The "withering of the state"

[freehobo]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?

How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?

[Prinskaj]

How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind? The state is a tool used by the ruling class, the capitalist class, to maintain it power over another class, the working class. Therefore, when only one class remains then the state will be obsolete and therefore "wither" away.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

When talking about the socialist state there was never any true consensus on the subject. Marx and Lenin formulated that the withering away of the proletarian state would happen as a precondition to communism but as to how this would happen they never talked much about. I think this is because it is heavy theory wise and to explore it in any meaningful manner there must be examples which got close to withering way, there hasn't been so far; instead what we got were socialistic states which eventually degenerated into deformed workers states which after after heavy siege by imperialist powers eventually collapsed and had capitalism restored.

[Ostrinski]

What we can learn from past experiences of the communist movement now more than ever is that international revolution is vital for the prospects of socialism. They show that the struggle toward a socialist economy, when confined to a regionally circumscribed area, results in developments like Stalinism. I also think that they demonstrate very intensely the necessity of the democratic process as a mechanism for keeping the political decisions of working class organizations the actual sanctions of the working class themselves and so that bureaucratic deformities do not take form that substitute themselves for working class rule.

As far as the whithering away of the state goes: many of its opponents view it thusly (and on second thought, some of its proponents, unfortunately..); that the "state" in question comprises of some junta of bureaucrats that humbly forego their powers and privileges when they decide that it should be so. However, and more fortunately, what we are speaking of is a state run by, of, and for workers and thus comprising of representatives that are accountable and recallable to and by the workers.

A state is the organ of governance that is tasked with maintaining the contradictions and antagonisms of class societies. If a state is in existence, then classes still exist, or at the very least contradictions and antagonisms of the old order have not been neutralized, or new contradictions and antagonisms have developed.

So a worker's state must necessarily be historically unique because it is purposed only with neutralizing the contradictions of the old order, not prolonging and maintaining the contradictions of a new one.

[Baseball]

What we can learn from past experiences of the communist movement now more than ever is that international revolution is vital for the prospects of socialism.

This was always the argument- despite the hypocracy in the formation of various regional socialist parties in the 19th century.


They show that the struggle toward a socialist economy, when confined to a regionally circumscribed area, results in developments like Stalinism.

Unfortunately, it does not lead to any other conclusion except that 'stalinism' is the only plausible outcome.


I also think that they demonstrate very intensely the necessity of the democratic process as a mechanism for keeping the political decisions of working class organizations the actual sanctions of the working class themselves and so that bureaucratic deformities do not take form that substitute themselves for working class rule.

But again, the problem that was faced was not only hostility from the capitalist and imperialist powers (which socialists are forever explaining are very powerful adversaries) but also disagreement amongst the socialists as the proper way forward.


As far as the whithering away of the state goes: many of its opponents view it thusly (and on second thought, some of its proponents, unfortunately..); that the "state" in question comprises of some junta of bureaucrats that humbly forego their powers and privileges when they decide that it should be so. However, and more fortunately, what we are speaking of is a state run by, of, and for workers and thus comprising of representatives that are accountable and recallable to and by the workers.

A state is the organ of governance ect ect,

A state is a state. The workers state will perform all the same functions (and then some) as what occurred in the bourgeoise one. The rest is the torturous and ridiculous arguments of Marx on the subject- trying to deny that a duck is a duck.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?

How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?

I feel bad for you here, yea alot of the bad communists argue like this. You can't refute them because there were no real socialist states. Sorry about that but they ought to rename it "No Real Communist" Fallacy in our honor.

But to get to your question. I feel like the best answer is Lenin's that the state should be one that can not help but to wither away, or it should be a form of the state that is nothing more than one class exersizing it's physical force upon the world and it should involve as much direct democracy as possible

[Ostrinski]

This was always the argument- despite the hypocracy in the formation of various regional socialist parties in the 19th century.I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. The question of national self-determination with regard to being a boon to the socialist movement, and the question of socialism being established in one region was not exactly settled until we observed the developments of the Soviet Union in the twentieth century.

If by "regional socialist parties" you mean simply an organization based in one country such as CPUSA or SPD, then that is still not hypocritical even with the fallacy of socialism in one country considered, because it just makes sense from an organizational and strategical perspective to focus your resources on organizing on that level, while still being affiliated with an international, such as the Comintern and Socialist International respectively.



Unfortunately, it does not lead to any other conclusion except that 'stalinism' is the only plausible outcome.Hopefully you live long enough to see the workers of the world prove you wrong. Obviously from an anti-communist perspective i.e. a perspective that has an interest in a more rapid hush-up of the communist position, it makes perfect sense to posit that Stalinism can be the only outcome because all you and I both have to go on is the historical experience of the 20th century communist movement, which was a failure.

The communist, on the other hand, will of course be tasked with approaching the question with more nuance and even-handed consideration.


But again, the problem that was faced was not only hostility from the capitalist and imperialist powers (which socialists are forever explaining are very powerful adversaries) but also disagreement amongst the socialists as the proper way forward.Well of course. Such is natural in any movement, you will have disagreements on policy, on strategy, organization, and so on and so forth. For example you had the question on whether to defend Stalin and co. unconditionally, to defend the Soviet Union but not Stalin and co., or to consider it state capitalist, et al. These were very divisive but it's just something one has to deal with.

However differences in opinion on critical matters do not negate the need for democratic decision making or refute the argument that they are necessary. So I am not entirely sure which direction you were wanting to go with this.


ect ect,

A state is a state. The workers state will perform all the same functions (and then some) as what occurred in the bourgeoise one. The rest is the torturous and ridiculous arguments of Marx on the subject- trying to deny that a duck is a duck.Well for example I say to the anarchists all the time that we do not necessarily have to call the revolutionary provisional government a state but by Marxist sociological standards it would nevertheless constitute one.

As far as the worker's state "performing the same functions as the bourgeois states" goes, well that just depends on what functions you have in mind. If the function in question is to maintain in an armed manner the hegemony of a ruling class, then yes, I suppose so, but that is rather vague, ambiguous, and uninsightful. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the necessary functions of the two are quite different in terms of their relationship to their respective societies.

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.

[Ostrinski]

I feel bad for you here, yea alot of the bad communists argue like this. You can't refute them because there were no real socialist states. Sorry about that but they ought to rename it "No Real Communist" Fallacy in our honor.Well yes, the truth can be a nuisance. This, however, doesn't entitle you to changed positions on the rest of our parts.

edit: you people owe me and the rest of us. You owe us every minute that we have spent (minutes that we will not get back, mind you) explaining to non-communists that Stalinism=/=communism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well yes, the truth can be a nuisance. This, however, doesn't entitle you to changed positions on the rest of our parts

Excuse me, I should have clarified. Of course there were alot of states that were socialist in name only, and there is a great debate between the various strains of Marxism over which states these are and if any of these states were socialist at all. All sides of the debate have put up good arguements and have a degree of merit in all of them. But then you have those "liberals who like Marx" sort of people who read the Communist Manifesto concluded that all of those other Marxists were wrong because they didn't read Marx enough and were too violent, and that we can all just achieve pure communism by sitting in a circle and singing Kumbuh my lord Kumbuya until the bourgeois pity our plight so much that they decide to hand us the means of production on a silver platter

[Crux]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?

How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?
Well, while I adhere to the "was not real communism" I think it's a bit of a cop out to leave it at that. As a Trotskyist I adhere to a rather specific analysis of why the USSR degenerated and the limitations of subsequent stalinist regimes around the world. I stand apart from them politically much like I stand apart from the first generations of reformists in the 2nd International, although admittedly hardly anyone tries to conflate the revolutionaries with the social-patriots. But I think there is a vital historical paralell there, that is the degenaration of the early marxist movement, because, make no mistake virtually everyone of the first generation of marxist reformists proclaimed to be revolutionaries of some kind or other. And yet they, and along with them fairly massive organizations, ended up in the pro-war camp of bourgeoisie.

I am a bit tied for time at the moment, but I will try to be back later.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.Well I think this may be a strawman in of itself although people certaintly do argue - I am one of them - that an attempt was made in Russia to establish socialism and it failed.

I don't see how this is "hide and seek" because if you get in a car to drive to Vegas but end up on the side of the road outside of Baker, it's is both true that an attempt for Vegas was made, but "something" happened which prevented this from actually happening. It could be that the driver had bad directions, it could be that enough gas wasn't planned on, it could be that stopping in Baker was inevitable due to the poor condition of the car, or if it's Stalinist USSR, then the tour guide drove you to Baker and told you it was Vegas so he could pocket the difference in price between hotels in Vegas and Baker. But IMO it doesn't mean any attempt to drive to Vegas will end up as a weekend in Baker.

So I would question this assumption in your post: "been many societies established on communist principles". I would say for many of the so-called socialist countries this was not true at all if socialism is defined as rule by the working class. In Russia this failed, but in many of the later "Communist" states there wasn't any real working class revolution - a natioanlist one if anything. "Not withering away" is not the reason that these states were not socialist (worker's power) but a symptom - specifically of a ruling group that had an interest in maintaining their position and power over the rest of the population.

If you mean countries have used policies that have been associated with socialism, this is true in part, but many capitalist countries in the 20th century also enacted, or were pressured by the population to enforce, similar policies.


How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?Vanguard just means "advanced" so in this context it's committed revolutionaries - if there is a working class revolution than the vanguard in society may play a role because of any organic credibility they may have, but essentially all the revolutionaries are the "vanguard" at that point because a large chunk of the class is in motion and is "advancing". So the concept of a vanguard, or organizing the vanguard, is more about how revolutionaries can operate in non-revolutionary times. If you are just out there unorganized, then chances are you may eventually be drawn away from revolutionary activity because you are isolated and can not have much of an effect, so organizing people like this together, uniting around some common revolutionary ideas, is a way to help maintain revolutionary organizing and try and build for a future mass movement.

I think there are inherent problems with the idea that one group will just grow and then become the sole vanguard organization which then basically steps in as the state. It's a pretty mechanistic view of struggle first of all, but also it's a distorted view of revolution and can IMO be a barrier to actual self-emancipation by workers. The vanguard should help facilitate and encourage this, not smother it. But I do believe it is necissary for revolutionaries to organize and try and learn from eachother, the struggles they are a part of, and coordinate from that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?Well this would be the whole constructive point of discussing any of these questions for radicals. And there's no short answer because essentially many of the modern divisions on the Left in terms of outlook and often strategy have been due to differences in trying to understand and learn from the failed revolutions (and just movements) - both where and how they did make some advances and also why they ultimately failed.

[Ravachol]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?


That they were not communism, had nothing to do with communism and were not 'on the road to constructing communism' either.



How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?

It doesn't. That's the problem. (though 'vanguard' is a weird term 'cause it doesn't necessarily refer to the 'vanguard party' since it can also designate those sections of the class which are most 'advanced' in the struggle)

[Baseball]

But IMO it doesn't mean any attempt to drive to Vegas will end up as a weekend in Baker.


If you are just out there unorganized, then chances are you may eventually be drawn away from revolutionary activity because you are isolated and can not have much of an effect, so organizing people like this together, uniting around some common revolutionary ideas, is a way to help maintain revolutionary organizing and try and build for a future mass movement.

The latter is NOT the reason you wind up in Baker rather than Vegas.

[Baseball]

That they were not communism, had nothing to do with communism and were not 'on the road to constructing communism' either.



It doesn't. That's the problem. (though 'vanguard' is a weird term 'cause it doesn't necessarily refer to the 'vanguard party' since it can also designate those sections of the class which are most 'advanced' in the struggle)

So why would not the Communists be the most "advanced" section of the class? Indeed, Would it not be odd if any self-described socialist individual, party, or movement did not believe himself or themselves to represent the most "advanced" in the struggle?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Before I begin my response, it is important to understand what the state is, according to a Marxist analysis. That is something that is vitally important to understand for a discussion on this topic.

The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class and creating a superstructure without a state. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.

It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc).

So, with this understanding....



Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles

Well, this is just not true. There haven't been many societies established on "communist principles". There are, I would argue, some societies that were working towards communism and were proletarian dictatorships (such as early Bolshevik Russia before the sucess of the counter-revolution due to the isolation of the revolution) but no societies based on a classless, stateless, internationalist, etc. society.


So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?

There are a few essential things that can be learned.

1. The revolution has to spread, and cannot be isolated. Socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism.

2. The transition from the proletarian dictatorship to communism must proceed as fast as possible.

Those are the two main things I think we can learn from those societies.


How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?

By the vanguard I assume you mean the state. It is different than the way you are making it sound. The state doesn't one day just "abolish" itself, but the semi-state destroys the basis for it's own existence. These include class society, wage labor, etc. After these things are done for, the state itself has lost it's purpose for existing.

EDIT: Here is a quote that I think explains my position fairly well.


It is thus a metaphysical error to seek to resolve human problems in one of either two ways, as is done for example by those who counterpose violence and the State: either one declares oneself in favor of the State and for violence; or against the State and against violence. Dialectically, however, these problems are situated in the context of their historical moment and are simultaneously resolved with opposed formulas, by upholding the use of violence in order to abolish violence, and by using the State to abolish the State. The errors of the authoritarians and the errors of the libertarians are in principle equally metaphysical.

Amadeo Bordiga-On The Dialectical Method

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So why would not the Communists be the most "advanced" section of the class? Indeed, Would it not be odd if any self-described socialist individual, party, or movement did not believe himself or themselves to represent the most "advanced" in the struggle?

What exactly are you trying to get at here?

[Let's Get Free]

Most Leninist Marxists would argue that the working class will take control of the state and use it to assert the dictatorship of the proletariat over the rest of society. Basically that the state will become an instrument to be used in bringing about a classless society. The withering away of the state according to them will happen as communism takes a firm hold in society and the need for coercive power against class enemies is no longer required.

The historical problem with this approach has been that it leads to the state apparatus being used not to bring about a communist society but simply to perpetuate state power itself and leads to a new ruling class.

Being an anarchist I start from the point that the capitalist state apparatus cannot become an instrument of workers power and must be dismantled and that any successful revolution will have within it the beginnings of new forms of social organization.

[Red Enemy]

Most Leninist Marxists would argue that the working class will take control of the state and use it to assert the dictatorship of the proletariat over the rest of society. Basically that the state will become an instrument to be used in bringing about a classless society. The withering away of the state according to them will happen as communism takes a firm hold in society and the need for coercive power against class enemies is no longer required.Actually, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat comes from Karl Marx himself.


The historical problem with this approach has been that it leads to the state apparatus being used not to bring about a communist society but simply to perpetuate state power itself and leads to a new ruling class.
You ignore material conditions.


Being an anarchist I start from the point that the capitalist state apparatus cannot become an instrument of workers power and must be dismantled and that any successful revolution will have within it the beginnings of new forms of social organisation.Which is why we Marxists propose SMASHING the capitalist state apparatus, and replacing it with a proletarian variant.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Which is why we Marxists propose SMASHING the capitalist state apparatus, and replacing it with a proletarian variant.

Marx argued for eliminating the bourgeois state as a whole, and replacing with the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists generally tend to advocate conquering existing state power and using it against the ruling class. These two things are not the same. http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state is a good article if you're interested.

[Red Enemy]

Marx argued for eliminating the bourgeois state as a whole, and replacing with the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat.I just said that.


Marxists generally tend to advocate conquering existing state power and using it against the ruling class. These two things are not the same. http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state is a good article if you're interested.Apart from Kaustkyists and other revisionists, I'm not sure who proposes taking the state as it is...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It's not a question of taking the state "as is", you either destroy it entirely or keep it and reintroduce capitalism. That's it.

[l'Enfermé]

Marx argued for eliminating the bourgeois state as a whole, and replacing with the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists generally tend to advocate conquering existing state power and using it against the ruling class. These two things are not the same. http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state is a good article if you're interested.
Marx argued that the working class cannot take hold of the state machinery as it is, but needs to smash it first, by which he meant things like abolishing the standing army and police and replacing them with voluntary worker's militias, elections of all officials and the ability to instantly recall them, and so on. Pretty vanilla stuff, hardly more radical than the ideas of many revolutionaries of the French Revolution. Marxists advocate the same. Many Stalinist types have their own thing going on, and they're welcome to it, but they have no genuine claim to being Marxists.


I just said that.

Apart from Kaustkyists and other revisionists, I'm not sure who proposes taking the state as it is...
What Kautskyists? Neither Kautsky, nor Marxists greatly influenced by him, like Lenin, advocated taking the state "as it is". :confused:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Many Stalinist types have their own thing going on, and they're welcome to it, but they have no genuine claim to being Marxists.:

Generally I like you and think that you are a good poster who knows his shit, so I might be wrong in making this assumption, but I assume when you say "Stalinists" you are including Maoists into that equation, which is a faulty equivilance that I've always pointed out but more importantly I'd disagree that all forms of anti-revisionism are Unmarxist. Despite their flaws, Hoxha's Albania and Mao's China did try to reflect Marxist notions of political power. I don't know much about Albania, so Ismail might have to come in here, but I know Hoxha armed every Albanian, made military training universal, and abolished ranks in the military. Mao's China was unique in the socialist bloc in that under Mao there was the first serious attempt at collectivizing agriculture by voluntary methods and by organizing class struggle against land lords as opposed to Stalin's method of forced collectivization. Additionally, during the cultural revolution Mao introduced the “four great freedoms”—to “speak freely,” to “air your views freely,” to write “big character posters,” and to engage in “big debates”-- and most essential of all the right to strike and organized, all of which were removed under Deng

That's not to say that I agree with literally everthing Mao did, but likewise it would be absurd for me to attack orthodox marxists for liking Kaufsy just because he went renegade. Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is a theoretical framework that goes beyond the classics, heck it was only formulated in the late eighties and did not become it's own tendency until the RIM document Long Live Marxist Leninist Maoism was published in 26 December 1993
(Don't bother reading it though, it tries to sumerize the entire tendency in eight pages and in my opinion fails to do so, if you want some reading on MLM than just ask). MLM isn't just kneeling at the feet of Mao, heck I'd say of all major tendencies (Leninism, Kaufsyism, Trotskyism) we are the least dependent on our theoretical icon for our ideology. Lately many Maoists have been theorizing about many important questions, our Indian comrades for example have been writing alot on the question of feminism and have come up with what they refer to as "Proletarian Feminism", though there is some what of a controversy in the Maoist world over this, as when the Canadian RCP tried to bring it over to the west the signalfire group criticized it. Also we have had alot of fruitful discussions over race and interctionality theory that are quite fascinating in my opinion.

And no, we Maoists don't hate your "freedom". On the contrary, see here http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3646.html


So yea, please don't portray us as what you perceive to be freedom hatin Stalinists, because it's just slander. We do say nice things about Stalin, but that's only because we have Khrushchev, and because due to our hatred of Khrushchev some of us (though not me in particular) feel the need to defend him against the false accusations made against him in the secret speech. it's not because we love Stalin or even glean very much theoretical insight from him. Heck, Mao himself wrote some pretty scathing criticisms of Stalin which I can link if you would like.


And for a Maoist view of where Mao belongs in MLM, I advise you read this

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/09/marxism-beyond-marx-leninism-beyond.html

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Most Leninist Marxists would argue that the working class will take control of the state and use it to assert the dictatorship of the proletariat over the rest of society.

This is untrue. Most of us that argue for a proletarian dictatorship would argue that the working class have to first completely smash the bourgeois state and, on top of it's ruins, establish the rule of the proletariat through it's various organs of class rule.


Basically that the state will become an instrument to be used in bringing about a classless society. The withering away of the state according to them will happen as communism takes a firm hold in society and the need for coercive power against class enemies is no longer required.

No, the state will wither away once the basis of it's existence (class society, etc.) has been done away with, which cannot just happen overnight, and when the revolution spreads and succeeds.


The historical problem with this approach has been that it leads to the state apparatus being used not to bring about a communist society but simply to perpetuate state power itself and leads to a new ruling class.

The failure of the proletarian revolutions of the late 1910's, early 1920's is much more complicated than the "establishment of a state".


Being an anarchist I start from the point that the capitalist state apparatus cannot become an instrument of workers power and must be dismantled and that any successful revolution will have within it the beginnings of new forms of social organization.

I completely agree with the above.

[Ismail]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.Speaking as a "Stalinist," no country was established on "communist principles," assuming by that you mean from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. That requires the development of productive forces at a level significantly higher than what has been achieved today, and it requires the triumph of socialism on a world scale. What was established was socialism in the USSR and Albania, and nascent efforts towards socialist construction (subsequently halted) in the rest of Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, the DPRK and Vietnam.

When you ask what lessons can be learned the answer is quite simple: one learns the importance of working-class control and of education. In Albania, for instance, studies were made of the ascendancy of revisionism in the USSR and a number of conclusions were drawn up. One of these conclusions was that under Stalin there developed an excessive emphasis on material rather than moral incentive. This led to mass movements such as the Stakhanovites, who were distrusted by industrial management, being themselves inundated with various material rewards and open doors to becoming managers themselves (albeit on account of their hard work and continuous search for improved work methods), which created some distrust between them and other workers.

Thus Albania developed the world's most egalitarian wage structures.

Other lessons had to do with ensuring that working-class control over the state apparatus would remain constant, etc. which obviously did not produce lasting results.

Yet one also has to recognize the unfavorable situation Albania was in. Surrounded by American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, what it did achieve in the conditions it was in was outstanding. Albania's unfavorable situation gave encouragement to opportunism and revisionism within the party and state apparatus, produced hankerings for the West (portrayed in Western media and anti-communist propaganda as a land of abundance for all) in a growing segment of the general populace, and prevented further steps towards the revolutionization of production relations.

[NGNM85]

Bypassing the inevitable debate as to what does, or does not constitute a;'state.' I would simply say that monolithic power structures inevitably tend to be self-perpetuating.

[RedMaterialist]

Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.

So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?

How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?

The soviet union was the first worker's state in history, and it was the first state in history to wither away and die. The Soviet Union shocked everybody when it simply went out of business (so to speak.) Not a single soldier invaded, not one tank, not one bullet was fired. It simply collapsed. Since probably 1960, the Soviet Union had ceased to function as a repressive state, at last only a sclerotic bureaucracy was left.

However, the Soviet Union did not collapse in a vacuum. It was surrounded by capitalist vultures who rushed in to start making a profit, at the invitation of Yeltsin. The same process may be happening in Cuba. If capital is allowed to invade Cuba, the result will be the same.

There have been several socialist states established (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.) One has collapsed. There is no such thing as a "communist state." Once the majority of the world's states are socialist then those states will begin collapsing and a world wide communist society will emerge. Whether the transformation is peaceful or violent will depend on the capitalists.

[Blake's Baby]

Or, you know, the exact opposite of everything that redshifted just said, that works as well.

The USSR did not 'wither and die'. Its hegemonic empire broke up because it ran out of money. That has nothing to do with Engels' conception of 'the withering away of the state' which can only happen in a post-capitalist world.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The soviet union was the first worker's state in history, and it was the first state in history to wither away and die. The Soviet Union shocked everybody when it simply went out of business (so to speak.) Not a single soldier invaded, not one tank, not one bullet was fired. It simply collapsed. Since probably 1960, the Soviet Union had ceased to function as a repressive state, at last only a sclerotic bureaucracy was left.

However, the Soviet Union did not collapse in a vacuum. It was surrounded by capitalist vultures who rushed in to start making a profit, at the invitation of Yeltsin. The same process may be happening in Cuba. If capital is allowed to invade Cuba, the result will be the same.

There have been several socialist states established (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.) One has collapsed. There is no such thing as a "communist state." Once the majority of the world's states are socialist then those states will begin collapsing and a world wide communist society will emerge. Whether the transformation is peaceful or violent will depend on the capitalists.

holy shit dude
sort yourself out forreal

[Sea]

holy shit dude
sort yourself out forreal

Long RIP our Soviet motherland,
Built by the people's atrophying hand.
Long live our people, withering away!
Strong in our friendship tried by fire.
Long may our crimson flag unravel,
Withering in glory for all men to see!

[Yuppie Grinder]

Thinking that the USSR circa 1960 was a worker's state is one thing.
If you think it had withered away by then in the way Engels meant when he wrote about the withering away of the DOTP, you gotta be some sort of barf brain.

[RedMaterialist]

Thinking that the USSR circa 1960 was a worker's state is one thing.
If you think it had withered away by then in the way Engels meant when he wrote about the withering away of the DOTP, you gotta be some sort of barf brain.

The "withering away" of anything is a process that takes place over time. The collapse occurs only when the decay has become complete.

The workers' state was a dictatorship. When the capitalist class had finally been suppressed (probably by 1960) then it was only a matter of time before the state collapsed. A state exists only for the purpose of suppressing a class of people; when that class no longer exists, or no longer manifests itself, then the basis for the state ceases to exist and it collapses. Just as Marx and Engels predicted.

[RedMaterialist]

Or, you know, the exact opposite of everything that redshifted just said, that works as well.

The USSR did not 'wither and die'. Its hegemonic empire broke up because it ran out of money. That has nothing to do with Engels' conception of 'the withering away of the state' which can only happen in a post-capitalist world.

And it ran out of money because the heroic St. Ronnie Reagan forced the Soviet Union to spend so much on missiles.

The withering away of all states will occur in a post-capitalist world. That does not preclude the withering away of one state, esp. a "socialism in one state" state.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes it does.

The Russian state has not 'withered away', it moved from being the preserve of a 'Communist Party' elite to the preserve of a mafioso and oil-oligarchs elite - and very many of those people are the same people as before (eg Yeltsin, Putin etc).

[Ismail]

The withering away of the state is a process concurrent with the construction of communism. The basis for the state to wither away is the advancement of socialism on an international scale and the achievement of socialism in said countries.

A federation of states breaking up after decades of capitalist counterrevolution, and the hitherto constituent parts dropping any socialist verbiage from their constitutions, has nothing to do with the withering away of the state. State power still existed, the coercive function which is fundamental to any state still existed, and the existence of a class dictatorship (in this case, that of the bourgeoisie) still existed.

The withering away of the state referred to the working-class replacing the state apparatus on an international scale with something qualitatively different. That has very obviously not happened. You're talking about the USSR "running out of money" and whatnot and being unable to contain the forces of nationalism. That's like saying the Albanian state "withered away" in 1991-1992 due to the government being unable to exert control over various armed gangs and whatnot, or that the state in Somalia has "withered away" rather than having been significantly undermined by warlords and whatnot who exercise most functions of state power in their respective zones.