Popular revolution and the state

[Rob Mackine]

Assuming that revolution cannot come about without popular support, and that it would necessarily happen world wide (the world-wide part is an assumption for the sake of argument; there are probably more that would have a problem with this statement than the first), what would be the role of the state in the period immediately following the revolution? If the majority of the people are already sympathetic towards socialism, why would any coercive institution be necessary at all? Would not the vast support for leftist ideologies be sufficient for their implementation?

(Before I get flamed for bringing up the role of the state in a post-revolutionary world, I am aware that it is discussed frequently, but I wanted to emphasize the popular support aspect of the argument. Also, if you haven't noticed, I am sympathetic towards anarchism.)

[A.R.Amistad]

Assuming that revolution cannot come about without popular support, and that it would necessarily happen world wide (the world-wide part is an assumption for the sake of argument; there are probably more that would have a problem with this statement than the first), what would be the role of the state in the period immediately following the revolution? If the majority of the people are already sympathetic towards socialism, why would any coercive institution be necessary at all? Would not the vast support for leftist ideologies be sufficient for their implementation?

(Before I get flamed for bringing up the role of the state in a post-revolutionary world, I am aware that it is discussed frequently, but I wanted to emphasize the popular support aspect of the argument. Also, if you haven't noticed, I am sympathetic towards anarchism.)

One must realise that a "revolution" is more of a process than an act. It takes more than just popular support to have a successful revolution. Maybe more importantly, it takes an organized revolutionary class to sieze power from the previously ruling class. This means that the working class, in our case, needs to be organized before the day of the revolution. This is why it is so important to form armed worker's guards, worker's councils, oppressed people's councils, a revolutionary party, etc. before you can take power. You can have a majority pro-socialist mob wanting to take state power and still not be ready if they aren't organized. But on the actual day of taing state power, generally all forms of the previous state are replaced with the insitituions of the revolutionary working class. This means that all votes, descisions and government organs are based entirely on the worker's and oppressed people's councils. So, at least for a time say in the United States, the soviets would have more representation in the new state than the individual local and state governments. This wouldn't be permanent but the councils would have to be the all-powerful organ until the revolution was more stable. The worker's guards I mentioned before would immediately replace the police and the military, and all of the military leaders of the old state would be placed under house arrest until they sign a loyalty oath to the new state not to resist it with arms. The revolutionary party would probably be in direct control of most of the worker's militias, so mass recruiting of worker's for a Red Army and a Red Police Force would be in order. A constituent assembly would be convened as the highest executive branch of the state until a revolutionary constitution could be drafted based on the democratic worker's councils. Hope this answered some things if not I can explain more.

Also, the revolution doesn't have to start out world wide, and it probably won't. Its just the job of the revolutionary party to encourage world revolution and also that the revolutionary government have revolutionary internationalism as a goal. The full world revolution can take over half a century long, as it did with the classical bourgeois revolutions.

[Rob Mackine]

But of what use would these "red police forces" be? Who would their violence be directed towards? To what extent would domestic violence be necessary even if state power had only been seized only in part of the world?

[A.R.Amistad]

But of what use would these "red police forces" be? Who would their violence be directed towards? To what extent would domestic violence be necessary even if state power had only been seized only in part of the world?

The new socialist state would have a constitution that the army and military would have to swear to protect. It is a given, of course, that that constitution would prohibit things like murder, theft, domestic violence, etc. as well as some of the now un-checked bourgeois crimes. Violence, or more properly force, would be directed at anyone who was not abiding by the law as laid down in the revolutionary constitution, just as the bourgeois police direct their violence against those who go against the current constitution.

Hopefully domestic violence on the part of the state would be very very minimal. That all depends on the situation. If a civil war erupts in the revolutionized nation, than of course vilence on the part of the worker's state would have to be excercized accoring to the rules of war, and until the violent threat to the stability of the worker's state is subdued. Otherwise, as long as there are no major violent attempts to destablilize the state on the part of counter-revolutionaries, there should be no violent force except for against petty crime, for national defense, etc.

[Rob Mackine]

Once the root of almost all crime has been eliminated (poverty and helplessness) why would there be a need for a single entity with absolute control over which coercion is legitimate or not? And what bourgeois crimes would exist after revolution that would require the state's intervention? As to counter-revolution, that could be fought by an entity resembling that which you describe without constituting a state - the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries could be fought by the same entity without it deciding and enforcing its decision on whether or not force by other entities/individuals against bourgeois crimes were legitimate or not. And even if there were a single entity which the proletariat had decided should deal with whatever remained of the bourgeoisie and which could prohibit others from doing so, it still would not necessarily constitute a state unless it were acting similarly towards the proletariat. Since you are a communist, and believe that the state will become unnecessary, what conditions would be lacking immediately following the revolution which would in time make statelessness possible (specifically with regards to the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie)?

[A.R.Amistad]

Class division and crime and such won't vanish overnight. Its a process. It will take years, possibly centuries, to evolve into a fully classless society. Only then will bourgeois crime and such cease to exist along with the state. A state is there to ensure that capitalism isn't restored, and when the class threat is gone, so is the state

[Rob Mackine]

Implicit in the statement "Class division and crime and such won't vanish overnight" is the assumption that revolution will happen overnight. And as to "it will take years..." ...why? Obviously any society is evolving constantly but what basis for power relationships would exist following the revolution (to the extent that institutional violence would be required to end the violence)? (The obvious answer is the pretensions of a state claiming legitimacy but unfortunately this can only be replaced by the institutional violence which eliminates it.) And since state and class are inseparable, which disappears first, the chicken or the egg? As a Marxist who views class as an economic status determined by relationship to the means of production, how could the bourgeoisie exist once its defining characteristic has disappeared? (or would the "bourgeois crime" you referred to not require a bourgeoisie to carry it out? does "bourgeois crime" exist independent of economic and political relationships? does "proletarian crime" exist?)

[Proletarian Ultra]

But of what use would these "red police forces" be? Who would their violence be directed towards? To what extent would domestic violence be necessary even if state power had only been seized only in part of the world?

Here's what it looked like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety) in the radical phase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Convention) of bourgeois revolution:


http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/guillotine.jpg

I think that's as good a precedent as any.