Some quick questions about the "proletarian state"

[Let's Get Free]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

[Q]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle) and to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

[helot]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle) and to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...



Three stages, basically.

DotP = a class society, in which the working class has assumed political power in the state; but as this is not yet a situation where capitalism has been overthrown worldwide, it corresponds to the world civil war, when both revolutionary and reactionary territories exist and the world revolution has not yet been completed. This, I and many others would argue, must mean that the DotP must be overseeing a truncated form of capitalism (because it's a society with a class system, property laws and states).

Lower stage of communism = a stage when capitalism has been defeated throughout the world, but society is not yet capable of producing unlimited goods to fulfill all needs; in this stage there must be some sort of rationaing in place; some people think it should be rationing by price, some rationing by work, some - like me - rationing by need. We don't really agree about that point.

Higher stage of communism = the stage when production for need really is a reality and there are no shortages, no rationing, and we can all live free and productive lives.

[Q]

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...

That is an old quarrel on definition. I for one don't see a separate stage between DotP and socialism. "DotP" exactly expresses a political hegemony or, in other words, which class rules. In the same terms we are currently living under the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and this does not form something separate from our social mode of production.

The DotP ushers in communism as a mode of production and as long as this political hegemony lasts (and therefore as long as class society hasn't died out yet) we are still in the lower phase of communism where we still deal with the "birthmarks of capitalism" to refer a well known quote in the Critique on the Gotha programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle) and to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

Very good formulation Comrade.

[MarxSchmarx]

Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").

This is nutshelling the issue, I'll refer to this article for a further indepth treatise (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle) and to my blogpost here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) regarding the fight for democracy and the negation of democracy.

To some extent it is a matter of definition, but what do you make of the opinion that a lot of those remnants can actually be dismantled or at least superseded under capitalism, particularly in its dying stage?

The destructive power that wrecks at the old order is inherent in capitalism. It therefore requires a specifically capitalist mode of production as a prerequisite for building a shell of the new order.

I suspect that by the time capitalism self-destructs, the state and its previous class system would be so thoroughly decimated they would be mere caricatures of their predecessors. Some relicts of the ruling class may exist, sure, the way the house of lords in England does. But as a potent social force, it seems the economic/materially based class structured devised by capitalism can no more be expected to outlive capitalism than the feudal structure realistically outlived feudalism.

[Ostrinski]

Look, if you don't want to call it a state then don't call it a state. This is just auxiliary to a broader crisis in the language we use in our political dialogues on the revolutionary left.

This is what cannot be denied. The bourgeoisie developed the foundations of their hegemony from within feudal society. That is, when the landed aristocracy and gentry had control of the political apparatus usually in the form of a monarchy. They maintained that political control long after their economy began decaying. The capitalist class developed within this arrangement with the rise of more concentrated living spaces, the development of the factory system, industry, etc. At the end they ended up with all the wealth as they had better means of accumulating it than the aristocrats, so all they had to do was knock off the political shell, to dispose of the carcass of the old society.

The proletariat does not have this luxury. The only way they can possibly overturn and subsequently quash their class adversary is by political means. In other words, just the opposite. Whereas the bourgeoisie completed their revolution by replacing the monarchy with the republic after developing their economic hegemony within the old system, the proletariat must begin with the political conquest of state power because they don't exploit others in order to accumulate wealth like the bourgeoisie. Therefore they cannot build the foundations of the new society within this one.

The systematic liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the management of the last, decaying wretched vestiges of the capitalist society (the chicken without its head, if you will) is the only task of the workers while in the driver's seat of this revolutionary government.

This is why I like to say that the proletarian state is only a semi state (pretty sure I got the term from Q) and doesn't resemble a conventional state in any meaningful sense.

From a post I made in another thread:


The "state" that the proletariat creates upon the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie is only a semi state and in fact does not need to resemble at all what we conventionally know a state as. The reason for this is that the proletariat does not need the state outside of the context of the threat of a class-alien counter revolution.

So the state only exists only in relation to the preconditions for its existence. A quality revolutionary movement can deal with these threats easily, however, and if they can't then that is either indicative of a weak revolutionary movement or geo-political conditions that can't be helped (isolation).

The problem is that many of our Marxist-Leninist comrades confuse the nature of the proletariat's state with that of the bourgeoisie's. This fetishism with police state measures, political repression, arbitrary state violence, etc. demonstrates that well. You need to realize that the only thing that gives legitimacy to these kinds of measures is the need to defend a minority from massive political upheaval.

It's common sense really. A healthy revolutionary movement encompasses and incorporates the majority of society into itself. Why do the majority of people need to use such excessive policies and measures against a minority of the population? We've already established that the workers are in the saddle and in control of the state. What the fuck can the bourgeoisie do in a situation like that? Fight back? :lol: Wasn't it Lenin that said "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps."? Nah, they're not gonna run up on the assemblies with guns, they'd be too frightened to use them.

So you really only need this type of shit if the revolutionary government isn't actively run by the workers themselves, not just if the government lacks popular support. In which case? The sooner this failed regime is brought down the better. Why would a government run by the workers need to repress itself? All you need to do is follow things logically through to conclusion to overcome this fanaticism with authoritarianism.

Oh, and the whole strongman aesthetic. If what you want is a strongman then I suggest you give up socialist politics because socialism is a liberatory movement that empowers society rather than subjugates it to its will. The workers have no use for a strongman and they don't have any use for anyone who wants one. And if you think the workers need a strongman, then why are you a socialist? You've already decided that workers can't think and rule for themselves in a collective and democratic manner, so why not just pursue some other ideology that calls for a strongman? You'd save yourself some time

[ind_com]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

At least the state that follows immediately after the revolution, does not whither away automatically. If the proletariat stops continuing the revolution and weakening the social hierarchy, it gradually becomes a new capitalist dictatorship over the workers.

[Art Vandelay]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

Some great responses here but just wanted to add this:

A state is a by product of class society, ie: the institution through which the ruling class exerts it's hegemony. Where anarchists go wrong, is that they wish to abolish the state, before the material conditions arise which make the state obsolete. Given that there will still be remnants of the bourgeoisie post revolution, the need and necessity for the state exists (dotp). Once society has entered into a stage of free producers (communism) the state will whither away, since the material conditions (class society) that necessitate a state are gone.

[l'Enfermé]

Class rule by the proletariat will have to be maintained for a few generations at least after a successful proletarian revolution. The working class does not exceed more than 35-40 percent of the world's population, and even that estimate is quite generous I think. All these people who are alien to the working class won't just disappear through some witchcraft all of the sudden. It will take some years to break and assimilate these classes, unless you suggest we just mow them down with machine guns but that sounds like quite a distasteful business to say the least. Working class hegemony has to be preserved and the only organ capable of preserving it is the Proletarian State.

[Let's Get Free]

The "state" that the proletariat creates upon the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie is only a semi state and in fact does not need to resemble at all what we conventionally know a state as. The reason for this is that the proletariat does not need the state outside of the context of the threat of a class-alien counter revolution.

So the state only exists only in relation to the preconditions for its existence. A quality revolutionary movement can deal with these threats easily, however, and if they can't then that is either indicative of a weak revolutionary movement or geo-political conditions that can't be helped (isolation).

The problem is that many of our Marxist-Leninist comrades confuse the nature of the proletariat's state with that of the bourgeoisie's. This fetishism with police state measures, political repression, arbitrary state violence, etc. demonstrates that well. You need to realize that the only thing that gives legitimacy to these kinds of measures is the need to defend a minority from massive political upheaval.

It's common sense really. A healthy revolutionary movement encompasses and incorporates the majority of society into itself. Why do the majority of people need to use such excessive policies and measures against a minority of the population? We've already established that the workers are in the saddle and in control of the state. What the fuck can the bourgeoisie do in a situation like that? Fight back? Wasn't it Lenin that said "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps."? Nah, they're not gonna run up on the assemblies with guns, they'd be too frightened to use them.

So you really only need this type of shit if the revolutionary government isn't actively run by the workers themselves, not just if the government lacks popular support. In which case? The sooner this failed regime is brought down the better. Why would a government run by the workers need to repress itself? All you need to do is follow things logically through to conclusion to overcome this fanaticism with authoritarianism.

Oh, and the whole strongman aesthetic. If what you want is a strongman then I suggest you give up socialist politics because socialism is a liberatory movement that empowers society rather than subjugates it to its will. The workers have no use for a strongman and they don't have any use for anyone who wants one. And if you think the workers need a strongman, then why are you a socialist? You've already decided that workers can't think and rule for themselves in a collective and democratic manner, so why not just pursue some other ideology that calls for a strongman? You'd save yourself some time

Not an unreasonable position to take at all. But we should realize that Marx never advocated a party dictatorship ruling on the "behalf" of the proletariat. In lower-stage communism/socialism, the state loses it's political functions and becomes an economic coordination mechanism". A state that loses its political function as instrument of class rule is no longer a state and in communism there are no classes and therefore there can be no state in Marxian terms.

[Let's Get Free]

Class rule by the proletariat will have to be maintained for a few generations at least after a successful proletarian revolution. The working class does not exceed more than 35-40 percent of the world's population, and even that estimate is quite generous I think. All these people who are alien to the working class won't just disappear through some witchcraft all of the sudden. It will take some years to break and assimilate these classes, unless you suggest we just mow them down with machine guns but that sounds like quite a distasteful business to say the least. Working class hegemony has to be preserved and the only organ capable of preserving it is the Proletarian State.

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.

Every society is in a process of transition. By postponing this mythical notion of a "transition" to some distant, far off period in time, we subconsciously disempower ourselves in the here and now and disengage from the whole business of changing society right now. We are already in the transition period and we need to wake up and do something about it.

[Ostrinski]

Not an unreasonable position to take at all. But we should realize that Marx never advocated a party dictatorship ruling on the "behalf" of the proletariat. In lower-stage communism/socialism, the state loses it's political functions and becomes an economic coordination mechanism". A state that loses its political function as instrument of class rule is no longer a state and in communism there are no classes and therefore there can be no state in Marxian terms.A common misconception is that single party rule translates into buraucratic management of political and economic affairs. While it's true that unfortunately some argue for this arrangement, it couldn't be further from the truth for others of us.

The goal is to facilitate and encourage debate, discussion, and democratic management while at the same time effectively maintaining organizational unity. That has always been the great struggle.

Marx never said much at all on programmatic matters, and was definitely lacking in that area. Critique of the Gotha Program is probably the closest he got to delving into political matters, and it is a very general work. Therefore it was the task of the Second International to tackle these questions, and in fact they did though with flaws.

[ed miliband]

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.

Every society is in a process of transition. By postponing this mythical notion of a "transition" to some distant, far off period in time, we subconsciously disempower ourselves in the here and now and disengage from the whole business of changing society right now. We are already in the transition period and we need to wake up and do something about it.

agreed. i recommend reading about communisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization

[Ostrinski]

Actually, logically speaking, the only way you can introduce communism is immediately, when you think about it. That is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You can't have something in between a money based economy and wage-labor and a non money based economy and abolished wage-labor. It's one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". What about this- instead of advocating a transitional period with the so called proletarian state AFTER the capture of political power - which is logically indefensible - think of the transition as something that happens BEFORE this event.This is correct. That is why I made the "chicken without its head" comment with regard to the management of the revolutionary government. The capitalist mode of production still exists in the dictatorship of the proletariat (I know I'm disagreeing with Q here as I'm taking the more left communist position of distinction between socialism and the dotp). Money still exists as a means of exchange, as Marx points out in Critique of the Gotha Program (i.e. from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution).

As socialism can only exist on a global level (I don't think it's useful to make a distinction between socialism and communism), the workers of a particular liberated region will still have to manage affairs to the best of their abilities.

[l'Enfermé]

That's fine and dandy if you're an anarchist, comrade, but if you make claims to being a Marxist you have to approach the question from a scientific perspective, because no amount of wishful thinking will create the possibility of introducing communism immediately after the conquest of political power by the proletariat, given the fact that the proletariat makes up no more than 40 percent of the world's population, and probably much less, and this situation can't be rectified in a short period of time. As long as more than one class exists, that is, as long as class-society exists, the political State can't be done away with, you can't just wave your hands at it and have it disappear. A conquest of political power by the proletariat will of course lead to the demise of the bourgeoisie almost immediately, but the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are not the only classes around. Of the remaining classes, most can be dealt with without much difficulty(the petty-bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, etc), aye, but what of the peasantry? A classless society("communism") is not possible if 2 social classes, the proletarians and the peasants, exist, and both have billions of members.

Anyways, Marx and Engels DID "think of it"(think of "introducing communism immediately" that is), and their conclusion was no, you can't introduce communism immediately. In the Manifesto, their idea is that the Proletariat must form itself into a class(i.e class for itself, not class in itself), seize political power, wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, and increase the total productive forces as "rapidly as possible". Eventually, class distinctions will disappear(i.e every class will assimilate into the working class) and "public power" will lose it's political character. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx writes "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat".

Etc, etc.

[Q]

Just to chime in: I have to say I'm caught somewhere in between The Insurrectionist's and l'Enfermé's positions. Without getting myself entangled in quote mining of Marx and Engels, I'm reasonably sure their point was that the proletariat first had to conquer political power, before it could impose definite forms on society in going from the law of value towards the law of planning for human need.

While it is true that this will take time (l'Enfermé's point), I'm more optimistic in that I don't think it'll take "several generations". On the other hand, I agree with The Insurrectionist where he mentions that we'll immediately enter this revolutionary transformation, which is what I earlier referred to as the lower stage of communism.

Only when the law of value has become superseeded, and the law of planning for human need has become universal, can we talk of the higher phase of communism.

[Caj]

This is why I like to say that the proletarian state is only a semi state (pretty sure I got the term from Q)

The term actually originated with Engels.

[Blake's Baby]

I got a different impression about the lower stage of communism from Blake's Baby specifically that the lower stage of communism as opposed to the DotP would be classless although with general scarcity. Maybe i misinterpretted, Blake's quote is as follows...

(what I said about DotP, lower stage of communism, higher stage of communism)

You didn't misinterpret me at all, as far as I can see you understood me perfectly. But, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Q that this is all a question of definition - we don't just use different words for the same things, it's also a difference in conception of what is being discussed I think.

Socialism is a classless communal society. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a classless society, in that it has 1-a proletariat, and 2-other classes over which the proletariat is excercising its political dominance. Therefore, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not the same as socialism (in its lower or higher form). "...do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" - Engels' 1891 postscript to 'The Civil War in France': Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis 1881 - "...apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be..."

So, from the mouths of the pair of horses themselves, the DotP is not socialist. Only Leninists ('Marxist-Leninists' ie Stalinists, and 'Bolshevik-Leninists' ie Trotskyists) think it is, because Lenin mixed up his categories. Other varieties of Marxists disagree with his re-definitions, because we're Marxists (and Marxians) not Leninists.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat must co-exist with capitalism - it must begin in one place when the revolution has successfully wrested political power from the capitalists, but has not yet extended itself to cover the globe. We can legitimately talk, I think, about 'the DotP in Belgium' or 'the DotP in Canada' or whatever. Historically I think it's permissable to talk - briefly - about the DotP in Russia, as well as Hungary and parts Germany, and of course the Paris Commune. But while capitalism exists, classes exist and property exists, therefore there is no situation of classlessness and the end of property.

Against l'Enferme's insane idea that the DotP will last 'several generations' I'd argue that it is impossible it to last more than a few years. It's not a stable formation. Without the rapid extension of the revolution (ie, the successful prosection of the world civil war AKA world revolution) the revolutionary territories must necessarily stagnate and go backwards and become reactionary (as happened in Russia within a few years). There is no other option.

A revolutionary territory that is cut off from fresh revolutionary conquests is surrounded by hostile capitalist powers; to survive it must miltarise its economy and compete with the capitalists in their own game. That's isn't any form of socialism, it's the blackest most brutal form of state-capitalism. The working class can't administer the state as a capitalist formation; thus a new class inevitably arises based on the state, property etc - all the shit we were trying to get rid of.

As, however, l'Enferme's conception of the relationship of party and class is that the party rules the class, this isn't a problem for him; but his 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is after all just a bureacratic or technocratic capitalist 'dictatorship over the proletariat' and really, I don't see why we should even bother with a revolution.

[Bakunin Knight]

The institution of the state, however, is itself a corrupting force, and creates incentives to transform the new rulers into exploiters, i.e. it creates a new system of class domination. As Bakunin argued, the authoritarianism of the dictatorship of the proletariat is counter-productive and does not lead to the liberty so desired. Of course, I admit that I am not a Marxist.

[l'Enfermé]

Bakunin also basically argued that Marxist communism was a Jewish-Rothschildian conspiracy to create a very centralized state for the benefit of Jewish speculating bankers.

Maybe you shouldn't take anything that moron said seriously if you've got any respect for yourself.

[Let's Get Free]

Bakunin also basically argued that Marxist communism was a Jewish-Rothschildian conspiracy to create a very centralized state for the benefit of Jewish speculating bankers.

Maybe you shouldn't take anything that moron said seriously if you've got any respect for yourself.

Bakunin was an anti-Semitic dickhead. Marx was a narcissist and Engels treated his wife like shit. Fortunately, we do not view these people as religious figures. You take what's useful and leave the rest behind.

[l'Enfermé]

What? Marx's supposed narcissism and vanity is an invention of his political opponents, like Bakunin, who themselves very pretty disreputable characters(Bakunin especially, just check out his behind-the-scene machinations in the First International). Accounts of his personality clearly dispute this "narcissist" myth, and his actions, speeches, writings etc, as a leader in the Communist League and the First International/IWMA demonstrate that he has never sought to gain personal glory or fame and always put the movement ahead of himself. Perhaps you are mixing up Marx with Ferdinand Lassalle.

The relationship between Engels and the two known long-term partners he had, Mary Burns and then Lizzy Burns, isn't very known at all. Nothing indicates that Engels "treated his wife like shit"(which wife? Engels married Lizzy Burns on her deathbed, a day before she died, after they spent something like 15 years together). What is known is that as far as gender equality goes, Engels was one of the most progressive people of the 19th century in that regard, he was basically a feminist, but not in the bourgeois sense. It's very improbable that Engels relationship with Mary Burns and later Lizzy Burns was anything but loving.

[Caj]

Bakunin also basically argued that Marxist communism was a Jewish-Rothschildian conspiracy to create a very centralized state for the benefit of Jewish speculating bankers.

Maybe you shouldn't take anything that moron said seriously if you've got any respect for yourself.

Yeah, and Marx falsely denounced Bakunin as a Russian spy. Should we not take anything that that "moron" said seriously too?

[Blake's Baby]

OK, to get back to the sensible stuff, actual political questions, as opposed to a pissing contest about which 19th century bearded guy was the biggest wanker.


The institution of the state, however, is itself a corrupting force, and creates incentives to transform the new rulers into exploiters, i.e. it creates a new system of class domination. As Bakunin argued, the authoritarianism of the dictatorship of the proletariat is counter-productive and does not lead to the liberty so desired. Of course, I admit that I am not a Marxist.

How does the revolutionary state create a new system of class domination? The working class has no other classes to exploit. Who do we enslave in our new revolutionary super-dystopia? Who will do the work?

[Bakunin Knight]

OK, to get back to the sensible stuff, actual political questions, as opposed to a pissing contest about which 19th century bearded guy was the biggest wanker.
Thank you.




How does the revolutionary state create a new system of class domination? The working class has no other classes to exploit. Who do we enslave in our new revolutionary super-dystopia? Who will do the work?Those who are more politically connected and form a minority to exploit the majority. The State is necessarily taken over by a particular clique (or rivalling cliques) who then use its force to dominate its subjects. This is particular true due to the nature of rule by scientific intelligence. As Bakunin explains:

"What do we find throughout history? The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, and aristocratic class, a bourgeois class, a finally a bureaucratic class, when, all the other classes having become exhausted, the State falls or rises, as you will, to the condition of a machine; but it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of the State that there should be some privileged class or other which is interested in its existence."

"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralization; they are: contempt for the masses and the over–estimation of one's own merits."

"But in the People's State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government, and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce,, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many "heads overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a, minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!"

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, and Marx falsely denounced Bakunin as a Russian spy. Should we not take anything that that "moron" said seriously too?
Actually, he didn't. That's just another Anarchist falsification and slander. The whole "Bakunin is a spy!" affair began in 1848 and Marx considered it bogus. The thing was revived in 1853 by an English conservative journalist, Francis Marx. Marx was on pretty friendly terms with Bakunin between 1848 and 1853, he wrote this, for example, in 1853:

In the latter part of August, 1848, I passed through Berlin, saw Bakunin there, and renewed with him the intimate friendship which united us before the outbreak of the revolution of February

Another Anarchist falsification re. Marx supposedly falsely slandering Bakunin is the accusation that in 1870, Marx insinuated that Bakunin was an agent of the pseudo socialist Pan-Slavic party and received 25,000 francs annually from them, in his "Confidential Communication on Bakunin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/03/28.htm)". This is a lie also. What Marx wrote was this:

Soon thereafter, Herzen died. Bakunin, who from the time when he began to pose as the leader of the European labor movement slandered his old friend and patron Herzen, upon the latter’s death immediately began to trumpet his eulogies. Why? Because Herzen, despite his personal wealth, received from the pseudo socialist Pan-Slavic party, which was friendly to him, 25,000 francs annually for propaganda. Through his loud eulogies, Bakunin managed to have this money directed to him and thereby entered into “Herzen’s inheritance” – malgre sa haine de l’heritage[despite his hatred of the right of inheritance] – pecuniarily and morally sine beneficio inventarii [without legal permission of the estate].


Comrade, perhaps you shouldn't fall for Anarchist propaganda so easily.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Those who are less politically connected and form a minority to exploit the majority. The State is necessarily taken over by a particular clique (or rivalling cliques) who then use its force to dominate its subjects. This is particular true due to the nature of rule by scientific intelligence...

Your opening sentence is confused and doesn't make sense. The 'less politically connected' become the administrators of the new state? My question is, what is the class basis of the new state? Will the the proletariat rule? Will the capitalists rule (in which case, it's the old state)? Which class will this state serve?

In other words, why cannot the proletariat, organising itself in the workers' councils, administer all aspects of society?




...As Bakunin explains:

"What do we find throughout history? The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, and aristocratic class, a bourgeois class, a finally a bureaucratic class, when, all the other classes having become exhausted, the State falls or rises, as you will, to the condition of a machine; but it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of the State that there should be some privileged class or other which is interested in its existence."...

What we find in history is that all states are organs of suppressing the majority on behalf of a privileged minority. The revolutionary state is a state in which the majority (the working class) suppresses the minority (the capitalists) and simultaneously organise to fight the world civil war (against external capitalist powers) and organise production to feed the inhabitants of the revolutionary territory. That's quite a different state of affairs. almost its direct opposite, in fact.

That said, the rest of the quote is just hot air. Either the working class can administer the post-revolutionary society (I believe it can) or it cannot, in which case socialism is impossible and we may as well make the best of capitalism, because it's never going to end.

[Bakunin Knight]

Hmm, I could have sworn that I replied to this thread, but my post hasn't shown. Oh well, I'll try again:

The 'less politically connected' become the administrators of the new state?
I had meant to type 'more' not 'less'. I didn't see the error until later.


My question is, what is the class basis of the new state? Will the the proletariat rule? Will the capitalists rule (in which case, it's the old state)? Which class will this state serve?
Those who hold the duties that necessarily give them greater sway over the state. It can perhaps be considered a bureaucratic class, since it is their status as a minority who control and regulate the majority through the state that gives them their power. This power entrenches them in their position, and allows them to use their position for their own benefit rather than that of the community.


In other words, why cannot the proletariat, organising itself in the workers' councils, administer all aspects of society?
Because it delegates a degree of state power to some that it does not to others. Those with power do not want to give it up, and can use their power to capture the workers' councils too.



What we find in history is that all states are organs of suppressing the majority on behalf of a privileged minority...That's quite a different state of affairs. almost its direct opposite, in fact.
No it's not. I have given you your majority and privileged minority.


That said, the rest of the quote is just hot air.
Not at all. I suggest you read it again in light of what I have just said.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Those who hold the duties that necessarily give them greater sway over the state. It can perhaps be considered a bureaucratic class, since it is their status as a minority who control and regulate the majority through the state that gives them their power. This power entrenches them in their position, and allows them to use their position for their own benefit rather than that of the community.


Because it delegates a degree of state power to some that it does not to others. Those with power do not want to give it up, and can use their power to capture the workers' councils too...


So, do you believe the revolution is possible? If so, how do you think it is acheived, if not through the workers' councils taken over the running of society?

[Bakunin Knight]

Yes, and I see a direct transition into extremely decentralized communes that then run themselves as their members see fit, rather than by the decrees of officials or experts.

[Blake's Baby]

Isn't that what I said? What do you think is the difference between a workers' council and a 'decentralised commune'?

[Comrade Jandar]

Yes, and I see a direct transition into extremely decentralized communes that then run themselves as their members see fit, rather than by the decrees of officials or experts.

What's to stop a certain commune who holds sway over important resources from leaving this federation, thus endangering the survival of the other communes?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Those who hold the duties that necessarily give them greater sway over the state. It can perhaps be considered a bureaucratic class, since it is their status as a minority who control and regulate the majority through the state that gives them their power. This power entrenches them in their position, and allows them to use their position for their own benefit rather than that of the community.
But even in capitalism, it isn't the state beurocrats who "hold power" this is held by those who control production on the one hand and those who control the repressive aparatus on the other. So it's the owning ruling class who "hold power" through controlling the supplies and distribution that make society possible and can manufacture the means for modern warfare and repression. The beurocrats are a layer in society who owe their power to the rest of the ruling class. Of course as induviduals all these people tend to overlap so prominent Republicans/Democrats or Social Democrats in Europe make connections, get stocks and after their electoral term become CEOs or get appointed positions; the people who head the military tend to also come from ruling class families and also are heavily connected to finance and industry.

But ultimately the beurocrats only manage the capitalist system on behalf of the real power, the ruling class. In fact most governments are set up so that real power in society can not be touched through popular revolt or electoral means. First, the economy is totally privite and so a whole sphere of society is autocratically organized by a handful of major industries and economic institutions - government can raise some taxes on them, but unless one company is acting in ways that threaten the whole economy they will tend not to break up monopolies or nationalize industry - i.e. not infrindge on the fifdoms of privite capital. Second, most parlementary governments have checks to make sure that actual decisions are made in privite meetings and so the legislature just becomes a PR showcase where decisions are rearely actually decided through the process itself. Third, the seperation of the political and the military parts of the state ensures that any Allende can be taken out and all pretenses of bourgoise democracy can be suspended while the ruling class directs real force and order onto the population.



Because it delegates a degree of state power to some that it does not to others. Those with power do not want to give it up, and can use their power to capture the workers' councils too.
But just as the bourgoise can limit parlementary power to safeguard its own rule, a society where workers are the ruling class would be able to do the same thing. If control of production and distribution were in the hands of the working class, there would be any number of measures to ensure that power stays rooted there even while we necissarily have a layer of people doing organizational and coordination tasks. The most important would be that workers elect any representatives and give them a short leash. Rotating positions or restricting wages for reps would also prevent "careerism". Instant recall or reps is also another long-favored measure that should be institutionalized where workers need to elect someone to speak or negotiate on their behalf. Also many things would probably be made through direct vote when it's practical.

In short, parlementary democracy is used by the ruling class to create a buffer between the population and the actual rule of society - in a working class revolution from below, I think workers would want and need to create forms of managing society that are actually facillitate that popular will, not contain and direct it as it is now.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I would like to make something clear, the lower stage of communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are not the same thing. According to Lenin, socialism is the stage after the resolution of class conflicts by the DotP where economy and society generally are organized through non-exploitative communal social relations.

[sanpal]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?


Good questions. I shall start with last question: "What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?"
I am not quite sure in what context the word "method" is used. But if to consider it from the point of view of scientific marxism this "method" is quite well- defined. It is a dialectic method. The dialectics is a component of scientific marxism. It speaks, that the "withering away" of the state is result of dialectic processes in a class society, i.e. antagonistic contradictions between public character of production on the one hand and the private form of assignment of results of work on the other hand result in denying such form of the organization of a society as statehood. After proletarian revolution has happened and after formation of the Proletarian state called as " the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, " this contradiction is not eliminated, as wage labour and a capitalist mode of reproduction is kept, and the State acts in a role of the cumulative private capitalist in spite of the fact that interests of the Proletarian state are directed on performance of interests of all people in a society. This contradiction can be resolved only by the organization of a society of new type - a communistic society or, in other words, an association of free manufacturers practising self-management and consequently who do not need in institute of the state and of state governing. In such society the wage labour is excluded, and the cancellation of monetary system in economy abolishes a capitalist mode of production that entails a cancellation of class character of a new communist society and, accordingly, proletarians in this new society cease to be proletariat, so it means the emancipation of the proletariat.


The proletarian state on the character is the democratic state (dictatorship of the proletariat means only dictatorship of the class of the proletariat as the majority in a society in relation to other classes). Transformation of the Proletarian state into a classless communistic society will occur not in one stage as any society consists of people and people can not change the views and representations about vital way as quickly and amicably, as soldiers on a command of the commander. The part of proletarians will show care and will prefer to remain proletarians, that from the side to look at successes of the comrades who have chosen a way of construction of a classless communistic society (in a commune) and whether their economic situation will be better, than those who remain proletarians in system of wage labour (in the state capitalist sector of economy). Freedom of choice of the mode of production by workers is an essential attribute of democratic character of the Proletarian state.


Thus in the Proletarian state the two independent economic sectors with two various modes of production (MoP) will be forming:
1) the state capitalist and private-capitalist (middle and petty bourgeoisie) sectors of economy will be based on capitalist MoP;
2) a communist sector or commune (moneyless planned economy) will be based on communist MoP.

Between these two sectors will occur economic competition for the best labour productivity, for more high level of life of working people etc. Such competition will cause outflow of a labour power from sector with a lower living standard and with the worse working conditions to the other sector with the best conditions of life and work.


It is natural that communists assume (should assume,otherwise for what then they are communists?!) that the communist sector of economy will win in due course this competition and because of inflow of a labour power into communist sector it will be increased up to scale of the whole or nearly of all society. And as the commune by definition is selfmanagement structure, i.e. stateless structure the sphere of action of the Proletarian state will be reduced naturally, i.e. because of outflow of a labour power into a commune. Hence, functions of the state will be applied to more and more decreasing part of a society, as should mean in practice gradual "disappearance" of the state or its "withering away".


Such model of development of processes in the Proletarian state does not contradict classical marxism as comprises dialectic to a component.

But many of communists (and even those who calls itself as " revolutionary marxists " or " orthodox marxists ") do not adhere to dialectics in the theoretical reasonings.
They build their models of transition to communism with obligatory application to the whole society, believing (fondly), that all people will change their public attitudes and relations of production equally and simultaneously and who will not want to change, they will be forced to this (by 'gulag' and 'Siberia'). First, it generates not democratic, ' command ' type of a society. Second, what is more important, it generates insuperable difficulties at transition of the whole society (instead of its more prepared parts) from commodity-monetary economy to moneyless economy of communist society where the main danger consists in unintentional 'hit' in the wrong economic model, offered initially by 'the new communist' Duhring who was criticized by Engels and Marx in the work "Anti-Duhring".

I shall cite one of comrades as an example of nondialectical statement (do I have to consider 12 comrades who thanked this post as nondialectical too?) :


Good questions. The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight. Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society. However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time. These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part. Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism").



The long and short of it is that it is illusory to think that class society will simply disappear overnight.

Certainly it is so.


Thus, under socialism, also known as the lower stage of communism, expressed via the political hegemony of the working class (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), there will still exist a class society.

Really, " the Dictatorship of the Proletariat " is a class society as its economic mechanism which has passed from a capitalist society in the inheritance, will have the same kind i.e. it will have commodity-money system, market economy, capitalist mode of production, system of wages, etc. But why DotP suddenly becomes the first phase of communism, if communism ( whether the lower or higher stage) is definitely the stateless society with self-management on the basis of moneyless economy? This erroneous not dialectic statement of comrade easily can be corrected, having added in economy of the Proletarian state (DotP) the economic sector with communist mode of production which would be separated from market state capitalist and traditional capitalist sector on the base of commodity production with unvisible border. And only with occurrence of the first commune within the framework of multieconomy of the Proletarian state it is possible to speak about the beginning of the first phase of communism.


However, it is a dieing class society where, after the collapse of the "big" bourgeoisie, there will remain still layers of petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata for some time.

Without the organization of competitive process between market (state capitalist) sector and not market (communist) sector in the Proletarian state this class society does not become 'a dying society', but on the contrary it even more will amplify, will develop a powerful layer of bureaucratic managing structure, tendencies to restoration of capitalism will be increased. Such script of development shortly China can show us If the Communist Party of China will not make the decision on creation of communist sector in economy of China.


These parts can only be assimilated into the proletariat part by part.

They can, but whether all these parts will want to assimilate into the proletariat? And if the part of the proletariat will want to engage in petty or middle capitalist business, doing the return tendency, what then?


Once completed, the proletariat remains as the only class and therefore negates itself and society becomes one of free producers, also known as the higher stage of communism (or simply "communism" as opposed to "socialism")


Again the comrade reasons undialectic. Why he speaks about the higher stage of communism if this kind of his society consists of 100% proletarians (by his words) and a sector of uncommodity economy with a communist mode of production as an initial commune is not organized yet? Why he doesn't speak about state capitalist society with 100% of proletarians? Where he found occurence of communist relations of production in state capitalist society without any economic reason? In the magic way?

Why in an instant of denying by proletariat itself the commodity system in the whole society is turning into moneyless communist system? How is this? Again in the magic way?

Why in an instant of negating by proletariat itself the State which creates/supports class of the proletariat through the wage system, market economy and capitalist mode of production would disappear suddenly, only owning to availability of 100% of proletarians in the State? It is unscientific.


I would like to add some words what I mean when I am speaking about an initial commune as about separate economic sector with unvisible borders within the Proletarian state. It will not be a separate territorial zone, fenced village or city. It will not be something similar to Israeli kibbuz, also territorial detached.
It will be simple set several (or many) the industrial enterprises, factories, plants, the food enterprises, medical and educational establishments, etc., incorporated by one general binding element - communistic relations of production. Territorially these enterprises and establishments can be anywhere, i.e. not only in different parts of city, but also in different parts of the country and even in the different states and continents. The modern internet network is capable to unite all these enterprises and establishments in one general network and in the general cycle of communistic reproduction, coordinating and planning manufacture and work of all elements of system on base of specially developed software. Quite probably, for example, that two shoe factories can be beside in one street. And "unvisible borders " will mean only that at one factory it will be applied the capitalist mode of production where the proletariat will work for wages and this factory will be in the property of the state, and at the next factory belonging to a commune, it will be practised with communist mode of production where work of free manufacturers will be estimated in labour certificates i.e. in spent working hours.


Combination of two antagonistic parts in a society, that is the existence of state capitalist and communist sectors in the Proletarian state and the ideological, economic and cultural struggle between them leading to gradual disappearance any of two contradictory sectors - is actually dialectics.
If the communist sector disappears, it will show us that the communism is impractical or is incorrectly organized.
If the state capitalist sector disappears, and the State will wither together with it, it will show us a victory of scientific marxism.

[RedMaterialist]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

The ruling class, the proletarian dictatorship, will be needed to destroy the capitalist classes. How does it wither away? Look at what happened to the Soviet Union in 1989. The psychopath Stalin managed to kill or drive underground every capitalist, big or small, by 1955. After that it took another 30-40 years for the Soviet bureaucracy to finally shrivel up and die. The problem is that the SU did not collapse in a socialist world, but rather was surrounded by capitalism, therefore capitalism came back.

[Blake's Baby]

You really have no idea what this means do you? The state never withered away. There was a state in january 1917, there was a state in December 1917, there was a state in 1924, there was a state in 1953, there was a state in 1971, there was a state in 1989, there is a state in 2012. No withering away.

The closest to 'withering away' that the state came was arguably in 1918, when it was more 'collapsing' than 'withering'.

The state can only cease to exist when classes have been abolished. As they never were in the Soviet Union there can be no withering away of the state. States can only 'wither away' when the conditions for the creation of the state have ceased to exist.

furthermore, the 'withering away of the state' cannot happen in one area but must be worldwide. How can a 'state' cease to exist when the territory it controls is surrounded by other states? The territory must relate to other states as a state - if it doesn't, it finds itself occupied by its neighbours pretty quickly. It makes no sense to speak of the 'withering away of the state' in relation to a single entity. If you think the end of the Soviet Union was 'the withering away of the state', do you also think the end of the British Empire was 'the withering away of the state'? Because I really can't see any difference.

[RedMaterialist]

The state never withered away.

The soviet state was a modern, global world power in 1989. In 1990, with no military invasion, no revolution, that state ceased to exist. Exactly as Marx predicted. The state was socialism in one state surrounded by world capitalism, which is why capital took over when the socialist state collapsed.

[RedMaterialist]

If you think the end of the Soviet Union was 'the withering away of the state', do you also think the end of the British Empire was 'the withering away of the state'? Because I really can't see any difference.

The British Empire was not the British state. Hitler and Japan destroyed most of the british empire. If Hitler had won wwII then you would have seen the millitary destruction of the states of england, france and the soviet union.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The soviet state was a modern, global world power in 1989. In 1990, with no military invasion, no revolution, that state ceased to exist. Exactly as Marx predicted. The state was socialism in one state surrounded by world capitalism, which is why capital took over when the socialist state collapsed.


The Soviet collapse was not exactly what Marx envisioned with respect to the withering away of the state. Just to keep things at a basic level the withering away of the state is supposed to result in Communism, not Capitalism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Since a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system, why would there still be a class system after a socialist revolution? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this "withering away" happens?

I don't know how to answer this from a Marxist Leninist perspective, but we Maoists hold that the first stage of socialism is the dictatorship of the proleteriat, where the working class gains hegemony over the country but the bourgeois still exist as a class.

Now, even though the means of production have been seized from the bourgeois, their class is such a big one that it would be impractical and quite frankly a bit immoral to simply execute the whole lot of them. And even though they have lost control over the means of production, they still managed to find themselves in high positions in the buerocracy and in the fields of skilled labor (Engineers, doctors, lawyers, ect). Due to the existence of a state and it's buerocracy, and the fact that in the early stage of socialism education has not been widely dispersed enough that we can simply do away with the educated classes, the bourgeois can find it's self a place not only to continue it's existence but to nourish it's class. Additionally, bourgeois ideas still have an ideological hegemony since capitalism was only just recently defeated, and these ideas will also be nourished by the bougeois. Therefore, we acknowledge that class struggle must continue under socialism and that even the party can be infiltrated by bourgeois agents. Hence as Maoists we believe that the working class should be given autonomy to build socialism from the grassroots and to struggle freely (see, the four freedoms). Most Maoists favor China because it was the only country to restore socialism during the cultural revolution after capitalism was beginning to be restored in the mid 60's, and the fact that Mao's China allowed the working class far more autonomy and did not assume the party's infallible role. However we criticize Mao because he did not do enough to create democratic institutions to maintain the gains of the cultural revolution.

[RedMaterialist]

The Soviet collapse was not exactly what Marx envisioned with respect to the withering away of the state. Just to keep things at a basic level the withering away of the state is supposed to result in Communism, not Capitalism.

Even more basic, socialism cannot exist for long only in a single state, otherwise the state will collapse and capitalism will re-enter.

Marx predicted that once there is no class to suppress, the state will then collapse. Marx never predicted what would happen in such a state existing in a world surrounded by capitalism. Once socialism is the dominant system in the world, then the state(s) will collapse resulting in world wide communism.

[RedMaterialist]

Now, even though the means of production have been seized from the bourgeois, their class is such a big one that it would be impractical and quite frankly a bit immoral to simply execute the whole lot of them..

Why immoral? The capitalist class has murdered, starved and otherwise brutalized millions of socialists and workers. As far as practicality, WW I and II, Hitler, Stalin, Truman, et al. have now proved that mass slaughter of millions is perfectly practical.

Engels remarked that the socialist revolution, depending on the capitalists, will be peaceful or violent.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why immoral? The capitalist class has murdered, starved and otherwise brutalized millions of socialists and workers. As far as practicality, WW I and II, Hitler, Stalin, Truman, et al. have now proved that mass slaughter of millions is perfectly practical.

Engels remarked that the socialist revolution, depending on the capitalists, will be peaceful or violent.

I'm not a moralist, but you have to realize that the 1% Vs the 99% rhetoric is flatly incorrect. In a country like American ,far more people own their own means of production whether big or small, and the number amounts to something like 80% Vs 20%. Now can you imagine, from a practical perspective, trying to exterminate that class of people while you have internal instability and imperialism knocking on your front door?

[RedMaterialist]

I'm not a moralist, but you have to realize that the 1% Vs the 99% rhetoric is flatly incorrect. In a country like American ,far more people own their own means of production whether big or small, and the number amounts to something like 80% Vs 20%. Now can you imagine, from a practical perspective, trying to exterminate that class of people while you have internal instability and imperialism knocking on your front door?

I don't have to imagine it, Stalin alread did it. Morality has nothing to do with it. The historicial dialectic demands that socialism replace capitalism. If the capitalists want to make the transition to socialism bloody then that is the way it will be. One hopes, of course, that they will go peacefully.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not a moralist, but you have to realize that the 1% Vs the 99% rhetoric is flatly incorrect. In a country like American ,far more people own their own means of production whether big or small, and the number amounts to something like 80% Vs 20%. Now can you imagine, from a practical perspective, trying to exterminate that class of people while you have internal instability and imperialism knocking on your front door?I agree with your argument - I think a worker's movement will need to be able to draw in non-class elements who would benifit from worker's power: in places like the US this would mean drawing in a chunck of professionals (probably the ones more geared towards service and beurocratic class) while keeping them subordinate to the overall project of working class rule of society. People who are doctors, nurses, professors while having a degree of professional power are also impacted by capitalism and can not "do their job" in an ideal manner due to beurocratic hierarchy dedicated to "fiscal responcibility" for non-profit and public institutions and plain old profits for privite ones. The middle class would either support workers or support reaction and probably fascism in a case of workers really contesting for power. Pulling in layers of people to ally behind the workers will help reduce the severity and depth of reaction and counter-revolutionary forces. That being said, workers will likely have to kill some counter-revolutionaries and will definately probably end up killing opposition fighters and fascist thugs in the heat of any actual battles that happen. In Russia, initially, reactionary generals and politicians were just asked to leave and pledge not to return - but that bit people in the ass as they then organized a counter-revolutionary army.

Ok, at any rate, I was wondering about the figures you posted - do you mean 20% of the population "control their own means of production"? From what I understand, less than 10% of the population are self-employed or small business owners. I'm not sure how much of the population engages in farming, but the <10% doesn't include agricultural producers. Anyway from what I had understood, the biggest parts of the US population were workers followed by the professional and beurocratic petty bourgeoise and then small or independant business owners (also a part of the petty bourgeoise). So I guess I was just wondering if that 20% figure was more just the general petty-bourgeoise, rather than induvidual small owners.

[Blake's Baby]

Less than 2% of the population is engaged in farming in the US if I remember my figures correctly.

Don't know what the situation in the US as regards self-employment, but in the UK it's often a legal fiction designed to make it a lot easier for employers to get rid of you. Employment contracts are subject to a lot of laws that don't apply if you are a self-employed sub-contractor, so lots of 'self-employed' people are really just super-disadvantaged precarious workers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Less than 2% of the population is engaged in farming in the US if I remember my figures correctly.

Don't know what the situation in the US as regards self-employment, but in the UK it's often a legal fiction designed to make it a lot easier for employers to get rid of you. Employment contracts are subject to a lot of laws that don't apply if you are a self-employed sub-contractor, so lots of 'self-employed' people are really just super-disadvantaged precarious workers.

The situation is similar in the USA, and I agree that most self-employed workers are precariat rather than petit-bourgeoisie.

On the broader issue, the traditional petit-bourgeoisie is far smaller than twenty percent of the population. Nonetheless, IMO there has arisen in the 20th century a certain strata of the population that is classifiable as petit-bourgeois by virtue of status and privilege, as well as their ability to profit from the capitalist economy through stock ownership, sales, commissions, high executive/managerial salaries, bonuses, stock options and the like.

Combining the numbers of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie with this new petit-bourgeois class a figure close to twenty percent of the population seems a reasonable estimate of the numbers of this general petit-bourgeoisie. Although this class is likely to be hostile at times and wavering at its best, it is nonetheless important to use non-violent means in dealing with the petit-bourgeoisie. In a country like the USA, one-fifth of the population is close to sixty million people, and we can ill-afford to shed blood on that scale.

[RedMaterialist]

In a country like the USA, one-fifth of the population is close to sixty million people, and we can ill-afford to shed blood on that scale.


"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable." Marx, 1849.

The Godly terrorists have no problem killing 60 million people.