Socialism as "Authoritarian" [Archive]

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 21:12

I find the fact that this is a question which pops up so often, in all honesty, to be quite puzzling. The authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy, is a false one. While some anarchists and 'libertarian Marxists' will argue otherwise, even the better of them will admit it. Don't even get me started on 'totalitarianism.' Now I guess the reason that this question comes up so often boils down to a couple different things: idealist thought, the state and violence. I'll try to briefly touch on them all.

The issue of violence, to me, seems to be an issue which is predominantly concerned about by those new to the left and those who simply have a lack of understanding, of the realities of capitalist society. When I get the accusation of being 'violent' or a supporter of 'violence' during political conversations in real life, I usually respond as follows. Before we even begin to discuss the topic of violence, let alone whether or not it is acceptable as an agent for political purposes and revolutionary change, we need to come to the realization that we live in an inherently violent world. I consider it violence when people starve to death; I consider it violence when people are forced to sleep on the streets, while houses sit empty; I consider it violence when segments of the population are disproportionately jailed due to the color of their skin. On top of this, we need to realize that our current way of organizing society (capitalism) didn't float in to existence on the road of democracy and peace, but rather through the violent expropriation of the feudal class. With those basic points understood, a proper discussion about the use of violence is possible. Now, while others may disagree, I believe that pacifism (aside from the fact that it only works to a certain degree and under very particular circumstances) in the face of violence, is objectively pro violence. It was a common phrase during the black power movement of the 60's, which I first heard expounded by Stokely Carmicheal, that pacifism only works if your enemy has a conscious; capital does not have a conscious. On top of this, if you state that it is 'evil' or 'wrong' for the proletariat to use violence to achieve its historical mission, then what you are saying is that it was okay for the bourgeoisie to not only establish, but also keep, their hegemony through violence, but not for the proletariat. All this shows is a bias towards the bourgeoisie and bourgeois society.

Now the issue of the state or the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as described by the op (roughly speaking 'authoritarian'), is one which brings about the second two issues at hand: idealist thought and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role a state plays and the material conditions which bring about its existence. As long as classes exist, states will exist. A state, also, is an inherently authoritarian institution; it is the institution, through which, a class exerts its hegemony and suppresses all other social classes, ie: bends them to its will, to its class interests. To propose to 'abolish' the state overnight (as if a state is something we could just will out of existence) is not only a false and idealist conviction, but is also absurd (no offence intended to my anarchist comrades, who will undoubtedly play a part in any proletariat revolution). Unless one proposes mass executions to all social classes other than the proletariat, it will take time for these classes to be abolished; I've heard other comrades use something along the lines of the term 'proletarianized' however this is a false conception, the historic goal of the proletariat is not to turn the world into workers, but to abolish itself as a social class, and through this act, abolish all classes. So as stated above, as long as classes exist, so will the state.

OP I would suggest attempting to familiarize yourself with materialist thought and attempt to analyze things through a materialist paradigm. I know that, for me, it took a long time to weed out idealist thought from my thinking and in all honesty, I am sure I have a long way to go still. However, ultimately, I feel that your issues with 'authoritarianism' are rooted in a misunderstanding of the state and the material conditions which bring it about, a misunderstanding of violence, as well as idealist thinking.

jookyle

19th December 2012, 21:29

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

Communism still political in nature – democratic or despotic

Marx states that communism is not universally one or the other and may take either form depending on the situation at hand.

helot

19th December 2012, 21:38

To propose to 'abolish' the state overnight (as if a state is something we could just will out of existence) is not only a false and idealist conviction, but is also absurd (no offence intended to my anarchist comrades, who will undoubtedly play a part in any proletariat revolution). Unless one proposes mass executions to all social classes other than the proletariat, it will take time for these classes to be abolished; I've heard other comrades use something along the lines of the term 'proletarianized' however this is a false conception, the historic goal of the proletariat is not to turn the world into workers, but to abolish itself as a social class, and through this act, abolish all classes. So as stated above, as long as classes exist, so will the state.

Who says the state can be abolished overnight? Certainly not the anarchists!

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 21:43

Who says the state can be abolished overnight? Certainly not the anarchists!

Is this tongue and cheek?

helot

19th December 2012, 21:46

Is this tongue and cheek?

Nope, it's a statement of fact. Anarchists don't claim the state can be abolished overnight. I can understand why my previous post can be taken as tongue in cheek though. It was poorly constructed.

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 21:50

Nope, it's a statement of fact. Anarchists don't claim the state can be abolished overnight. I can understand why my previous post can be taken as tongue in cheek though. It was poorly constructed.

Perhaps you could properly characterize their position then?

helot

19th December 2012, 21:52

Perhaps you could properly characterize their position then?

It's been done to death already on here. The state can't be destroyed overnight, it'll probably take many years even in the best of circumstances and it can't be made to serve the interests of the working class.

Red Enemy

19th December 2012, 21:56

The authoritarian nature of the revolution is that it imposes upon a group of people, the bourgeoisie, the authority of the working class. That is the oppressive nature of the revolution.

The demolition of the bourgeois state, and the institution of a proletarian one would be the correct assertion of the act of establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Many of us suggest that workers councils will replace the senate/parliament/National Assemblies. That a democratic workers militia will replace the military and police. Not only the form, but the purpose of the state has changed. This proletarian dictatorship, which overthrows the bourgeois dictatorship, is also dying from the minute it comes into existence.

The idea that we can take the degradation of the Russian Revolution, this degradation coming as a result of the material conditions surrounding it (failure of the German, and the world revolution. Civil war, world war, famine, uprisings, the backward and underdeveloped nature of Russian capitalism), and use it as the prime example of workers establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat is absurd.

Capitalism is not overthrown at that point. The capitalist mode of production, capitalist culture, and so on, is still in place. At that moment both it and the "dotp" begin to die, as the dotp is necessary and possible only within the context of capitalism, and the existence of antagonistic classes of the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th December 2012, 21:57

My understanding is that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the proletariat as a class is in a position to dictate matters, rather than a traditional one-man (or one-party) dictatorship ruling in the name of the proletariat, which is what people most often think when they hear the phrase.

As I see it, the authority of the DOTP is constrained by it's ultra-democratic nature - if the authority is being put to any purpose other than dismantling the old bourgeois structures and relations, then it's no longer a DOTP, but something else.

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 22:25

It's been done to death already on here. The state can't be destroyed overnight, it'll probably take many years even in the best of circumstances and it can't be made to serve the interests of the working class.

As a former anarchist I can say that you simply don't know what you're talking about. The idea behind anarchism is that the point isn't to seize state power, but to smash it.

Also your notion that the state cannot be used in the interests of the working class, actually touches upon my post above. You don't understand the 'state' and instead give it some mythical ability, as opposed to the materialist understanding, that it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony.

helot

19th December 2012, 22:39

As a former anarchist I can say that you simply don't know what you're talking about. The idea behind anarchism is that the point isn't to seize state power, but to smash it.

Did i say that anarchists seek state power? No i didn't. As a supposedly former anarchist tell me, why do anarchists seek to smash the state instead of the working class seizing it?

From what i've seen of your posts on here i call BS on your claims of being a former anarchist. You don't seem to actually have an understanding of it as is obvious from my initial post in here saying you're mistaken that anarchists propose the state's abolition 'overnight' like anarchists think the revolution can be won in a day.

Also your notion that the state cannot be used in the interests of the working class, actually touches upon my post above. You don't understand the 'state' and instead give it some mythical ability, as opposed to the materialist understanding, that it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony.

States are institutions for class hegemony, i never denied that fact but you're seeming to imply here that states are neutral in society and only act in a particular way because there's a bourgeois party in control of it. The bourgeoisie's state, as a particular social organism, acts in a particular way. It can no more be made to serve the interests of an exploited class than property can. If all it takes is the workers controlling it then what's the point in revolution when we could just form a political party, take control of the state and nationalise industry.

The workers must build their own institutions i.e. workers' councils. If you want to call a federation of workers' councils a state, be my guest, but they differ in various ways to the capitalist's state.

Brosa Luxemburg

19th December 2012, 22:51

However, the idea of swapping a bourgeois, capitalist state for a worker-run dictatorship of the proletariat sounds slightly counter-intuitive for me. Why would we want to establish an authoritarian regime, if the goal of our revolution is to abolish oppressive relations?

You make this much more simplistic than it actually is and is built on a faulty premise. The whole authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy is flawed. These relations only exist on a subjective, not objective, level. In the dictatorship of the proletariat (which remember is only a transitional stage between this society and a wageless, moneyless, stateless, and classless society and thus can be called, as Engels did, a "semi-state") the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is inverted. The proletariat become the ruling class, and the bourgeoisie becomes the exploited class. The goals of these two states are completely different. The bourgeois dictatorship seeks to defend and keep intact the interests of the bourgeoisie and suppress the proletariat. The proletariat seeks to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish classes, organizing society for a superstructure without a state. For the proletariat, the establishment of this dictatorship seems very libertarian, while for the bourgeoisie it can be seen as one of the most authoritarian acts. The proletariat are abolishing their rule and the basis of their society. Actions have a dual character, they are both authoritarian and libertarian, not either or.

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 23:10

Yawn. I'm almost tempted to not even pick apart this bullshit, but I guess I have nothing better to do.

Did i say that anarchists seek state power? No i didn't. As a supposedly former anarchist tell me, why do anarchists seek to smash the state instead of the working class seizing it?

For differing anarchists, the answers are different. The worst of them chalk their views up to this notion that 'power corrupts' a bullshit claim which finds its roots in liberal thought. Some view decentralization as a preferred method for organizing the immediate post revolutionary society, however this doesn't stop their federated workers councils, from being a state.

From what i've seen of your posts on here i call BS on your claims of being a former anarchist. You don't seem to actually have an understanding of it as is obvious from my initial post in here saying you're mistaken that anarchists propose the state's abolition 'overnight' like anarchists think the revolution can be won in a day.

Well you'd be wrong. I was an anarchist (of the insurrectionist flavor) for a couple years and had a pretty good grasp on anarchist theory in general. I never once made the claim that 'anarchists think revolution can be won in a day' and anyone making said claim would be spouting nonsense. Anarchists do, however, think that the state can be smashed and a 'free territory' or something along the likes can be established. The irony of it all is that they fail to realize their statists. :laugh:

States are institutions for class hegemony, i never denied that fact but you're seeming to imply here that states are neutral in society and only act in a particular way because there's a bourgeois party in control of it. The bourgeoisie's state, as a particular social organism, acts in a particular way. It can no more be made to serve the interests of an exploited class than property can. If all it takes is the workers controlling it then what's the point in revolution when we could just form a political party, take control of the state and nationalise industry.

This is actually quite funny, given your accusations that I don't understand anarchist thought, you'd do good to brush up on your Marxism. Also perhaps look into the Paris commune, one of the first attempts of proletarian political power. Marx made a note, that it proved that workers could not merely seize the bourgeois state and wield it in the interests of the proletariat. You are erecting quite the strawman here. Arguing against some notion that Marxists never held.

The workers must build their own institutions i.e. workers' councils. If you want to call a federation of workers' councils a state, be my guest, but they differ in various ways to the capitalist's state.

Indeed it would be a state. Also this kinda touches upon what I stated above, but do you honestly think a workers state would resemble a capitalist state? By your inaccurate rantings above, I'd have to venture yes; once again, however, you'd be mistaken.

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 23:16

You make this much more simplistic than it actually is and is built on a faulty premise. The whole authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy is flawed. These relations only exist on a subjective, not objective, level. In the dictatorship of the proletariat (which remember is only a transitional stage between this society and a wageless, moneyless, stateless, and classless society and thus can be called, as Engels did, a "semi-state") the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is inverted. The proletariat become the ruling class, and the bourgeoisie becomes the exploited class. The goals of these two states are completely different. The bourgeois dictatorship seeks to defend and keep intact the interests of the bourgeoisie and suppress the proletariat. The proletariat seeks to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish classes, organizing society for a superstructure without a state. For the proletariat, the establishment of this dictatorship seems very libertarian, while for the bourgeoisie it can be seen as one of the most authoritarian acts. The proletariat are abolishing their rule and the basis of their society. Actions have a dual character, they are both authoritarian and libertarian, not either or.

Excellent post. I just wanted to make once clarification. The proletariat does not seek to exploit the bourgeoisie, not in the manner in which the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat. The only sense that it could be stated that the bourgeoisie will be exploited under the dotp, would be that their privilege would be taken away. Hardly exploitation. Aside from individual members who have done terrible things under bourgeoisie society, pigs come to mind, the bourgeoisie will simply join humanity in the society of free producers.

JPSartre12

19th December 2012, 23:16

You make this much more simplistic than it actually is and is built on a faulty premise. The whole authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy is flawed. These relations only exist on a subjective, not objective, level. In the dictatorship of the proletariat (which remember is only a transitional stage between this society and a wageless, moneyless, stateless, and classless society and thus can be called, as Engels did, a "semi-state") the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is inverted. The proletariat become the ruling class, and the bourgeoisie becomes the exploited class. The goals of these two states are completely different. The bourgeois dictatorship seeks to defend and keep intact the interests of the bourgeoisie and suppress the proletariat. The proletariat seeks to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish classes, organizing society for a superstructure without a state. For the proletariat, the establishment of this dictatorship seems very libertarian, while for the bourgeoisie it can be seen as one of the most authoritarian acts. The proletariat are abolishing their rule and the basis of their society. Actions have a dual character, they are both authoritarian and libertarian, not either or.

This is a very good explanation.
Should the proletariat actually take control of the state, what sort of actions could it go about doing in an attempt to abolish itself? I'm assuming that there's more to it than simply seizing control of bourgeois property, capital, etc, and the proletarian state (although, I do like your reference to Engel's "semi-state") will need to do what it can should reactionary and capitalist forces attack it (both internally and externally). The proletariat needs to have some idea of what to do with the state once it's captured.

As I see it, the authority of the DOTP is constrained by it's ultra-democratic nature - if the authority is being put to any purpose other than dismantling the old bourgeois structures and relations, then it's no longer a DOTP, but something else.

^ ÑóẊîöŉ makes a good point here. If the authority of the DOTP is restricted to purely what the workers democratically wish it to be, than what's to stop a wave of violent, revolutionary passion from turning the DOPT into something similar to the French Reign of Terror?

helot

19th December 2012, 23:31

Yawn. I'm almost tempted to not even pick apart this bullshit, but I guess I have nothing better to do. and i can't be arsed to respond to you.

Well you'd be wrong. I was an anarchist (of the insurrectionist flavor) for a couple years and had a pretty good grasp on anarchist theory in general. I never once made the claim that 'anarchists think revolution can be won in a day' and anyone making said claim would be spouting nonsense. The words you used were "abolished overnight". It is the same thing. States can't be abolished before the revolution succeeds and the revolution will take many years before it succeeds.

This is actually quite funny, given your accusations that I don't understand anarchist thought, you'd do good to brush up on your Marxism. Also perhaps look into the Paris commune, one of the first attempts of proletarian political power. Marx made a note, that it proved that workers could not merely seize the bourgeois state and wield it in the interests of the proletariat. You are erecting quite the strawman here. Arguing against some notion that Marxists never held. Im not criticising marxism. In fact it's you that's arguing with me even if what i put is what Marx agreed with and you agree with.

Indeed it would be a state. Also this kinda touches upon what I stated above, but do you honestly think a workers state would resemble a capitalist state? By your inaccurate rantings above, I'd have to venture yes; once again, however, you'd be mistaken.

So even after i said that a federation of workers' councils differs in various ways from the bourgeoisie's state you then go on to claim i think they don't differ?

9mm... wtf is wrong with you? Are you just trying to be argumentative without actually reading what people post?

Let's go over this shall we? I say that the capitalist's state can't act in the interest of the proletariat. You cry foul and then say Marx agreed with it after the Paris Commune... what's the problem?

I say the workers state as you'd put it differs from the bourgeoisie's state in various ways. You cry foul and claim i think they don't differ.

Art Vandelay

19th December 2012, 23:51

The words you used were "abolished overnight". It is the same thing. States can't be abolished before the revolution succeeds and the revolution will take many years before it succeeds.

Anarchists believe that the state can be abolished within a certain section of the world, ie: anarchist free territory.

So even after i said that a federation of workers' councils differs in various ways from the bourgeoisie's state you then go on to claim i think they don't differ?

No, before this post, you had only stated that federated workers councils (regardless of whether or not you considered them a state) differed from a bourgeois state. What I ventured to guess (given your complete misrepresentation of Marxist positions) was that you thought Marxists envisioned taking helm of the bourgeois state and turning it to the interests of the proletariat. Let's go back shall we?

States are institutions for class hegemony, i never denied that fact but you're seeming to imply here that states are neutral in society and only act in a particular way because there's a bourgeois party in control of it. The bourgeoisie's state, as a particular social organism, acts in a particular way. It can no more be made to serve the interests of an exploited class than property can. If all it takes is the workers controlling it then what's the point in revolution when we could just form a political party, take control of the state and nationalise industry.

This is from your post on the first page. From this its clear that you thought my positions (as a Marxist) was simply that we seize state power, and use the bourgeois state in the proletarians interests. It is completely false and shows your lack of understanding. As far back as the 1870's this notion that you are arguing against was decimated by Marx. The proletariat will seize state power, dismantle the bourgeois state and erect its own (semi) state.

9mm... wtf is wrong with you?

Too much to list.

Are you just trying to be argumentative without actually reading what people post?

Do you just have nonsense dribble from your fingertips to the keyboards and then minutes later forget what you posted?

Let's go over this shall we? I say that the capitalist's state can't act in the interest of the proletariat. You cry foul and then say Marx agreed with it after the Paris Commune... what's the problem?

The fact that you seemed to think that Marxists held the notion that the bourgeois state could act in the interests of the proletariat. If not then what the fuck were you talking about on the first page of this thread?

I say the workers state as you'd put it differs from the bourgeoisie's state in various ways. You cry foul and claim i think they don't differ.

Before this post you stated that a decentralized federation of workers councils differed, nothing more.

Let's Get Free

20th December 2012, 00:42

Art Vandelay

20th December 2012, 00:59

Whenever workers have fought for improvements in our conditions, we have come into conflict not just with our bosses but also the state, who have used the police, the courts, the prisons and sometimes even the military to keep things as they were.
And where workers have attempted to use the state, or even take it over to further our interests, they have failed - because the very nature of the state is inherently opposed to the working class. They only succeeded in legitimizing and strengthening the state which later turned against them. And 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?

Can you name a state, that has ever done anything, other than its primary purpose?

If the state is this mythical thing that can 'turn on' on the class which possesses it? Why hasn't it ever 'turned on' the bourgeoisie?

Edit: This is actually an example of the very worst of anarchist thought. Obviously not all anarchists hold this opinion of 'power corrupts.' Comrade ed milliband comes to mind.

Brosa Luxemburg

20th December 2012, 00:59

Rafiq

20th December 2012, 01:01

Marx and Engels attacked those within the Left movement who attempted to establish a form of personal dictatorship over the proletariat in the way that Lenin and, in a much more brutal and oppressive manner, Stalin later did, particularly Ferdinand Lassalle. It is obvious from even this that, because they opposed the dictatorial (in the modern sense) principles of Lassalle, that they would oppose the dictatorial principles of Lenin and especially Stalin.

Furthermore, if communism is meant to "emancipate" the working class - and the word "emancipate" crops up at least 4 times in The Communist Manifesto- then surely an iron-fisted dictatorship, which oppresses the working class runs contrary to Marxist principles of "emancipation of the proletariat" and therefore contrary to communism itself.

Firstly, the cult of personality developed around Lassalle, although questionable, was objectively proletarian in nature. It was not a result of Lassalle forcing proletarians to worship him, it was a result of his heroic deeds on behalf of the revolutionary proletariat, from which they came to glorify him. There is nothing "dictorial" about this, there is no such of a thing as a dictatorship of a single man's interest. Lenin's cult of personality formed after his death. Stalin's was not a result of his own desires, but of the existent social relations in the Soviet Union (backward peasantry) and bureaucrats who wanted to win his favor (and many did).

Secondly there are no "principles of emancipation". This form of Idealism I have always found quite bizarre. The struggle for emancipation, yes, emancipation being an ideological term (a la 'Liberty' for the bourgeoisie), it represents actual existing material forces, not a ten commandmentesque plaque inscribed by great men.

Let's Get Free

20th December 2012, 01:08

If the state is this mythical thing that can 'turn on' on the class which possesses it? Why hasn't it ever 'turned on' the bourgeoisie?

A state is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone, which renders the term "proletarian state" a complete contradiction in terms.

Secondly there are no "principles of emancipation". This form of Idealism I have always found quite bizarre. The struggle for emancipation, yes, emancipation being an ideological term (a la 'Liberty' for the bourgeoisie), it represents actual existing material forces, not a ten commandmentesque plaque inscribed by great men.

Emancipation means self-Liberation: “The liberation of the workers is the duty of the workers themselves,” as the old slogan goes. This applies to other groups as well: people must be at the forefront of their own liberation. Freedom cannot be given; it must be taken.

Brosa Luxemburg

20th December 2012, 01:08

This is a very good explanation.
Should the proletariat actually take control of the state, what sort of actions could it go about doing in an attempt to abolish itself?

The proletariat shouldn't take control of the state, but should smash the bourgeois state and erect their own proletariat state. I am not sure what you mean by "abolish itself." If you mean the state "abolishing" itself, that is kind of a flawed way of viewing it I think. The proletariat dictatorship would attack and get rid of the major elements of bourgeois society, such as the law of value, money, classes, etc. that give rise to the state. With the withering away of classes and bourgeois society, the proletariat dictatorship would be rendered useless.

ÑóẊîöŉ makes a good point here. If the authority of the DOTP is restricted to purely what the workers democratically wish it to be, than what's to stop a wave of violent, revolutionary passion from turning the DOPT into something similar to the French Reign of Terror?

Revolutionary terror will most likely be a necessity during the dictatorship of the proletariat. It should be avoided if possible, but history has shown that almost every revolution will have a counter-revolutionary response, especially a revolution that destroys the basis of a whole mode of production.

EDIT: It should also be remembered that the proletarian dictatorship is nothing more than the proletariat organized as the ruling class, whatever shape that may take.

Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores

20th December 2012, 02:45

If the state is this mythical thing that can 'turn on' on the class which possesses it? Why hasn't it ever 'turned on' the bourgeoisie?

Damn, that's a really good point.

Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores

20th December 2012, 02:47

Brosa Luxemburg

20th December 2012, 03:00

A state is a political body that governs it's subjects.

The state is MUCH more than this. It is an instrument of class rule. The state arose to reconcile class antagonisms but, being born within this struggle, is a weapon and tool of the ruling class. It's class origin must be emphasized and understood.

It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects

This is correct, the state cannot work in the interests of all, which is why I consider democracy, in its etymological sense (rule of all people and so, by extension, rule of all classes) to be a farce. The state works in the interest of one class. It can, though, be a political body governed by a certain class through its various organs of class rule.

nor can it be composed of everyone

Of course

which renders the term "proletarian state" a complete contradiction in terms.

I would appreciate an expansion of this argument.

Comrade Samuel

20th December 2012, 03:12

A state is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone, which renders the term "proletarian state" a complete contradiction in terms.

Emancipation means self-Liberation: “The liberation of the workers is the duty of the workers themselves,” as the old slogan goes. This applies to other groups as well: people must be at the forefront of their own liberation. Freedom cannot be given; it must be taken.

By this first part do you mean to imply that it is impossible to practice direct democracy within a state? Why cant the governor and governed be one in the same?

It's interesting to think that the state can just be done away with but to think it happens overnight or over the corse of many years both seem equally unlikely- I think the bourgeoise is capable of noticing the holes in the boat and filling them wouldn't you agree? If the state is (among several other less important things) a tool for one class to oppress another it only seems logical for us to use it for it's primary function.

JPSartre12

20th December 2012, 03:13

Revolutionary terror will most likely be a necessity during the dictatorship of the proletariat. It should be avoided if possible, but history has shown that almost every revolution will have a counter-revolutionary response, especially a revolution that destroys the basis of a whole mode of production.

Good point. You're right.

It should also be remembered that the proletarian dictatorship is nothing more than the proletariat organized as the ruling class, whatever shape that may take.

Again, you make a good point. I suppose that this is part of what has taken me so long to come around to the idea of a vanguard, because it will be composed of the proletarian class itself, rather than be something external to it, and this is something that I did not accurately understand.

Let's Get Free

20th December 2012, 03:21

The state is MUCH more than this. It is an instrument of class rule. The state arose to reconcile class antagonisms but, being born within this struggle, is a weapon and tool of the ruling class. It's class origin must be emphasized and understood.

True. But if the working class was in a position of power a to seize state power, wouldn't they also be in a position to abolish class society?

This is correct, the state cannot work in the interests of all, which is why I consider democracy, in its etymological sense (rule of all people and so, by extension, rule of all classes) to be a farce. The state works in the interest of one class. It can, though, be a political body governed by a certain class through its various organs of class rule.

The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class power due to its basic nature, structure and design.

I would appreciate an expansion of this argument.

The state is the delegation of power -as such, it means that the idea of a "proletarian state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all.

Brosa Luxemburg

20th December 2012, 03:29

True. But if the working class was in a position of power a to seize state power, wouldn't they also be in a position to abolish class society?

Yes, but that wouldn't happen overnight. Class society gives rise to the state.

The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class power due to its basic nature, structure and design.

This is true for the bourgeois state, but I would have to disagree about the proletariat state (which, again, is nothing more than the proletariat organized as the ruling class). The proletariat dictatorship is one that's task is to simply defend the revolution and organize a superstructure without a state. As Engels calls it, it is a "semi-state", a state of a fundamentally different nature and one that is withering away, along with classes, with the proletariat leading the way.

The state is the delegation of power -as such, it means that the idea of a "proletarian state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all.

Every single society will need some form of delegation to operate, even the most radical direct democracy advocates recognize this. Yes, the proletariat dictatorship should be administered directly by the proletariat, but delegation will still exist. I am not arguing for substitutionism here, but a recognition that some form of delegation of power will exist in every society, even a society without a state.

Your argument is really seems to be directed against any form of delegation, not the proletariat state.

Let's Get Free

20th December 2012, 04:10

Yes, but that wouldn't happen overnight. Class society gives rise to the state.

Why would the proletariat - the exploited class in capitalism - want to remain exploited for one second longer after it had captured state power?

This is true for the bourgeois state, but I would have to disagree about the proletariat state (which, again, is nothing more than the proletariat organized as the ruling class). The proletariat dictatorship is one that's task is to simply defend the revolution and organize a superstructure without a state. As Engels calls it, it is a "semi-state", a state of a fundamentally different nature and one that is withering away, along with classes, with the proletariat leading the way.

The question here is whether this "semi-state" is marked by the delegation of power into the hands of a government. If so, then the "semi-state" is no such thing - it is a state like any other and so an instrument of minority rule. Yes, this minority may state it represents the majority but in practice it can only represent itself and claim that is what the majority desires.

Every single society will need some form of delegation to operate, even the most radical direct democracy advocates recognize this. Yes, the proletariat dictatorship should be administered directly by the proletariat, but delegation will still exist. I am not arguing for substitutionism here, but a recognition that some form of delegation of power will exist in every society, even a society without a state.

Your argument is really seems to be directed against any form of delegation, not the proletariat state.

It's not delegation I'm against, but a certain nature of delegation. The delegation should be a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the agent of revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished.

JPSartre12

20th December 2012, 04:18

It's not delegation I'm against, but a certain nature of delegation. The delegation should be a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the agent of revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished.

What other kind of delegation could there be then - a sort of top-down delegation? It makes sense to me that all forms of delegation would be inherently bottom-up. How could there be anything other than this?

Ostrinski

20th December 2012, 04:37

True. But if the working class was in a position of power a to seize state power, wouldn't they also be in a position to abolish class society?Just like that? Sandwiched by a global market economy, encircled by geopolitical forces hostile toward revolution, plagued by material scarcity and means to plan an efficient human needs economy? How is this to be done? At least Marxist-Leninists, through their flawed distinction between socialism and communism and insistence that socialism can be built in ine country, acknowledge that communism cannot be built within national confines.

What you seem to be saying here however, is that you are in disagreement with them. Not in disagreement with their view that socialism can be built nationally, but in disagreement with their view that communism cannot be built nationally!

The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class power due to its basic nature, structure and design.The state was not "designed." It took shape organically as a product of the increasingly irreoncilable antagonistic class forces that developed as a result of the division of labor, isolation of means of production from the direct producers, and the crystallization of socially defined classes. The state comes into existence amid those very contradictory conditions that can no longer be reconciled without force.

The second part of your comment is so ambiguous that one would be hard pressed to figure out where to begin. The state has no basic "nature, structure, and design." What, you think the first ruling classes convened cladestinely to discuss how to best organize their power, and posterity just inherited these structures and secrets like Masonic secret societies? No, states are in fact fluid, changeful, and always adapting to their new functions that new societies assign them.

The working class, simply put must systematically enforce its revolution against those that would do it harm, such as displaced former class enemies, supporters among the lower classes of the old order, as well as within itself such as opportunists and turncoats.

The state is the delegation of power -as such, it means that the idea of a "proletarian state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all.I think the usage of the term semi state is useful because it helps to demonstrate that what we could call a state will and can only exist under worker rule until the neutralization of all the contradictory lasting vestiges of the old order. Furthermore, for all practical purposes and intents it ceases to exist upon this neturalization. To call it a semi-state helps us to understand the historic uniqueness of the worker state being the first mode of class rule to preside over only temporary contradictions and the purposes of eliminating them, not perpetuating them.

JPSartre12

20th December 2012, 04:58

At least Marxist-Leninists, through their flawed distinction between socialism and communism and insistence that socialism can be built in ine country, acknowledge that communism cannot be built within national confines.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of socialism being "built within national confines" - when I think of socialism, it seems profoundly international.

The second part of your comment is so ambiguous that one would be hard pressed to figure out where to begin. The state has no basic "nature, structure, and design." What, you think the first ruling classes convened cladestinely to discuss how to best organize their power, and posterity just inherited these structures and secrets like Masonic secret societies? No, states are in fact fluid, changeful, and always adapting to their new functions that new societies assign them.

I will have to say that I agree with this though - the wiliness of capitalism has produced, to the best of my knowledge, the state capitalism that comes about from the "socialism in one country" idea.

Let's Get Free

20th December 2012, 05:20

Just like that? Sandwiched by a global market economy, encircled by geopolitical forces hostile toward revolution, plagued by material scarcity and means to plan an efficient human needs economy? How is this to be done? At least Marxist-Leninists, through their flawed distinction between socialism and communism and insistence that socialism can be built in ine country, acknowledge that communism cannot be built within national confines.

It 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 fundamentally incoherent.
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.

The state was not "designed." It took shape organically as a product of the increasingly irreoncilable antagonistic class forces that developed as a result of the division of labor, isolation of means of production from the direct producers, and the crystallization of socially defined classes. The state comes into existence amid those very contradictory conditions that can no longer be reconciled without force.

I don't disagree.

The second part of your comment is so ambiguous that one would be hard pressed to figure out where to begin. The state has no basic "nature, structure, and design." What, you think the first ruling classes convened cladestinely to discuss how to best organize their power, and posterity just inherited these structures and secrets like Masonic secret societies? No, states are in fact fluid, changeful, and always adapting to their new functions that new societies assign them.

Every state in human history has had the same basic structure- rule and oppression of a few over the majority. The state is a political abstraction, a hierarchical institution by which a privileged elite strives to dominate the vast majority of people. That is why the "proletarian state" is a contradiction in terms. Actually, its a tailor made recipe for "substitutionism" and this is what is truly dangerous about this idea for our class. It presents the very clear possibility of a so called vanguard taking power, reputedly in the name of the working class, only to emerge in the light of a day as yet another ruling class - a dictatorship over the proletariat rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat. And since the latter is logically inconceivable it is only the former that we would be left with in practical terms.

The working class, simply put must systematically enforce its revolution against those that would do it harm, such as displaced former class enemies, supporters among the lower classes of the old order, as well as within itself such as opportunists and turncoats.

We would wield workers' power rather than state power 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. Also, the bourgeois are a small minority of the population. They're not going to convince the workers that the revolution they made themselves was a bad thing.

I think the usage of the term semi state is useful because it helps to demonstrate that what we could call a state will and can only exist under worker rule until the neutralization of all the contradictory lasting vestiges of the old order. Furthermore, for all practical purposes and intents it ceases to exist upon this neturalization. To call it a semi-state helps us to understand the historic uniqueness of the worker state being the first mode of class rule to preside over only temporary contradictions and the purposes of eliminating them, not perpetuating them.

It seems like any transitional state power would tend to become an end in itself, to preserve the very material conditions it had been created to remove.

hetz

20th December 2012, 08:00

Sorry if this has been posted before.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores

20th December 2012, 16:31

I'm so confused right now.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

20th December 2012, 16:37

You can't do that just because you want to. First, because there are some people who do not want to, and more importantly, you need to create an economic basis for a society to exist without oppressive relations, upon which the oppressive relations might wither away.

I think this is a key - and often overlooked, probably for petty political reasons - point; you can't will a revolution as an individual, as a party or even as a broad working-class coalition/movement.

Replacing capitalism requires the overwhelming revolutionary consciousness and activity of the working class. However, this is necessary, not sufficient. What is also needed is a material basis for revolution; not merely one rooted in some prophetic 'crisis theory', but a change in material conditions that leads to a terminal - NOT merely a periodic - decline in the ability of capital to exert its power over the proletariat.

This is the challenge facing the Marxist theoreticians, and they have so far spectacularly failed. This is probably not surprising, though. I don't think you can have such a forward looking theory; i.e. you can't theorise some potential future event that you do not know will even happen, nor its composition. Probably, such a theory will be retrospective and used in a post-capitalist society to justify, or campaign for, some post-capitalist policy.

Art Vandelay

20th December 2012, 19:29

I'm so confused right now.

How come, comrade?

Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores

22nd December 2012, 01:17

How come, comrade?

It just seems like each person has a good point to make. How will I make a decision on this stuff?

Art Vandelay

22nd December 2012, 22:36

It just seems like each person has a good point to make. How will I make a decision on this stuff?

You'll make a decision on this stuff, on your own, based off of the texts you decide to read; don't trust revleft guru's to make the decisions for you, or to tell you what is best. Also Gladiator's politics are shit, if you want someone to talk to anarchism about, I'd suggest perhaps Os or maybe even Tim Cornellis. Although if you're interested in anarchism, I would suggest looking at council communism instead.

Obviously I have my own political positions, but it took me a few years to get to where I am politically and don't want to stunt your political development by simply telling you to adopt my own convictions.

Manic Impressive

22nd December 2012, 22:56

I'm so confused right now.
Try it like this

The state is a means of class control

So if the state exists classes exist

If classes exist some form of mercantile economy is still in place where private property still exists.

Socialism cannot exist at the same time as capitalism. Therefore socialism cannot exist while there is a state.

Modes of production do not go backwards

Therefore the quicker the state, which also means capitalism is abolished the quicker we can be sure that the revolution has succeeded.

The state only needs to exist for as long as it takes us to organize production and distribution. This is not as big a task as it sounds as we, the workers already produce and distribute produce around the world and have done for some time. The longer it takes to abolish the state the greater the chance of capitalism being fully re-established. It is of course impossible to say how long this will take as we do not know what the material conditions of the situation will be at the time the more violent the revolution the longer it will take and thus the chance of capitalism being re-established is increased.

Art Vandelay

22nd December 2012, 23:09

Try it like this

The state is a means of class control

So if the state exists classes exist

If classes exist some form of mercantile economy is still in place where private property still exists.

Socialism cannot exist at the same time as capitalism. Therefore socialism cannot exist while there is a state.

Modes of production do not go backwards

Therefore the quicker the state, which also means capitalism is abolished the quicker we can be sure that the revolution has succeeded.

The state only needs to exist for as long as it takes us to organize production and distribution. This is not as big a task as it sounds as we, the workers already produce and distribute produce around the world and have done for some time. The longer it takes to abolish the state the greater the chance of capitalism being fully re-established. It is of course impossible to say how long this will take as we do not know what the material conditions of the situation will be at the time the more violent the revolution the longer it will take and thus the chance of capitalism being re-established is increased.

The only thing I would add to this last paragraph would be that the state only needs to exist for as long as it takes us to organize production and distribution, but also suppress class enemies* and sustain proletarian rule till the success of the world revolution*.

Also I can't remember what thread it was in, but I only draw from Stirner on a personal not political level. At times I can get too engaged and consumed with politics, which severely hurts my mental health, at which times I take Stirner's motto (I seek not to change society, but elevate myself above it) and remind myself that while I still seek to change society, I need to focus on myself at times too.

Manic Impressive

22nd December 2012, 23:15

The only thing I would add to this last paragraph would be that the state only needs to exist for as long as it takes us to organize production and distribution, but also suppress class enemies* and sustain proletarian rule till the success of the world revolution*.
First time we've agreed on anything in a while. The reason I did not add the extra sentence is due to the fact that I think the vast majority of workers must be socialists in order to even capture the state. If the vast majority of workers are socialists class enemies are largely negated. This ensures the smoothest transfer to socialism and thus giving it the greatest chance of success.

TheRedAnarchist23

22nd December 2012, 23:26

Also Gladiator's politics are shit

Everything that Gladiator has said thus far has been right. And just because you don't agree with someone's politics does not mean they are shit.
Anarchism is one of the most extreme political ideologies that exists, we take everything to the extreme, we do not stop half way.
You must not forget that Gladiator is using the anarchist definition of state, which is an authoritarian organ composed of a minority that rules over a majority. A workers state is impossible because it would inevitably turn against the workers. The thing is, I think left-communists have a libertarian definition of workers state, and that strage deffinition often leads to huge arguments.

Although if you're interested in anarchism, I would suggest looking at council communism instead. Sounds to me like you are giving anarchism a bad name. Why would someone pick council communism over anarchism?

TheRedAnarchist23

22nd December 2012, 23:30

.The state only needs to exist for as long as it takes us to organize production and distribution.

Why? Can the people not organise themselves without a group of leaders telling them what to do?

The longer it takes to abolish the state the greater the chance of capitalism being fully re-established.

Agreed, so we should abolish the state during the revolution to avoid dealing with that issue.

Manic Impressive

22nd December 2012, 23:46

Why? Can the people not organise themselves without a group of leaders telling them what to do?
Actually that's exactly what I meant. The workers are the ones who will abolish capitalism, but the only way they'll do that is by being class conscious socialists. They certainly do not need leaders to do it for them and in fact any attempt at controlling the workers through undemocratic means will fail. I believe I did allude to this already when I said that workers already produce and distribute goods around the world so any setting up will be minimal. It's not like it will take years to learn how to get things people need to them.

Agreed, so we should abolish the state during the revolution to avoid dealing with that issue.
While the state exists the revolution is not complete and in fact capitalism is still active and exists. As I said it won't take long for workers to reorganize production on a needs basis but abolishing the state as some keep saying 'overnight' could result in disaster with famines and needless deaths. However, workers will already be organizing production in anticipation of the capture of the state which will also decrease the amount of time the state needs to exist.

TheRedAnarchist23

22nd December 2012, 23:58

Actually that's exactly what I meant. The workers are the ones who will abolish capitalism, but the only way they'll do that is by being class conscious socialists. They certainly do not need leaders to do it for them and in fact any attempt at controlling the workers through undemocratic means will fail. I believe I did allude to this already when I said that workers already produce and distribute goods around the world so any setting up will be minimal. It's not like it will take years to learn how to get things people need to them.

Then if you see that the workers can organise without a state you can also see that a state is not required after the revolution, and that the state would only cause harm to the emancipation of the working class.

While the state exists the revolution is not complete and in fact capitalism is still active and exists. As I said it won't take long for workers to reorganize production on a needs basis but abolishing the state as some keep saying 'overnight' could result in disaster with famines and needless deaths.

You sound like the propaganda that says "without a state there will be chaos!".

However, workers will already be organizing production in anticipation of the capture of the state which will also decrease the amount of time the state needs to exist.

I do not understand your position, you say the state is not necessary, then you say it must be kept for the least ammount of time possible. You need to explain this better.

Manic Impressive

23rd December 2012, 00:31

Then if you see that the workers can organise without a state you can also see that a state is not required after the revolution, and that the state would only cause harm to the emancipation of the working class.
Of course workers can organize without the state, we've been doing it for around 200 years. As I said the state cannot exist after the revolution. Since the revolution is not the capture of the state but the actual change in the mode of production. While the state exists, so does class society.

You sound like the propaganda that says "without a state there will be chaos!".
lol fuck off

I do not understand your position, you say the state is not necessary, then you say it must be kept for the least ammount of time possible. You need to explain this better.
I thought I said the state was necessary but must be abolished as soon as it is possible to ensure that the revolution is complete.

And I really do feel like I'm repeating myself here, but as I said no-one can say exactly how long it will take as we do not know what the material conditions will be directly after the capture of state power. If say it takes a series of bloody civil wars to capture the state then it will take considerably longer than if the capture of state power is relatively peaceful.

Let's Get Free

23rd December 2012, 02:24

Also Gladiator's politics are shit

Your opinion is worthless.

Art Vandelay

23rd December 2012, 03:47

Everything that Gladiator has said thus far has been right

Gladiator should almost take this as an insult.

And just because you don't agree with someone's politics does not mean they are shit.

I never made such a claim, in fact, I stated a couple anarchists on this site, who I felt had solid politics, despite 'disagreeing' with me.

Anarchism is one of the most extreme political ideologies that exists, we take everything to the extreme, we do not stop half way.

Neither do communists, and if you wish to argue otherwise, then you simply don't understand the history of communism, or anarchism.

You must not forget that Gladiator is using the anarchist definition of state, which is an authoritarian organ composed of a minority that rules over a majority.

And anarchists who define the state as anything other than a tool of class oppression, are (regardless of whether or not they realize it) subscribing to a variation of the notion that 'power corrupts,' a conviction which is liberal in origin.

A workers state is impossible because it would inevitably turn against the workers.

Once again you prove that you are an embarrassment to anarchists. If a state, is this 'mythical' institution which has the ability to 'turn on' it's possessors, why has the state never turned on the bourgeoisie?

The thing is, I think left-communists have a libertarian definition of workers state, and that strage deffinition often leads to huge arguments.

Edit: Deleted, I was being a jerk.

Sounds to me like you are giving anarchism a bad name. Why would someone pick council communism over anarchism?

It was just a suggestion, as I said before, Mza needs to decide his politics on his own.

Yazman

23rd December 2012, 05:41

MODERATOR ACTION:

Bahahaha. The fact that you think someone can have a 'libertarian' definition of the state, shows how far your head is shoved up your ass.

Yo listen, you can't go around saying stuff like that. It's borderline flames, and it's just going to lead to replies with flames of their own. Let's not build discussions around provocations and flamebait - if you're getting annoyed just take a break and come back later.

I'm going to warn you for this 9mm, so please don't do it again or you'll be infracted, and I don't want to have to infract.

This post constitutes a warning to 9mm.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd December 2012, 11:19

It 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 fundamentally incoherent.
So let's say there's been a revolution. Workers control the major industrial sites: the docks, the airports, rail, electricity, shipping, the wal-marts, and many smaller operations, while maybe there are still many small places or regions where worker's are not organizing production and distribution but there are probably ongoing striggles in these areas too. Industrial agriculture has been taken over by migrants and agricultural workers. More or less, that's a worker's revolution right?

Let's say the military has largely been neutralized and the urban police have been over-run, even arrested, and police stations taken over. But considering how much the US military is overseas, probably not all the military will have been taken out of the question; not to mention militias of fascists and privite security.

In this case, there has been a revolution, but the working class is still the working class in that there are still - within the worker's society, bourgeoise to repress/expropriate, there are induvidually producing petty-bourgeois and skilled professionals and artisans, there are small shop-keepers who employ their family or small workforces who many not "take over the neighborhood bookstore" because of relativly benign relations or whatnot. So although the working class has established it's military, economic, and political rule there are still other classes in society, furthermore all of society is still structurally organized around accumulation of profit, not meeting people's needs. So there are still different relations to production to be worked out; there are still classes, it's just that the working class now has hegemony rather than an exploiting, minority class.

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.Of course there will still be various class interests right after a revolution: the small shop-owners that might have supported working class revolution because they wanted an end to bank-debts, rent, and competition with the big exploiters probably also won't want to just give up their shop: it will be something workers will have to figure out how to deal with - do you just forcibly take these small worksites and risk sending more people over to the side of reactionaries? Do you negotiate and say you can keep your shop but you can't exploit, any help you take on will have an equal say? Do you allow them autonomy to run it as a small shop as they want (though tied into a larger socialist system of relations) as long as they pay standard collectivly-run shop wages and they can't pass the property on to their children or sell it or buy more property?

So after a revolution and even after explicit threats of counter-revolution, working class interests will still have to exhert their influence over all of society. No matter how they decide to do this, they will be acting as a state - overtly or de-facto.

TheRedAnarchist23

23rd December 2012, 17:07

Gladiator should almost take this as an insult.

I don't know why. Gladiator's politics are the same as mine.

I never made such a claim, in fact, I stated a couple anarchists on this site, who I felt had solid politics, despite 'disagreeing' with me.

And any anarchist who says that the use of state is not usefull and is harmfull to the emancipation of the working class has shity politics?

Neither do communists, and if you wish to argue otherwise, then you simply don't understand the history of communism, or anarchism.

I was refering to the use of state to reach stateless society.

And anarchists who define the state as anything other than a tool of class oppression, are (regardless of whether or not they realize it) subscribing to a variation of the notion that 'power corrupts,' a conviction which is liberal in origin.

Power does corrupt, and if you think it does not how do you explain the behaviour of some admins of revleft.

Once again you prove that you are an embarrassment to anarchists.

All anarchists are against the use of state for workers emancipation.

If a state, is this 'mythical' institution which has the ability to 'turn on' it's possessors, why has the state never turned on the bourgeoisie?

You are more focussed on insulting than listening.
Do your politics not say that the bourgeosie is different from the proletariat? Do your politics not say that the bourgeosie and the proletariat have diferent class interests? The state can work in harmony with the capitalists, because in return for protection the capitalists keep the state working through their money.

Edit: Deleted, I was being a jerk.

You know I can see that on the next post.
The left-communists do have a definition of state that I describe as libertarian, so I don't call that a state, and I get confused when someone calls that a state without explaining that it is actualy a decentralised organization of thw roking class.

It was just a suggestion, as I said before, Mza needs to decide his politics on his own.

Still, why council-communism and not anarchism?

TheRedAnarchist23

23rd December 2012, 17:17

Of course workers can organize without the state, we've been doing it for around 200 years.

Agreed. If the workers can organise without a state, the state is unnecessary, and therefore should be abolished during the revolution to avoid problems.

As I said the state cannot exist after the revolution.

Then you think the state should be abolished in the revolution.

Since the revolution is not the capture of the state but the actual change in the mode of production. While the state exists, so does class society.

Ok, so the revolution is not the capture of state power.

I thought I said the state was necessary

The state is actualy necessary, even though the workers can organise without it.:confused:

but must be abolished as soon as it is possible to ensure that the revolution is complete.

Then why not imediately.

the capture of state power.

If say it takes a series of bloody civil wars to capture the state then it will take considerably longer than if the capture of state power is relatively peaceful.

So revolution is the capture of state power?
But you said earlier that:

the revolution is not the capture of the state

Art Vandelay

24th December 2012, 10:45

Power does corrupt, and if you think it does not how do you explain the behaviour of some admins of revleft.

I rest my case.

:laugh:

robbo203

24th December 2012, 11:06

Excellent post. I just wanted to make once clarification. The proletariat does not seek to exploit the bourgeoisie, not in the manner in which the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat. The only sense that it could be stated that the bourgeoisie will be exploited under the dotp, would be that their privilege would be taken away. Hardly exploitation. Aside from individual members who have done terrible things under bourgeoisie society, pigs come to mind, the bourgeoisie will simply join humanity in the society of free producers.

But the bourgeoisie only exists in relation to the proletariat as an exploiting class. A bourgeoisie that does not exploit the proletariat is no longer a bourgeoisie. It is an ex bourgeoisie. If it's privilege to exploit the working class is taken away then it ceases to exist as a class and so too, by that very taken, does the proletariat.

That means there can be no such thing as a "dictatorship of the proletariat". A slave cannot dictate terms to the slave owner. A slave that does so is no longer a slave and the slave owner will therefore no longer be a slave owner

The whole concept is a contradiction in terms - nonsense on stilts. Abandon it.

Jimmie Higgins

24th December 2012, 11:08

Do your politics not say that the bourgeosie is different from the proletariat? Do your politics not say that the bourgeosie and the proletariat have diferent class interests? The state can work in harmony with the capitalists, because in return for protection the capitalists keep the state working through their money.But a society organized around a specific set of class interests... is a state!

For capital and the state, it's much deeper than mearly a symbiotic relationship - states do not exist outside and abstracted from the class organization of society. Feudal states could not work in harmony with capitalists? Why? Because that beurocracy was centered around preserving age-old custom and a ridged hierarchy based on castes which allowed landloards to run various territories. The state was about preserving everything the same. Capitalis needed a more fluid state, one which could work in their interests and this resulted in centuries of struggle until feudal states were replaced or broken and re-adapted to capitalist social needs. The state beurocracy mas it's own logic to it, but it is ultimately dependant on the economic and political (hegemonic) power of the capitalists: without that it has no purpose, no revenue, no materials.

From it's birth, capitalism and state power are linked: capitalists needed the state to concert pesants into a workforce, needed to do away with caste in order to make sure that capital was linked to circulation and accumulation rather than just piling up wealth for personal enrichment, they needed navy's to forcibly open ports and defend trade, they needed political justifications and laws for slavery and so on. This is a class acting as "a state" in reshaping society around it's interests. Sometimes this "state" has been organized as state-capitalism, sometimes more loose Republics, but the form is subordinate to the needs of the ruling class at that time.

As I said in my last post: if workers organize their own defense, run the economy, and politically organize society around cooperative production, then centralized or de-centralized: this is a state. It can not be the capitalist state, it has to be built by workers from the bottom up and just engaging in revolution already begins to form the networks and methods for organizing society: self-defense, strike/council committees of workers, working class distribution of goods, ways of collectivly coming to decisions, etc.

robbo203

24th December 2012, 12:02

But a society organized around a specific set of class interests... is a state!

For capital and the state, it's much deeper than mearly a symbiotic relationship - states do not exist outside and abstracted from the class organization of society. Feudal states could not work in harmony with capitalists? Why? Because that beurocracy was centered around preserving age-old custom and a ridged hierarchy based on castes which allowed landloards to run various territories. The state was about preserving everything the same. Capitalis needed a more fluid state, one which could work in their interests and this resulted in centuries of struggle until feudal states were replaced or broken and re-adapted to capitalist social needs. The state beurocracy mas it's own logic to it, but it is ultimately dependant on the economic and political (hegemonic) power of the capitalists: without that it has no purpose, no revenue, no materials.

From it's birth, capitalism and state power are linked: capitalists needed the state to concert pesants into a workforce, needed to do away with caste in order to make sure that capital was linked to circulation and accumulation rather than just piling up wealth for personal enrichment, they needed navy's to forcibly open ports and defend trade, they needed political justifications and laws for slavery and so on. This is a class acting as "a state" in reshaping society around it's interests. Sometimes this "state" has been organized as state-capitalism, sometimes more loose Republics, but the form is subordinate to the needs of the ruling class at that time.

As I said in my last post: if workers organize their own defense, run the economy, and politically organize society around cooperative production, then centralized or de-centralized: this is a state. It can not be the capitalist state, it has to be built by workers from the bottom up and just engaging in revolution already begins to form the networks and methods for organizing society: self-defense, strike/council committees of workers, working class distribution of goods, ways of collectivly coming to decisions, etc.

But the working class by definition is that class in capitalist society that is separated from the means of production and has therefore to sell its working abilities to a capitalist class for a wage/salary

How is it logically possible for this class to "run the economy, and politically organize society around cooperative production" when it does not own the means of production. How is it logically possible for this class to take control of the state and yet remain itself an exploited class , a slave class?

Either it gets rid of exploitation and therefore its own existence as an exploited class, or exploitation remains intact, along with itself as the exploited class, permitting an exploiting class to continue exploiting it and thereby demonstrating its own continuing lack of power.

Jimmie Higgins

24th December 2012, 14:54

But the working class by definition is that class in capitalist society that is separated from the means of production and has therefore to sell its working abilities to a capitalist class for a wage/salaryBy definition steam and ice are not water - but it is the same material in a different form under different circumstances. Call this group and consiousness anything you want (I say "working class as ruling class") ex-workers or whatever, but the people who "work" also control and manage and enjoy the results of their collective effort but this will not be a universal condition immediately after the revolution for all people - there will still be some degree of counter-revolutionary supporters, there will be people who have been producing in an induvidual petty-bourgoise manner, there will still be inequality when it comes to access to skills so there will be "skilled professionals" like doctors in the short-run.

It will be in the interests of the revolutionary (ex)workers to reshape society around the interests of copperative production and self-organization - this will mean figuring out how to connect non(ex)workers to the larger collective process and so on. There are any number of ways that workers can go about doing these things, but in "universalizing" society, in making it one of mutual cooperation, communism, workers are acting as a set of interests and consiousness which is not the same as those of the small shop keepers and professionals - their "class interests" or people who side with the interests of the old ruling class - will be distinct and opposed to the class interests of the revolutionary workers.

robbo203

24th December 2012, 18:19

By definition steam and ice are not water - but it is the same material in a different form under different circumstances. Call this group and consiousness anything you want (I say "working class as ruling class") ex-workers or whatever, but the people who "work" also control and manage and enjoy the results of their collective effort but this will not be a universal condition immediately after the revolution for all people - there will still be some degree of counter-revolutionary supporters, there will be people who have been producing in an induvidual petty-bourgoise manner, there will still be inequality when it comes to access to skills so there will be "skilled professionals" like doctors in the short-run.

It will be in the interests of the revolutionary (ex)workers to reshape society around the interests of copperative production and self-organization - this will mean figuring out how to connect non(ex)workers to the larger collective process and so on. There are any number of ways that workers can go about doing these things, but in "universalizing" society, in making it one of mutual cooperation, communism, workers are acting as a set of interests and consiousness which is not the same as those of the small shop keepers and professionals - their "class interests" or people who side with the interests of the old ruling class - will be distinct and opposed to the class interests of the revolutionary workers.

Not quite sure how your steam/ice analogy fits in with your argument but if you use "workers" in a functional sense to mean simply individuals who "work" then you are no longer talking about the working class - that is workers organised as a class - in the Marxian sense. You are actually talking about a classless society and you need to make this clear.

Of course such a classless society is incompatible with the notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat which implies the existence of an exploited class - namely, the proletariat - and thus an exploiting class - namely, the capitalists that do the exploiting. Because there will, by definition, continue to be an exploiting capitalist class under the so called DOTP - since the proletariat by defiintion is exploited by this class - then the DOTP will in reality turn out to be just another dictatorship of the capitalist class dressed up in the ideological garb of a pro-worker regime. It would would probably take the form of something like the (old) Labour Party government in the UK which , in the early days, professed to want to radically redistribute wealth in the interests of the workers and all too predictably ended up with with the likes of that odious right wing "champagne socialist", Tony Bliar at the helm . No surprise there!

One final point . While there may well be "some degree of counter-revolutionary supporters" that does not in any way signify the existence of separate classes in a post revolutiuonary socialist society. One's political views have absolutely no bearing on one's socio-economic relationship to the means of production. However much these counter revolutionary supporters may hanker after the return of a class-based society, they will themselves be classless as will everyone since all will have precisely the same relation to the means of production. There may be - in fact, there will be! - differences in skills but this too will have no bearing on the matter since one's skill or working abilities will no longer be a commodity for sale attracting a high or low wage depending with the degree of skill involved

Rusty Shackleford

24th December 2012, 18:29

Marx states that communism is not universally one or the other and may take either form depending on the situation at hand.

This was written even before the Manifesto. Is this consistent with later works?

Jimmie Higgins

25th December 2012, 12:16

If you use "workers" in a functional sense to mean simply individuals who "work" then you are no longer talking about the working class - that is workers organised as a class - in the Marxian sense. You are actually talking about a classless society and you need to make this clear.Ok, yes if we are talking about a classless society, then yes a dictatorship of the proletariet would not make sense and it would serve no use because interests are universal. But the question is, how is such a society achieved: how do we go from a society where the vast majority has to compete for wages and where social relations and the physical structures of our society are organized around facilitating the rapid accumulation of profits and the circulation of capital to that classless society?

I think the way that this would be achieved would be that workers take over production because they can produce without needing to exploit others. But this requires workers to consiously act - as a class for itself - and supress the current ruling class to expropriate (the means of production) from the expropriators. How is this not an example of a dictatorship of workers in thier own collective interests reshaping society above other interests in society?

Also in the short-term afrer a revolution - because society is organized along capitalist lines, not everyone is going to instantly have the same relationship to production. There are still going to be specialists and professionals and small indigenous agricultural communities and many other small pockets. These groups can be convinced to support the new society, but workers also have to figure out how to negotiate this - and with professionals and skilled workers, will have to make sure to subbordinate petty-bourgoise interests to working class interests probably in an inverted but analogous way to how professionals are subbordinated to capital now. Workers will also have to figure out ways to eliminate specifically "skilled" positions so that production and services are easier for people to pick up, or that education is so available that anyone can pick up skills and so the division between a doctor or engineer and regular worker is not really a factor of anything but training.

This can happen rather quickly, but it really would depend on the conditions of the revolution as to how quickly relations could be transformed and equalized.

Of course such a classless society is incompatible with the notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat which implies the existence of an exploited class - namely, the proletariat - and thus an exploiting class - namely, the capitalists that do the exploiting.How and why is exploitation implied? How are worker's exploiting themselves if they run production and distribution collectivly (and therefore control any surpluss, and what to do with it, collectivly)?

Because there will, by definition, continue to be an exploiting capitalist class under the so called DOTP - since the proletariat by defiintion is exploited by this class - then the DOTP will in reality turn out to be just another dictatorship of the capitalist class dressed up in the ideological garb of a pro-worker regime. Dictatorship of the proletariet means workers control society and the economy above the interests of the capitalists (i.e. their interests to rule and continue exploitation and put down worker's power) as well groups who immediately prior to the revolution, and probably partially through the course of revolution, have different relations and different class interests. The class interest of the specialist is to ensure their special positon and the economic power that comes with it - worker's would want to equalize realtions and so there is a conflict. Workers will have to "rule" society, to ensure that relations continue to equalize and that society can then be run on a collective and common basis.

robbo203

25th December 2012, 19:58

Ok, yes if we are talking about a classless society, then yes a dictatorship of the proletariet would not make sense and it would serve no use because interests are universal. But the question is, how is such a society achieved: how do we go from a society where the vast majority has to compete for wages and where social relations and the physical structures of our society are organized around facilitating the rapid accumulation of profits and the circulation of capital to that classless society?

I think the way that this would be achieved would be that workers take over production because they can produce without needing to exploit others. But this requires workers to consiously act - as a class for itself - and supress the current ruling class to expropriate (the means of production) from the expropriators. How is this not an example of a dictatorship of workers in thier own collective interests reshaping society above other interests in society?.

But dont you see? - this is not an example of the working class acting in its own interest to reshape society. To do that requires that it does away with its own existence as the subordinate and exploited class which the very expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" denies. The DOTP implies the continuation of the proletariat and therefore the continuation of its own exploitation by a capitalist class . How on earth can that be in its own interests? Its interests lie in abolishing itself as a slave class and once it has done that it makes no sense to talk of the DOTP

I think you are confising the DOTP with the capture of political power by the proletariat. I have no problem with the latter providing it abolishes its own existence at that point. Prolonging its existence in the shape of the DOTP means that capitalism continues and ipso facto that a socialist revolution has not yet happened.

Saying that "it cant happen all at once" is logically absurd when you think about. If you still have capitalism under the DOTP then when exactly is capitalism meant to disappear in that case??? Is the alleged proletarian dictatorship ( aka old fashioned Labour government) meant to effect a revolution against itself? The idea makes no sense at all. The time that is supposedly needed to bring about a transformation of society is something that should have happened prior to the revolutiuon - in the build up to a class=conscious socialist majority - and NOT after it. You dont have a revolution in order to continue existing society

Also in the short-term afrer a revolution - because society is organized along capitalist lines, not everyone is going to instantly have the same relationship to production. There are still going to be specialists and professionals and small indigenous agricultural communities and many other small pockets. These groups can be convinced to support the new society, but workers also have to figure out how to negotiate this - and with professionals and skilled workers, will have to make sure to subbordinate petty-bourgoise interests to working class interests probably in an inverted but analogous way to how professionals are subbordinated to capital now. Workers will also have to figure out ways to eliminate specifically "skilled" positions so that production and services are easier for people to pick up, or that education is so available that anyone can pick up skills and so the division between a doctor or engineer and regular worker is not really a factorof anything but training.

No, this has got nothing to do with what is meant in a Marxian sense by one's "relationship to the means of production". You are referring to a technical concept expressed in terms of level and type of skills; I am referring to the socio-economic relation one has to the means of production in terms of ownership or non-ownerhip. No doubt in a socialist socidty the vast majority will not possess the skills of a doctor or engineer which requires considerable training to acquire but that in no way means that their economic relationship to the means of production will be any different from that of a doctor or engineer at all. Everyone, regardless of what job or - more likely - what many different jobs they do, will have precisely the same relationship to the means of production in the sense of owning these means collectively in de facto terms and consequently having free and unfettered access to the goods that are thereby produced without a market existing in any chape or form

How and why is exploitation implied? How are worker's exploiting themselves if they run production and distribution collectivly (and therefore control any surpluss, and what to do with it, collectivly)?

Exploitation is implied precisely because the very definition of a working class in a Marxian sense is the exploited class in capitalist society. If you are just talking loosely about" individuals who work" then this is NOT a class category. But if you mean working class or proletariat then necessarily this entails their exploitation

Their very separation from the means of production which makes them a working class is what rules out from the start the very possibility of workers running "production and distribution collectivly". I am not suggesting that if a proletariat exists it is the proletariat or working class that is doing, or could do, the exploiting - an absurd idea! - but rather that a proletariat implies the presence of an exploiting capitalist class and that it is this capitalist class that is doing the exploiting of the proletariat that pretends it is somehow exerting a "dictatorship" over the former

Dictatorship of the proletariet means workers control society and the economy above the interests of the capitalists (i.e. their interests to rule and continue exploitation and put down worker's power) as well groups who immediately prior to the revolution, and probably partially through the course of revolution, have different relations and different class interests. The class interest of the specialist is to ensure their special positon and the economic power that comes with it - worker's would want to equalize realtions and so there is a conflict. Workers will have to "rule" society, to ensure that relations continue to equalize and that society can then be run on a collective and common basis.

But cant you see? - the workers cannot possibly control society and the economy above the interests of the capitalists . The very idea makes no sense at all - which is something Ive been banging on about seemingly forever on this forum. You cannot run an abbatoir in the interests of the cattle. You cannot run a class society in the interests of the subject class. It is just not possible

If the capitalists exists at all it implies the existence of working class that is being exploited and , ipso facto, that society is not and cannot possibly be run in the interests of the latter. Only when the capitalists are got rid of will their interest be served but then they - the proletariat or slave class - will no longer, cannot any longer, exist. And if the proletariat no longer exists then obviously nor can the DOTP. In short, the existence of a so called DOTP implies the existence of an exploited proletariat and hence the continuation of capitalism

Which is why I am fundamentally and implacably opposed to the whole daft concept of the DOTP. It is nothing more than the continuation of capitalism in another form

Rafiq

26th December 2012, 01:22

A state is a political body that governs it's subjects. It is by definition, hierarchical, and cannot be a political body that is governed by it's subjects, nor can it be composed of everyone, which renders the term "proletarian state" a complete contradiction in terms.

What a bizarre and simplistic notion of the dynamic functions of the state. The state represents the interests of a class, it serves the interests of a class. Never has it ceased to carry out, on a conscious or subconscious level, the interests of it's masters. As far as a proletarian state goes, the whole point of a proletarian state is that it is not composed of everyone, it is composed of the revolutionary proletariat systemically suppressing and liquidating it's class enemies (The petite and bourgeois classes). Class society does not disappear over night.

Emancipation means self-Liberation: “The liberation of the workers is the duty of the workers themselves,” as the old slogan goes. This applies to other groups as well: people must be at the forefront of their own liberation. Freedom cannot be given; it must be taken.

It depends. Liberty is in itself a bourgeois ideological tenet. Emancipation means what it is, emancipation from the chains of our class enemies, call that what you will. We should not fall into this rationalist trap, they could mean the same thing on a conscious level but ideologically, liberty and emancipation have totally different class contexts and in this sense totally different meanings. Just as "economic freedom" and whatever have different meanings.

Let's Get Free

26th December 2012, 05:21

What a bizarre and simplistic notion of the dynamic functions of the state.

Every state that has ever existed in human history has been a hierarchical apparatus, apart from real control by the mass of the population, which serves the interests of dominating, exploiting classes. Therefore the term "workers state" is a contradiction in terms.

The state represents the interests of a class, it serves the interests of a class. Never has it ceased to carry out, on a conscious or subconscious level, the interests of it's masters.

There is 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 suppress the proletariat.

As far as a proletarian state goes, the whole point of a proletarian state is that it is not composed of everyone, it is composed of the revolutionary proletariat systemically suppressing and liquidating it's class enemies (The petite and bourgeois classes). Class society does not disappear over night.

This makes no sense, none at all. Why would the proletariat, being in a position to "systematically suppress and liquidate" the bourgeois allow that bourgeois to continue to exploit the proletariat? Because that is what is meant my the term bourgeois, they are the exploiting class in capitalism. 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?
The more you think about it, the more you realize that the idea some kind of some kind of transitional society ruled over by the "revolutionary proletariat" is fundamentally incoherent. And I add that your state presided over by the so called "revolutionary proletariat" would, have to re-introduce hierarchical management in order to ensure its orders are met and that a suitable surplus is extracted from the workers to feed the needs of the state machine. By creating an economically powerful class which it can rely on to discipline the workforce, it would simply recreate capitalism anew in the form of "state capitalism Trash the entire brain dead idea of a "workers state."

It depends. Liberty is in itself a bourgeois ideological tenet.

Lenin misused terms such as liberty by calling it a "bourgeois prejudice". For Marx socialism was full liberty, economic as well as political/legal/constitutional. Marx did not wish to get rid of individual liberty but extend it to freedom to control our own production, creation, freedom from wage slavery and exploitation. Lenin mistook his party, his flag, himself, his govt and state for the revolution.

Comrade Jandar

26th December 2012, 05:48

This makes no sense, none at all. Why would the proletariat, being in a position to "systematically suppress and liquidate" the bourgeois allow that bourgeois to continue to exploit the proletariat? Because that is what is meant my the term bourgeois, they are the exploiting class in capitalism. 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?

The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat does entail the end of exploitation if we are to concede that exploitation means the extraction of the surplus value of the worker by capitalists. Just because the bourgeoisie are no longer exploiting the proletariat does not mean they have been neutralized as a threat to the revolution. Just because the means of production have been seized from their hands does not mean their class interests have disappeared.

Let's Get Free

26th December 2012, 05:53

Comrade Jandar

26th December 2012, 06:01

Once the bourgeois have been expropriated there isn't really much they can do.

Is this assuming we expropriate the means of production from the bourgeoisie, internationally at exactly the same minute, hour, and day? The revolution undoubtedly has to be an international phenomena, but to think that it will take place in every region or country on Earth simultaneously, is ludicrous. Like past proletarian revolutions, there will be epicenter of sorts where it begins and then it will spread over some period of time.

robbo203

26th December 2012, 08:08

The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat does entail the end of exploitation if we are to concede that exploitation means the extraction of the surplus value of the worker by capitalists. Just because the bourgeoisie are no longer exploiting the proletariat does not mean they have been neutralized as a threat to the revolution. Just because the means of production have been seized from their hands does not mean their class interests have disappeared.

But this makes no sense. If the bourgeoisie are no longer exploiting the proletariat then the bourgeoisie no longer exist! And if the bourgeoisie no longer exist then neither do the proletariat. The proletariat only exists by virtue of the fact that it is exploited If it is not exploited, if no other class is exploiting it, then there cannot any longer be a proletariat. Quite simply, the proletariat would have vanished along with the bourgoeisie.

Also, if there is no proletariat there can be no "dictatorship of the proletariat". The whole idea is a chimera - an illusion - unless you believe that a slave society can be run in the interests of the slaves which is absurd. That is why I say - chuck the whole idea out! Though Marx made many penetrating and useful contributions to the working class movement this was not one of them. He erred very badly with this one

One final point - you imply the bourgeoisie will continue to exist after they are no longer allowed to exploit the working class. This indictates to me that you entertain a sociological concept of the bourgeoisie based on their subjective inclinations or outlook on life rather than their objective relationship to the means of production in which their interests are grounded. If those means of producuction are made common prioperty it is simply not possible for a bourgeoisie to exist any more than it is for a proletariat to exist. Nor is it possible for there bourgeoisie to continue to have class interests when there is no class to have those interests. Common ownership means a classless society.

Some individuals who were once, objectively speaking, members of the bourgeoisie may well hanker after the retrun of a class society but that is entirely different matter to saying they are still members of the bourgeoisie

Jimmie Higgins

26th December 2012, 13:39

But dont you see? - this is not an example of the working class acting in its own interest to reshape society. To do that requires that it does away with its own existence as the subordinate and exploited class which the very expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" denies.

The "dictatorship of the proletariet" is the means by which one set of class interests subbordinates the old ruling class and any not-yet socialized relations to production.

I think you are confising the DOTP with the capture of political power by the proletariat. I have no problem with the latter providing it abolishes its own existence at that point. Prolonging its existence in the shape of the DOTP means that capitalism continues and ipso facto that a socialist revolution has not yet happened. The capture of power and then the re-shaping and reorganization of society along collective lines, therby abolishing class differences and exploitative avenues for production is what I consider the "dictatorship of the prletariat". It is the means by which people consiously and collectivly abolish classes.

Saying that "it cant happen all at once" is logically absurd when you think about. If you still have capitalism under the DOTP then when exactly is capitalism meant to disappear in that case??? Is the alleged proletarian dictatorship ( aka old fashioned Labour government) meant to effect a revolution against itself? The idea makes no sense at all. The time that is supposedly needed to bring about a transformation of society is something that should have happened prior to the revolutiuon - in the build up to a class=conscious socialist majority - and NOT after it. You dont have a revolution in order to continue existing societyNo a revolution is to change society, but consiousness does not magically transform material reality: society will have to be re-organized and how can we make sure that it is reorganized in the interests of building a classless stateless world? The reorganization of society run collectivly by the class in society that has an interest in this: working people, workers. Organizing politically, economically, and through force (everything from strike to worker militia) for the interests of abolishing classes, is the work of a "state" no matter what it is called.

With no interference, it would be a simple matter of workers moving resources around and retooling production around meeting comunal needs and this process would probably be something that would be achieved very quickly: eliminating market avenues for production, shifting resources and wealth around, building new production methods and infrastructure. Most likely there will be intereference though - from within and without if there are some isolated areas where the movement doesn't gain ground that become areas of capitalist-resistance being organized.

So in this situation, the revolutionay population will have to protect their interests in forming a classless stateless society from groups within that society that might want to take beurocratic control or use their specialized positions to hold vital services "hostage" in order to retain their privilaged position, our outside groups of counter-revolutionary fascists, sabatures and terrorists. And again, the structures arranged along these interests would be a de-facto state, a state designed to make states irrelevent.

In the Spainish revolution the working class movement (allied with rural people) controlled a lot of production in some regions, big swaths of land, controlled the streets of major cities. They had "duel power" because the Popular Front could not defend itself from Fascism and could not run things in the Republic without going through ad-hoc and party/union working class networks for distribution and production and defense. But by not making that power an independant power, institutionalizing the grassroots control by workers that existed already - a "state"! - the radicals and the larger movement ended up eventually helping revive the bourgeois government only to the have counter-revolution waged against the sites of worker's power by the Communists in the Popular Front.

Just as workers wage "class struggle" in order to end classes, workers must also organize themselves as an economic, political, and military force - a state - in order to create the ability to dismantle capitalist relations, class divisions and with it then the need for that "worker's state" at all.

Their very separation from the means of production which makes them a working class is what rules out from the start the very possibility of workers running "production and distribution collectivly".Your logic here implies that the capitalist state is a side-issue and has nothing to do with capitalist rule. But how is this achieved by the capitalist ruling class - through their state! This is why we can't just create alternative co-opt and ignore the capitalist state and why we can't take it over to use it for liberatory ends. The capitalist state has to be smashed - but something else has to move in to occupy that space to prevent the pieces from coming back together again. Holding the ground won through the revolution is "a state" and the whole point of it would be completing the transformation fully so that even if people wanted to try and expolit others there would be no means for these sorts of relations.

But cant you see? - the workers cannot possibly control society and the economy above the interests of the capitalists . The very idea makes no sense at all - which is something Ive been banging on about seemingly forever on this forum. You cannot run an abbatoir in the interests of the cattle. You cannot run a class society in the interests of the subject class. It is just not possibleOk, then think of it this way: control society and the economy above any attempts to restore the old order or in the interests of capital accumulation.

I am not suggesting that if a proletariat exists it is the proletariat or working class that is doing, or could do, the exploiting - an absurd idea! - but rather that a proletariat implies the presence of an exploiting capitalist class and that it is this capitalist class that is doing the exploiting of the proletariat that pretends it is somehow exerting a "dictatorship" over the formerWell I think you may get too hung up on definitions. The emancipation proclimation did not "free slaves" by itself, it took struggle and it was a long struggle and though "former-slaves" may have run off the land or been freed from slave duty, it doesn't mean the relations around them, the diesire to re-assert slavery by the old ruling class just disappeared. It took capitalist state power from the north, political, economic, and military to both subdue the old order and it's supporters and then after the war, to begin to change the material circumstances of the slaves, that is freemen/ex-slaves, and the southern economy to make them "free labor". But the capitalist class was only incidentally liberatory and since their interests were in still maintaing exploitation, just in another form, when northern capital was economically hurt, the bourgeoise made their peace with the old Southern elitetes.

But the point is, this material transformation takes an organized counter-power to the old ruling power and order. Workers will not do this to impove conditions for a different kind of exploitation (wage-slavery vs. chattel slavery) but for liberation from exploitation.

TheRedAnarchist23

26th December 2012, 13:55

You guys know what annoys the shit out of me? Communists calling stuff petty bourgeois. It makes no sense, it is annoying, and has no purpose.

robbo203

26th December 2012, 19:52

The "dictatorship of the proletariet" is the means by which one set of class interests subbordinates the old ruling class and any not-yet socialized relations to production.

The capture of power and then the re-shaping and reorganization of society along collective lines, therby abolishing class differences and exploitative avenues for production is what I consider the "dictatorship of the prletariat". It is the means by which people consiously and collectivly abolish classes.

You see, this is precisely where I have huge problems with this whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It cannot possibly be the means by which "one set of class interests subordinates the old ruling class" as you claim, because the proletariat is, by definition, itself the subordinate class in capitalist society. Its likely trying to say that a slave society can be run in the interests of the slaves. Cant be done Im afraid! The DOTP does NOT abolish class society but perpetuates it and therefore, the subordination of the proletariat to capital

I know what you are trying to say - that the capitalists need to be stripped of their class ownership of the means of production and prevented from reasserting that ownership. But my point is quite simply this: it is not - and indeed cannot possibly be - the so called DOTP that prevents them from doing this. In fact the DOTP implies the existence of a proletariat and therefore of a capitalist class and therefore of capitalist ownership of the means of production! So how can you possibly say it is "the means by which people consiously and collectivly abolish classes". The only way you can do that is by abandoning the DOTP - that is, assuming you could even institute such a thing in the first place (and my argument is that you cannot since the DOTP is a complete contradiction in terms)

No a revolution is to change society, but consiousness does not magically transform material reality: society will have to be re-organized and how can we make sure that it is reorganized in the interests of building a classless stateless world? The reorganization of society run collectivly by the class in society that has an interest in this: working people, workers. Organizing politically, economically, and through force (everything from strike to worker militia) for the interests of abolishing classes, is the work of a "state" no matter what it is called.

But you can't do this, Jimmie!! Can't you see this? How can the working class "reorganise" society while remaining a working class - a slave class? As long as a working class exists then by definition we have a society which can ONLY be run against their interests and not in their interests. It is ONLY by abolishing themselves as a working class that paradoxically the interests of the working class can be fulfilled

What you are desparately trying to cling on to is this idea that you cannot just jump from capitalism to communism because "consiousness does not magically transform material reality". Therefore you infer from this that there must be some kind of transition duriing which "material reality" is progressively transformed. But your inference is based on a completely false premiss

Nobody is suggesting that it is "material reality" as such that is "magically transformed" simply by dint of a conscious majority announcing that capitalism is abolished. What is transformed is merely the socialy agreed and recognised rules, if you like , that regulate society and impact upon and help organise material reality. In other words , society's expectations of how individuals ought to behave in operating a system of production - that is, the terms iunder which they operate such a systen. These social expectations dont suddenly and magically change overnight - that is true - they develop out of the build up the socialist movement itself and the shift in values and ways of looking at the world that it helps to bring about. But once a clear majority of conscious socialist exists, there must come a point at which we switch from one set of social rules associated with capitalism to another, associated with communisn.

This has to be a social decision and can only happen on a society wide basis and effectively instaneously since there is nothing in between a class society and a classless society - any more than you can be said to be a "little bit pregnant". You are either pregnant or you not. You either have a classless society or you do not. The social decision to opt for a classless communist society is, and can only be, put into effect in an instantaneous sense as Marx himself incidentally noted. However that does not mean that "material reality" is thereby instantaneously transformed - only the social rules by which we engage with material reality

With no interference, it would be a simple matter of workers moving resources around and retooling production around meeting comunal needs and this process would probably be something that would be achieved very quickly: eliminating market avenues for production, shifting resources and wealth around, building new production methods and infrastructure. Most likely there will be intereference though - from within and without if there are some isolated areas where the movement doesn't gain ground that become areas of capitalist-resistance being organized.

This again illustrates the very point I am making - you are confusing the social rules that underpin a particular mode of production, with the material process of production itself and the adaptation or retooling of production to meet the needs of the community under thise new relations of production. The one thing is instant - society decides at some point - that is, has majority support for the idea - that it wants to reorganise itself on a communist basis. That cannot be anything other than instantaneous . However, the way in which this decision impacts on, and feeds through to, the "material reality" in which individuals live their lives is another matter. That, it is true, does take time. But this is time that is taken under a commmunist mode of production - not capitalism or some mythical half way house

So in this situation, the revolutionay population will have to protect their interests in forming a classless stateless society from groups within that society that might want to take beurocratic control or use their specialized positions to hold vital services "hostage" in order to retain their privilaged position, our outside groups of counter-revolutionary fascists, sabatures and terrorists. And again, the structures arranged along these interests would be a de-facto state, a state designed to make states irrelevent.

No they wouldnt . The existence of a state presupposes the existence of classes which would have been abolished. What you are contending, without any warrant incidentally, is that the only way in which you can prevent the ex- capitalist class from claiming back their erstwhile class monopoly of the means of production is to organise as a state to prevent them from doing this. I emphatically deny that and would assert that that is a contradiction in terms anyway. If you have a state you have a class society which in turn implies the capitalists have already got what they are supposed to be fighting for in the first place - namely their class ownership of the means of production!

Just as workers wage "class struggle" in order to end classes, workers must also organize themselves as an economic, political, and military force - a state - in order to create the ability to dismantle capitalist relations, class divisions and with it then the need for that "worker's state" at all.

No you dont need to "organise yourself as a state", All you need to do is democratically capture it and forthwith scrap it along with those capitalist class relationships that require a state

Your logic here implies that the capitalist state is a side-issue and has nothing to do with capitalist rule. But how is this achieved by the capitalist ruling class - through their state! This is why we can't just create alternative co-opt and ignore the capitalist state and why we can't take it over to use it for liberatory ends. The capitalist state has to be smashed - but something else has to move in to occupy that space to prevent the pieces from coming back together again. Holding the ground won through the revolution is "a state" and the whole point of it would be completing the transformation fully so that even if people wanted to try and expolit others there would be no means for these sorts of relations.

But I am not suggesting we ignore the capitalist stae or use it for liberatory ends. Im saying we democratically capture it and get rid of it in the same instance. Our capturing of it must openly signifiy to all and sundry our clear and emphatic intention to kill off the state and the class relations that nourish it.

You on the other hand want to hold onto this thing you call a state - albeit according to you a different kind of state - which ,means in effect that you want to perpetuate class cosicety since states only exist because classes do. That is why the capitalist state that you thought you had "smashed" will reemerge again all the stronger, like a balloon you try to hold under water, becuase the society in which you envisage this new state of yours will still be a capitalist society by virtue of the fact that a working class by your own admission will still exist. Despite calling itself a workers state it will be a capitalist state becuase capitalism, which it will seek to administer, can only ever be operated in the interests of capital. Your "workers state" will - inevitably - betray the very people it presumed to represent

robbo203

26th December 2012, 20:24

You guys know what annoys the shit out of me? Communists calling stuff petty bourgeois. It makes no sense, it is annoying, and has no purpose.

I would agree with this sentiment. That apart, I dont think the notion of the petit bourgeoisie carries much weight as a sociological construct. To all intents and purposes the PB may be regarded as a sub-category of that vast and sprawling class in a capitalist society which is characterised, first and foremost, by the fact that it possesses little or no capital to live upon and must therefore work for a living - namely, the working class

Jimmie Higgins

28th December 2012, 20:09

You see, this is precisely where I have huge problems with this whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It cannot possibly be the means by which "one set of class interests subordinates the old ruling class" as you claim, because the proletariat is, by definition, itself the subordinate class in capitalist society.And if the subordinate class in society overtunes that order and replaces it with it's own, I call that a state, what do you call it?

Its likely trying to say that a slave society can be run in the interests of the slaves. Let's take a look at this analogy. According to my view, slaves should overthrow the slave-masters and take the weapons from them and then contain the old whip-crackers or exile them if they have to - i.e. organize themselves as a force counter to the old order. Your view in this situation is what: slaves all agree to put down the plough and the plantation owners say, well our power has been broken, let's throw our rifles in a ditch and walk away into the wilderness?

I know what you are trying to say - that the capitalists need to be stripped of their class ownership of the means of production and prevented from reasserting that ownership. But my point is quite simply this: it is not - and indeed cannot possibly be - the so called DOTP that prevents them from doing this. In fact the DOTP implies the existence of a proletariat and therefore of a capitalist class and therefore of capitalist ownership of the means of production!How is this implied, because of the name? Because "prolitariet" is part of the name? Really get past that and see the forest not, the trees. The DOTP simply means the political organization of the interests around eliminating class and the state itself. Capitalism is a set of relations, but how is it cemented into society? Through the superstructure, through "the state". The "State" keeps these relations in place and to remove them requires an "anti-state" and organization of the interests around a society that doesn't have class differences.

You have made an intellectual fetish around this idea of "the state" that is totally illogical - to the point that any deviation from very specific definitions of things makes the whole construction fall apart.

But you can't do this, Jimmie!! Can't you see this? How can the working class "reorganise" society while remaining a working class - a slave class?People who work, controlling their process collectively, making decisions about it: working without exploitation.

As long as a working class exists then by definition we have a society which can ONLY be run against their interests and not in their interests. It is ONLY by abolishing themselves as a working class that paradoxically the interests of the working class can be fulfilledYES THAT'S EXACTLY IT! And to do this "paradoxical" task, there needs to be a social force organized in the interests of a classless stateless life that can come in and be the alternative to the organized social force of capital. It is paradoxical, but so is workers fighting for their own abolition, workers waging class war to end imperialist war - it's paradoxical, but social force has to be met with social force.

What you are desparately trying to cling on to is this idea that you cannot just jump from capitalism to communism because "consiousness does not magically transform material reality". Therefore you infer from this that there must be some kind of transition duriing which "material reality" is progressively transformed. But your inference is based on a completely false premissWell I'm "desperately" trying to cling onto ideas that actually relate to the experience and history of class struggles. But ahh, yes, go on...

Nobody is suggesting that it is "material reality" as such that is "magically transformed" simply by dint of a conscious majority announcing that capitalism is abolished. What is transformed is merely the socialy agreed and recognised rules, if you like , that regulate society and impact upon and help organise material reality. Ok well yes, but what backs up these socially agreed on rules? I mean working for wages and paying rent are relations that are socially agreed on in capitalism, but what happens if I stop paying rent? At that point, doesn't "state power" come into the equation?

So if we change the socially agreed on rules, fine. But most of the rich and various chunks of the non-ruling population too, may not be with the other even 90% of the population. Then don't the liberatory anti-state forces actually need some kind of "force" to ensure that land taken by rural workers for farming isn't attacked by fascists?

What about conflicts among various groups of workers? At first when society is still largely structurally unequal, what if a group of workers focused on one task are upset and may have to take a backseat to the needs of workers somewhere else. Don't workers initially need larger and more accountable ways to re-organize things?

In other words , society's expectations of how individuals ought to behave in operating a system of production - that is, the terms iunder which they operate such a system.No, expectations are only the result of class hegemony which is done through super-structural institutions like police, courts, as well as through cultural institutions of religion and academics and media.

There are pleanty of people who reject society's expectations of how we ought to behave and they generally get broken down until they accept that there is no choice or they are repressed if necissary.

These social expectations dont suddenly and magically change overnight - that is true - they develop out of the build up the socialist movement itself and the shift in values and ways of looking at the world that it helps to bring about. But once a clear majority of conscious socialist exists, there must come a point at which we switch from one set of social rules associated with capitalism to another, associated with communism. I'd say this momement of consciousness becomes fact in the act of revolution itself: to fight to control production and society collectivly means that the most fundamental aspect of revolutionary consciousness is achieved. But then it's the question of how-then is society re-worked around this, rather than around profit accumulation and exploitation. And I argue that the effort to do this is de-facto state power in that it is a political and armed and economic force around a particular view of how society should run: classless and stateless.

This has to be a social decision and can only happen on a society wide basis and effectively instaneously since there is nothing in between a class society and a classless society - any more than you can be said to be a "little bit pregnant". You are either pregnant or you not. You either have a classless society or you do not.On a historical scale, revolutions are quick, but not on a human scale - revolutions are drawn-out processes of development where things go back and forth.

The pregnancy analogy is funny... because pregnancy would be a transition! So I think your analogous argument would be that there is no such thing as a fetus - there is only a baby or not a baby and since a fetus is not separate from the mother's body, then a fetus is just part of a mother, by definition, not a developing baby.

No they wouldnt . The existence of a state presupposes the existence of classes which would have been abolished. What you are contending, without any warrant incidentally, is that the only way in which you can prevent the ex- capitalist class from claiming back their erstwhile class monopoly of the means of production is to organise as a state to prevent them from doing this. I emphatically deny that and would assert that that is a contradiction in terms anyway. If you have a state you have a class society which in turn implies the capitalists have already got what they are supposed to be fighting for in the first place - namely their class ownership of the means of production! Your logic is totally incomprehensible here. There are people who still hold onto a desire to return to capitalist relations, right? Now I guess technically it would be correct to say they are not "capitalists" because they no longer control that property and have no power in the new society. But they still have an interest in counter-revolution, maybe some have support or material supplies hidden away. So you have a force in society that wants to either directly contend for power (if it is strong enough and can reorganize these counter-revolutionary forces) or will use sabotage or terrorist attacks against the new non-exploitative order (if they are not well organized or strong). The forces who have an interest in making sure that we can continue to develo and perfet a new way of organizing society, one that eventually erases any deisre or even notion of exploitation, then they will have to defend this development. THis is a "worker's state" in essence. Just because it is called "a state" doesn't mean that worker's are being exploited.

No you dont need to "organise yourself as a state", All you need to do is democratically capture it and forthwith scrap it along with those capitalist class relationships that require a stateNow this just flies in the face of all historical experience. As with your refusal to deal with the fact that changing the relations of production, will not simply eliminate counter-revolutionary threats or sentiment, here again - there's no way that people could even approach such a vote without direct ruling class military and economic response. When reformist Popular Front governments were elected in Europe, there were instant fascist attacks against these modest electoral victories (which didn't even have a mandate for eliminating capitalist social relations!). In France, the rich pulled their money out and fascists attempted a coup, in Spain the generals allied with the fascists, and there's always Allende too.

This might conceivably happen - that a big worker's movement get's close to "voting itself" into revolution - but it is totally inconceivable, that then capitalism would just slough off and the state would fall away. The ruling class would fight this using political, economic, and military power - if revolutionary workers don't have counter-weights to these things: political alternative, organization of their own economic power, worker-controlled militias then these interests will probably not win out because other classes will be mobilizing their interests too.

But I am not suggesting we ignore the capitalist stae or use it for liberatory ends. Im saying we democratically capture it and get rid of it in the same instance. Our capturing of it must openly signifiy to all and sundry our clear and emphatic intention to kill off the state and the class relations that nourish it.But what does that mean practically? What is the state - so the legislature can be made null, but winning democratic power and nullifying the legislature means just cutting the military aparatus of the government loose? How does capturing the legislature and abolishing it help us protect ourselves from an untouched military structure that probably won't be interested in the abolishment of class and state.

You on the other hand want to hold onto this thing you call a state - albeit according to you a different kind of state - which ,means in effect that you want to perpetuate class cosicety since states only exist because classes do.Maybe you view it as a question of favored "pet" roads to revolution, but for me i's not a question of want, it's a question of historical practicality and what kinds of things tend to happen in real life examples of revolutionary upsurge.

That is why the capitalist state that you thought you had "smashed" will reemerge again all the stronger, like a balloon you try to hold under water, becuase the society in which you envisage this new state of yours will still be a capitalist society by virtue of the fact that a working class by your own admission will still exist. Despite calling itself a workers state it will be a capitalist state becuase capitalism, which it will seek to administer, can only ever be operated in the interests of capital. Your "workers state" will - inevitably - betray the very people it presumed to representWill it? Only if worker's power is not established and held onto - in fact this is one of the other necessities of worker's organizing their power: to prevent a bureaucratic erosion and counter-revolution like in Russia. The USSR wasn't the result of the bad magic that happens if someone calls something "a state" it happened because the radical working people could not maintain their power (both in the short term vs. the bureaucracy, but also in a bigger sense of the situation of Russia and the impossibility of socialism in Russia alone).

But if workers try and organize for the end of class and the state, we don't know what will happen. If they only try and organize consiousness - without having a "state" power of an economy, defense, and politics organized around preserving and expanding the liberatory effects of the revolution, then some other group that can organize a counter-power to the newly established order will find some sucess and threaten the revolution - causing the revolution to then hace to organize a counter-militia to fight the fascist militia, or whatnot. So "state" is unavoidable if people want to have a different set of ruling relations in society - even if these relations lead to the redundancy of the state itself.