Why must there be a state?

[StoneFrog]

Why do we have to have a state to achieve communism? I see the use of some centralization during the revolution, but why after the workers have seized control?
Does it not become more the state run factories rather than worker run? And the use of the vanguard party what is its use after the revolution? I mean isn't its main purpose to bring about worker conscious, but after the revolution that is not needed.

I want to try and understand how some of the left advocate a state, atm i just don't understand it =S

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Have you read Lenin's State & Revolution? It will explain the need for the state better than anybody on here can. I am making the assumption that you haven't read it and are not here to argue against it, but I may be wrong.

[StoneFrog]

Have you read Lenin's State & Revolution? It will explain the need for the state better than anybody on here can. I am making the assumption that you haven't read it and are not here to argue against it, but I may be wrong.


No i haven't read it, as said above im just trying to understand better.
Ill add it to my reading list.. i got a very long list atm =P


In the mean time i would like to hear from others why they think its needed.

[Universal Struggle]

Basically its like this

There are two kids

one is a Marxist Leninist one is an anarchist.

They both want ice cream off their mum.

TRhe anarchist says lets just go up to mum and ask, b=even though we have all mud all over us and wrecked our clothes.

Now this kid is awesome and probably the most enthusiastic kid ever, but the ML kid is a wee bit older and looks at getting the ice cream in a more realistic way.

If we go upstairs and get changed, then, it might take longer to get the ice cream "stateless society", but it is the only way to stop mum from shouting at us and not giving us ice cream "stopping a counter revolutioon/yankee invasion"

Noneof the kids want to go upstairs and change(a state), but one sees unless they do it, they wont get the ice cream (stateless society) in the long run

[Zanthorus]

Why do we have to have a state to achieve communism?

Because although the expropriation of the bourgeoisie will go fairly quickly there will still be other non-exploiting classes around post-revolution who you won't be able to just oust. The workers will have to find a way to abolish those classes as well before communism is achieved. Not to mention it isn't simply a question of just ousting the bourgeoisie. It's likely that they will escape somehow to a nearby country and attempt to impose some kind of sanctions on the new society or even start up some military aggression in the name of "democracy" or something like that. Although the latter can be avoided somewhat with correct measures taken before the revolution and the building up of a strong international movement.

In general I think the ICC'S article "The state in the period of Transition" is a good article on this question:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

[Universal Struggle]

Because although the expropriation of the bourgeoisie will go fairly quickly there will still be other non-exploiting classes around post-revolution who you won't be able to just oust. The workers will have to find a way to abolish those classes as well before communism is achieved. Not to mention it isn't simply a question of just ousting the bourgeoisie. It's likely that they will escape somehow to a nearby country and attempt to impose some kind of sanctions on the new society or even start up some military aggression in the name of "democracy" or something like that. Although the latter can be avoided somewhat with correct measures taken before the revolution and the building up of a strong international movement.

In general I think the ICC'S article "The state in the period of Transition" is a good article on this question:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

I like the way i said it better :)

[Zanthorus]

I like the way i said it better :)

You phrased yours as a dishonest polemic against an anarchist. Not all anarchists are anti-transitional phase. Some of them would support a system for defence of the revolution organised through workers councils and such. They just don't call it a state because it's based on non-heirarchical institutions of popular power. Although they tend to ignore the issue of what to do with non-proletarian non-exploiting classes from what I've read.

[StoneFrog]

How is the state going to deal with these non-exploiting classes? And could you define some of these no-exploiting classes?

[chegitz guevara]

I forget who said it, but there's a quote that goes, "Every nation has an army, theirs or someone else's." The same would be true of the state. Either we have our own state or the capitalists will impose one upon us.

[syndicat]

The only classes whose position needs to be abolished are exploiting classes. Within developed corporate capitalism, this includes the small business class, the bureaucratic class (managers, cops, judges, military officers, industrial engineers, lawyers, top accountants, asset brokers etc), and the plutocracy (the very small dominant capitalist class). Eliminating the capitalist position is simplest because it's a question of the working class taking over direct control of the means of production and other capitalist assets (like apartment buildings) and making them social property, and establishing worker assemblies and councils to self-manage production. Re-org'ing work and training and educating the working class, democratizing knowledge are more complex but also do not require a huge amount of time to achieve.

[chegitz guevara]

All classes must be abolished.

[Zanthorus]

How is the state going to deal with these non-exploiting classes?

By taking up policies that get them on our side.


And could you define some of these no-exploiting classes?

The peasantry is probably the main example, especially in non-western countries. Also various petty-bourgeois proffesionals, self-employed people etc.

[StoneFrog]

By taking up policies that get them on our side.



The peasantry is probably the main example, especially in non-western countries. Also various petty-bourgeois proffesionals, self-employed people etc.

tbh i always thought the anarchist approach deals with the peasantry better because it removes the use of money and stops things like when the peasants in Russia hid their crops or burnt it in an effort to increase the price.

I do see that Peasants, Self employed and professionals don't have representations like workers do, but that's why i don't like unions. I guess the state can be used to pick up the slack in that area.

[syndicat]

All classes must be abolished.

Class is a relationship. Thus it is better phrased by saying the class structure must be abolished. By eliminating the power of the dominating, exploiting classes, socializing ownership of the means of production, and workers achieving power within social production, and replacing the state with direct power of the masses through their assemblies, councils, etc, you do abolish the class structure, and hence "all classes."

the self-employed aren't a class. some are members of the working class, such as truck drivers and cab drivers who work as socalled "independent contractors". some are really members of the bureaucratic class who work as consultants, such as architects, industrial engineers, top accountants, lawyers.

there are some working people who don't have an employer and use their own tools to make a living through their work, such as a self-employed plumber. they pose no particular problem precisely because they do not stand in a relationship of domination and exploitation to the working class.

[Die Rote Fahne]

To prevent a bourgeois counter-revolution.

[meow]

the anarchist wanting icecream goes and gets it.

the authoritarian bows to the authority figure and makes sure that they are presentable. then and only then if they have permission do they get icecream.

the anarchist creates a society without authority figure. the authoritarian creates a society with more authority figure and so continues oppression.

[ContrarianLemming]

The stereotype of anarhcism being unrealistic, idealistic and widey eyed enthusiastic should not be brought into this as a valid argument.
Using a hierarchal institution to bring about a non hierarchal socety is like having sex for virginity.

[Zapatas Guns]

Government intervention is a reaction to trouble caused by capitalism. There have also been monopolies formed because of government. That is why the state plus capitalism must be eliminated. There shouldn't be a state.

[thälmann]

@syndicat: ithink your class analysis is really wrong. i think bureaucratic class isnt existing is this way. employed engineers for example are not exploiters. they are exploited, not in a way like ordinary workers but they are. self employed petty-bourgeois are not exploiters as well, when the doesnt have employees. and self emloyed people are existing as a class, the classic petty-bourgois....

[ContrarianLemming]

@syndicat: ithink your class analysis is really wrong. i think bureaucratic class isnt existing is this way. employed engineers for example are not exploiters. they are exploited, not in a way like ordinary workers but they are. self employed petty-bourgeois are not exploiters as well, when the doesnt have employees. and self emloyed people are existing as a class, the classic petty-bourgois....

the bureuacratic class, if we're going to be so archaic about it (instead of simply simplifying things as syndicat did, and I wish we were all brave enough to venture away from marx and say classes are not only defined by there relationship to capital) is working class, but they are class traitors, like police and soliders

[syndicat]

@syndicat: ithink your class analysis is really wrong. i think bureaucratic class isnt existing is this way. employed engineers for example are not exploiters. they are exploited, not in a way like ordinary workers but they are. self employed petty-bourgeois are not exploiters as well, when the doesnt have employees. and self emloyed people are existing as a class, the classic petty-bourgois....


most engineers can be considered to be part of the skilled section of the working class. but, note, i said "industrial engineers". these are the people who design work flows and jobs. they work with management to bring out deskilling and reduce labor expenses and more control over workers. As such, they are participating directly in the power of management over workers, to serve capitalist and bureaucratic class aims.

but the great majority of engineers are not "industrial engineers" in this technical sense. in engineering departments where i've worked, however, there is usually a senior engineer who directly advises management on who should do what and the design of the product and so on. these senior engineers are effectively a part of mangement, and thus part of the bureaucratic class. but many people who do engineering work are not in this situation, such as production engineers and most software engineers.

the self-employed do not form a class for the reasons I gave. it's necessary to look, not at their de jure position as self-employed, but at the power they have in relation to other workers. if they are management consultants, they are still a part of the bureaucratic class even if they are formally self-employed. many people in this class have a high degree of autonomy in their job, and self-employment is simply a form of that, but many who are employees also have significant autonomy, as well as control over other workers.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The stereotype of anarhcism being unrealistic, idealistic and widey eyed enthusiastic should not be brought into this as a valid argument.
Using a hierarchal institution to bring about a non hierarchal socety is like having sex for virginity.

That's a terrible analogy.

Please read some Karl Marx before posting nonsense.

[StoneFrog]

To prevent a bourgeois counter-revolution.

Why can't the workers fight against the bourgeois counter revolution? i mean they they must of been successful with bring down the bourgeois, why can't they not keep the bourgeois down without the state?

[this is an invasion]

Basically its like this

There are two kids

one is a Marxist Leninist one is an anarchist.

They both want ice cream off their mum.

TRhe anarchist says lets just go up to mum and ask, b=even though we have all mud all over us and wrecked our clothes.

Now this kid is awesome and probably the most enthusiastic kid ever, but the ML kid is a wee bit older and looks at getting the ice cream in a more realistic way.

If we go upstairs and get changed, then, it might take longer to get the ice cream "stateless society", but it is the only way to stop mum from shouting at us and not giving us ice cream "stopping a counter revolutioon/yankee invasion"

Noneof the kids want to go upstairs and change(a state), but one sees unless they do it, they wont get the ice cream (stateless society) in the long run
analogy fail