Socialism and "A Bourgeios State without the Bourgeoisie"

[Red Economist]

My question is regarding specifically this quote from Lenin:


"In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully ripe economically and entirely free from traditions or remnants of capitalism. Hence, the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizion of bourgeois right" (Marx). Of course, bourgeois right in regard to the distribution of articles of consumption inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for right is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the standards of right.
It follows that under communism there remains for a time, not only bourgeos right, but even the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie!" (Lenin, The State and Revolution, 4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society).[Note: Bourgeois Right means equal legal right, but inequal economic means to exercise it].

This would imply that the first phase of communism, there is a communist basis (property ownership) and a Capitalist superstructure (state). Whilst I am quite familiar with Marxist Analyisis, this seems simply to be pushing 'internal contradictions' too far.

Lenin's quote is important for Trotskyists because it is the basis of Trotsky's theory that the Soviet Union was a 'Degenerated Worker's State'.


"A Bourgeois state without a bourgeoisie" proved inconsistent with geniune Soviet democracy. The dual function of the state could not but affect its structure. Experience revealed what theory was unable clearly to forsee. If for the defence of socialized property against bourgeois counter-revolution a "state of the armed workers" was fully adequate, it was a very different matter to regulate inequalities in the sphere of consumption. Those deprived of property are not inclined to create and defend it. The majority cannot concern itself with the privileges of the minority. For the defence of "bougeois law" the workers state was compelled to create a "bourgeois" type of instrument- that is, the same old gendarme, although in a new uniform." (Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter III, 3. The Dual Character of the Workers State).Trotsky's analyisis (whilst widely disputed and debated) however never questioned the necessity of going through the phase of having a 'bourgeois state' under communism.

I am inclined to challange this analyisis and argue that there must also be a a specifically 'proletarian state' to reconcile this contradiction. This would however lead very radical conclusions along the lines of the 'historical bankcruptcy of the world-wide communist movement' as a movement for a 'bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie'.

Given that my understanding of dialectics is still pretty shakey, I am open to anyone who is confident enough to offer an 'expert' opinion to My question:

Would a New Socialist Revolution HAVE to use a Bourgeois State or can a Revolution develop based on a higher form (or 'Proletarian') state?

[Art Vandelay]

While I can not offer an "expert" opinion I can toss in my two cents. Perhaps my answer will not be what you were looking for at all, but oh well. First I think this will depend on which tendency answers your question.

I could be wrong here but I am fairly certain that Marx explicitly said, after the fall of the Paris commune, that the state could not be wielded for the use of proletarians and must be smashed. The whole idea of a bourgeois state with out the bourgeoisie seems weird to me. How would there not be any bourgeois left in society? Also how could a capitalist superstructure exist over common ownership, when the superstructure of society is a outgrowth of the economic base?

I guess I really did not clear anything up but I think you raised an interesting topic and hopefully one of our more read members can help us out. As for what a future revolution will have to do you will probably find a few different answers. Personally the whole idea of having the bourgeois state and a proletarian state to contradict it seems doomed to lead to the restoration of capitalism. It reminds me of the idea behind the block of four classes in maoism, when the bourgeois is invited into the revolution do not be surprised when it leads to capitalism. We have been down that road before and saw how it turned out. I say smash the state over night, elect workers councils and prepare to defend the gains of the revolution.

[Savage]

When the proletariat seizes power and establishes itself as a government, expropriating the bourgeoisie, capitalism isn't abolished instantaneously. The proletariat is only defined by its role within capitalism and thus capital continues to exist until it is abolished completely by the revolution.

Given that any sort of proletarian government can only exist whilst the task of abolishing capital still remains, I can see how the 'bourgeois state without a bourgeoisie' theory could come up. To attempt to answer your question, the establishment of a proletarian state (as opposed to a bourgeois state 'run' by the proletariat) as the outcome of a successful revolution is generally what is advocated by communists, the bourgeois state being abolished as the proletariat moves from defense to offense against capitalism.

[tir1944]

The USSR during the NEP could maybe be considered as a "bourgeois state" ,in a way.
Of course,as the term itself implies,this is all very contradictory and dangerous.
That's why any NEP-like system must be temporary and short lasting of course.

[Dave B]

If you want to understand what Lenin was on about you have to go to what he was drawing upon ie Karl’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, I.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

In that the ‘narrow horizons’ of ‘bourgeois limitations’, rights, consciousness, outlook and what not were being counterpoised to the higher phase of communism.

For Marx (and Lenin) being bourgeois or perhaps more accurately having a bourgeois mentality or even better a petty bourgeois mentality is not in fact about owning capital and exploiting people etc.

Or even for that matter having an ambition to become that.

It is about the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ (bourgeois) versus the ‘we’ and the ‘us’ (communism).

What Karl was doing in the Gotha programme was taking on board the idea that the working class at first might not be ready to move straight to a gift economy.

And that workers in the first phase of communism after having got rid of the parasitical and exploitative capitalist class.

That they might still, as individuals,or as the 'I' and the 'me' want to get back from society as a 'rght' an amount equal to what they put in.

And bollocks to the idea that I do what I am able and take what I need; in favour of to me according to the work I do.

In fact Proudhon’s ‘petty bourgeois’ objective was to achieve just that; with each individual, self serving egotistical anarchist, freed from exploitation, getting back from society what they put in, through owning and controlling their own means of production and by selling their commodities at their full value.

Lenin (and everybody knows how much I hate Lenin) did actually do a quite excellent, and probably unsurpassed, summary of communism, including (bourgeois) legal rights.

Thus;


Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

Now if you don’t have that, or the idea of ‘work for the common good’; and in instead you have a ‘bourgeois outlook’ as regards a ‘right to certain products’ and ‘legally fixed quotas’ according to work done etc.

Then you are going to have to enforce and defend those bourgeois self serving egotistical limitations as regards ‘rights to certain products’ and ‘legally fixed quotas’ with a state that is a reflection of those very same bourgeois limitations.

Or in other words a ‘bourgeois’ like state.

Or in other words in the ‘first stage of communism’, shoplifters who don’t respect ‘rights to certain products’ and ‘legally fixed quotas’ according to work done; will presumably be treated in the same way as they are in the bourgeois state we have now.

On the Trotsky quote from 1936, a bit late and thus;


Those deprived of property are not inclined to create and defend it. The majority cannot concern itself with the privileges of the minority. For the defence of "bourgeois law" the workers state was compelled to create a "bourgeois" type of instrument- that is, the same old gendarme, although in a new uniform."
(Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter III, 3. The Dual Character of the Workers State).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm



That was just a plagiarism from Bukharin in 1926, ten years earlier; who saw it coming and whist he was still mumbling and protesting about Lenin’s state capitalism;


Here I must raise another question. If the working class does not regard industry as its own, but as State capitalism, if it regards the factory management as a hostile force, and the building up of industry as a matter outside its concerns, and feels itself to be exploited, what is to happen? Shall we then be in a position, let us say, to carry on a campaign for higher production? “What the devil!” the workers would say, “are we to drudge for the capitalists? Only fools would do that.”

How could we draw workers into the process of building up industry “What!” they would say, “shall we help the capitalist and build up the system? Only opportunists would do that.” If we say our industry is State capitalism, we shall completely disarm the working class. We dare not then speak of raising productive capacity, because that is the affair of the exploiters and not of the workers.

To what end then shall we get larger and larger numbers to take part in our production conferences, if the workers are exploited, and when all that has nothing to do with them? Let the exploiter look after that! If we put the matter in this light, not only shall we be threatened with the danger of estrangement from the masses, but we shall not be in a position to build up our industries. That is as clear as daylight.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1926/01/x01.htm

Bukharin, Bolshevik pig that he was who ended up squealing when stuck like they do was a far cleverer bod than Trotsky ever was.


.

[thälmann]

lenin doesnt said, that the proletariat should take over the bourgois state. what he said is that during socialism, the proletarian state have certain remains of bourgois right etc. and in this context, this state is a bourgois state without the bourgoisie.