it a decentralized, democratic council government, and most people would understand you (as soon as you explain how it's organized, of course).

I think the main hang-up here is the equation of government with centralization and bureaucracy, because that's how almost all countries' government operate nowadays. But I believe that just makes them one form of government.

[syndicat]

Anarchists who say they are against all government seem to be inspired more by an individualist anarchist viewpoint.

Kropotkin pointed out that government and state are not the same thing. As Engels pointed out, what is essential to the state is that it is an armed apparatus where control is separate from the mass of the people. If this were not so, it could not function to protect the interests of the dominating classes, and the whole existing structure of oppression.

Governance, on the other hand, is the making and enforcing of the basic rules of a society. A classless society would not persist if it had no way to enforce such things as no one hiring anyone as wage slaves. When the working class based mass social movements expropriate the capitalists, institute worker management of production, and dismantle the state, they also need to consolidate a new form of direct popular self-rule...and this is a form of government. The role of government is to make the basic rules, enforce them, and to adjudicate the inevitable disputes that arise, to protect the revolutionary order against external attack. Since it is possible for government to take the form of popular self-rule, through things like neighborhood and workplace assemblies, election of rank and file committees, regional and national congresses of delegates whose decisions can, if necessary, be referred back to the base for decision...this is not a state or a separate structure representing alien interests ruling over the people.

[Tablo]

To me the word government infers some elites governing the way I live my life.

[whore]

I sincerely mean no offense to you when I say this, but this is part of the reason why I renounced anarchism as my ideology.
good for you.


Unlike you and a lot of anarchists, I don't have the semantic hangups I used to have with words like "government." To me, government simply means an organized effort to get things in society running. As such, there are many different kinds of government, from dictatorship (autocratic) to bourgeois parliamentarian (oligarchic) to socialist (democratic), to name a few.
i, obviously, disagree.

The government of a country is the group of people who are responsible for governing it.

Government consists of the activities, methods, and principles involved in governing a country or other political unit.
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=government

A government is the body within a community, political entity or organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) which has the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to make and enforce rules, laws, and regulations.
do you also say, "yes there will be police in an anarchist society" and "a defence force? why of course there will be such a thing". even though, police is not at all a good word to describe what would occur in anarchism, and any "defence force" (army etc.) would not be permanent, but consist of the mass of the people armed.

government is above the people. no thanks, not in my anarchism.


Obviously, I want a government that is thoroughly libertarian and democratic, and does away with hierarchy and unnecessary bureaucracy as much as possible. I suspect a lot of anarchists would agree with me on that, but due to the way they define "state" and even "government," many of them would look at something like that and say "well, that's not a government, so it's ok."

I would say yes, it is indeed a government. And trust me, it makes talking to people a lot easier when you can articulate your ideal form of government, instead of saying you want no government at all, when all you want is, well, an ideal form of government that you are intent on saying is something different.
the trouble is, that you are confusing people. instead of being honest, and saying "no government", you waffle about small government, and non-heirarchical government, and so on. but, when it comes down to it, this "government" is not going to be small. it will control the schools, the distribution of resources (in a communist system at least), defence and police, health, roads, etc. it won't be limited to just the "essentials" as the capitalist libertarians desire, no it will be everything. but, it will also be everybody! government is an elite, a group above, and that's not going to happen in anarchism.

so, thanks at least for not saying you are an anarchist, because if you truly want a government (as i've defined it above), then you aren't one.


Note: there are indeed anarchists who do not want any form of government whatsoever, and I have much less in common with them, so I do not claim to speak for them here.
all anarchists do not want government. few (if any) anarchists do not want organisation. the organisation of society is fundementally different to government, and does not require or need government.

[Comrade_Stalin]

mass of the people armed.

When you say "mass of the people armed", you don't mean a mob with guns, do you?

[robbo203]

Perhaps a useful alternative to the word "government" might be "administration". Engels seemed to think so when in Neue Rheinische Zeitung, (January 13, 1849) he wrote of communism that "the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things"

[Comrade_Stalin]

The problem with this is that we need to define what goverment and administration is to Engels, along with what he means by "state".

[whore]

When you say "mass of the people armed", you don't mean a mob with guns, do you?
no...

i mean everyone having access to, and training in the use of, weaponry. a militia if you will.

a "mob with guns" has all sorts of negative conitations which i don't intend at all.

a militia, the mass of the people armed, would be the only form of "defence force" that i can see being compatible with anarchism.

non-perminant, rotating, comprised of all able bodied individuals with in the community (volunteers only, of course), and so on. officers, if existing, would be elected and recallable by the mass of the force. (that is, the "privates" would electe everyone from the "sergents" all the way to the "generals").

this militia would probably also serve as a civilan "order keeping" organisation (analgious to todays police, but not police in any meaningful sense). it would not have "extra" powers above and beyond the citizenry, because it is the citizenry. it would not be responsible for forensices, because it is not sensible to have the same people "enforcing" as "presecuting" (though i can't imagine there would be nearly as mcuh crap as you see in todays police).

no, no "mob". rather, as with the "government", it is the people.

government, of the people, by the people, for the people. which, is not government at all, as government is never by the people, and rarely for the people.

[Comrade_Stalin]

, comprised of all able bodied individuals with in the community (volunteers only, of course), and so on. officers, if existing, would be elected and recallable by the mass of the force. (that is, the "privates" would electe everyone from the "sergents" all the way to the "generals").



Final we found something that both Marxist-Leninist and anarchist can agree on. I would love to talk more about defense forces, but that is not the point of post.

[Tatarin]

Well, obviously no one wants government, or at least no government is the "final goal" so to say. The problem is if anarchists are ready to support a socialist government should that be the popular way, and if socialists are ready to support anarchist councils should that way be appealing.