Marx and the proletarian state

[papaspace]

What did Marx mean when he talked about a proletarian state? Did he mean a minority-ruled, "Leninist" organization headed by a party, or an internally democratic organization, much more similar to what anarchists propose?

Please provide sources.

Thanks,
papaspace

[Zanthorus]

What did Marx mean when he talked about a proletarian state?

Marx never used the term 'proletarian state', to the best of my knowledge. He did use the similar term 'workers state', although only once, and his usage in this case is quite disparaging:


He [Bakunin] should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that.

I believe what you are referring to is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the representation of the particular interests of the proletariat as the general interest, to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class:


We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

[papaspace]

Zanthorus: Yes, I'm talking exactly about the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is in fact a 'proletarian state'. The issue here seems to be what's the meaning of 'state' in that context (a bureaucratic minority-ruled organization, or a democratic self-managing organization similar to what anarchists had proposed).

This is the question I'm trying to solve.

[Tzadikim]

There is no reason to assume that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' must come in the form of a State at all. To my mind, the word 'dictatorship' merely implies that the workers have raised themselves to the status of the ruling class, and have reoriented society towards their interests; this does not require the utilization of a State to be achieved.

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus: Yes, I'm talking exactly about the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is in fact a 'proletarian state'.

Not according to Engels, who said that the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and also that it had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The key is that throughout the period of the DotP, the various features of the state are already being broke down. The Commune abolished the division between executive and legislative and the standing army and instituted a system of recallable delegates. So there is a 'state' in this period, but the revolution continues to break it down, to counter it's excesses, until socialism has finished it's political and destructive task, and comes to it's constructive task, at which point the political mask is thrown aside.


The issue here seems to be what's the meaning of 'state' in that context (a bureaucratic minority-ruled organization, or a democratic self-managing organization similar to what anarchists had proposed).

Marx's concept is neither. It is both democratic and centralist. That is, democracy exists but it's scope is over a wide area, rather than confined to small communities/comunes etc. There definitely are reasons why (Certain) anarchists would criticise Marx, that doesn't mean that Marx is in favour of what you (Wrongly I would say) deem as a 'Leninist' form of government.

[papaspace]

There is no reason to assume that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' must come in the form of a State at all. To my mind, the word 'dictatorship' merely implies that the workers have raised themselves to the status of the ruling class, and have reoriented society towards their interests; this does not require the utilization of a State to be achieved.

Well, Marx pretty much conflates 'dictatorship of the proletariat' with 'workers state' (even if he barely used either expressions). The question is, then, WHAT IS the state? Is an internally democratic organization which employs general means of class coercion (i.e. forcing the capitalists not to re-emerge and resume exploitation) a state? If so, then anarchist objections to the Marxist state (in this sense) are rendered moot since anarchists propound the same kind of organization! They simply don't call it a state.

Or, is the state, on the contrary, a bureaucratic power that stands above society? This is the definition Engels gives in the The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, and this is the kind of state anarchists object to.

[papaspace]

Not according to Engels, who said that the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and also that it had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The key is that throughout the period of the DotP, the various features of the state are already being broke down. The Commune abolished the division between executive and legislative and the standing army and instituted a system of recallable delegates. So there is a 'state' in this period, but the revolution continues to break it down, to counter it's excesses, until socialism has finished it's political and destructive task, and comes to it's constructive task, at which point the political mask is thrown aside.

This doesn't sound as if there's not really a state, it sounds as if the state is 'withering away' as the state is continually broken down. But WHY do you say that there is a state in that situation? What makes it a state?



There definitely are reasons why (Certain) anarchists would criticise Marx, that doesn't mean that Marx is in favour of what you (Wrongly I would say) deem as a 'Leninist' form of government.

Why would I be wrong to say that Leninists were proponents of a bureaucratic, minority ruled organization? What else is the meaning of a vanguard party taking over the state? Doesn't seem as if Leninists supported recallable delegates or anything of the sort.

[black magick hustla]

There is no such thing as a workers' state. That was made up by statesmen themselves. The state is always a conservative force. I mean you cant evade its formation, because it is something quite frankly organic that arises out of the division of classes. However, there is nothing "prole" about it.

[papaspace]

There is no such thing as a workers' state. That was made up by statesmen themselves. The state is always a conservative force. I mean you cant evade its formation, because it is something quite frankly organic that arises out of the division of classes. However, there is nothing "prole" about it.

You're obviously referring to the state as a bureaucratic power which stands outside of society and is not subject to effective popular control. This is the definition expounded by Engels in The Origin of the Family... but it is not found (as much as I'm aware of) anywhere in Marx.

[Communist Pear]

What did Marx mean when he talked about a proletarian state? Did he mean a minority-ruled, "Leninist" organization headed by a party, or an internally democratic organization, much more similar to what anarchists propose?

Please provide sources.

Thanks,
papaspace
In your question you are already suggesting that Leninism represents a "dictatorship of a minority" and not democracy, so I am not inclined to write an answer and take the bait.

[ZeroNowhere]

This (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) is probably the best article I've read on the subject, and it's pretty comprehensive when it comes to Marx's analysis of the state and the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat (ie. "the political rule of the producer"). I don't think that there's much to add to it, although the parallel mentioned by Lucio Colletti between the state and value could be worth further investigation; however, that's not really relevant to the topic at hand here.

[Zanthorus]

What makes it a state?

The representation of the interests of one particular class of civil society (The proletariat) as the general interest?


Why would I be wrong to say that Leninists were proponents of a bureaucratic, minority ruled organization?

Well, I really think the onus is on you to prove the opposite assertion, that Leninists do in fact propose such a thing. I am fairly certain that in most organisations worth the name, you will find them talking about proletarian democracy, workers' councils etc.


What else is the meaning of a vanguard party taking over the state?

How is this a principle of Leninism? When the All-Russia Congress of Soviets met for the second time on the day after the October revolution, they had the majority of delegates. Nonetheless, they were in favour of the proposal to create a coalition government comprised of all the parties present at the Congress (Mensheviks, Social-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks). This did not occur in practice because the Mensheviks and the Right-SR's walked out of the congress, although the Left-SR's occupied a minority position within the Council of People's Commissars until the Brest-Litovsk treaty when they walked out because their proposal to wage a 'revolutionary war' with Imperial Germany was rejected. The one-party state was not a creation of the Bolsheviks themselves, it was the creation of the various counter-revolutionary 'socialist' parties. I am confident you will find nothing about a one-party state in the writings of Lenin and the major Bolshevik figures prior to 1917. Again, the onus is on you to prove this allegation.


This is the definition expounded by Engels in The Origin of the Family... but it is not found (as much as I'm aware of) anywhere in Marx.

It's in most of Marx's early writingson the state, especially Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It also comes up in the Critique of the Gotha Program when he mentions the state as the governance institutions of society seperated from society through the division of labour.