Help me wise Comrades

[kiwigunner]

Hello..
I am very new to the world of Communisum, and am reading the communist manifesto and about to start the Marxist-Leninest Philosophy.

I guess what I would like to know is if someone can explain the principle of the state in the communist manifesto... because I always believed that the whole idea behind communisum was to remove the goverments power and replace it with a form of peoples group. But they keep talking about the state as a political and cultural entity which I though was what they wanted to change not put in place...

Sorry it may seem like a stupid question but im a bit confused...

[¿Que?]

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.


Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.


When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organist itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
This is probably the part of the manifesto you are referring to. One of the principles of Marxism is that the state must wither away. This is essentially what separated Marx's ideas with the Anarchists of his time. The Anarchists wanted to do away with the state immediately. They did not subscribe to the whole notion of "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" i.e. the state or socialism. Thus socialism is a transition stage in which the state in time dissolves from lack of necessity.

Anyway, reread the above section closely, and it should make sense. I'm sure other comrades will be able to explain it better. I thought I'd give it a shot though:)

[Comrade Gwydion]

Well, I am not sure how Marx posed it in the Communist Manifesto, but here is what I think is the general consensus amongst marxists.

The state as it is is an apperatus for the Ruling Class. Currently it means it's a capitalist machine. When the revolution comes, the working class should seize this machine, leading to any particular form of direct democracy. (also, the working class needs to seize the means of production, but this a different subject... sort of)

Within time, the civil relations caused by direct democracy on local and regional levels should be able to replace the state, and this way the state will 'wither away' because it is no longer needed for anything. So yes, in the end we want to get rid of the state. However, we think that the dissappearance of the state will be a gradual and logical consequence of our other actions.

This is a point of difference with Anarcho-Communists, who, IIRC, want to do away with any sort of state immedeately during the revolution, without waiting for it to wither away.

[red cat]

Hello..
I am very new to the world of Communisum, and am reading the communist manifesto and about to start the Marxist-Leninest Philosophy.

I guess what I would like to know is if someone can explain the principle of the state in the communist manifesto... because I always believed that the whole idea behind communisum was to remove the goverments power and replace it with a form of peoples group. But they keep talking about the state as a political and cultural entity which I though was what they wanted to change not put in place...

Sorry it may seem like a stupid question but im a bit confused...

The bourgeoisie is not eliminated as a class by a socialist revolution; it is only overthrown. It remains in the society, and tries to stage a comeback through various cultural, political and military means. Hence the bourgeoisie has to be crushed completely, or in other words, this class along with the remnants of the previous system has to be wiped out of every social field. For this, the proletariat needs to interact with them not through any form of democracy, but a powerful dictatorship, which is implemented through the machinery of a proletarian state.

As the bourgeoisie vanishes as a class, more and more the need for such a dictatorship also disappears. At the point when the bourgeoisie is no more, the proletarian state also ceases to exist.

[¿Que?]

The state as it is is an apperatus for the Ruling Class. Currently it means it's a capitalist machine. When the revolution comes, the working class should seize this machine, leading to any particular form of direct democracy. (also, the working class needs to seize the means of production, but this a different subject... sort of)
Although, if I'm not mistaken, the point is not to use the currently existing state apparatus, but to completely destroy it and create a new apparatus with all power in the hand of the proletariat. That means, among other things, dismantling the military and currently existing bureaucracies, and replacing them with people's militias and a dictatorship of the proletariat (as red cat points out).

[Comrade Gwydion]

Although, if I'm not mistaken, the point is not to use the currently existing state apparatus, but to completely destroy it and create a new apparatus with all power in the hand of the proletariat. That means, among other things, dismantling the military and currently existing bureaucracies, and replacing them with people's militias and a dictatorship of the proletariat (as red cat points out).


True, very true. Now, if you are easily insulted, do not read the following.

According to Chris Harman, a Trotskyist, this is exactly what went wrong in the USSR. Thanks to isolation, the failure of german revolutions and civil war, the revolutionairy movement was 'forced' to make use of the same bureaucracies and same civil servants that allready worked on the same posts before the revolution, under the Czar.

It was this incorperation of the servants of the old system that eventually led to the 'state capitalist' form of Stalinist Russia, where the system was dominated by the same old state apperatus instead of the workers councils from 1917-1919.

I appologize for posting this, I do not mean this as a tendency conflict, it's just a theory of Chris Harman which I though was apropraite to cite when talking about the replacement of the old bureacracy.

[Dave B]

People should stop putting up that 10 point plan from the Communist manifesto up without at least the caveat in the 1872 preface, it smacks of deliberate dishonesty . This is the third time this month I have had to do this on various forums;

Preface 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


But has being going on for over 60 years!

So from Debate with Trotskyists:
"Is Russia Capitalist?"

On July 1st [1948] at Conway Hall , D. Fenwick for the S.P.G.B. debated with R. Tearse for the Revolutionary Communist Party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_(UK,_1944))


R. TEARSE


Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, when they wrote of revolutionary measures such as steeply-graduated income tax, and the centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, obviously envisaged the continuance of the wages system and commodity production in the transition period after the workers had gained power. The first essential step for the workers is to secure the centralisation of large-scale industry in the hands of the State as had been done in Russia.


FENWICK



The measures at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, showed that at that time the immediate establishment of Socialism after the capture of power was not entertained by Marx or Engels; but industry and knowledge had undergone great development since then. In 1872 Engels had said that the passage in question would have been very differently worded under the different conditions existing at the later date.




http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-russia-capitalist.html (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-russia-capitalist.html)

[¿Que?]

People should stop putting up that 10 point plan from the Communist manifesto up without at least the caveat in the 1872 preface, it smacks of deliberate dishonesty .
Well, I am not learned enough on Marxist theory to recall that section of the preface until you mentioned it. It was not dishonesty, it was a careless mistake on my part. The reason I posted it was because the OP said they were reading the manifesto and I suspected that was the part that they were inquiring about. No need to accuse people of dishonesty. A lot of us are still learning!

In any case, I will take this opportunity to ask you this. Besides the 10 point plan, is the rest of that passage relevant. From what you posted, it seems Marx had not come to the conclusion that the state apparatus must be dismantled when he wrote that passage. I gathered that based on this quote you posted:

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." Would that be a correct assessment?

[kiwigunner]

Agustin,
You were very correct that was the part I was confused about. I know the manifesto was written in 1848, did they ever right a newer version after the end of the second world war?

So in order for communisum to sucessfully take over a capitlistic society they would need to destroy everything and start again???

[¿Que?]

Agustin,
You were very correct that was the part I was confused about. I know the manifesto was written in 1848, did they ever right a newer version after the end of the second world war?

So in order for communisum to sucessfully take over a capitlistic society they would need to destroy everything and start again???
The last time I answered a question I was accused of being dishonest. If I make another mistake, I might be accused of being a traitor. I suggest you just google around or wait till someone else answers.

Also, you might consider purchasing the annotated version from Haymarket books. The slant might be Trotskyist, but it might be helpful anyway. Some of it is online, though, so he ya go:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ws2y9H-SaHIC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA35&dq=annotated%20communist%20manifesto&source=bl&ots=jJLGSHlCzv&sig=w_kXHVKX0ARCnLcTaxci8UTTrdM&hl=en&ei=_vupS4X6CIH58AaKk6i8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=annotated%20communist%20manifesto&f=false

enjoy!

[Dave B]

I am sorry augustin for accusing you of dishonesty, anyway the 10 point plan thing is spread all over Leninist intelligentsia literature whose intention is to deceive and which lets face dominates ‘Marxist’ literature.

So being misled is understandable.


I read a 20,000 word essay on section two by a Leninist theoretician who failed to even mention the preface.


I have read Marx and Engels extensively and for that I am entitled to an opinion I think.



The most important document in my opinion from the Marx and Engels archive is another that is never read or ignored. It is the definitive and most up to date statement on their political position about what is to be done and not to be done. And includes an analysis of their previous positions of circa 1850 and an admission of the mistaken analysis that they made then.


Eg


History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong.


The history of the last fifty years has taught us that


But we, too, have been shown to have been wrong by history, which has revealed our point of view of that time to have been an illusion. It has done even more: it has not merely destroyed our error of that time; it had also completely transformed the conditions under which the proletariat has to fight. The mode of struggle of 1848 is today obsolete from every point of view, and this is a point which deserves closer examination on the present occasion.

In that respect it is I think more important than the Communist Manifesto itself.

Without wishing to prejudice it further read on.


Karl Marx
The Class Struggles In France
Introduction by Frederick Engels

Written: 1895;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm)


...

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is probably the part of the manifesto you are referring to. One of the principles of Marxism is that the state must wither away. This is essentially what separated Marx's ideas with the Anarchists of his time. The Anarchists wanted to do away with the state immediately. They did not subscribe to the whole notion of "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" i.e. the state or socialism. Thus socialism is a transition stage in which the state in time dissolves from lack of necessity.

Anyway, reread the above section closely, and it should make sense. I'm sure other comrades will be able to explain it better. I thought I'd give it a shot though:)

Of his time? Those are still how Anarchists think as of today.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

are you in the millitary, because you tried to join the unconventional warfare group, you added me as a friend and have a picture and name suggesting so, if you are please dont keep trying to talk to me

[mikelepore]

Marxists need to admit that Marx and Engels left a big gap. They never came right out and said anything like "a new association of factory workers should perform the management in the factories" or "a new association of agricultural workers should perform the management in agriculture", or any such remark. It would have been so simple to compose one such sentence, and would only have taken them one minute, but they never said it. Therefore they died leaving a searing criticism of capitalism, but no suggestion about what to replace it with, which is sort of like speaking for forty years about how we need to travel to the moon but never once mentioning a spacecraft. They left their descendents with an unfinished plan. A few purely negative comments, like how working class cannot simply use the ready-made state machinery, was not a valid substitute for a plan. I believe De Leon in the 1890s was the primary Marxist who continued where Marx and Engels left off, and actually suggested a plan, not perfect, perhaps, but specific enough to serve as a starting point for further discussion.

[kiwigunner]

Thanks guys you have been helpful.
I am reading it again and hopefully it will make sense a 3rd time.

Yes I was in the military, for a number of years. Why does that matter?

[¿Que?]

Of his time? Those are still how Anarchists think as of today.
I sort of figured that. It's just there's so many varieties of anarchism today (not counting ancap), anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchism with no adjectives, well three, but I'm sure if I dig around I might find more. I really don't know what to make of all this anarcho stuff. So I just went with what I was sure of.

[red cat]

Thanks guys you have been helpful.
I am reading it again and hopefully it will make sense a 3rd time.

Yes I was in the military, for a number of years. Why does that matter?

The military forms the most important component of the bourgeois state machinery, without which the bourgeoisie won't be able to combat the revolutionary forces even for a day. This is why many communists are extremely hostile towards anyone who had been a part of the government troops.

[kiwigunner]

Oh that explains it. I realized I worked for the government, never really believed in the propaganda they try and tell us.