Marxism - the role of the state

[Bombay]

What is the role of the state in marxism? I'm not talking about bolshevism. How many options do you have? If there is a state based on workers' councils, would there be any need for a state at all? Or is there something in between council communism and leninism?:confused:

[Ilyich]

In Marxism, during the period of transition between capitalism and stateless communism (i.e. socialism), the proletariat as a whole is organized as the ruling class in a state called the dictatorship of the proletariat. This will be a very democratic and decentralized state to govern the transition to communism. The state will then soon fade away. Bolshevism is a perversion of Marxism for a variety of reasons, among them being that the dictatorship of the proletariat is highly centralized and there is no guarantee that it will be democratic.

[Cyberwave]

The state serves as an instrument of class domination. In capitalism, it takes on the form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie essentially. During socialist construction, the state is seized by the working class with the aid of the vanguard in order to be used as an instrument to carry out socialism, with the ultimate goal being to wither away. As for democratic-centralism, I advise you to read "Democracy and Dictatorship," and "The State and Revolution," by Lenin. Stalin also has some interesting works on the foundations of Leninism you may wish to read.

[ZeroNowhere]

You may be interested in this (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) work, which is quite clear and brief.

[W1N5T0N]

The problem with lots of Lenins stuff, which is good in theory, is that Lenin either never set through many of his idealistic aims or abandoned them later. To the end of his life he was growing more aware of the system that was being created, but by then it was too late. Stalin had the power...

[Obs]

The problem with lots of Lenins stuff, which is good in theory, is that Lenin either never set through many of his idealistic aims
Say what.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Even if you don't think you necessarily like Lenin's theories I would still give his The State and Revolution a read, as another member recommended. I think to fully understand the role of the 'state' under Socialism it's important to look how the 'state' works and what it's role is under capitalism. Under capitalism it's one class ruling over another and working for it's own interests. The theory of dictatorship of the proletariat is this but fliping it on it's head, as it were, and using the state as a tool for the proletariat and a convienant and necessary mechanism for total social revolution. Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program also discusses the DOTP.

Other authors who you would probably like better would be Kautsky or Luxemburg.

[Q]

The problem with "Leninism" (which was only invented after he died) was that it was a political and theoretical reflection of a counterrevolution within the revolution. The period of 1918 to 1936 or so saw many retreats on the revolutionary gains of 1917. Such retreats were a necessity in themselves as the worldrevolution failed to materialise. This is certainly a period that needs critical analysis.

That said, the work Lenin did in State and Revolution, based on Marx' positions regarding the state, does still apply today. The bourgeois state - the top-down bureaucratic machine of the minority controlling the vast majority - needs to be smashed and replaced by a radical democracy, bringing the vast majority to power.

I recently did an introduction on the Marxist position of the state, which can be found here (socialisten.net/1508). It is in Dutch however, but perhaps Google translate is helpful enough to make sense out of it.

[Bombay]

You may be interested in this (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) work, which is quite clear and brief.

Thanks for the article, very interesting!

[W1N5T0N]

would you care to reformulate that question, Obs?

[Psy]

The point of the state is the impose the will of the proletariat (via the workers state) onto the capitalist class. So when the capitalists resist the workers can turn their state apparatus to force the capitalists to compliance through organized violence.

[thesadmafioso]

Marxism itself is rather vague on matters of the state, you really need to read theoretical works beyond Marx to get an idea of what role the state is to take during the course of a revolution. Of course, by that point you are moving beyond Marxism to some extent or another. So there really isn't much of a clear cut answer here if you rely simply on the work of Marx.

[Rooster]

The existence of a state more or less signifies that there are class antagonisms within the are that the state covers. A bourgeois state obviously serves the interest of capital but it tries to mediate class antagonisms either through compliance or oppression, but always tries to maintain capital accumulation.

A proletariat state, on the other hand, would be the proletariat, working through a democratic model (or at least it should), that suppresses (or in some state's cases, co-operates with) the bourgeois. Of course, this isn't how it should work at all. The proletariat, once in power, with the expropriation of capital and capitalist society, would no longer have any capitalist to suppress and a state, as a signifier of class antagonisms, would cease to make sense. So it should really cease of exist.


The point of the state is the impose the will of the proletariat (via the workers state) onto the capitalist class. So when the capitalists resist the workers can turn their state apparatus to force the capitalists to compliance through organized violence.

You don't really need a state to do that.

[ZeroNowhere]

Of course, this isn't how it should work at all. The proletariat, once in power, with the expropriation of capital and capitalist society, would no longer have any capitalist to suppress and a state, as a signifier of class antagonisms, would cease to make sense.It's interesting how the proletariat are supposed to abolish capitalism first (presumably due to the argumentative skills of socialists), and only then take power.

[Psy]

You don't really need a state to do that.
You kinda do, since you'd have workers trying to take the privileges of the capitalists class they are going to use their bourgeoisie states to crush the authority of the workers.