Why do we have to be opposed to the idea of a state?

[Crimson Commissar]

Now, I'm a relatively new Socialist, and this is one of the things that confuses me. Why do we Socialists (Not Anarchists) have to be so violently opposed to the idea of a state, even if it is a Socialist state? Why is there so much emphasis on "destroying the state" and establishing an Anarchist society? I just don't get why we would spend so long creating an equal Socialist society and then just go "Fuck it" and get rid of it all. I understand how it's supposed to work, but I don't understand why it's necessary. Surely a Socialist state that takes over from a Capitalist state is not something we should be opposed to?

[Ravachol]

Now, I'm a relatively new Socialist, and this is one of the things that confuses me. Why do we Socialists (Not Anarchists) have to be so violently opposed to the idea of a state, even if it is a Socialist state? Why is there so much emphasis on "destroying the state" and establishing an Anarchist society? I just don't get why we would spend so long creating an equal Socialist society and then just go "Fuck it" and get rid of it all. I understand how it's supposed to work, but I don't understand why it's necessary. Surely a Socialist state that takes over from a Capitalist state is not something we should be opposed to?

What you seem to confuse is the state and collective administration. The state is a specific organ or autoritarian, top-down control with specific sub-organs (the police, the army, prisons,etc) designed to function as a means towards an end: effective and efficient molding of it's subject so they can function 'properly'. This 'proper' functioning is defined in economic terms and profitability, thus being at the service of Capital.

A lot of anarchists propose the obliteration of the state and seek to replace it with a free federation of communes run in a bottom-up fashion, with the 'top' organ having no autority at all but just serving as a central gathering point for collective decision-making and administration. Some people, mostly new to Anarchist theory, say "oh, but that's a State!" as they seem to consider any form of overarching administration a 'state'. The state, however, is a specific type of overarching administration in a specific fashion with specific interests, one that we oppose.

[Crimson Commissar]

What you seem to confuse is the state and collective administration. The state is a specific organ or autoritarian, top-down control with specific sub-organs (the police, the army, prisons,etc) designed to function as a means towards an end: effective and efficient molding of it's subject so they can function 'properly'. This 'proper' functioning is defined in economic terms and profitability, thus being at the service of Capital.

A lot of anarchists propose the obliteration of the state and seek to replace it with a free federation of communes run in a bottom-up fashion, with the 'top' organ having no autority at all but just serving as a central gathering point for collective decision-making and administration. Some people, mostly new to Anarchist theory, say "oh, but that's a State!" as they seem to consider any form of overarching administration a 'state'. The state, however, is a specific type of overarching administration in a specific fashion with specific interests, one that we oppose.
But if there is a Socialist state, and it works perfectly fine, provides the people with everything they need to live their life, and creates an equal society, then why should Socialists be opposed to that? Anarchists, sure, but why do even Communists have to want to obliterate the state regardless of how well it is working?

[NecroCommie]

Because state is nothing more than a means of one class to impose it's rule upon another. Therefor if there is state, there is still a class society. If there is no class, the state is useless and will therefor wither away.

That's the short version. For longer one, read "state and revolution". That's the short marxist version to be precise. I personally have been thinking whether the class distinction is nothing more but a motivation and a reason for the state, and state itself would be an organization that holds the monopoly of violence.

[Burn A Flag]

But if there is a Socialist state, and it works perfectly fine, provides the people with everything they need to live their life, and creates an equal society, then why should Socialists be opposed to that? Anarchists, sure, but why do even Communists have to want to obliterate the state regardless of how well it is working?

There are lots of diffrent views on this. Personally, I generally only defend Cuba and the USSR. Socialist states are definitely a good thing in a capitalist world, and I think many of us here support socialist states that genuinely provide for the people.

However, just about all of us wish for the eventual abolishment of the state. Anarchists and Communists both want a stateless society eventually, it's just that sometimes communists think that a vanguard party can help with the transition to communism. Especially in defense against imperialism as well.

[el_chavista]

The state is a historical byproduct of the class struggle. It's the means used by a privilaged elite to keep power over society. The Marxist-Leninist short definition of state is "group of men in arms".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Because the state as defined by it's history (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm) is a violent, oppresive mode of organization designed to, as NC said, impose the rule of one class over another.

[Raúl Duke]

But if there is a Socialist state, and it works perfectly fine, provides the people with everything they need to live their life, and creates an equal society, then why should Socialists be opposed to that? Anarchists, sure, but why do even Communists have to want to obliterate the state regardless of how well it is working?

Because the ultimate goal for communists is communism...which is a state-less egalitarian society where the economy is managed most according to the maxim "from each according to abilities, to each according to their needs."

Statist Marxists only consider the "socialist state" to be a transitional thing.

[The Ben G]

The reason we need to get rid of the state is because the state could be the reason the revolution could quickly turn back to Capitalism or Dictatorship. If we don't get rid of it, we could still have the people enslaved to it.

[Zanthorus]

Well if we are to follow Marx then there can be no such thing as a "socialist state", if ever such a thing existed it would quickly come into contradiction with itself and revert back to some form of capitalism. The state arises from the conflict of particular interests that occurs in civil society and presents itself as a "general interest" which transcends the particular interests of civil society. However since it is based on an abstraction from real conditions the state necessarily enforces the particular interests of the dominant class. If a real general interest were to be established, if man's individual powers appeared to him as what they really are, as social powers, if civil society was to be transcended at a higher level, containing all the achievments of civil society whilst doing away with all of it's worst aspects, then the state would lose it's basis and also dissapear. The state itself cannot abolish civil society because it presupposes civil society for it's own basis. In less than normal times the state can attempt to surpass civil society but "...it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of... all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace." (On the Jewish Question)

The communist revolution is political insofar as it overthrows the existing order and enforces the particular interest of one class (The working class) as the general interest. But this particular interest is towards the abolition of classes and of class rule and necessarily ends with the abolition of the state. For Marx at least, the socialist revolution only makes sense as a revolution, not against any particular state or form of state, but against the state itself.

[Crimson Commissar]

The reason we need to get rid of the state is because the state could be the reason the revolution could quickly turn back to Capitalism or Dictatorship. If we don't get rid of it, we could still have the people enslaved to it.
Anarchism/Communism is even more vulnerable to dictatorship or a return to Capitalism. At least in a Socialist society the state can protect the people from any oppressive dictator who wants to take over.

[M-26-7]

At least in a Socialist society the state can protect the people from any oppressive dictator who wants to take over.

But this makes no sense. The state is the vehicle which an oppressive dictator would have to use to take power. You might as well say that in a socialist society a car can protect people from hijackers.

[Ravachol]

Anarchism/Communism is even more vulnerable to dictatorship or a return to Capitalism. At least in a Socialist society the state can protect the people from any oppressive dictator who wants to take over.

In addition to what M-26-7 said, I do not see how the federation of free communes with worker's militias as their defensive organ would be unable to defend itself from external threats.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You don't have to be opposed to a state.

It depends on which branch of socialism you are supporting.

Marxism involves the withering away (basically the abolition of the state over time).

Anarchism involves the immediate abolition of state.

State Socialism...well, you can figure that out on your own.

Etc, etc.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't oppose the state per se, and while I don't think that the abolition of the state should necessarily be an immediate goal (or a goal at all), I do think that the withering away of the state will come as a natural progression from the dictatorship of the proletariat to free access Communism. Personally I think that a lot of Communists play on the abolition of the state way too much, and that it is one part of Marxism best shelved until the time comes. If it happens it happens and this is of course a good thing, stateless socialism is eternally more desirable than state socialism, but the main goal of socialists and Communists should be the liberation of the proletariat, whether or not there is a state involved does not matter as much as some people like to think.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Anarchism/Communism is even more vulnerable to dictatorship or a return to Capitalism. At least in a Socialist society the state can protect the people from any oppressive dictator who wants to take over.

Anarchism/end-stage communism is not organized with a vertical hierarchy - i.e., a leader dictating orders to subordinates; rather, it is organized horizontally, with everyone taking part in decision-making, and therefore, everyone acting as equals. Capitalism/authoritarianism couldn't theoretically occur in an anarchist society, because as someone said in another thread, the ones attempting the takeover would either be ignored or forcefully removed by the entire community. Essentially: it's really, really hard to intimidate a populace when the idea of rulers has been eliminated.

[∞]

Now, I'm a relatively new Socialist, and this is one of the things that confuses me. Why do we Socialists (Not Anarchists) have to be so violently opposed to the idea of a state, even if it is a Socialist state? Why is there so much emphasis on "destroying the state" and establishing an Anarchist society? I just don't get why we would spend so long creating an equal Socialist society and then just go "Fuck it" and get rid of it all. I understand how it's supposed to work, but I don't understand why it's necessary. Surely a Socialist state that takes over from a Capitalist state is not something we should be opposed to?

Since you're new let me make this simple a state (even a "socialist") one accumulates money, exemplifies power, and causes a new class division (the people and the ranksmen of the party).

[AK]

The state is a historical byproduct of the class struggle. It's the means used by a privilaged elite to keep power over society.
No argument there.

The Marxist-Leninist short definition of state is "group of men in arms".
How's that ambiguous definition going for you? Do you plan to abolish weaponry in socialism?

Anarchism/Communism is even more vulnerable to dictatorship or a return to Capitalism.
Two things wrong:


Under anarchism, it would be much harder to capture power as there is no single point of power at the top of an hierarchy that one could capture in order to become a dictator.

Or, for the longer version:

Our principles keep anyone from coming into power...
An anarchist system is not designed to accommodate individuals with the power and authority to rule over others. The common argument of "but anarchism would let capitalists to take control" is bullshit. A centralised government would be much more susceptible to subjugation by capitalists, etc. because the "capitalist roader" in question - along with their accomplices - need only gain control of the topmost level of hierarchy to impose their will on everyone below. An anarchist system would only fall to such a low if the system itself were completely destroyed and replaced with a hierarchical one - not fitting in with the strawman of an anarchist system's weak resistance to infiltration and sabotage by those already inside the system. The only way that internal sabotage could lead to the downfall of an anarchist system is if the vast majority of those living in an anarchist society suddenly became overcome with capitalist principles - highly unlikely.
I'm not sure how you can seemingly oppose communism (as you say it would allow for dictatorship to prevail) when you are a Marxist yourself.


At least in a Socialist society the state can protect the people from any oppressive dictator who wants to take over.
If the state is the tool of the ruling class to enforce it's will over the rest of society, this quote is a contradiction. There is already an oppressing class in power.

[Crimson Commissar]

I actually do not consider myself a Marxist at the moment, at least not until I clear up a few issues I have with it. I am, however, still a Socialist. And, a state does not necessarily have to be dominated by a certain class, since surely if the class system was abolished there would be no class to dominate it. Even if there was a ruling class in a Socialist state, it would be the working class and so the only ones who would be oppressed by it would be capitalists who try to oppose Socialism.

[Amado]

And, a state does not necessarily have to be dominated by a certain class, since surely if the class system was abolished there would be no class to dominate it.The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of classes. "Classless state" is an oxymoron.


Even if there was a ruling class in a Socialist state, it would be the working class and so the only ones who would be oppressed by it would be capitalists who try to oppose Socialism.Oppression doesn't become OK when it's the working class that does it.

[DenisDenis]

I actually do not consider myself a Marxist at the moment, at least not until I clear up a few issues I have with it. I am, however, still a Socialist. And, a state does not necessarily have to be dominated by a certain class, since surely if the class system was abolished there would be no class to dominate it. Even if there was a ruling class in a Socialist state, it would be the working class and so the only ones who would be oppressed by it would be capitalists who try to oppose Socialism.

The people who operate the state (it doesnt matter if they used to be
proletarians) would become a class of their own, and if not dealt with
quickly, could start to develop interests of their own (keeping power, or
even just giving themselves just that tiny bit more over the rest of the
population)

Therefor the state is a very dangerous thing to try to keep, just as the
USSR pointed out.

[AK]

I actually do not consider myself a Marxist at the moment, at least not until I clear up a few issues I have with it. I am, however, still a Socialist. And, a state does not necessarily have to be dominated by a certain class, since surely if the class system was abolished there would be no class to dominate it. Even if there was a ruling class in a Socialist state, it would be the working class and so the only ones who would be oppressed by it would be capitalists who try to oppose Socialism.
If a "workers' state" actually ever existed, it would be that the working class had taken over the previous organs of the state (police, military, etc.), therefore it would not be a state in any sense (unless there was a class below it). Unfortunately, there are many communists on here who support representative democracy (which in an anarchist class analysis leads to the creation of a new ruling class) and state ownership (which necessitates a bureaucracy, whose upper-most layers form part of a ruling class). These two - representative democracy and state ownership - coupled together do in fact deform the state into one that is the physical manifestation of the domination of one class over another (i.e. an actual state).

Oppression doesn't become OK when it's the working class that does it.
That is true, but the working class can not become a ruling class (because it's emancipation requires the abolition of all classes) at all. The kinds of "socialist" societies we have seen have been ruled by a bureaucratic administrator class (a lot of which's early members were managers and administrators pre-revolution).

[Crimson Commissar]

The people who operate the state (it doesnt matter if they used to be
proletarians) would become a class of their own, and if not dealt with
quickly, could start to develop interests of their own (keeping power, or
even just giving themselves just that tiny bit more over the rest of the
population)

Therefor the state is a very dangerous thing to try to keep, just as the
USSR pointed out.
Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, though. The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, this sort of subject should be left until Capitalism is overthrown and replaced with Socialism.

[DenisDenis]

Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, though. The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, this sort of subject should be left until Capitalism is overthrown and replaced with Socialism.

This is so very true, i think lots of things have to happen first before major
decisions are made, you are completely right with this.

[Qayin]

Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, thoughThere is emphasis because its important.
Whats the point of having a state anyways? Its not in the international
working class's interest for some bureaucracy, pigs, borders,and so forth.
I personally am against the State due to its centralization and monopoly
on the legitimate use of force. Those States could be "Socialist" or Capitalist
it doesn't matter it shares the same characteristics, the tankies will flame me for it
but History shows us damn well.


The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, Who's gunna throw you in prison? Shoot at you?
They are inseparable.

[Amado]

The main enemy is Capitalism, not the stateThey really are two sides of the same coin. The state (be it the current "public" state or the private states under "anarcho"-capitalism) is what legitimizes and defends capitalist private property and thus splits society into classes. Hell, if you use the old "monopoly of violence over a given area" definition for a state, the state and private property are the exact same thing. You can't abolish capitalism without abolishing private property, and you can't abolish private property without abolishing the state.

[Zanthorus]

Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, though. The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, this sort of subject should be left until Capitalism is overthrown and replaced with Socialism.

The problem is that a fair few of us wouldn't regard anything with a state as being "socialism". You see, for Marx the state as such arises from the division of labour. Just as society divides itself up into town and country, industry and commerce, mental and manual labour, so it also divides itself up into political and civil society with the former acting as the "general interest" under which the particular interests of civil society are subsumed. The existence of the state implies the division of society into various classes and the existence of an extensive division of labour, both of which are incompatible with socialism.

The state exists in a form only during the revolution when the workers are organised as the ruling class and the particular interest of the working class is represented as the general interest. But after socialism has completed the tasks which are characteristic of any revolution whatsoever "as soon as its organizing functions begin and its goal, its soul emerges, socialism throws its political mask aside." (Marx, Critical Notes on on the Article "The King of Prussia and Social Reform, By a Prussian")

[Crimson Commissar]

Wow, I've looked over the things that have been said in this thread and surprisingly, I completely agree with it. I think I might actually be an Anarcho-Communist now..

[AK]

Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, though. The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, this sort of subject should be left until Capitalism is overthrown and replaced with Socialism.
Capitalism and the state are, as AMK said, inseparable. Since capitalism divides society into social classes, there is a state which acts to enforce the will of the ruling class and protect its private property - and the ruling class is made of capitalists who put in no labour (the haute-bourgeoisie, as opposed to the petit-bourgeoisie who are capitalists and also perform labour) and the state officials and politicians who support them and the status quo (as they also receive greater economic benefits and usually also bribes to act in the interests of capital - if it is not in their own interests to act in the interests of capital already as their jobs not only necessitate the existence of current class-based society, but many are capitalists themselves).

If we were to have an actual state post-revolution, it would appear that there was a new ruling class to replace the old and still dominate over the working class and peasantry. Capitalism (which creates class-based society) and the state (which is a result of historical class struggles) are twin evils which must be abolished at the same time.

[∞]

Most Communists put way too much emphasis on abolishing the state, though. The main enemy is Capitalism, not the state, this sort of subject should be left until Capitalism is overthrown and replaced with Socialism.

They do huh?

http://irishatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/stalin1.jpg

[∞]

I always thought they don't put ENOUGH emphasis on destroying the state

[AK]

They do huh?

http://irishatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/stalin1.jpg
Some would argue that the USSR was a state-centric form of capitalism.