Worker's State fetishism. [Archive]

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 06:14

I often see some self-described communists talking an awful lot about their idea of a proper worker's state without ever mentioning stateless society.

1) Just because some leftist are pragmatic and prefer not to dwell in the "land of the future" doesn't mean they are no onger leftist, so loose the "self-described." 2) Some prefer dwelling more on the concept of a workers state because it is the immediate struggle for socialism, communism is something which comes later.

Never in my entire tenure as a poster on here have I heard a Stalinist or Maoist mention statelessness.

Ergo, they are not actually leftist, am I right? Again, loose the "I am prolier than thou" attitude. As said before such tendencies prefer to fight for what can be won now, not something which is an abstract idea after socialism.

Some Trotskyists fetishize the worker's state as well, but not to the extent of equating communism with the DotP.

I was under the impression that a worker's state was a Trotskyist concept in majority.

My point is that we should recognize the worker's republic as something temporary and transitional, not the end goal of the worker's emancipatory movement.

That is what tendencies such as M-L and M-L-M's do: recognize it as temporary. I have never heard any Statist say that the workers state was the end in itself. But contrary to some people such people understand that the struggle for communism is a long process.

Freedom for workers does not mean having our own state, it means no longer being workers, but human beings unashamed of and equal in our humanity.

According to you, according to others it means having their own state to suppress the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie. And workers will always be workers, they will simply never be wage slaves again. (How would one stop being a worker under communism?)

I doubt anyone here will outright disagree with me, but they will fall into this mode of thought anyways. I think this line of thinking is something we should actively combat both on this website and in socialist politics in general.

Guess again.

Yuppie Grinder

22nd November 2012, 06:45

Socialism is stateless. You yourself has quoted Lenin saying so.

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 06:46

Gladiator, buddy, you don't have a very good understanding of what you're talking about. I've heard good arguments against the DotP. Your's is not one of them.
This is not a thread to argue for anarchism. Not the point.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. As Marx said, the state is an instrument of class rule. So what I'm trying to say is if the working class have attained a position of social power such as to be able to capture the state then why would they not also be in a position to do away with their exploited status as a class i.e. abolish themselves as a class and, hence, abolish class society?

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 06:49

Socialism is stateless. You yourself has quoted Lenin saying so.

Uh... no, socialism has a state... read Lenin's State and Revolution, please (especially if you are saying this about Lenin).

Here is a study guide to the work: http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-and-revolution-t172135/index.html

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 06:50

I know exactly what I'm talking about. As Marx said, the state is an instrument of class rule. So what I'm trying to say is if the working class have attained a position of social power such as to be able to capture the state then why would they not also be in a position to do away with their exploited status as a class i.e. abolish themselves as a class and, hence, abolish class society?

It is not about capturing the state but abolishing it (the capitalist state) and establishing their own state comprised of the workers to suppress the disposed bourgeois forces.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 07:14

But contrary to some people such people understand that the struggle for communism is a long process.
Why does it need to be a long process? To me, it just seems like a handy justification for statism. In Marx's day, it could be argued that there was still a lot of room for the development of the productive forces necessary for communism so that there would need to be a transition period, but in the advanced capitalist nations of 2012?

How would one stop being a worker under communism?
If by communism you mean a classless society, then there would be no working class and thus no concept of being a worker.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 07:24

Why does it need to be a long process? To me, it just seems like a handy justification for statism. In Marx's day, it could be argued that there was still a lot of room for the development of the productive forces necessary for communism so that there would need to be a transition period, but in the advanced capitalist nations of 2012?

It is not simply a matter of having a certain amount of industrialization but possessing a means of surpressing the counter-revolutionary forces which will inevitably organize themselves after the workers take over. Without a state (whatever form you define it as) the gains made by the initial revolution will be overthrown and the capitalist class restored. Aside from which it is also a process of building worker collectives (the remaining workers which didn't participate in the movement or didn't have the resources to do so), and socializing the country around collective life (such as setting up communes and beginning the long road to a whole new way of life).

It is not an "excuse" for Statism but a necessity.

If by communism you mean a classless society, then there would be no working class and thus no concept of being a worker.Semantics, I think. But I can see your point.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 07:30

It is not simply a matter of having a certain amount of industrialization but possessing a means of surpressing the counter-revolutionary forces which will inevitably organize themselves after the workers take over.
If the revolution is made by a class conscious majority, then they will directly control the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Indeed, they will occupy them every day. What material base will any counter-revolutionaries have?

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 07:37

If the revolution is made by a class conscious majority, then they will directly control the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Indeed, they will occupy them every day. What material base will any counter-revolutionaries have?

Counter-revolutionaries will not simply vanish, they will organize and mount armed insurrection, the whole of history has proven this to be true. In terms of class consciousness such is uneven in development: many will be conscious while other will still be developing. Same for the majority: most revolutions occur with enough forces to overthrow the opposition and not much more; it is not realistic to say that in America, home of the most vile bourgeoisie, the revolution will be so encompassing that nothing will exist for the counter-revolutionaries to use. If I used such reasoning I would simply abandon revolutionary politics and go with reformism to overthrow the system as it rests on a similar premise: if enough people join than there will be no problems. I am pragmatic and think otherwise.

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 08:06

words are meaningless

the term "worker's state"

is an oxymoron

since a state

per definition

is a hierarchical unit of exploitation

established

to raise an elite above the masses

selecting the chosen rulers

who will be the object of the awe

and devotion

artificial cogs and wheels

a machine

crushing natural organic relationships

setting up bureaucracies

production targets

quotas

police and military

the vanguard applauds

the workers have built their own prison

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 08:07

Counter-revolutionaries will not simply vanish, they will organize and mount armed insurrection, the whole of history has proven this to be true.
The history of supposed workers' states is that a new ruling class rises, and has as little tolerance for revolutionary dissent as the old ruling class.

If I used such reasoning I would simply abandon revolutionary politics and go with reformism to overthrow the system as it rests on a similar premise: if enough people join than there will be no problems. I am pragmatic and think otherwise.
You missed the point, which is if a revolution is by a majority and geographically widespread, then the majority is the source of resisting counter-revolution on a wide scale.

"Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul." - Frederick Engels

A widespread majority with body and soul invested in the outcome. That's what will defend the gains of a revolution.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:10

words are meaningless

the term "worker's state"

is an oxymoron

since a state

per definition

is a hierarchical unit of exploitation

established

to raise an elite above the masses

A state is a means of class reconciliation which developed from the capitalist class needing a means of quelling working class militancy which threatened their grip on power. It can lack any traces of elitism as well as exploitation (when the workers are in charge, for example; unless you count the bourgeoisie as being exploited).

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 08:13

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 08:13

A state is a means of class reconciliation which developed from the capitalist class needing a means of quelling working class militancy which threatened their grip on power. It can lack any traces of elitism as well as exploitation (when the workers are in charge, for example; unless you count the bourgeoisie as being exploited).

sounds acceptable

if you ignore

that states need a bureaucracy

a role-playing game of positions

with leaders and bureaucrats

and de-personalized tools of oppression

the only true egalitarian system

is small kinships

hunter-gatherers, communes

units where everybody know everybody by name

and by heart

not de-personalized machines

which mutilate the minds of people

through indoctrination at the school desk

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:15

The history of supposed workers' states is that a new ruling class rises, and has as little tolerance for revolutionary dissent as the old ruling class.

Counter-revolutionary dissent is not "revolutionary" dissent.

You missed the point, which is if a revolution is by a majority and geographically widespread, then the majority is the source of resisting counter-revolution on a wide scale.

Good luck doing so while such people are unorganized. When your foes are highly organized, disciplined and willing to sacrifice a lot having lots of meandering people does not mean much.

A widespread majority with body and soul invested in the outcome. That's what will defend the gains of a revolution.

Revolution will likely never come than as the majority of people, a majority which is truly nearly the entire breadth of society (what I believe you are defining it as), will never occur.

"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe, you have to make it fall." -Che Guevara.

(Doesn't express my views perfectly but for this instance it is close)

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:19

But why would this so called workers state allow the bourgeois to exist as a class?

A state cannot simply will a whole group of people away, like magic. It is a process: often through civil conflict. It is important to remember that they are a disposed class; meaning that whlie they are no longer the ruling class they still exist in some form, whether underground or still clinging to power in areas not yet fully affected by the revolutionary overthrow and ascension of capitalists. The worker's state does not allow them to exist but works vigorously towards their destruction.

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 08:23

A state cannot simply will a whole group of people away, like magic. It is a process: often through civil conflict. It is important to remember that they are a disposed class; meaning that whlie they are no longer the ruling class they still exist in some form, whether underground or still clinging to power in areas not yet fully affected by the revolutionary overthrow and ascension of capitalists. The worker's state does not allow them to exist but works vigorously towards their destruction.

Capitalism is not a group of bad individuals, capitalism is a social relationship. With the bourgeois being dispossessed of their property, they will cease to exist as a class. And if the proletariat continues to exist as a class after its capture of state power then by definition you have not moved beyond capitalism since the proletariat is an economic category that pertains par excellance to capitalism itself. This is why the whole idea of a transitional society between capitalism and communism presided over by a so called workers state is a piece of sheer nonsense and fundamentally incoherent.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:23

that states need a bureaucracy

A bureaucracy is needed to a small extent, perhaps...

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/hang-last-bureaucrat.html

and de-personalized tools of oppressionFor the disposed bourgeoisie, yes.

the only true egalitarian system

is small kinships

hunter-gatherers, communes

units where everybody know everybody by name

and by heart

not de-personalized machines

which mutilate the minds of people

through indoctrination at the school deskDepends on your definition of "egalitarian" but I tend to disagree. One method, yes, but not the only.

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 08:28

a worker's state

with a bureaucracy

will not only oppress

the bourgeoisie

the servants of Babylon

but all workers

because

when one worker

is resisting the directives

by the vanguard party

she will be oppressed

muzzled

forced into line

democratic centralism

must be obeyed

the state tells people to jump

and the people are jumping

and everybody who doesn't agree

is suddenly a counter-revolutionary

an enemy of the people

soon, the power of the state is supreme

and can be used against any opposition

a vanguard state

is just another pyramid system

ruled by an elite

of self-selected representatives

of the people

terminology aside

it is nothing but oppression

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:30

Capitalism is not a group of bad individuals, capitalism is a social relationship. With the bourgeois being dispossessed of their property, they will cease to exist as a class. And if the proletariat continues to exist as a class after its capture of state power then by definition you have not moved beyond capitalism since the proletariat is an economic category that pertains par excellance to capitalism itself. This is why the whole idea of a transitional society between capitalism and communism presided over by a so called workers state is a piece of sheer nonsense and fundamentally incoherent.

Capitalism is a system which expresses itself through social-relationship. No, as I said before they still exist as a class but simply are no longer the ruling class. They are in the process of being eliminated completely as a class. As with the disposed capitalists the working class will still exist because they are still receiving a wage and in the process of completely overthrowing their exploiters and setting up "Soviets". It is very coherent if you slow down and realistically look at what will undoubtedly result in a revolutionary upsurge in America.

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 08:32

there are billions of methods

setting up a new state

is not one of them

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 08:36

Good luck doing so while such people are unorganized.
So being organized enough to carry out a revolution isn't being organized enough to defend the revolution? Really?

Revolution will likely never come than as the majority of people, a majority which is truly nearly the entire breadth of society (what I believe you are defining it as), will never occur.
Revolution "carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses" (to quote Engels again) is incapable of achieving anything but a new class based society, a dictatorship over the proletariat. Now certainly those workers' states may be progressive in many ways, but only the working class can liberate itself. Accept no substitutions.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:36

a worker's state

with a bureaucracy

will not only oppress

the bourgeoisie

the servants of Babylon

but all workers

because

when one worker

is resisting the directives

by the vanguard party

she will be oppressed

Well, you are conflating all workers with being members of the victorious vanguard party, such will not happen, not all workers will be party members. Furthermore, the vanguard party would not be able to oppress such workers as they "disobeying" will not be relevant. The party cannot discipline what is not a member.

muzzled

forced into line

democratic centralism

must be obeyed

Democratic Centralism is exactly what is sounds like: democracy within a centralized framework. It allows for party members to form factions within the party and openly debate their differing opinions on policy. If their position looses, however, they, out of need for party coherency, are required to put into effect the decided on policy. The democratic part is being able to vent your differences within the party.

the state tells people to jump

and the people are jumping

and everybody who doesn't agree

is suddenly a counter-revolutionary

an enemy of the people

soon, the power of the state is supreme

No, someone who doesn't "jump" is not a counter-revolutionary. Peoples actions display their political affinity, not whether or not they participate in their own liberation.

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 08:39

No, as I said before they still exist as a class but simply are no longer the ruling class.

What? The bourgeois is defined as the class characterized by the ownership of capital. If they no longer own capital, which they won't after a socialist revolution, then there is no way they can continue to exist as a class.

They are in the process of being eliminated completely as a class. As with the disposed capitalists the working class will still exist because they are still receiving a wage and in the process of completely overthrowing their exploiters and setting up "Soviets". It is very coherent if you slow down and realistically look at what will undoubtedly result in a revolutionary upsurge in America.

In the "process" of throwing off their exploiters? Why would the working class, being in a position of seizing state power, allow themselves to continue to be exploited for one second longer? That doesn't make any sense. The capture of political power by a revolutionary proletariat must signify and entail the immediate abolition of the wage labor and capital relation. There can be no fudging this issue. To prolong that relationship is to allow capitalism to continue and, in consequence, to accede to the needs and interests of capital as against wage labor. There is no other way in which capitalism can be run in but in the interests of capital

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 08:40

most experiences

show

that "worker states"

are as much worker-run

as "democratic states"

are democratic

also, with vanguard parties controlling

the police, the courts, the military

the party bureaucracies

have an interest

to absorb power

the state

per definition

is a role-playing game

where some play the kings

other the servants

we can not

have systems

that exclude

and makes us insignificant

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:43

So being organized enough to carry out a revolution isn't being organized enough to defend the revolution? Really?

No, because defending gains is a whole lot harder than attacking an enemy. When counter-revolutionary guerrillas begin terrorist attacks on a large scale and organize a fit, modern fighting force good luck in rounding up unorganized, undisciplined people to fight against what will probably be a professional army. Such an army would crush the unorganized forces who do not eve have any kind of defense militia.

(At ths point though we are just getting into weird hypotheticals)

Revolution "carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses" (to quote Engels again) is incapable of achieving anything but a new class based society, a dictatorship over the proletariat. Now certainly those workers' states may be progressive in many ways, but only the working class can liberate itself. Accept no substitutions.

(1) The masses, as previously explained, are in varying stages of development so as the movement progresses some are likely to develop while others on a much slower route. (2) A Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (3) That is what the working class is doing: its tools is the vanguard party.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:55

What? The bourgeois is defined as the class characterized by the ownership of capital. If they no longer own capital, which they won't after a socialist revolution, then there is no way they can continue to exist as a class.

Bourgeoisie are "those who own the means of production" and exploit laborers for surplus value. Again, what makes you think everything will be spontaneous and the moment the bourgeoisie as the ruling class is disposed of ALL of the capitalists will fall? The countless petty-bourgeoisie and various other such owners. It is absurd to think that at one point such a mass will rise up and overthrow such people everywhere, all at once. They will still exist as a class, this much is certain.

Other than that we have not defined at what point our revolution is taking place: is it advanced, where great throngs of people are participating, or is it still in development where people are gearing up? We seem to have swerved off course from our original topic of a workers state (somewhat).

In the "process" of throwing off their exploiters? Why would the working class, being in a position of seizing state power, allow themselves to continue to be exploited for one second longer?

There is a difference between the proletariat organizing themselves as the ruling class and the proletariat everywhere throwing off the local chains of oppressing; if the state has been established than the class is close but class warfare is often more intense socialism so this is, as I keep on saying, a process.

That doesn't make any sense. The capture of political power by a revolutionary proletariat must signify and entail the immediate abolition of the wage labor and capital relation.

No, not even close. The working class organizing themselves as a state is merely a step, not the penultimate sign that society has advanced to the position where it can do away with money and capital in one foul swoop. To say as much just seems ridiculous to me.

There can be no fudging this issue. To prolong that relationship is to allow capitalism to continue and, in consequence, to accede to the needs and interests of capital as against wage labor. There is no other way in which capitalism can be run in but in the interests of capital

Which is why the relationship is in the process of being terminated but the disposed bourgeoisie do not make it easy so it is dragged along.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 08:56

there are billions of methods

setting up a new state

is not one of them

Not billions but a workers state is one of them, as history has shown.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 08:58

No, because defending gains is a whole lot harder than attacking an enemy. When counter-revolutionary guerrillas begin terrorist attacks on a large scale and organize a fit, modern fighting force
How will this counter-revolutionary fighting force be funded if the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in the hands of the organized working class revolutionary movement and the wealth of the bourgeoisie has been appropriated?

(1) The masses, as previously explained, are in varying stages of development so as the movement progresses some are likely to develop while others on a much slower route. (2) A Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (3) That is what the working class is doing: its tools is the vanguard party.
1. I'll grant that, but revolutionary situations can lead to rapid development of class consciousness. 2. No workers' state yet has been anything but a dictatorship over the proletariat no matter how economically progressive some have been. 3. You say vanguard party, I say the embryo of a new ruling class.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 09:05

How will this counter-revolutionary fighting force be funded if the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in the hands of the organized working class revolutionary movement and the wealth of the bourgeoisie has been appropriated?

I am assuming that the bourgeoisie still exist in other countries which would lend a helping hand. Other than that there are resources which the disposed ruling class would have placed in financial institutions (such as foreign banks) which the victorious proletarian uprising would be unable to appropriate.

And lets not forget: your premise is unorganized not organized. You are invalidating your whole argument in this instance.

2. No workers' state yet has been anything but a dictatorship over the proletariat no matter how economically progressive some have been.

Discussion for another day at another time. Suffice to say I disagree.

3. You say vanguard party, I say the embryo of a new ruling class.

Tomato, tamato. We could go on this tract forever. Obviously I do not share your disdain for proven revolutionary tools.

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 09:15

Again, what makes you think everything will be spontaneous and the moment the bourgeoisie as the ruling class is disposed of ALL of the capitalists will fall?

Well, that's the entire point of having a socialist revolution, isn't it? To seize the means of production from the bourgeois.

There is a difference between the proletariat organizing themselves as the ruling class and the proletariat everywhere throwing off the local chains of oppressing; if the state has been established than the class is close but class warfare is often more intense socialism so this is, as I keep on saying, a process.

How can there be class warfare when there are no classes? If the ruling class continues to exist as a class, then you have not moved beyond capitalism.

Where is the logic behind the claim that the workers having made themselves into a ruling class would allow themselves to be continued to be exploited by the capitalist class they had just overthrown? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Because that is what is meant by working class. It is class category that signifies the exploited class in capitalism. By insisting the "workers state" is what is meant by "socialism" what you really mean by that is that in "socialism", according to you, there will still be a working class exploited by a capitalist class because if there wasn't you couldn't possibly call it a "workers" state could you now? Duh. A workers state means there is a working class and by a working class is meant a majority class exploited by the capitalists. So a "workers state" is one which allows the continued exploitation of those in whose name it supposedly rules. There is no other explanation for this.

No, not even close. The working class organizing themselves as a state is merely a step, not the penultimate sign that society has advanced to the position where it can do away with money and capital in one foul swoop. To say as much just seems ridiculous to me.

Actually, that's the only way you can introduce communism when you think about it - which is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. You cant have something in between a money based economy and a non money based economy. Its one or the other. Its like being pregnant or not. You cant be a "little pregnant". If the workers own the means of production then who is paying for their labor?Why would they pay themselves wages if they owned their job? Is it because that would mean private property still existed, that there was commodity production and the fact that their getting a wage and working for a wage to exchange for goods and services....wait, that sounds like capitalism.

Flying Purple People Eater

22nd November 2012, 09:27

2. No workers' state yet has been anything but a dictatorship over the proletariat no matter how economically progressive some have been. This is idealist bullshit. You can't simply look at a revolution and state that spanned the course of seventy fucking years in the middle of economic turmoil, that was created under special conditions, and end up with the lofty conclusion of a Proletarian state being harmful. No, that's completely, positively idealist. The RFSFR was isolated and ended up nationalising; does this mean that a dictatorship of the proletariat cannot support itself!?

Go ahead. Call them fucking 'dispossessed proles' or whatever. The fact remains that during and possibly even after the revolution, there will still be parts of your control not under workers' management. As long as classes exist, the state exists. As long as capitalists still exist beyond the borders, in the cities and in the farmlands, you will never have a classless society.

Unless, of course, you think that the bourgeoisie will have a beautiful change of heart at the last second and frolick down the lane to hug those flea-bitten proles and announce their subsumation into the working class, thus creating stateless society overnight.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 09:30

I am assuming that the bourgeoisie still exist in other countries which would lend a helping hand. Other than that there are resources which the disposed ruling class would have placed in financial institutions (such as foreign banks) which the victorious proletarian uprising would be unable to appropriate.
If a revolution is limited to one country or a small number of countries, those are valid points, but a revolution limited to one country or a small number of countries is by definition incapable of overthrowing the capitalist class, which is international.

Mind you, such an isolated workers' state might have some economically progressive features, but you can't get to communism from there.

And lets not forget: your premise is unorganized not organized. You are invalidating your whole argument in this instance.
Um, no. My premise is that a revolution by the working class presupposes organization. Our argument isn't organized vs. unorganized, it's what form that organization takes. You're moving the goalposts and misrepresenting what I've written. I've never once suggested that a revolution would be "unorganized," unless you consider a revolution lacking a vanguard party to be "unorganized," which is, quite frankly, absurd.

Tomato, tamato. We could go on this tract forever. Obviously I do not share your disdain for proven revolutionary tools.
I'm impressed by those "proven revolutionary tools" seeing as how I'm living on a capitalist planet. "Proven revolutionary tools" are the ones that achieve communism. Nothing less. By that standard, there are no "proven revolutionary tools."

I don't think we're going to come to any sort of common ground on this issue.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 09:35

Well, that's the entire point of having a socialist revolution, isn't it? To seize the means of production from the bourgeois.

Indeed it is, but they will still exist as a disposed class.

How can there be class warfare when there are no classes? If the ruling class continues to exist as a class, then you have not moved beyond capitalism.

You are the only one saying there will be no classes. Certainly there will still be classes under socialism. How can there be class warfare? Well, the disposed class-the bourgeoisie-battles against the new ruling class-the proletariat.

Where is the logic behind the claim that the workers having made themselves into a ruling class would allow themselves to be continued to be exploited by the capitalist class they had just overthrown?

I answered this several times before and will not do so again as it is becoming tiresome. Look back a couple posts.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Because that is what is meant by working class. It is class category that signifies the exploited class in capitalism.

While under socialism it signifies them as the ruling class. Again, you are making the mistake of equating the proletariat organized as the ruling class with automatically ending all exploitation as a result. Such simply does not happen over night.

By insisting the "workers state" is what is meant by "socialism" what you really mean by that is that in "socialism", according to you, there will still be a working class exploited by a capitalist class because if there wasn't you couldn't possibly call it a "workers" state could you now? Duh. A workers state means there is a working class and by a working class is meant a majority class exploited by the capitalists. So a "workers state" is one which allows the continued exploitation of those in whose name it supposedly rules. There is no other explanation for this.

A workers state means the working class is in power and they have their interests as the ones which are being pushed to the forefront of the agenda. Dunno where you are getting all this other stuff.

Actually, that's the only way you can introduce communism when you think about it - which is why the Communist Manifesto itself talks of communism being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations.

It talks of a radical break, yes, but that does not mean spontaneity. Nice try though.

You cant have something in between a money based economy and a non money based economy.

Why? No one is saying that in this society with money it will try and act like there is no money. That is part of what socialism is: a step towards the transfer to a monyless society. It is not impossible as as been proven many times before-a revolutionary state has existed.

If the workers own the means of production then who is paying for their labor?

No one ever said that ALL the workers owned the means of production. We are talking about a workers state here (the working class organized as a ruling class). So as long as money is used in the workers' state and must participate in the world economy communism will never be reached.

Why would they pay themselves wages if they owned their job?

Because they cannot simply whisk away all money when the world market still exists and has a pull on them. It would be absurd to think such could be accomplished while other capitalist nations exerted pressure on such a state.

Is it because that would mean private property still existed, that there was commodity production and the fact that their getting a wage and working for a wage to exchange for goods and services....wait, that sounds like capitalism.

See above.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 09:44

If a revolution is limited to one country or a small number of countries, those are valid points, but a revolution limited to one country or a small number of countries is by definition incapable of overthrowing the capitalist class, which is international.

The revolution cannot overthrow the entire capitalist class, true, but they can overthrow the local representatives (the ruling class) of a country.

Mind you, such an isolated workers' state might have some economically progressive features, but you can't get to communism from there.

Absolutely true. Communism in one country is truly absurd.

Um, no. My premise is that a revolution by the working class presupposes organization. Our argument isn't organized vs. unorganized, it's what form that organization takes. You're moving the goalposts and misrepresenting what I've written. I've never once suggested that a revolution would be "unorganized," unless you consider a revolution lacking a vanguard party to be "unorganized," which is, quite frankly, absurd.

Yes, that is what I perceive it to be. Mindless chaos will get you nowhere; I think Spanish civil war proved this rather well (that is something else entirely though). Without a highly structured form of organization-a vanguard party or such kind of centralized organization-any movement which aims to overthrow the local strongmen of capitalism will fail.

I'm impressed by those "proven revolutionary tools" seeing as how I'm living on a capitalist planet. "Proven revolutionary tools" are the ones that achieve communism. Nothing less. By that standard, there are no "proven revolutionary tools."

Counter-revolution aided by Imperialism, if your culprit, not the concept of the socialist state. If we are going down this route now in terms of "impressed vs unimpressed" than where are your tendencies great victories? Where are your revolutions? I think intellectually you know better than to play this card.

I don't think we're going to come to any sort of common ground on this issue.

Nor would I expect us to.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd November 2012, 09:45

The reason why a "workers state" is what is talked about a lot is because that's currently what's on the agenda, that's the current goal. Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc, are busy organizing for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It makes sense to have a lot of focus on that.

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 09:49

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 09:51

You are the only one saying there will be no classes. Certainly there will still be classes under socialism.

The very definition of socialism is a classless, stateless society.

While under socialism it signifies them as the ruling class. Again, you are making the mistake of equating the proletariat organized as the ruling class with automatically ending all exploitation as a result. Such simply does not happen over night.

So the workers, being the ruling class, are still going to allow themselves to be exploited by the capitalists? Yes, or no? This just doesn't make any sense. If I was a worker in a position to be able to become the ruling class, I wouldn't wan't to remain an exploited wage laborer for one second longer.

A workers state means the working class is in power and they have their interests as the ones which are being pushed to the forefront of the agenda. Dunno where you are getting all this other stuff.

To talk of the workers "having its own state to represent its interests" against the bourgeoisie must must mean they are allowing the bourgeois to exist as a class without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "workers state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class. As Marx said wage labor presupposes capital and vice versa. They mutually condition each other. An exploited class must imply an exploiting class and what defines the proletariat is the fact it is the exploited class in capitalism

It talks of a radical break, yes, but that does not mean spontaneity. Nice try though.

I've already said it: the seizure of state power by a revolutionary proletariat must mean the immediate abolition of wage-labor. To prolong this is to accede to the needs of capital, capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital.

No one ever said that ALL the workers owned the means of production. We are talking about a workers state here (the working class organized as a ruling class). So as long as money is used in the workers' state and must participate in the world economy communism will never be reached.

See my above arguments.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 09:52

and after that

your goal will be

to analyse

what went wrong

He wasn't endorsing the theory or attacking it.. but no, after "that" the job will be to push forward onto communism (assuming the working class in other nations pushes forward) while learning from mistakes made.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 10:03

The very definition of socialism is a classless, stateless society.

No, that is communism, NOT socialism. The two are different. If we cannot agree on this basic point that I fail to see why we are talking.

So the workers, being the ruling class, are still going to allow themselves to be exploited by the capitalists? Yes, or no? This just doesn't make any sense. If I was a worker in a position to be able to become the ruling class, I wouldn't wan't to remain an exploited wage laborer for one second longer.

The workers are organized as the ruling class but only the immediate segment which is involved in socialist construction are not exploited. All of the other workers spread throughout the nation are represented by those who are in the process of building but obviously this is uneven. Such means that they are the ones moving society forward and the ones who are working for the interests of their brothers and sisters.

But as I have said before: those workers who are outside of this sphere are still in the process of struggling against the bourgeoisie and the disposed bourgeoisie. Nothing is static and one event cannot automatically mean a whole new environment is there. The workers are not passively allowing themselves to be exploited; they are, depending on the area, still pressing against the counter-revolutionary forces.

To talk of the workers "having its own state to represent its interests" against the bourgeoisie must must mean they are allowing the bourgeois to exist as a class without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "workers state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class. As Marx said wage labor presupposes capital and vice versa. They mutually condition each other. An exploited class must imply an exploiting class and what defines the proletariat is the fact it is the exploited class in capitalism

Again, you make the mistake of there being no bourgeoisie-there is! In both a overt form-those which have not yet been overthrown (the local, smaller ones)-as well as disposed form who are engaged in counter-revolutionary struggle.

I've already said it: the seizure of state power by a revolutionary proletariat must mean the immediate abolition of wage-labor. To prolong this is to accede to the needs of capital, capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital.

In no way, shape or form does the proletariat erecting its own state indicative of the abolition of wage-labor. There still exists a world market and if such is the case the abolition of wage labor is impossible.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd November 2012, 10:09

Gladiator you totally miss the point of a workers state and what that actually entails. When revolution happens the capitalist class will be overthrown their property expropriated, etc. the job of the workers state would to be to help organize and enforce their rule. Now when the revolution happens what do you think the capitalists will do? These people who identify themselves as being capitalists, of owners of private property, of parasites of workers, will lay down and except defeat? No, they will conspire and organize counter-revolution. Now you may say they are abolished as a class because social-relationship has changed but that doesn't mean they can't organize a fight back. They already have associations of businesses, if revolution came they just have to organize amongst themselves and agitate amongst anti-socialist workers and people who were in management positions to fight the revolution. Not only that but they'll have their international business friends who control governments invade and conspire to overthrow working class rule, especially if they realize it could happen to their countries too. If history has taught us anything it's that.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd November 2012, 10:13

and after that

your goal will be

to analyse

what went wrong

Well from an anarchist perspective I suppose but I'm no anarchist.

Avanti

22nd November 2012, 10:15

neo-anarchism

surpasses anarchism

it is already

bombing your subconscious

the prophecy

will be fulfilled

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 10:23

No, that is communism, NOT socialism. The two are different. If we cannot agree on this basic point that I fail to see why we are talking.

That is a distinction made by Lenin, not Marx. Marx used the terms communism and socialism more or less interchangeably.

In no way, shape or form does the proletariat erecting its own state indicative of the abolition of wage-labor. There still exists a world market and if such is the case the abolition of wage labor is impossible.

In advocating the retention of a wages system, you are advocating the retention of capitalism, but it in a state capitalist form. But state capitalism is still capitalism, is still a system of exploitation of the working class by a capitalist class (in this through its political control of the state). Ownership and control are just two sides of the same coin, and as Marx said, so is wage labor and capital.

Any transitional state power, however revolutionary its rhetoric, would be self-perpetuating. It would tend to become an end in itself. To preserve the very material conditions it had created to remove.

But stop lollygagging around and answer a direct question for a change. Are you saying that the so called workers state is going to condone the continued exploitation of the workers (in whose name it has supposedly been set up) by the capitalists it supposedly had just overthrown? Please give me a simple answer . Yes or no. Is your so called socialist workers state going to actively connive with the capitalists in the exploitation of the workers. Yes or No?

If the working class have attained a position of social power such as to be able to capture the state then why would they not also be in a position to do away with their exploited status as a class abolish themselves as a class and abolish class society, and hence, abolish the state?

The more you think about it, the more you realize that this whole notion of some kind of transitional society between capitalism and communism overseen by a so called "workers state" makes absolutely no sense at all. None at all. It is a complete dead end. Trash the entire idea.

The only "workers states" I can think of are the following.

1.) A Labor, or what is now called a social democratic type government. This government explicitly acknowledges and allows the existence of the bourgeois class and, over time, since the rules of the capitalist game are fundamentally loaded in favor of this class, such a government will have to submit to the whims of this class. It will become just another bourgeois government, like all the others.

2.) A Leninist type vanguard government.This government wants to strip away the individual ownership of the capitalists without doing away with the underling relationship of wage labor and capital itself. Since these social functions remain fully intact,this can only mean the replacement of the bourgeois with the vanguard. In effect and inevitably, this vanguard will step into the shoes vacated by the old bourgeoisie and will itself become a new bourgeoisie, a new capitalist class - a state capitalist class. In the name of the proletariat, and under the pretense of protecting the proletariat, this government will supress the proletariat and install it's own dictatorship over them. Since capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital this type of government will similarly become more and more obviously a bourgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It too will talk ceaselessly about the need to "tighten our belts", to become competitive, to raise productivity and improve profit margins etc etc

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 10:24

If we are going down this route now in terms of "impressed vs unimpressed" than where are your tendencies great victories? Where are your revolutions? I think intellectually you know better than to play this card.
Intellectually, I think you not only make a fetish of a workers' state, you make a fetish of the past. We should learn from the past and judge ourselves by what we achieve in the future. Victory is measured by achieving communism.

I'll give Lenin and the Bolsheviks marks for trying in 1917, but I won't give marks to vanguard party advocates in 2012 who insist it's a "proven revolutionary tool" and expect those with a different view to just fall in line. That's the only card I'm playing.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 10:29

@Gladiator: Marx didn't use them interchangeably and had concrete meaning for each one. Honestly, I have gone over everything you said in multiple times. If you cannot see through your own dogma and see the answers I have spelled out for you than such is your own problem. At this point the conversation is going nowhere and you are bringing up other concepts which both have nothing to do with the conversation and are just incorrect (and been disproved elsewhere). So I am heading off for the night (day actually). I am sure someone else can put up with your inability to fully grasp the argument.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd November 2012, 10:33

Gladiator you're setting up a straw man argument and you don't even know it because you don't understand the position users like TheGodlessUtopian and I hold even after its been explained to you numerous times. The "yes or no" questions don't make any sense because no one is advocating anything near those things.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 10:34

Intellectually, I think you not only make a fetish of a workers' state, you make a fetish of the past. We should learn from the past and judge ourselves by what we achieve in the future. Victory is measured by achieving communism.

If by a fetish you mean endorsement by the only path towards socialism and communism and rejection of ultra-left day-dreaming, than yes. Otherwise, no.

I'll give Lenin and the Bolsheviks marks for trying in 1917, but I won't give marks to vanguard party advocates in 2012 who insist it's a "proven revolutionary tool" and expect those with a different view to just fall in line. That's the only card I'm playing.

Such is adapted, of course. No one is talking about blindly applying such theories towards specific conditions without adjusting for the state of the country. But again, bring me some examples of your revolution than maybe I will take the muses of the communist/Anarchist left seriously.

- - - -

Looks like we reached the end of our exchange. Nice talking with you :)

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd November 2012, 10:46

Nice talking with you :)
After the revolution, it's the ultra-left anarchist gulag for you, my friend. :laugh:

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2012, 10:49

After the revolution, it's the ultra-left anarchist gulag for you, my friend. :laugh:

Only if I can lead the camp with an iron fist and organize everyone into musical brigades to fight the counter-revolutionary anti-music... people... hmmm :p

Ler

22nd November 2012, 11:04

I dunno man. I think that what our movement really needs right now is more pety factionalism, and quite frankly nothing gets a lot of us riled up any more than the whole workers state fiasco. Speaking of which, anybody up for another round of Stalin vs Trotsky? -Sips tea-

Grenzer

22nd November 2012, 11:53

I often see some self-described communists talking an awful lot about their idea of a proper worker's state without ever mentioning stateless society. Never in my entire tenure as a poster on here have I heard a Stalinist or Maoist mention statelessness. Some Trotskyists fetishize the worker's state as well, but not to the extent of equating communism with the DotP.
My point is that we should recognize the worker's republic as something temporary and transitional, not the end goal of the worker's emancipatory movement. Freedom for workers does not mean having our own state, it means no longer being workers, but human beings unashamed of and equal in our humanity.
I doubt anyone here will outright disagree with me, but they will fall into this mode of thought anyways. I think this line of thinking is something we should actively combat both on this website and in socialist politics in general.

I agree with you entirely.

Personally I dislike the phrase 'workers' state' and think it should be abandoned for the same reason that 'revisionism' has been.

The proletarian dictatorship cannot be regarded as an abstraction from its primary purpose, which is the abolition of the proletariat as a class. The state as controlled by the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state which is dying; dissolving away as its purpose for being fades. If it's not doing this; if it's not fulfilling its purpose, then I don't really think a state can be regarded as being controlled by the proletarian dictatorship at all.

The Trotskyist conception is particularly problematic. They will acknowledge that the states which they term as proletarian dictatorships had bloated bureaucracies, and far from being dying states, the state was strengthened further than ever. Even ignoring the fact that there were no organs for proletarian rule by which the dictatorship could be exercised, this alone is enough to conclude that this abstract idealization of what constitutes a proletarian dictatorship is a gross distortion of Marxism.

The Stalinists, for all that is wrong with them, must at least be handed the fact that they at least believe the state was fading away(even though the reality was very different). The Trotskyists know better, but insist that the Stalinist states were proletarian dictatorships anyway. Which is worse? Well it's difficult to say, but I'm not a fan of either of them and believe both the orthodox Trotskyist and Stalinist interpretations should be condemned.

With all due respect to the Trotskyist comrades, it's just something I strongly disagree with.

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 18:09

Well, I'll just sum up my arguments here and I'll be on my way. There is no point in having a state unless there are people to be bullied and coerced. According to the advocates for a "workers state", the new state will be bullying and coercing the capitalists—the exploiters who live by robbing the working class. But if the workers can dominate the capitalists with a state, why allow them to continue exploiting and robbing the workers? Why not immediately dispossess the parasite minority? Once the capitalists have been stripped of their power to exploit workers economically there will be no need to control them with a state: there will be a classless society without the need for a body of class rule. But there are people who argue the absurd case that this all-powerful workers' state will exercise ultimate authority in society but for the authority over the most crucial aspect of society in which the capitalists will still be having power. In order to have authority over the exploiters on behalf of the exploited, is like a proposal for the prisoners to be given full control over the a prison, while still allowing themselves to remain locked up. Either society is based on property in which there is buying and selling and a need for money or on propertyless common ownership. The two conditions are mutually exclusive: you can no more have a little bit of both than you can be a little bit pregnant.

There is only one "class interest" that the working class has to see to upon its capture of state power and that is to abolish itself as the exploited class in capitalist society. Anything less than this means that it is NOT the working class that has captured power but a vanguard which will inevitably emerge as a new ruling class and, in the name of the proletariat, will install a dictatorship over the proletariat.

And, incidentally, thereby shore up capitalism....

Blake's Baby

22nd November 2012, 20:53

You know what? I posted something. Then I thought, 'hey, what's the point?' so I took it down.

Anyone who was interested in what I might have said can I'm sure reconstruct it from the approximately 2,500 other posts I've made on this forum.

A Revolutionary Tool

22nd November 2012, 21:02

Let's Get Free

22nd November 2012, 21:29

Gladiator do you really think after workers expropriate the capitalists property they're just going to give up and take it? You keep saying why continue to let the capitalists exploit the worker when it's the exact opposite of what we're saying. The state should be there to assure the counter-revolutionary elements of society are squashed, to defend the revolutionary gains by workers. Yeah maybe the social-relationship between capitalist and worker has been severed but that doesn't mean people who were capitalists all of a sudden stop thinking like it hasn't and they will fight against the revolution to put that rotten system back in place, both the national and international capitalist class.

If you can't see the reality of that happening please pick up a history book about any revolution that has ever happened. If your strategy doesn't take that into account it's worthless and will lose.

People who support a "workers state" claim that it is necessary in order to crush any bourgeois counterrevolutions led by the capitalist class or right-wing reactionaries. But that is just part of the Stalinist school of falsification. A centralized apparatus, like a state, is a much easier target for opponents of the revolution than an array of decentralized communes, and these communes would remain armed and prepared to defend the revolution against anyone who moves militarily against it. The key is to organize people into defense guards, militias, and other military preparedness units.

And I think some people severely overestimate the capabilities of the bourgeois. They are a very small minority of the population who are used to living cushy pampered lives and probably wouldn't know which end of a gun to shoot out of. Workers' power rather than state power would be used to bring down bourgeois institutions to their knees, that is, by refusing to supply the bourgeoisie with necessary resources for them to conduct their counter-revolution.

GoddessCleoLover

22nd November 2012, 21:49

How can we surmount the tendency of the revolutionary elite (the so-called vanguard party) to use its privileged position to create a state that adheres only to the symbols of working class power while in fact usurping the role of the working class? This appears to have been the pattern of the failed revolutions of the 20th century.

l'EnfermÃ©

22nd November 2012, 22:22

^The vanguard of 1917 was 250,000 socialist workers. This is not a revolutionary "elite".

Ostrinski

22nd November 2012, 22:42

Uh... no, socialism has a state... read Lenin's State and Revolution, please (especially if you are saying this about Lenin).

Here is a study guide to the work: http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-and-revolution-t172135/index.htmlSocialism by definition cannot have a state. A society of free produces associated into production only through their own voluntary initiative (what we call socialism) can only be realized in a post-state society.

Lenin was forced by the particular circumstances he found himself and the movement he was involved in having to grapple with, (i.e. here we have the prospect of proletarian revolution and it is apparent that we will not be transitioning directly into this communist society as hoped for, how as Marxists do we interpret this?) Lenin answered this by, and one can hardly blame him, considering the merits of making a distinction between socialism and communism along the lines of the traditional Marxist understanding of the lower higher stages of communism.

What Lenin calls the "socialist state" is simply state capitalism administered by workers until revolution spreads. Not that I don't agree that this is a necessary stage - I just think terminology is important and that using the term socialism where it doesn't belong does not give us any insight into what socialists stand for and it doesn't help us communicate our program in a non confusing way.

Ostrinski

22nd November 2012, 22:50

Also, the concept of worker's state as popularized by the Orthodox Trotskyists is useless as all hell. If we're going to talk of a "worker's state" then we should talk of a government run by, of, and for workers, not some bureaucracy that somehow mystically upholds worker interests (the hell does that even mean).

MEGAMANTROTSKY

22nd November 2012, 23:43

The Stalinists, for all that is wrong with them, must at least be handed the fact that they at least believe the state was fading away(even though the reality was very different). The Trotskyists know better, but insist that the Stalinist states were proletarian dictatorships anyway. Which is worse? Well it's difficult to say, but I'm not a fan of either of them and believe both the orthodox Trotskyist and Stalinist interpretations should be condemned.

With all due respect to the Trotskyist comrades, it's just something I strongly disagree with.
As a Trotskyist myself, I have never called the Stalinist satellites and China "worker's states", whether deformed or otherwise. Only the Soviet Union seems to fit Trotsky's own definition. True, Cuba and the others brought reforms such as the nationalization of property and such, but as the Trotskyist Alex Steiner said,

The essence of [Joseph] Hansen’s claim was that Cuba was a workers’ state because it satisfied a number of ‘criteria’ for the definition of a workers’ state – criteria that had been applied to a previous discussion on the nature of the Soviet Union. But comparing ‘criteria’ in this way is to proceed abstractly – i.e. non-dialectically....

....What made the Soviet Union a workers’ state was not that it fulfilled certain abstract criteria for a workers’ state, such as the nationalization of industry. As is noted in the document ["Opportunism and Empiricism", by Cliff Slaughter, 1965] other regimes that no one recognized as a workers’ state were capable of largescale nationalization. [I]Rather, it was the originating experience of the proletarian revolution led by the Bolsheviks and the exercise of workers power through its own autonomous instruments of rule, the Soviets, that was the historical content in the characterization of the Soviet Union as workers’ state, despite its later bureaucratic deformations. No comparable event ever took place in Cuba. Nor could it, as the Castro leadership, while undoubtedly leaning on the working class for support, was essentially a petty-bourgeois formation based on the peasantry. To this day, no independent organizations of the working class are permitted in Cuba.
http://permanent-revolution.org/archives/opportunism_empiricism.pdf

[Edit: So in other words, this supposedly "orthodox" definition of "workers' state" completely misses the essence of Trotsky's original definition, thereby distorting it, just like Ted Grant's version of "entryism". In this context,] I've personally found [Steiner's interpretation] to be the most satisfying theoretical line on the worker's state.

A Revolutionary Tool

23rd November 2012, 04:40

People who support a "workers state" claim that it is necessary in order to crush any bourgeois counterrevolutions led by the capitalist class or right-wing reactionaries. But that is just part of the Stalinist school of falsification.Stalinist school of falsification? I'm not even going to lie, I'm a little insulted with being accused of Stalinism. But I'm pretty sure the dictatorship of the proletariat, workers state, whatever you fancy to call it, came a little before Stalin. It came before Marx too but Marx accepted this, it's not Stalinist falsification. It's, speaking in the most general way, the principle difference between Marxism and most kinds of left-wing anarchism.

A centralized apparatus, like a state, is a much easier target for opponents of the revolution than an array of decentralized communes, and these communes would remain armed and prepared to defend the revolution against anyone who moves militarily against it. The key is to organize people into defense guards, militias, and other military preparedness units.And how is this so? I think history has shown that a military force is easier to defeat when they're decentralized, not unified, split up, etc. And I've always thought to myself how anarchists really call themselves that when they propose military structures to enforce proletarian rule against counterrevolution. What's the point of calling yourself an anarchist when you support the use of armed forces to force others to accept the proletarians legitimate rule? What isn't state-like about that?

And I think some people severely overestimate the capabilities of the bourgeois. They are a very small minority of the population who are used to living cushy pampered lives and probably wouldn't know which end of a gun to shoot out of. Workers' power rather than state power would be used to bring down bourgeois institutions to their knees, that is, by refusing to supply the bourgeoisie with necessary resources for them to conduct their counter-revolution.
Overestimate the power of the bourgoeisie? I'm starting to think you've never opened up a history book.

Let's Get Free

23rd November 2012, 08:02

And how is this so? I think history has shown that a military force is easier to defeat when they're decentralized, not unified, split up, etc. And I've always thought to myself how anarchists really call themselves that when they propose military structures to enforce proletarian rule against counterrevolution. What's the point of calling yourself an anarchist when you support the use of armed forces to force others to accept the proletarians legitimate rule? What isn't state-like about that?

No, being able to defeat a counter-revolution depends upon how much firepower and manpower the revolution has vs the counterrevolutionaries, no on whether it has a disproportionate amount of power concentrated into the hands of a minority.

We have seen the "successful" revolutions of China, Cuba, and Russia and they were able to survive for some time. However, the success of these revolutions to defend themselves from external threats with the methods they (centralization) used ultimately lead to defeat of the revolution from within (from revisionism/bureaucratic degeneracy/whatever term you prefer.) Although I think the Leninist model of vanguard parties and democratic centralism is susceptible to revisionism/degeneracy/etc.) Russia became a capitalist nation, China is a capitalist nation under the head of a "communist party", and Cuba is, while admirably still "running", has been flirting with capitalism.

To quote Bakunin,
"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganize themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighboring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defense."

I reject the argument that any attempt to defend a revolution will lead to a new state. The state is structured to ensure minority rule and, consequently, a "workers' state" would be a new form of minority rule over the workers. For this reason I argue that working class self-management from the bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state." The Russian Revolution showed the validity of this, with the Bolsheviks calling their dictatorship a "workers' state" in spite of the workers having no power in it. Anarchists have long pointed out that government is not the same as collective decision making and to call the bottom-up communal system anarchists aim for a "state" when its role is to promote and ensure mass participation in social life is nonsense.

Blake's Baby

23rd November 2012, 08:35

They're all capitalism Gladiator, they've all always been capitalism. State capitalism.

If a state is necessarily a form of minority rule (it isn't, that's just all states that have existed up to now) then a 'workers' state' isn't a state. So why oppose it?

Let's Get Free

23rd November 2012, 08:47

There are probably at least 250 million working class people in the U.S. Will all of them be participating in the running of the state?

Blake's Baby

23rd November 2012, 09:10

If they're not, something has gone wrong (probably, the Stalino-Trot Alliance has seized control).

If the state is the workers' councils, then the working class as a whole administers the state. The workers' councils aren't instruments of minority control. You have to usurp the power of the councils, as the Bolsheviks did, for there to be a minority running the state.

A Revolutionary Tool

23rd November 2012, 09:40

No, being able to defeat a counter-revolution depends upon how much firepower and manpower the revolution has vs the counterrevolutionaries, no on whether it has a disproportionate amount of power concentrated into the hands of a minority.No, no, and no. You can't just win by having firepower and manpower, there's a thing called strategy and tactics. Something which, militarily, should be handled in a unified way. War is more than just people with guns shooting other people with guns.

We have seen the "successful" revolutions of China, Cuba, and Russia and they were able to survive for some time. However, the success of these revolutions to defend themselves from external threats with the methods they (centralization) used ultimately lead to defeat of the revolution from within (from revisionism/bureaucratic degeneracy/whatever term you prefer.)Yeah that's what defeated the Russian Revolution, revisionism! Let's ignore why it degenerated to what it became, why revisionism became such a viable option to take hold. In other words ignore material conditions and the ideas that come from them, flip it on it's head. Revisionism happened not because of material conditions but because of people in power positions suddenly having a change in their minds and that change happened because of centralization! Really, this is your position? And no I don't even consider the Chinese and Cuban revolutions to have had a proletarian nature to them.

Although I think the Leninist model of vanguard parties and democratic centralism is susceptible to revisionism/degeneracy/etc.) Russia became a capitalist nation, China is a capitalist nation under the head of a "communist party", and Cuba is, while admirably still "running", has been flirting with capitalism. And the anarchist free territories are where? I don't even care to play this game but coming from an anarchist is just too funny.

To quote Bakunin,
"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganize themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighboring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defense."And these communes in the anarchist sense, what are they more than glorified city-states? City-states which will have to combine into some form of federation for the spread of the revolution? There will be a organized revolutionary force to overthrow the capitalists, an organized force to maintain and spread the proletarian revolution, how is this not the description of a state? It makes you sleep better at night thinking what you advocate is not a state?

I reject the argument that any attempt to defend a revolution will lead to a new state.And I reject your rejection.

The state is structured to ensure minority ruleIt is? Wasn't it you arguing the state is structured to ensure class rule?

For this reason I argue that working class self-management from the bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state."But you said the point of the state is for class rule earlier, not minority rule. Which is it? Considering the workers make up a majority of the country here in America, that would be majority rule. And I would argue that a workers state has to be bottom-up or else it's not a worker's state.

The Russian Revolution showed the validity of this, with the Bolsheviks calling their dictatorship a "workers' state" in spite of the workers having no power in it.Considering a tiny minority of the population was proletarian the revolution(which actually had a proletarian character unlike other "socialist" revolutions) was basically doomed the moment other revolutions failed. Russia was a country exhausted and devastated by two wars, isolation from the rest of the world, had a vast majority of it's population being the peasantry, and it's greatest hopes for success failed in Western Europe and specifically Germany. It was going to have a deformed state of existence from the get go.

Anarchists have long pointed out that government is not the same as collective decision making and to call the bottom-up communal system anarchists aim for a "state" when its role is to promote and ensure mass participation in social life is nonsense.And long have Marxists pointed this out. We just point out that to get there you're going to have to use force to do so(something you agree with). Anarchists aim to promote mass participation but what happens to the capitalists? Oh you're going to have to organize the workers to take up arms against them? And when the capitalists say no? You going to deny them their liberty? The workers will fight them and force their agenda on the capitalists whether they like it or not. They will arm themselves and tell the capitalists their options. Is this coercion and bullying? As Engels said to the "anti-authoritarians" back in the day, "These people imagine they can change a thing by changing its name." You anarchists are against authority and the state until the workers are using it the way you like it, then you just change it's name.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

23rd November 2012, 10:25

^The vanguard of 1917 was 250,000 socialist workers. This is not a revolutionary "elite".
250,000 out of a population of around 180 million.

hetz

23rd November 2012, 10:52

Of which cca. 6 million were proletarians.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

23rd November 2012, 11:55

Of which cca. 6 million were proletarians.
That's the point. 6 million proles. 174 million non-proles. How does that work for a proletarian revolution?

Positivist

23rd November 2012, 12:49

Revolution will likely never come than as the majority of people, a majority which is truly nearly the entire breadth of society (what I believe you are defining it as), will never occur.

This is something that people are going to have to realize. Gaining the support of a majority does not validate a course of action, nor does it assure it's success, it is merely an indication of general consensus. General consensus can be, and often is wrong. For instance, most of the people in the United States and Europe belive in the efficacy of capitalism, yet do we yield to that logic because the majority think so? No, and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Any new Workers state or revolutionary force must consistently engage the whole of the population in order to accurately conclude what actions are necessary to supply and educate people, but this does not mean that a simple majority should be allowed to toss the flow of action around. There a far superior methods of reaching the truth, completing tasks, and gaging social needs than obeying 51% of the population.

l'EnfermÃ©

23rd November 2012, 13:23

GoddessCleoLover

23rd November 2012, 17:27

We ought not give up on proletarian revolution, but we ought to realize that the peasantry must not be alienated from the revolution. The DotP ought to be exercised over the big bourgeoisie alone. The peasantry and the petit-bourgeoisie ought to be persuaded to support the revolution through positive means. Otherwise, the proletarian revolution will either be defeated or gain a Soviet-style "victory" where revolutionary gains remain unconsolidated and the whole system degenerates into bureaucracy, dictatorship, and eventually capitalist restoration.

BTW I stand by statement that over a period of time the Bolshevik party became a revolutionary elite that substituted its own rule for that of the working class. I don't believe that 250,000 people in the USSR can be considered properly representative of the whole population of close to two hundred millions. By the mid-1920s they were an elite apart from the masses in my view.

l'EnfermÃ©

23rd November 2012, 19:34

The class interests of the peasantry and the class interests of the proletariat are antagonistic. To persuade the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie to support the socialist revolution is to persuade the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie to commit suicide as social class. Such a thing cannot be done without lying to the petty-bourgeoisie and the peasantry about the fundamental nature of the socialist revolution, but all that would is postpone the inevitable revolt of these classes against the revolution. This lesson has been learned by the experience of the October Revolution; the peasantry can be reconciled to worker-rule only through coercion, force, and terrorism. You will have better luck, comrade, convincing the bourgeoisie to abolish private property through friendly letters and petitions(heh - in a Chartst manner, almost!).

As for this Bolshevik party becoming an elite nonsense, most of the leading Bolshevik figures were removed and isolated in the 1920s and executed in the 1930s.

Comrade #138672

23rd November 2012, 19:57

The bourgeoisie is not completely overthrown overnight. It takes a workers' State to suppress the bourgeoisie long enough to eliminate the whole class and with it the counter-revolutionary tendencies. When that happens, you have Communism. Until then, it is called Socialism.

I believe the Soviet Union was Socialist for a short while, but it was not strong enough to last. Eventually it lost control to the bureaucrats who became the new bourgeoisie.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd November 2012, 20:09

People who support a "workers state" claim that it is necessary in order to crush any bourgeois counterrevolutions led by the capitalist class or right-wing reactionaries. But that is just part of the Stalinist school of falsification. A centralized apparatus, like a state, is a much easier target for opponents of the revolution than an array of decentralized communes, and these communes would remain armed and prepared to defend the revolution against anyone who moves militarily against it. The key is to organize people into defense guards, militias, and other military preparedness units. Yes, in other words the key is for workers to organize their own power over society to ensure liberation isn't attacked by counter-revolution or (now that we can learn the lessons of Russia) internal counter-revolution. In other words a state.

I don't support the so-called "worker states" but I do think workers have to organize their power after the revolution.

It's just semantic gymnastics to say that workers deciding to organize themselves as "decentralized communes" is not a state, but organizing those communes so that they can network together is "a state". It would be like saying that the US under the articles of confederation was not a state. It really boils down to "what form of state is best way for workers to protect the power they've created through the revolution?".

And I think some people severely overestimate the capabilities of the bourgeois. They are a very small minority of the population who are used to living cushy pampered lives and probably wouldn't know which end of a gun to shoot out of. Workers' power rather than state power would be used to bring down bourgeois institutions to their knees, that is, by refusing to supply the bourgeoisie with necessary resources for them to conduct their counter-revolution.It's not just the individual people, but it's also a whole lifetime of people believing in bourgeois rule - also people who depend on the system for their own livelihood but aren't workers; many professionals, prison workers, cops, and so on. This is also complicated because we, as workers, will need to win some elements of non-proletarian people in order to carry out the revolution (shop-keepers and professionals probably will need to be pulled into working class orbit - and this has happened in every revolution) and so that means, as a class we have to get our shit together, we need to be organized otherwise in dealing with non-class elements, working class hegemony might become diffuse and in some places bureaucrats begin to run things, or professionals or whatnot.

The problem in Russia was it's isolation, but also the relative weakness of the working class through all the crisis of the early years - even as the counter-revolution was defeated, there began to be challenges from the peasantry from outside the cities as well as from the middle class within then new state institutions. We will most likely have more favorable conditions since the working class is much bigger and more sophisticated but IMO workers will need to have a coordinated way to ensure their power both against counter-revolution and bureaucrats.

Let's Get Free

23rd November 2012, 21:28

No, no, and no. You can't just win by having firepower and manpower, there's a thing called strategy and tactics. Something which, militarily, should be handled in a unified way. War is more than just people with guns shooting other people with guns.

They would have a centralized military body that would be mandated by a system of free workers assemblies.
This is how Ukraine worked during the Russian Revolution, when it was under the control of the Anarchists. It's also how Catalonia worked in the Spainish revolution, under the Anarchist CNTs control.

Yeah that's what defeated the Russian Revolution, revisionism! Let's ignore why it degenerated to what it became, why revisionism became such a viable option to take hold. In other words ignore material conditions and the ideas that come from them, flip it on it's head. Revisionism happened not because of material conditions but because of people in power positions suddenly having a change in their minds and that change happened because of centralization! Really, this is your position? And no I don't even consider the Chinese and Cuban revolutions to have had a proletarian nature to them.

Of course the material conditions played a part in the degeneration of the Russian revolution, I'm not for a second denying that. What I'm saying is that the tactics they used, like centralization, made an already bad objective situation much worse.

And the anarchist free territories are where? I don't even care to play this game but coming from an anarchist is just too funny.

Well, it should be noted that the anarchist free territories failed because of outside ruling class repression and treachery from their "left wing" allies, rather than from internal degeneration.

And these communes in the anarchist sense, what are they more than glorified city-states? City-states which will have to combine into some form of federation for the spread of the revolution? There will be a organized revolutionary force to overthrow the capitalists, an organized force to maintain and spread the proletarian revolution, how is this not the description of a state? It makes you sleep better at night thinking what you advocate is not a state?

The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralized, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority. In the Leninist instance, the State would be a body that has decision making control, and authority over the military. Whereas in the anarchist instance the military is mandated and controlled by a federation of free workers assemblies. Which would involve everyone.

You can call that a state if you like, but it would be a something that had the participation of the entire working class, and no centralized decision making body.

But you said the point of the state is for class rule earlier, not minority rule. Which is it? Considering the workers make up a majority of the country here in America, that would be majority rule. And I would argue that a workers state has to be bottom-up or else it's not a worker's state.

The state is a tool of a minority class over the majority class, whether it's a priestly class in feudalism, a capitalist class in capitalism, or a bureaucratic, or "new" class in the Soviet Union.

Considering a tiny minority of the population was proletarian the revolution(which actually had a proletarian character unlike other "socialist" revolutions) was basically doomed the moment other revolutions failed. Russia was a country exhausted and devastated by two wars, isolation from the rest of the world, had a vast majority of it's population being the peasantry, and it's greatest hopes for success failed in Western Europe and specifically Germany. It was going to have a deformed state of existence from the get go.

Again, I'm not denying the objective conditions, but Bolshevik policies made already unfavorable circumstances lot worse.

And long have Marxists pointed this out. We just point out that to get there you're going to have to use force to do so(something you agree with). Anarchists aim to promote mass participation but what happens to the capitalists? Oh you're going to have to organize the workers to take up arms against them? And when the capitalists say no? You going to deny them their liberty? The workers will fight them and force their agenda on the capitalists whether they like it or not. They will arm themselves and tell the capitalists their options. Is this coercion and bullying? As Engels said to the "anti-authoritarians" back in the day, "These people imagine they can change a thing by changing its name." You anarchists are against authority and the state until the workers are using it the way you like it, then you just change it's name.

This sounds like the old "all revolutions are authoritarian" argument, but people like you play dumb when you pretend you don't know that we're talking about a post revolutionary society.

hetz

23rd November 2012, 21:41

This is how Ukraine worked during the Russian Revolution, when it was under the control of the AnarchistsExcept that actual workers had nothing to do with Makhnovschina.It was a strictly peasant-petty bourgeois phenomenon. Industrialized Ukraine, the Doneck basin and other parts were pro-Bolshevik.
In Catalonia anarchism was strong because a lot of workers there had only recently moved from the countrysides where anarchism was strong, and thus carried the "idea" with them.

Ostrinski

23rd November 2012, 21:54

Stalino-Trot Alliance I don't see this coming into existence so I'd say you're in the clear.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd November 2012, 21:54

Except that actual workers had nothing to do with Makhnovschina.It was a strictly peasant-petty bourgeois phenomenon. Industrialized Ukraine, the Doneck basin and other parts were pro-Bolshevik.
In Catalonia anarchism was strong because a lot of workers there had only recently moved from the countrysides where anarchism was strong, and thus carried the "idea" with them.
Also because in Spain anarchism was actually organizing workers whereas in Russia, despite a similar tradition of newly proletarian ex-peasants having having semi-anarchist and Narodnik ideas, the conditions of the revolution played out in ways that marginalized these views.

Anarchists joined the Bolsheviks or critically supported them, but had no orientation at that time which would have allowed them to play a major role - the question was should worker councils or the parliament rule society and most Russian anarchists at that time had no horse in that race. It wasn't until the end of the civil war when peasants who had feared counter-revolution began resisting grain-requisitioning and the working class power had been diminished and the Bolsheviks began substituting and floundering that anarchist ideas could present an alternative - but it was through appealing mostly to the peasantry. But I don't think this would have created any alternative - like socialism in one country, it would have been a further move away from worker's power, but from a different direction.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

23rd November 2012, 22:08

I would like to comment on this subject. I have read quite a few hundred pages dealing with the military of the USSR.

What Marx writes about the dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Workers' State, is as always not clear. Lenin was more precise about his vision of a workers' State. The earlier communist Marx seems to have sympathized towards a Democratic Republican State where the State is run by the Communist Party; while the later Marx (at least, so I get the impression) towards a more direct democratic People's administration of the State (It could very well be though that Marx merely concretetizes on this subject later).

Lenin's goal was always the establishment of a People's Military. Same as Lenin's proposal for a rotating, instantly re-callable State administration (where "everyone becomes a bureaucrat, hence no one can become a bureaucrat" Lenin, 'S&R'), his suggestion for the State was a Proletarian Militia.

Originally posted by Lenin, Letters from Afar:

What kind of militia do we need, the proletariat, all the toiling people? A genuine people’s militia, i.e., one that, first, consists of the entire population, of all adult citizens of both sexes; and, second, one that combines the functions of a people’s army with police functions, with the functions of the chief and fundamental organ of public order and public administration.

To make these propositions more comprehensible I will take a purely schematic example. Needless to say, it would be absurd to think of drawing up any kind of a “plan” for a proletarian militia: when the workers and the entire people set about it practically, on a truly mass scale, they will work it out and organise it a hundred times better than any theoretician. I am not offering a “plan”, I only want to illustrate my idea.

St. Petersburg has a population of about two million. Of these, more than half are between the ages of 15 and 65. Take half—one million. Let us even subtract an entire fourth as physically unfit, etc., taking no part in public service at the present moment for justifiable reasons. There remain 750,000 who, serving in the militia, say one day in fifteen (and receiving their pay for this time from their employers), would form an army of 50,000.

That’s the type of “state” we need!

That’s the kind of militia that would be a “people’s militia” in deed and not only in words.

That is how we must proceed in order to prevent the restoration either of a special police force, or of a special army separate from the people.

Such a militia, 95 hundredths of which would consist of workers and peasants, would express the real mind and will, the strength and power of the vast majority of the people. Such a militia would really arm, and provide military training for, the entire people, would be a safeguard, but not of the Guchkov or Milyukov type, against all attempts to restore reaction, against all the designs of tsarist agents. Such a militia would be the executive organ of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, it would enjoy the boundless respect and confidence of the people, for it itself would be an organisation of the entire people. Such a militia would transform democracy from a beautiful signboard, which covers up the enslavement and torment of the people by the capitalists, into a means of actually training the masses for participation in all affairs of state. Such a militia would draw the young people into political life and teach them not only by words, hut also by action, by work.

Now, this was not realized as such by the Bolshevik Party. However, the many thousands of Bolshevik workers and peasants were in fact organized into militia and military. In March 1918, the White Volunteer Army was vastly superior and Lenin asked "Can we hold Moscow?". The German invasion of Russia in February 1918 met nearly no resistance. The humiliating and harsh Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany signified the end of Idealism within the Bolshevik Party. The Supreme Military Soviet was created and former Imperial Officers selected by the Party leadership to end the military slaughter of the revolutionary Russian armed forces.

With WW1 and the foreign invasions, One third of the population, fields and land of Russia had been wiped out by 1918 and there was widespread hunger. In May, the Dictatorship of Food Supply was declared and starving urban workers were enlisted to acquisition food from the Peasants. By this time, the Red Army had been transformed from a loose democratic array of workers and peasants into a military under command the former Imperial Officers in the Supreme Military Soviet and Party leadership under the All-Russia Collegiate for the Administration of the Worker-Peasant Red Army. In the summer of 1918, more invasions came as President Wilson, Winston Churchill and the Japanese Empire sent troops to "Strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib" (Churchill).

Lenin continued to defend the ideal that a genuine people's military should be built. However, throughout the brutal foreign invasions and civil Wars of 1918-1921, he seemed to have dropped the subject of a Proletarian State completely.

This is my summary of the "Worker's State": A "standing Army" and professional State will necessarily need to exist. Given that every single Revolution has faced counter-revolution, History shows that military operations are necessarily matters not of idealism, but of efficiency. That in practice means a revolutionary Army under the Party leadership's control with Professional help to teach the military trade to Party leaders, needs to exist.

The State (Army, military, Police, Secret Police, Courts, jails and judges etc.) will only "wither away" if there are no more standing Armies of the Class Enemy and when all contradictions within human society have been abolished.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

23rd November 2012, 22:15

The State (Army, military, Police, Secret Police, Courts, jails and judges etc.) will only "wither away" if there are no more standing Armies of the Class Enemy and when all contradictions within human society have been abolished.

Well, there's some terrifying circular logic.
If the purpose of the state is class rule (which, in of itself implies a contradiction), and the state will only disappear once contridictions in human society have done away with, it follows that . . .

(I'll let you do the math)

Art Vandelay

23rd November 2012, 22:35

Danielle Ni Dhighe

24th November 2012, 00:31

^Mhm, maybe we should just give up the entire notion of proletarian revolution because the peasants, petty-bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie make up a majority of the human race and the proletariat is a minority of no more than 40 percent?
In advanced capitalist countries, workers are the majority, and it is those countries that have the best economic base for building communism.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

24th November 2012, 03:00

Flying Purple People Eater

24th November 2012, 03:24

Blake's Baby

24th November 2012, 14:10

I don't see this coming into existence so I'd say you're in the clear.

If you take a look at the history of organisations like the post-1996 SLP in Britain (important components of which were the Fourth International Supporters' Caucus and the Stalin Society, before the former were expelled around 2000 and the latter went on to form the CPGB-ML in 2004); and the 'No2EU' coalition (which included the Indian Workers' Association - itself linked to the Stalin Society - and the 'Morning Star' CPB, as well as the Trotskyist Socialist Party of England and Wales, Socialist Resistance and support from the Socialist Workers' Party) then I think it's pretty clear how an alliance of Stalinists and Trotskyists could form.

In terms of their ideology, Trotskyism post-1940 is pretty indistinguishable from Stalinism anyway.

Jimmie Higgins

24th November 2012, 18:07

Well, there's some terrifying circular logic.
If the purpose of the state is class rule (which, in of itself implies a contradiction), and the state will only disappear once contridictions in human society have done away with, it follows that . . .

(I'll let you do the math)

The state is a historical development, it is used by one class to enforce and normalize it's relations and order of society. In minority-ruled class societies of the past, it was based on exploitation - landlords defended and promoted the system to maintain the customs and castes which allowed them to directly exploit the peasantry; capitalists defend their order through the laws of bourgeois states in order to maintain a system of exploitation.

The working class, however, needs to enforce it's order on society but not in order to enrich itself through exploitation - but to enrich itself by ensuring the democratic and cooperative power of the class itself. In enforceing their new order, workers would probably need to repress any explicit counter-revolutionary efforts, dismantle capitalist institutions, collectively reorganize production in order to eliminate the structural inequalities of capitalism and reshape the actual structure of our cities and so on. Also the revolutionary workers will need to make sure that the interests behind these decisions and this reshaping of society is based on working class cooperative power, not the interests of the other classes still left. This means defending workers power from the outside counter-revolutionaries, but also from a USSR-like bureaucracy.

But then what happens when big efforts to build hospitals and schools and infrastructure for poor areas, new houses that are decent for people, no longer need to be prioritized and democratically figured out? When structural inequalities are gone and there is enough to go around that meeting needs can be done more automatically and without having to prioritize some needs over others? Then any sort of cooperative networks or democratic decision-making bodies for coordinating very large projects are no longer needed. When there is no organized threat from counter-revolutionaries, why would people want to maintain a militia designed for combating fascists or bourgeois forces?

Democratic "state" institutions run by a section of society who do not benefit from exploiting others, but mutually benefit from cooperative action - would not become entrenched - what's the point of control for people who do not need to control? The problem with the USSR and China and everything isn't that there was a state, but that there was a state that looked like it did because the majority are still exploited by a ruling and benefiting minority.

Capitalism rehaped the world in its own image, as workers reshape the world in their own image, they are turning domination and private control into cooperative and mutual effort and when this is the norm and becomes "common sense" in a very true way (in as much as everyone today knows money contains "wealth" even though it's just some paper or digital number - except true!) then even democratic structures could become ad-hoc or totally redundant. There would be no threat of other priorities overtaking the interests of workers, no need to democratically and fairly decide hard choices. Workers could just set production to a computer system which automatically responds to people's requests (this would be scary under capitalism because the computer would be set to extract the most value, not to accommodate need and account for long-term stability), work would be more casual and automatic so regular council meetings are even unnecessary. The workers state withers away; the institutions and networks and decision-making bodies are no longer needed.

Capitalism created a revolutionary force in order to crack open the world, free it from it's old ways but then needed to permanently institutionalize that force because what it replaced the old world with was a new form of exploitation. Workers would need a force to smash the capitalist state and would not need to maintain such a force ultimately because order in that kind of society would be based on mutual and cooperative efforts. This is why the capitalist state does not wither, and why the structures set up by workers to protect their power would wither.

Dazdra Flynn

24th November 2012, 20:30

The thing about statelessness is that it doesn't occur until the vestiges of capitalism are abolished the world over. Completely annihilating capitalism is going to demand a herculean effort, and it stands to reason that, along the way to capitalism's final defeat, communists will enjoy smaller victories. Among these victories is the creation of a workers' state that resists capitalist oppression. That it should be a state means it is inherently oppressive, but this does not necessarily have to mean that it is oppressive against the proletariat. Marx and Engels described a period during which the proletariat, having seized power, would exercise revolutionary terror against the remaining elements of the bourgeoisie and those elements that would see capitalism restored.

I'm sorry to say that many so-called Marxist-Leninists and Maoists are not really interested in a scientific analysis of the development of socialism. I must point out that this seems to be an unfortunate truth with regards to most leftists, Leninist or not. Revolutionary socialism has become a label to be consumed like so many other trends, and "debate" more or less seems to be designed to reinforce identity by establishing differences, rather than creating consensus.

I need to point out though that, as a Leninist, I tend to feel that non-Leninist individuals are quick to make arbitrary assumptions about my positions. Marxism is not regarded as a spectrum of scientific inquiry into the question and practice of socialist revolution; you're only a "real" Marxist if you believe in certain conclusions. It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with the practice of intellectually honest and internally consistent methodology.

A Revolutionary Tool

26th November 2012, 00:01

They would have a centralized military body that would be mandated by a system of free workers assemblies.
This is how Ukraine worked during the Russian Revolution, when it was under the control of the Anarchists. It's also how Catalonia worked in the Spainish revolution, under the Anarchist CNTs control.And if this system of free workers assemblies(What makes them "free", I don't know, it's not like we propose a system of enslaved workers councils) were to become unified instead of disorganized into federations it's a terrible idea? But a centralized military body would be okay? How would this even work considering half of the battle is not fought on the front lines but in the cities and towns under control of revolutionary forces. Not only do you have to take into account supply and communication lines, you have to produce weapons, food, clothes, vehicles, medical supplies, etc. How would this be done effectively and efficiently with a decentralized system of a "free" workers assemblies?

Of course the material conditions played a part in the degeneration of the Russian revolution, I'm not for a second denying that. What I'm saying is that the tactics they used, like centralization, made an already bad objective situation much worse.How?

Well, it should be noted that the anarchist free territories failed because of outside ruling class repression and treachery from their "left wing" allies, rather than from internal degeneration.And so did the Russian Revolution. Why do you think internal degeneration happened? Oh yeah, "centralization". :rolleyes:

The anarchist definition of the state is a collection of centralized, hierarchical institutions mandated with political authority. In the Leninist instance, the State would be a body that has decision making control, and authority over the military. Whereas in the anarchist instance the military is mandated and controlled by a federation of free workers assemblies. Which would involve everyone.It's the exact same thing except you think something being decentralized and non-hierarchical makes it not a State. And how this would even happen I don't even know, especially considering a centralized military body. Will the "free workers assemblies" have political authority? What was I thinking, of course not, you'll just call it something else. And who is this "everyone"?

You can call that a state if you like, but it would be a something that had the participation of the entire working class, and no centralized decision making body.I don't remember advocating a system where there isn't participation of the working class. Marx and Engels realized the dictatorship of the proletariat wouldn't be the same type of state that has always existed, but they realize that it is still a state.

The state is a tool of a minority class over the majority class, whether it's a priestly class in feudalism, a capitalist class in capitalism, or a bureaucratic, or "new" class in the Soviet Union.No it's not, stop changing your definitions. You said the state was a tool of class rule earlier, now it's the tool of a "minority class". Make up your mind. Marxists see the state as a tool of class rule and because of this propose to use the state to finish off bourgeois rule which will then lead to the state disappearing itself because it has nothing left to do.

Again, I'm not denying the objective conditions, but Bolshevik policies made already unfavorable circumstances lot worse.Bolshevik policy wasn't perfect, I don't disagree. There was some opportunism(the land-reform to get peasants on their side for example) and such but the analysis of "centralization ruined everything" is too simplistic considering what was going on.

This sounds like the old "all revolutions are authoritarian" argument, but people like you play dumb when you pretend you don't know that we're talking about a post revolutionary society.All revolutions are authoritarian and that is precisely the argument. We agree that post revolutionary society will be stateless but disagree with anarchists who think the revolution is something that will happen on day one and then boom you're in post revolutionary society. Revolution isn't just an event that happens one day, it's a process that continues after the initial overthrow.