withering away of the state

[mrld1630]

Does anyone here who's a communist think the withering away of the state is kind of unrealistic and utopian?

I mean no offense places like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and the Soviet Union all were or are communist countries.

They all still use money. They all have some kind of social welfare system and pension system...

In the 1977 constitution of the Soviet Union they claimed the transition to socialism was complete... Then BOOM! The USSR ceased to exist a little more than a decade later...

I'm just saying if the withering away of the state is true then who's going to run the healthcare system, the pensions, and social welfare?

And let's be more specific than "the workers" or "the people." Who's going to be in charge? We can't just eliminate the bureaucracy...

Even in a Communist state someone is still in charge...

[Blake's Baby]

Well, it may not surprise you very much, but I don't agree with anything in your post, except 'Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and the Soviet Union all ... still use money'. That bit's correct. Oh and the bit about the USSR ceasing to exist.

1 - no the 'withering away of the state' is not idealist, as long as you have property you have classes, as long as you have classes you have a state, and therefore the way to do away with the state is through the abolition of property - seems pretty much the opposite of idealist to me, in that changing material conditions will change society - this is materialism;
2 - none of the states you mention were ever socialist, not even the USSR which did actually have a proletarian revolution that happened in it;
3 - we can 'just eliminate the bureaucracy' - not in a 'let's ship them to the gulag/hack them to death with agricultural instruments' way but precisely because 'the people' or rather the working class will be administering production - not a class of bureaucrats who replace the private capitalist bosses with state capitalist functionaries;
4 - there is no 'communist state' and never will be, let alone a 'communist state with someone in charge' - what you're thinking of is an autocracy with a red flag, but if instead you think that the end of capitalism and the establishment of the worldwide human community on the basis of human need not profit make something communist, then the problem goes away.

[RedZezz]

The state is not the same as government. The government is the collection of arbitrators, legislators, and such who administer policy.

The state holds the monopoly of violence in society as to maintain order. In a Marxist sense, this is the organized violence to maintain ruling class control. If there are no classes, than their is no need for the state.

As for the "Communist" states, none of them have claimed to reach communism. In fact, they designate themselves socialist states, rather than communist. The legitimacy of their "socialism" is in debate on this forum.

[Искра]

First, you need to understand that idea of „socialism in one country“ is against one of the main principles of Marxism – internationalism. Therefore, we can not talk about socialist countries because such term is contradiction in itself. Practise of those so called socialist countries proved that point numerous times, because they become/remained capitalist societies.

Now, regarding withering away of the state - it is a necessary process after/for successful revolution. State is just an apparatus of ruling class to secure its power. Therefore you can not have a state in classless society, because as long as you have state you’ll have ruling class (even if you don’t have it at the moment it will “appear”). It is not idealist it is necessary. Without this you can not have communism. What is important that in the process of withering away of the state you build institutions of new society which can take over all functions of capitalist society, of course – in context of new society.

[tir1944]

First, you need to understand that idea of „socialism in one country“ is against one of the main principles of Marxism – internationalism.No,unless you're an extreme dogmatists which already disqualifies you as a marxist.
SIOC was not some "ideological line",it was simply the only way to go since other revolutions failed.Putting things in their proper context,you could have SIOC or socialism in no country.Which is better,that's up to everyone to conclude for himself.
The USSR never "renounced" prol. internationalism.


Therefore, we can not talk about socialist countries because such term is contradiction in itself.According to who?

Stalin,from what i understood,put forth the idea that the prerequisites for the state withering away are to be achieved by actually strenghtening and empowering the proletarian state further...it is claimed that this line is in accordance with Marx and Lenin's dialectical thinking.

[Искра]

Did you just called me dogmatic and asked me "according to who" in the same post? Are you expecting Stalin quote or what? According to me, based on simple thinking about "nationalism" and "class struggle" which don't go together. Anyhow, cool story bro :cool:

There was never question of socialism in one country and socialism nowhere, there was only a question of world revolution and "socialism" in one country and Stalin right wing contra-revolution won that match.

[tir1944]

Did you just called me dogmatic and asked me "according to who" in the same post?Being dogmatic doesn't neccessarily have something to do with providing sources.


Are you expecting Stalin quote or what? No,you can quote whoever you want.


According to me, based on simple thinking about "nationalism" and "class struggle" which don't go together. Anyhow, cool story bro :cool:Not neccessarily but yes,you're correct,they usually "don't go too well together".


There was never question of socialism in one country and socialism nowhere, there was only a question of world revolution and "socialism" in one country and Stalin right wing contra-revolution won that match. Yes and that's your opinion which you're entitled to.And that's not something we can verify,yes?

[thefinalmarch]

Yes and that's your opinion which you're entitled to.And that's not something we can verify,yes?

Removed spam pic. Please do not post spam in the learning forum. Verbal warning. Next time infraction/

[tir1944]

Yes,nice post an' all however my point was that Kontra didn't really provide some quotes or,god forbit,proof for his (quite serious) claims...

[mrld1630]

But what about the pensions and social welfare system?!

[mrld1630]

and free healthcare

[mrmikhail]

Yes,nice post an' all however my point was that Kontra didn't really provide some quotes or,god forbit,proof for his (quite serious) claims...

http://www.marxist.com/classics-old/trotsky/revolution_betrayed.html#Chapter1

There you go, a good source, perhaps the best argument against "socialism in one country" it fully explains economically why it's counter-revolutionary, then politically and socially.

"Socialism in one country" is a flawed system due to the fact that, unless you are in the highest state of capitalism (according to Marx the revolution would start in France, be continued in Germany, and finished in Great Britain), in the case of the Soviet Union, and to be true all nations which had proletarian revolutions, there was nearly nothing in the way of industry, so when they attempt "socialism in one county" they are immediately isolated and when they try to industrialise they immediately have to start from nothing, their economies work very inefficiently (read the first part to that book for this one) they issue currency which is highly unstable, they create a government worker (party) class to replace the old ruling class, thus still leaving the old system of an upper class (party) middle class (proletariat) and lower (peasant).

Also on the note to the 1977 constitution claiming that socialism was complete, Stalin made this same claim in the 30s

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm just saying if the withering away of the state is true then who's going to run the healthcare system, the pensions, and social welfare?


How about, respectively, the healthcare workers (Drs., radiograph technicians, nurses, emts, etc...), the social workers, and, in the case of the pensioners, the pensioners themselves!



We can't just eliminate the bureaucracy...


You'd be surprised.

[Fawkes]

In order for the state to "wither away", alternative institutions will have to spring up to takeover the functions once administered by the state. Those autonomous institutions represent a threat to the authority of the state and, as history has shown us, will be brutally suppressed in the name of "defending the revolution" and perpetuating the power held by those that comprise the state. So yes, the whole notion of the state withering away is very idealistic (to put it nicely).

[mrmikhail]

In order for the state to "wither away", alternative institutions will have to spring up to takeover the functions once administered by the state. Those autonomous institutions represent a threat to the authority of the state and, as history has shown us, will be brutally suppressed in the name of "defending the revolution" and perpetuating the power held by those that comprise the state. So yes, the whole notion of the state withering away is very idealistic (to put it nicely).

Perhaps you should read the book I linked to as well. Talks of this and how there is no need to replace the functions of the government.

Trotsky (and through him Lenin) on the matter of a withering state:

Lenin, following Marx and Engels, saw the first distinguishing features of the proletarian revolution in the fact that, having
expropriated the exploiters, it would abolish the necessity of a bureaucratic apparatus raised above society -- and above all, a
police and standing army.

"The proletariat needs a state -- this all the opportunists can tell you," wrote Lenin in 1917, two months before the seizure
of power, "but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state -- that is, a state
constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away."


This criticism was directed at the time against reformist socialists of the type of the Russian mensheviks, British Fabians, etc. It
now attacks with redoubled force the Soviet idolators with their cult of a bureaucratic state which has not the slightest intention
of "dying away".

The social demand for a bureaucracy arise in all those situations where sharp antagonisms need to be "softened", "adjusted",
"regulated" (always in the interests of the privileged, the possessors, and always to the advantage of the bureaucracy itself).
Throughout all bourgeois revolutions, therefore, no matter how democratic, there has occurred a reinforcement and perfecting
of the bureaucratic apparatus.

"Officialdom and the standing army -- " writes Lenin, "that is a 'parasite' on the body of bourgeois society, a parasite
created by the inner contradictions which tear this society, yet nothing but a parasite stopping up the living pores."

Beginning with 1917 -- that is, from the moment when the conquest of power confronted the party as a practical problem --
Lenin was continually occupied with the thought of liquidating this "parasite". After the overthrow of the exploiting classes -- he
repeats and explains in every chapter of State and Revolution -- the proletariat will shatter the old bureaucratic machine and
create its own apparatus out of employees and workers. And it will take measures against their turning into bureaucrats --

"measures analyzed in detail by Marx and Engels: (1) not only election but recall at any time; (2) payment no higher than
the wages of a worker; (3) immediate transition to a regime in which all will fulfill the functions of control and supervision
so that all may for a time become 'bureaucrats', and therefore nobody can become a bureaucrat."

You must not think that Lenin was talking about the problems of a decade. No, this was the first step with which "we should
and must begin upon achieving a proletarian revolution".

[Rooster]

Does anyone here who's a communist think the withering away of the state is kind of unrealistic and utopian?

I don't really think Karl used the right word there. The state disappears when there's no need for it; ie when there's no longer a class society. A state just enforces class rule.


I mean no offense places like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and the Soviet Union all were or are communist countries.No they weren't.


They all still use money. They all have some kind of social welfare system and pension system...They used money because they were still capitalist. And for a variety of other reasons; wage labour, division of labour, no common ownership of the means of production, commodity production, etc.


In the 1977 constitution of the Soviet Union they claimed the transition to socialism was complete... Then BOOM! The USSR ceased to exist a little more than a decade later...Which was said in the 30s by Stalin.

"Bourgeois constitutions tacitly proceed from the premise that society consists of antagonistic classes, of classes which own wealth and classes which do not own wealth; that no matter what party comes into power, the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) must be in the hands of the bourgeoisie; that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the propertied classes.

Unlike bourgeois constitutions, the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. proceeds from the fact that there are no longer any antagonistic classes in society; that society consists of two friendly classes, of workers and peasants; that it is these classes, the labouring classes, that are in power; that the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) is in the hands of the working class, the most advanced class in society, that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the working people."


That's bull for a variety of reasons. If there are no longer any antagonistic classes, that socialism has been achieved, then why did the state strengthen and class struggle intensify (after this the great purge commenced) when the state should have been dismantled? The USSR and the bureaucracy existed because it was a class society, not socialist and had no common ownership of the means of production. The idea that you can have more than one class in socialism is one of the great revisions of stalinism. The reason why the soviet union turned into a regular capitalist state was because the workers were not in control of the means of production (because it was not socialist).


I'm just saying if the withering away of the state is true then who's going to run the healthcare system, the pensions, and social welfare?You wouldn't need pensions or social welfare. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". As for healthcare, who runs that now? It's ran mostly by the doctors (or hospital managers depending on where you live). Capitalist interference usually always leads to bad results such as the MRSA outbreak in the UK due to the selling off of the cleaning section to a private company and such.


And let's be more specific than "the workers" or "the people." Who's going to be in charge? We can't just eliminate the bureaucracy...I have no idea why anyone would want to have bureaucracy at all. If you have ever had a job, tried to get a job, been on welfare, been to a doctor, dealt with a union, dealt with the government, then you'd know how much of a pointless pain in the arse it is. Bureaucracy doesn't run anything. As for the important day to day running of things, I don't see the problem with democratically deciding what to do.


Even in a Communist state someone is still in charge...Communist state is an oxymoron, as I have outlined above.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't really think Karl used the right word there.Firstly, it wasn't Karl, it was Fred. Secondly, Engels also used the term 'disappear' in a similar context.


The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist.


All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.


I'm just saying if the withering away of the state is true then who's going to run the healthcare system, the pensions, and social welfare?I think the problem is that you're using the word 'state' differently. This text (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) could be of use.


Does anyone here who's a communist think the withering away of the state is kind of unrealistic and utopian?The end of the state is not based on our judgements of what would be nice to happen, but rather historical necessity. The state only exists insofar as society is divided into classes, and hence the general interest can only take the alienated form of the state. To say that the proletarian state necessarily leads to its own abolition is simply to say that the proletariat's interests lead inevitably to the abolition of the proletariat, and hence of class society in general, which is a rather more complex issue. To be brief, however, capitalism relies upon the rate of profit for its reproduction, and crises are manifestations of an overly depressed rate of profit; however, the interests of the proletariat demand a reduction of the overall rate of profit, as Marx quite clearly notes in volume III of Capital, and struggle in these interests becomes most necessary precisely when the rate of profit is furthest depressed, namely during crisis. Capital requires for its recovery ultimately on the one hand the depression of wages, as for example through austerity programs, and on the other hand destruction of capital, and hence unemployment, which ultimately comes to the same end. Of course, this assumes a crisis born of developed capitalism, rather than as a result of lacking capitalism.

However, insofar as it is to struggle as a class, and therefore on a social level, rather than simply in guerrilla economic disputes, the proletariat's struggle takes on a political form. The economic relations of capital necessarily exclude the rule of the proletariat, and hence it must take on state power. This makes the conflict more acute, and in order to save its already-made gains in the face of a crisis which requires its further self-sacrifice to abate, the proletariat is eventually forced to use this social power to expropriate the capitalist class and abolish capital. However, in doing so, it also abolishes itself, and hence also the proletarian state; however, as a result class society in general is abolished, and hence also the state as the abstraction of society, alien society, standing above the individual producers. The capitalist class, as Engels comments, represents society in the production process, so that the 'national interest' of the state is also identified with that of capital, and hence the rule of the proletariat has an intrinsically subversive quality. It undermines the autonomy of the state, by which it took on a 'national interest' seemingly independent of class interests but in fact necessarily equal to that of capital, and indeed has the state act against its supposed 'national, general interest' in the particular class interests of the proletariat. The state, which was based on the charade of the 'national interest', is hence in a sense undermined even as it is used; the proletariat posits its interests as the general interest, but this comes into necessary conflict with the economic reality which birthed this state, and all states, in the first place, and hence it is in a sense a class with no interests qua class, a negative class whose essence is negation. Its positive element is its humanity, and hence its taking control of the state represents the state's falling away, and society being taken into human control; the abolition of the antagonisms upon which class society is founded. This is the sense in which the term 'gemeinwesen' could be substituted for state.