Question regarding post-revolution statism

[Qayin]

Lets say Marxist-Leninists are the dominant tendency after an American worker revolution. Lets say that state quickly turned into a repressive entity complete with Labor camps a surveillance society, ect something some of the tendencies are curious about after the 20th century's regimes. Are we justified to overthrow that state? This is a question for the "tankies"


Trots and Anarchists should be curious about this one.

[Widerstand]

If the alternative would be living under an oppressive regime, I think overthrowing is always justified. I'm curious about this workers revolution though, in your scenario the proletariat emancipated itself, just to place itself under a new ruler?

[Qayin]

If the alternative would be living under an oppressive regime, I think overthrowing is always justified. I'm curious about this workers revolution though, in your scenario the proletariat emancipated itself, just to place itself under a new ruler?
Personal opinions aside I agree with you.

I'm asking this question geered towards the "Anti-Revisionists" and Authoritarians because I wonder what it takes for them to agree to topple a regime that claims a red flag, since they hate Trotsky and Khrushchev so much for denouncing Stalins actions it seems.

[fa2991]

I'm asking this question geered towards the "Anti-Revisionists" and Authoritarians because I wonder what it takes for them to agree to topple a regime that claims a red flag, since they hate Trotsky and Khrushchev so much for denouncing Stalins actions it seems.

They'd probably deny there was anything wrong to begin with. When it comes to brutal, repressive regimes, "anti-revisionists" see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

[JacobVardy]

They'd probably deny there was anything wrong to begin with. When it comes to brutal, repressive regimes, "anti-revisionists" see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

Thats not really fair, Tankies usually argue that every alternative to their oppressive regimes is worse. I'll give the OP an attempted answer as i suspect they'll perceive your question as trolling. The anti-revisionists will probably argue that such a regime would not arise, given the entirely different material circumstances. The anti-Revisionists argue that the oppressive regime arose because:
- the revolution succeeded in a economically backward place;
- the revolution succeeded no-where else;
- there were constant attempts by reactionaries to defeat, and then to sabotage the revolution.
- the working class was decimated, and its vanguard was near exterminated.

The mass industrialisation necessary to defend the revolution, secret police to defeat the saboteurs and the use of the party to replace the absent working class lead to the joys of Stalinism as we know it.

[Qayin]

They'd probably deny there was anything wrong to begin with. When it comes to brutal, repressive regimes, "anti-revisionists" see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.
I need a response from them.

[infraxotl]

It's unfortunate, but if we don't force the shape-shifting monsters that inhabit this fantasy world scenario to dig holes manually it'll be the end of humanity.

We'd have to execute counter-revolutionaries to prevent the apocalypse.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Justified in being counter-revolutionary?

No.

[Thirsty Crow]

Justified in being counter-revolutionary?

No.
Yet another proof of the glorious equasion - state IS the revolution.
I mean, you didn't even try to ask under which conditions these hypothetical overthrowing would happen, you just assume that EVERYTHING that is done is in some way revolutionary and justified.

Pathetic.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yet another proof of the glorious equasion - state IS the revolution.
I mean, you didn't even try to ask under which conditions these hypothetical overthrowing would happen, you just assume that EVERYTHING that is done is in some way revolutionary and justified.

Pathetic.

It said after a successful worker's revolution in the first post. The original post does not specify and does not elaborate on any particular details. I see no problem simply because labour colonies exist, and since the post is unspecific, does it even matter anyway? And if some anarchists who are filled with senseless rage as soon as "state" is mentioned then band together with some reactionary and other counter-revolutionary forces or come to indirectly support sabotages, the worker's state would be justified in rectifying this problem as necessary.

What's pathetic about it? The state is a tool for the revolution and the reshaping of society and the working class domination and commandeering of the state is a requirement for any successful revolution and progress for the future.

[Thirsty Crow]

It said after a successful worker's revolution in the first post. The original post does not specify and does not elaborate on any particular details. I see no problem simply because labour colonies exist, and since the post is unspecific, does it even matter anyway? And if some anarchists who are filled with senseless rage as soon as "state" is mentioned then band together with some reactionary and other counter-revolutionary forces or come to indirectly support sabotages, the worker's state would be justified in rectifying this problem as necessary.

Sorry, I guess I overreacted.
Let me pose a question: what conditions should be fulfilled if you were to support the overthrowing of a "workers state" which has been founded after a proletarian revolution?

[ComradeOm]

Let me pose a question: what conditions should be fulfilled if you were to support the overthrowing of a "workers state" which has been founded after a proletarian revolution?You put "workers state" in inverted commas. Is it or is it not a democratic and truly socialist workers state?

The reality is, and I appreciate that the OP's question is actually more nuanced than this, that a successful socialist revolution cannot produce a state apparatus that oppresses the working class. Not unless the state (rather than being an organ of class rule) suddenly acquires a host of supernatural abilities and detaches itself from the rest of society. How is this post-revolutionary state going to enforce its policies - you know, actually oppress people - if it rests on a democratic and vibrant revolutionary proletariat for support?

It is only when the latter is lacking, for whatever reason, that a post-revolutionary state can degenerate and turn on its supposed masters. But this then is a symptom of a failed revolution

[Thirsty Crow]

You put "workers state" in inverted commas. Is it or is it not a democratic and truly socialist workers state?

The reality is, and I appreciate that the OP's question is actually more nuanced than this, that a successful socialist revolution cannot produce a state apparatus that oppresses the working class. Not unless the state (rather than being an organ of class rule) suddenly acquires a host of supernatural abilities and detaches itself from the rest of society. How is this post-revolutionary state going to enforce its policies - you know, actually oppress people - if it rests on a democratic and vibrant revolutionary proletariat for support?

It is only when the latter is lacking, for whatever reason, that a post-revolutionary state can degenerate and turn on its supposed masters. But this then is a symptom of a failed revolution
I agree completely.
And the reason for the inverted commas was that OP was aiming at the model of formerly existing socialist states, whose character is, obviously, under heavy dispute.