Karl Marx and the State

[ZeroNowhere]

I figure that the article is too long to quote here, but it can be found here (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html). It's an in-depth exploration of Marx's analysis of the state, and his concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, written by a certain David Adam. I don't really have much to say other than that there's very little in it which I disagree with, and I don't think I've seen anything better on the subject. One can see Colletti's influence in the account of Marx's analysis of the state, and that's always welcome, but it goes beyond this to explore Marx's ideas on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on. So overall, a very spiffy job.

I figured that it would be worth posting here, as its subject is also a frequent topic of discussion here. Does anybody else have any comments on the piece? It would be good if we could keep commentary to the body of the piece, rather than going into a classic Revleft flamewar on the beginning.

[Zanthorus]

Thanks for posting this ZN. I'd been struggling to fit all the pieces of Marx's analysis of the state together and this does it nicely.

My only comment at the moment would be to note that as early as 1844 Marx had planned to write a work on the modern state, and again in the Preface to the Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy he notes the book on the state as the fourth book he was going to write. It's clear that Marx had wanted to write something much more extensive on the subject but never actually got round to doing it. In this respect, I think we should take Marx's works on the state as a good basis, if essentially incomplete, and recognise that expanding on Marx's work in this area is a definite possibility (Unlike DNZ, I don't hold out all that much hope for the "original" State and Revolution, Kautsky's Republik und SozialDemokratie in Frankreich, although I await to be amazed).

[fa2991]

Thanks for that article. That Trotsky/Volin story was very interesting. I guarantee I'll be bringing it up in a conversation within the next 48 hours. :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unlike DNZ, I don't hold out all that much hope for the "original" State and Revolution, Kautsky's Republik und SozialDemokratie in Frankreich, although I await to be amazed.

I have nothing less than high expectations out of an English translation of that work. I'd like to see a proper refutal of Massimo L. Salvadori's pro-parliamentarism review of that work, a refutal which was barely begun by none other than Lars T. Lih.

[Bilan]

I agree about that story about Volin and Trotsky. Insane!

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't see what people are so up in arms about with this Trotsky-Volin story. At worst Trotsky could be accused of being naive about the possibility of cooperating with the anarchists after the revolution; Trotsky was very open about his role in the repression of counter-revolutionaries, including those trying to mask themselves as Communists.

[Zanthorus]

If we're going to discuss the Trotsky-Voline thing, I think we should respect ZN's OP and start another thread.

[revolution inaction]

I don't see what people are so up in arms about with this Trotsky-Volin story. At worst Trotsky could be accused of being naive about the possibility of cooperating with the anarchists after the revolution; Trotsky was very open about his role in the repression of counter-revolutionaries, including those trying to mask themselves as Communists.

except it was trotsky who was the counter revolutionary, and he was repressing revolutionaries

[HammerAlias]

And yet again, my school has blocked another Marxist website.:mad:

[Lyev]

As I understand, what creates the principle gulf between anarchists and Marxists is a conception of the state, and the issues pertaining "democracy", "oppression", "authoritarianism" etc., thereof. However, I think the anarchist (specifically Bakunin etc.) critique of Marx's thoughts on the state is a bit more nuanced than simply splitting hairs over semantics, surely. I would be interesting in hearing what some anarchists think on the issue. I think these two paragraphs are particularly relevant:
A little-known text by Marx, his 1874 “Notes on Bakunin’s Book Statehood and Anarchy,” explains the concept of proletarian dictatorship more clearly than any other. In his book Bakunin ridicules Marx’s concept of the transitional state power of the proletarian dictatorship, and Marx critically responds in his “Notes.” Bakunin writes, “If there is a state, then there is domination and consequent slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable-that is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, ‘the proletariat raised to a governing class?’”26 Marx responds, “It means that the proletariat, instead of fighting in individual instances against the economically privileged classes, has gained sufficient strength and organisation to use general means of coercion in its struggle against them; but it can only make use of such economic means as abolish its own character as wage labourer and hence as a class; when its victory is complete, its rule too is therefore at an end, since its class character will have disappeared.”27 The claim that through revolution the proletariat will be “raised to a governing class” thus has nothing to do with creating a dictatorship of a political sect, but is rather a claim that the proletariat will use “general means of coercion” to undercut the bourgeoisie’s power (by abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, disbanding the standing army, and so forth). It is the entire proletariat that is to exercise this power. Bakunin asks, “Will all 40 million [German workers] be members of the government?”28 Marx responds, “Certainly! For the system starts with the self-government of the communities.”29 This statement is certainly striking, but there are other places in the text where Marx more subtly conveys his radical conception of proletarian democracy. When writing about proletarian power and the peasantry, Marx writes that “the proletariat . . . must, as the government, take the measures needed . . . “30, identifying the transitional government with the proletariat as a class. Another example: when quoting Bakunin’s critique, Marx inserts a revealing parenthetical comment: “The dilemma in the theory of the Marxists is easily resolved. By people’s government they (i.e. Bakunin) understand the government of the people by a small number of representatives chosen (elected) by the people.”31 Here Marx is very clearly implying that he does not understand “people’s government” or workers’ government, as the government of the people by a small number of representatives elected by the people. This is a rather clear indication that Marx is still faithful to his 1843 critique of bourgeois democracy.

Clearly, this conception of “proletarian” government is distinct from the bourgeois state, or from any previous form of state power. As Marx makes clear in the above statements, he is referring to a proletarian “government” only in the sense that the working class uses general means of coercion to enforce its aims. Proletarian government is not used by Marx to mean that some elite group (assumedly the intellectuals, as Bakunin argued) would use general means of coercion over the whole proletariat, for that would rule out working class “self-government.” Rather, the proletariat as a whole would assert its class interests over an alien class (by abolishing private property, expropriating the capitalists and socializing the means of production, disbanding the standing army, etc.). For anarchists, who often define these terms somewhat differently, much of the confusion about Marx’s claim that the proletariat must wield political power seems to be based on Marx’s frequent use of the words “state” and “government.” But as we have seen, there is nothing anti-democratic about the meaning Marx attached to these words. Most anarchists, unlike Marx, define the state in terms of minority rule. It is easy for someone who uses this sort of definition to read Marx’s mention of a proletarian “state” and immediately associate it with oppression and detachment from effective popular control. The problem is that interpreting Marx in this way creates a number of contradictions in his writings that vanish when his basic theoretical framework is better understood.I think the main misunderstanding between Marx and Bakunin (but also in a strange way with Stalinists and Maoists) occurs because of the way Marx uses the words "government" and "state". He uses these words not in their traditional sense, but somewhat more generally. As it mentions in the article, when he says the revolution will lead to the proletariat "being raised to a governing class" he means that the proletariat will undermine bourgeois political power through use of "general means of coercion". It goes on to say (in the article) that it will be the whole proletariat - a vast majority - that will exercise this power. And I think this means that the more bourgeois civil society is eroded away in general, the more the bourgeoisie is abolished as a (ruling) class, then the more class distinctions cease to exist on the whole. It seems like a bit of fallacy to present the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a dictatorial or anti-democratic. So does the whole contention (between anarchists and Marxists) arise, then, from a mere confusion over definitions? I'm not sure it's so simple.

I'll also add, I think anarchism, seemingly, sees its predictions come true with the "statist", communist regimes of the past 20th century. The theories of Bakunin's, as regards the state; Marxism as authoritarian; dictatorship of an intelligentsia, etc., are what anarchism sees in Stalin, Mao etc., yet bearing in mind the above paragraph(s), when Marx uses the words "government" and "state" he doesn't mean them in the traditional bourgeois sense, and therefore nor were top-down models of Stalin et al really Marxist. And are Stalinists, Maoists and whatnot reading these words as Bakunin and anarchists read them, but interpreting the more authoritarian implications as positive or necessary measures? What does anyone else think?

[Dave B]

It looks like this is taken from;

Works of Karl Marx 1874 Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)

also from this;



Bakunin; So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists...



Marx; Where?


Bakunin; But those elected will be fervently convinced and therefore educated socialists. The phrase 'educated socialism'...



Marx;...never was used.




But it was used later by the Bolsheviks with a suggested differentiation between the ‘the proletariat’ and ‘the masses of the toilers and exploited’ which was as Lenin confessed something Karl had not contemplated or wrote about. Thus;

V. I. Lenin THESES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL TASKS OF THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL


Published in July, 1920



In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists -- it is only after this………….. that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers.


http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TSCI20.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TSCI20.html)

V. I. Lenin Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.I)

March 27-April 2, 1922




There we have to deal with workers. Very often the word "workers" is taken to mean the factory proletariat.


But it does not mean that at all. During the war people who were by no means proletarians went into the factories; they went into the factories to dodge the war. Are the social and economic conditions in our country today such as to induce real proletarians to go into the factories? No. It would be true according to Marx; but Marx did not write about Russia; he wrote about capitalism as a whole, beginning with the fifteenth century. It held true over a period of six hundred years, but it is not true for present-day Russia. Very often those who go into the factories are not proletarians; they are casual elements of every description.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm)

The ‘real proletarians’ or ‘educated socialists’ or the vanguard left the factories, even if any of them had ever been in one in the first place, and went into the Bolshevik party.

Which was entirely consistent with the What Is to Be Done position of 1902.

The Conspectus of Bakunin’sStatism and Anarchy is also interesting as a rejection of the "schoolboy" idea of a socialist revolution in feudal Russia;




Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people. And if it is to have any chance of victory, it must be able to do immediately as much for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie, mutatis mutandis, did in its revolution for the French peasants of that time. A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour!

But here Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc.), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level [...] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution.






Interestingly Engels predicted a Blanquist led revolution in Russia;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm)

The Bolsheviks were described by Trotsky ( then a Menshevik) as being Blanquists and Jacobins in his last chapter of ‘Our Political Tasks’ called ‘The Dictatorship Over the Proletariat’ using a quote from Engels.

Jacobinism and Blanquism were terms of abuse or criticuism that were used interchangeably. Thus;



We repeat: the Ural Comrades are perfectly consistent in the replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship over the proletariat, of the political rule of the class by the organizational rule over the class. But this is a consistency not of Marxians, but of Jacobins, or of their translation into the "Socialist" language, of Blanquists… Of course, with the peculiar aroma of the culture of the Urals.

Thus we have charged our Ural Comrades with Blanquism. And we recalled at once that it is Bernstein who also charges the revolutionary social democrats with Blanquism. This is entirely sufficient to get the people from the Urals classed as revolutionary social democrats, and ourselves as Bernsteinians.

That is why we consider it highly useful to quote Engels on the question of the role which the Blanquists ascribe to themselves at the moment of the socialist revolution.


"Trained in the conspiratorial school, accustomed to the strict discipline required in a conspiracy, they acted on the view that a relatively small number of determined and well organised people may, under favourable circumstances, not only capture the power, but through the application of powerful merciless energy maintain it until they succeed in rallying to the revolution the masses of the people and grouping them around the small handful of leaders. This requires, above all, the strictest dictatorial centralization of power in the hands of the new government."

(Marx "The Civil War in France", Engels’ Preface to the third German Edition).


Twenty years after his 'Our Political Tasks' Trotsky was happy to admit the truth of his own prophesy.

Leon Trotsky Twenty Years After 1905 A speech by Leon Trotsky (December 1925)





1793 has remained in the memory of humanity as one of those years, when under the leadership of the Jacobins, those Bolsheviks of the 18th century, plebeians, sans-culottes, artisans and semi-proletarians, the ragamuffins of the Paris suburbs, established an iron dictatorship and meted out unforgettable punishment to the crowned and privileged rulers of the old society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/12/1905.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/12/1905.htm)



Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce............

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language......... knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)

And we can't call Bolshevik Russia state capitalism because if it was and 'Cliff was correct' then correctly according to;

Ted Grant Against the Theory of State Capitalism

Reply to Comrade Cliff





Cliff himself points to the fact that in the bourgeois revolution the masses did the fighting and the bourgeois got the fruits. The masses did not know what they were fighting for, but they fought in reality for the rule of the bourgeoisie. Take the French Revolution. It was prepared and had its ideology in the works of the philosophers of the enlightenment, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc. However, they really did believe in the idealisation of bourgeois society.

They believed the codicils of liberty, equality and fraternity which they preached. As is well known, and as Cliff himself quotes Marx to prove, the French Revolution went beyond its social base. It resulted in the revolutionary dictatorship of the sans culottes which went beyond the bounds of bourgeois society.


As Marx explained, this had the salutory effect of completing in a few months what would otherwise have taken the bourgeois decades to do. The leaders of the revolutionary wing of the petty bourgeoisie which wielded this dictatorship - Robespierre, Danton, etc, sincerely believed in the doctrines of the philosophers and attempted to put them into practice.

They could not do so because it was impossible to go beyond the economic base of the given society. They inevitably had to lose power and merely paved the way for bourgeois society. If Cliff’s argument is correct, one could only conclude that the same thing happened with the Russian as with the French Revolution.

Marx was the prophet of the new state capitalism. Lenin and Trotsky were the Robespierres and Carnots of the Russian Revolution. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky had good intentions is beside the point, as were the good intentions of the leaders of the bourgeois revolution. They merely paved the way for the rule of the new state capitalist class.



http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm (http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm)

Cajo Brendel; Council Communism & The Critique of Bolshevism 1999




At the same time the Council Communists grew up. They had learned that the Russian Revolution was nothing more than a bourgeois revolution and that the Russian economy was nothing more than state capitalism. They had a clearer understanding of things which were ripe for new research. Other things not analyzed before, stood now in a clearer light.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/brendel/1999/communism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brendel/1999/communism.htm)