Left Communists and the State

[Ocean Seal]

I've come to learn that left-communists believe that the state is a conservative element which exists only to protect class society. Thus it balances the interests of the former ruling class with the workers. But in that case why would one keep a state--albeit a hollowed out state at all.

Also what does a state do under the Dictatorship of the proletariat stage from a left-communist perspective?

What I've come to understand is that the state exists because class society still exists and in balancing the interests of the classes it puts the proletariat as the forefront. Thus preventing the workers from being overrun by what I believe Bordiga termed bourgeois interests in worker's uniforms or something of the like.

Is the point of the state to prevent any workers who have bourgeois tendencies from rising up and co-opting the revolution? Or is it something else?

[Zanthorus]

left-communists believe that the state is a conservative element which exists only to protect class society.

'Left Communism' is a political tendency which originated in the work of a number of individuals and groups who were bound together by a shared opposition by the rightward shift of the Communist International after it's Second and Third congresses. Trying to identify any homogenous Left Communist position on any particular issue is pretty much a futile excercise because the term does not refer to begin with to any ideologically homogenous body of thought. On the subject of the state, you have partially identified the ICC view i.e. that it is a 'conservative element' which exists as an inevitable product of class society and one which does protect it's existence, although we need to be careful here because saying that the state exists 'only to protect class society' could imply a kind of voluntarism on some level where the state is set up consciously to defend the perpetuation of classes, whereas one of the points which the ICC makes fairly consistently on the state is that they consider the Anarchist view that the state can be abolished by an act of willpower to be a futile voluntarist perspective - the state exists as an integral feature of class society not one which can be magically willed in or out of existence in order to defend or attack class society.

The ICC's view that the state is a 'conservative element' goes hand in hand with their rejection of the traditional Marxian conception of proletarian dictatorship whereby the proletarian dictatorship is identified with the imposition of working-class interests through the state. Instead proletarian class rule is identified as something which must be excercised outside and if necessary against the state which exists in the transitional period. Because of this rejection of the traditional Marxian formula however, the ICC view is somewhat controversial to say the least. The Internationalist Communist Tendency has repeatedly cited the ICC's view that the transitional state is seperate from the rule of the working-class as being a reason why they consider the ICC to be an 'idealist' organisation. In one of their recent texts they even state (Not without some justification) that the ICC's "grotesque" view "puts them outside the tradition of the Communist Left." (c.f. 'Marxism or Idealism - Our Differences with the ICC (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-04-17/marxism-or-idealism-our-differences-with-the-icc)')

Certainly historically at least the Italian Left was not identified with the view that the state was an inevitably conservative organ. Indeed, in a couple of articles in 1919 for the paper Il Soviet Bordiga identifies the Russian model in which non-proletarian elements were disenfranchised as not only an immediate necessity but in fact a stable form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (From what I can see he wavered on this. His article on 'The Democratic Principle' seems to tacitly admit in a couple of places that the measures taken in Russia are not absolute and the general thrust of the article which is against any undue focus on forms of organisation as opposed to programmatic and class content within communist politics would warn against seeing any transient historical example as absolute). Elsewhere the dictatorship of the proletariat is explicitly identified with the dictatorship of the communist minority (What Bordiga refers to as 'the party') of the working-class as had occured in Russia by the time that Bordiga was writing.

It is also clear I think that the ICC's view was not that of the German-Dutch Left. For example, in 1938 in his article 'General Remarks on the Question of Organisation' Pannekoek identifies the dictatorship of the proletariat with "the exercise of power in society by the natural organs of the workers,". In other words the proletarian dictatorship for Pannekoek is identified with the excercise of power over society by the organs of workers power, identified in his theory with the workers' councils, in consonance with the classical Marxist conception. There doesn't seem to be any hint here or elsewhere in the writings of the GDL about a theory of the inherently conservative nature of the state but rather the theory is that the transitional state is identical with the workers' councils.


Thus it balances the interests of the former ruling class with the workers.

This is not the ICC's theory. The ICC's theory is that the transitional state represents the interests of all the non-bourgeois social strata - the petty bourgeoisie, the small-holding peasants, executive and managerial workers and the working-class proper. The bourgeoisie itself would have been disposessed during the transition period in every geographical location where revolution had spread to. There are obvious connections here with Marx's writings on the Paris Commune in which he states that the Commune was the representative of the real interests of all the healthy elements of the French nation including the impoverished petty bourgeoisie and the small-holding peasantry. In Marx's writings however, I think it is clear that he regards this general interest of the 'healthy elements' as being represented by the rule of the workers' party (Which for Marx is not the same as the conscious minority of communists). The state represents an illusory general interest, and in raising itself to the position of ruling class the proletariat comes to constitute itself as the nation, the representative of the general interests of the classes of the nation over which it rules, and is so far national although no longer in the bourgeois sense of the word. The interests of the non-bourgeois but non-proletarian strata are for Marx not represented by independent organisation on their part but in their support for the rule of the workers' party.


What I've come to understand is that the state exists because class society still exists and in balancing the interests of the classes it puts the proletariat as the forefront.

As stated above, I don't believe that the state in the transitional period 'balances' the interests of the various classes as such, but rather the general interest of the nation is represented in the form of the particular interests of the workers' party. The ICC's schema of balancing ignores the fact that in Marxist theory the transitional elements of society (i.e. elements which do not fall into either of the fundamental classes) do not have independent interests but rather these interests either manifest themselves in the form of support for reformed visions of capitalism or in support for the programme of the workers. The 'independent representation' of transitional elements essentially amounts to the representation of capitalist elements except when these elements support the workers' party, and on that score I agree with the ICT that the ICC's schema hold within them a very dangerous formula for counter-revolution.


Is the point of the state to prevent any workers who have bourgeois tendencies from rising up and co-opting the revolution? Or is it something else?

The state exists because capitalism still exists and as such there is no real general interest of society but only particular interests which become embodied as an illusory general interest through the form of the state. When the working-class achieves political power it is so far still a class and the conditions which make it into a class are still in existence, it represents it's particular interests as the general interest of society, and as such it's rule constitutes something seperate from the real general interests of society which as of yet are still a fiction. It is only in a fully communist society in which a real general interest exists that the existence of a seperate political sphere of society can be done away with.

[Alf]

Zanthorus has done a pretty good job of summarising our position, but I don't think 'balancing' is a good term because there can't be a 'balance' in the transition period: either it's going forward towards communism or sliding back towards capitalism. And by the same token either the state is dominated by the working class (which, in our view, can only do this by not identifying itself with the state), or it will tend to represent the interests of other classes, and in the end of capital, against the workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, if I got it straight, left Communists in ICC put forward the thesis that both direct organs of working class power (councils) and state institutions will exist within the period of transition from capitalism to communism, with the latter being eroded away as a precondition for achived global communism (does that refer to Marx's "higher stage"?).

Are there any elaborations of specific dynamics between the two, and possible concrete functions of state institutions?

[Leftsolidarity]

I didn't read all of your response Zanthorus but do left-communists look to the Paris Commune as a good example of a DOTP?

[Savage]

Are there any elaborations of specific dynamics between the two, and possible concrete functions of state institutions?

Well I believe that the ICC holds the position that the DOTP will have to participate in activity with the state (through territorial soviets and the like), but that it is necessary for the DOTP to maintain control over the state so as to guard against counter-revolution.

[Alf]

Engels certainly pointed to the Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat; Marx called it a 'workers government'. This is true in so far as it expressed the social and political domination of the working class in Paris. But Marx also saw the Commune as a form of state that could bring in all the non-exploiting classes, in particular the peasants. Had this happened on a national scale, it would have significantly altered the class composition of this Commune state and made it necessary for the workers to 'supervise' the state much more directly through their own specific organisiations. At this stage of history, the form of such organisations could only have been glimpsed. But in 1905 and 1917 in Russia the solution was found in the soviets or workers councils, factory committees, red guards...But here the working class was actually faced with the need to bring all the non-exploiting masses into political life, and this took the form of village and neighbourhood assemblies, peasant soviets, soldiers soviets..., in other words organs which had a heterogeneous social composition. So the necessity was posed for the workers' organisations not to simply dissolve into the 'popular' soviets but to remain distinct. This was even more true with the more 'dangerous' state organs that appeared in Russia, such as the Red Army and the Cheka. Simply labeling these organs as 'proletarian' was no guarantee that they wouldn't turn against the workers.
I think we can discern a similar problem in the 'assembly' movement which has spread from North Africa to Spain, Greece, etc. It is vital for the workers to take part in these street-based, 'popular' assemblies and put a proletarian stamp on them, but they also need their own specific organisations, based on the workplace, where they can develop a more unified class policy and action (which they did begin to do with the strikes at the end of the struggle in Egypt). Here in embryo is the problem of the transitional state.

[Savage]

but they also need their own specific organisations, based on the workplace, where they can develop a more unified class policy and action (which they did begin to do with the strikes at the end of the struggle in Egypt). Here in embryo is the problem of the transitional state.

But what is it that negates the idea that the proletarian organs of power constitute a state in itself?

[Leo]

This text might be of interest: http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648


Certainly historically at least the Italian Left was not identified with the view that the state was an inevitably conservative organ. Indeed, in a couple of articles in 1919 for the paper Il Soviet Bordiga identifies the Russian model in which non-proletarian elements were disenfranchised as not only an immediate necessity but in fact a stable form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (From what I can see he wavered on this. His article on 'The Democratic Principle' seems to tacitly admit in a couple of places that the measures taken in Russia are not absolute and the general thrust of the article which is against any undue focus on forms of organisation as opposed to programmatic and class content within communist politics would warn against seeing any transient historical example as absolute). Elsewhere the dictatorship of the proletariat is explicitly identified with the dictatorship of the communist minority (What Bordiga refers to as 'the party') of the working-class as had occured in Russia by the time that Bordiga was writing.

The ICC's view on the state actually comes from the Italian left in its period after Bordiga's "retirement". Such views were more or less shaped by the magazine Bilan.

[Alf]

But what is it that negates the idea that the proletarian organs of power constitute a state in itself?

Marx once wrote that "the state is the organisation of society" - ie of a class divided society. It's task is therefore to hold this conflicted social order together on behalf of the dominant class.

It's true that the workers' councils do take on certain state functions, such as the formation of 'bodies of armed men' like the red guard. But they can't by definition provide the framework for 'holding together' the transitional society and organising all the non-exploiting classes. Above all, they have no interest in 'holding society together' except in the most immediate sense. Their real aim is to continually overturn it until they reach communism.

[Desperado]

So, do the workers in left communist currents generally take power (through a party or whatever) of the state apparatus, i.e is there a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is not simply worker's councils?

If not, does left communism simply believe that there is to be a "dual power" situation until the workers (outside of the traditional state) are finally in charge and the shadow of the old state truly disappeared?

[Alf]

So, do the workers in left communist currents generally take power (through a party or whatever) of the state apparatus, i.e is there a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is not simply worker's councils?

If not, does left communism simply believe that there is to be a "dual power" situation until the workers (outside of the traditional state) are finally in charge and the shadow of the old state truly disappeared?

On the first point: the party's role is not to take power. We would oppose any delegation of power to a party. Secondly, the workers' councils need to exercise the proletarian dictatorship over society as a whole, and thus over the state which is the general organisation of the transitional society. Potentially this is a situation of dual power but the aim would be to keep all state institutions subordinate to the rule of the workers' councils and thus avoid open conflict.

[Zanthorus]

I didn't read all of your response Zanthorus but do left-communists look to the Paris Commune as a good example of a DOTP?

I think that the view of the Paris Commune as being the archetypal proletarian dictatorship is held by basically all Marxist currents.


Engels certainly pointed to the Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat; Marx called it a 'workers government'.

In a speech given to the IWMA in September of 1871 Marx also talked about the necessity for a period of 'proletarian dictature', tacitly referring to the Commune. From what I can see, the dispute over whether or not Marx would have regarded the Commune as the dictatorship of the proletariat is basically academic masturbation on the part of a certain group of intellectuals who will try anything they can to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels.


Marx also saw the Commune as a form of state that could bring in all the non-exploiting classes, in particular the peasants. Had this happened on a national scale, it would have significantly altered the class composition of this Commune state

Not unless you believe that the peasantry is capable of political representation independently of the fundamental classes. I think Marx was fairly explicit both in 'The Civil War in France' and his draft MSS that although the Commune represented the interests of the transitional strata, this was only possible through the continued leadershp of the working-class. The 'bringing in' of the transitional strata involved their submitting to proletarian leadership, not any change in the class composition of the state. Similarly, the interests of the peasantry were not independently represented in the Russian revolution, but only through the Bolsheviks adoption of the SR agrarian programme. Everywhere the SR's acted independently of the Bolsheviks and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets they acted as agents of the counter-revolution.

What you are saying here is basically a restatement of the democratic illusion shared by both the Mensheviks and the Old (pre-1917) Bolsheviks that the power of a class is directly related to it's size, as opposed to factors like organisational strength and quality of leadership. If you actually believe this then the question posed would be why you believe that the Russian revolution was a good idea to begin with, surely the best option to maintain the class independence of the workers according to this schema would've been to stay out of affairs of state altogether and let the peasants dirty their hands in the whole business of revolution.

[Alf]

I agree that the proletariat would have to fight against the representation of other classes as classes. This was to some extent legitimised in Russia, not only because of the influence of the SRs, but because of the general acceptance of the notion of 'peasant soviets'. In a future revolution we can be for assemblies of residents and their delegation to local territorial bodies but these would not be defined as the organs of other classes. Apart from anything else workers would also be involved in them and would in many cases be dominant within them.
I don't at all agree that we are falling into the democratic illusion here. I do agree that the strength of the working class is not based solely on its numerical weight. I think the Bolsheviks were right to argue for an 'over-representation' of urban over rural soviets in the congress of soviets. Nevertheless, in a 'commune state' where the workers are in a minority, labeling the state 'proletarian' would be no guarantee against the conservative influence of non-proletarian strata.

[Jose Gracchus]

Similarly, the interests of the peasantry were not independently represented in the Russian revolution, but only through the Bolsheviks adoption of the SR agrarian programme. Everywhere the SR's acted independently of the Bolsheviks and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets they acted as agents of the counter-revolution.

What makes soviets of soldiers' deputies "proletarian" in content, rather than being yet another transitional strata?

Was the Left SRs wanting to be included in war negotiations in 1918, prior to the terrorism of members of the Moscow cell organization, them acting as "agents of the counter-revolution"? What about the SR Maximalists at Kronstadt in 1921?

[Savage]

The ICC's view on the state actually comes from the Italian left in its period after Bordiga's "retirement". Such views were more or less shaped by the magazine Bilan.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

[Leo]

Well I can, but it would be a long reading:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/vercesi-period-of-transition
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/bilan-period-of-transition
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/commy-5-pot
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/130/commy-7-pot3
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/commy-vol3-08
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/134/commy-vol3-09

[Zanthorus]

What makes soviets of soldiers' deputies "proletarian" in content, rather than being yet another transitional strata?

That's actually an interesting question, and one which I haven't thought through, though I'm inclined to sweep it aside as a mere detail. There was no independent political party which represented soldiers' interests and in fact the Russian army was one of the strongholds of Bolshevik support due in no small part to the fact that the Bolsheviks were against continuing the war.


Was the Left SRs wanting to be included in war negotiations in 1918, prior to the terrorism of members of the Moscow cell organization, them acting as "agents of the counter-revolution"?

Well I'll start answering that by asking a question, what do the theoretical journal of the Italian Left in exile Bilan and Maximilien Robespierre both have in common? The answer is that they were both intelligent enough to see that attempting to export a revolution on the bayonets of an army was a patently ridiculous idea. Yet that's precisely what the Left SR's wanted to do - wage a revolutionary war against Imperial Germany. The eleven days war in which the Germany army had marched straight across the Ukraine had already shown pretty decisively that the armed detachments of workers and soldiers which were what amounted to a military force in Russia at the time were no match for a proffessional standing army commanded by a major imperialist power. It should've been clear at the time to anyone whose head wasn't filled with empty slogans that 'revolutionary war' with Germany in reality meant the wholesale slaughter of the Russian working-class and peasantry.

Yeah the Left SR's didn't get to participate in the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. Neither did the 'Left Communist' fraction of the Bolsheviks, and with good reason. Incidentally you will note that the LSR delegates after losing the Sovnarkom vote on whether to sign the treaty then preceeded to walk out of their own free will. I don't know about you but I'm not inclined to sympathise with a party which throws around slogans which are quite literally ultra-left and then decides to get in a hissy fit and needlessly walk out leaving executive power in the hands of a single party, when they don't get their way.


What about the SR Maximalists at Kronstadt in 1921?

My knowledge of the Kronstadt rebellion is sub-par.