The Abolition of state

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I have seen that most types of marixsts do not support the abolition of state. I am talking about the kind who speaks about vanguard parties and dictatorship of the proletariat.

I beleive the reason why some marxists would support something that has been proven does not lead to communism and leads to a dictatorship of the party, is that they are seeing it from a different prespective.
The marxist will see that the workers must be the ruling class so that they can abolish themselves. To me that sounds like nonsense!
They can argue that the bourgeosie gained power over the aristocracy after the liberal revolutions, but there are obvious big differences between the workers and the bourgeosie. Both the aristocracy and the bourgeosie are minorities and both are opressive. The workers are a majority (in most cases) and they are not opressive.

I wonder if they have ever thought about the paradox that it is to try to make the working class, which, as the name indicates, works, the ruling class, which, as the name indicates, rules. It simply makes no sense. How can they work and be masters over the other classes. It simply does not work. The workers can only gain power over themselves once they have abolished the opressive, classes.

The biggest fault with authoritarian marxism is thinking that the state will be on your side.
You are to use a state composed of a vanguard party that will abolish the other classes and open the way to communism and then fade away as if it had never been there in the first place?
This simply makes no sense.
First of all there can never be a workers state, there can only be a state. The state has stayed the same since its creation. You cannot change the state to suit your needs. It will not do what you want. It does not matter if you have a communist party there, the state will never stay on your side.
The reason for this is because the state does not want you to abolish it.
9mm may laugh at this, but I am telling the truth. No state wants to be destroyed, and it will not let you destroy it.
The problem is if you do not abolish the state, it will not let you reach your goals.
It has been proven by history that the state does not let you achieve your goals. In the USSR did the state let the workers collectivise?

To the anarchist it is obvious that the state must be abolished. The state limits liberty, therefore it must be abolished. The state allies with a ruling class, the capitalists, then capitalism must be abolished as well.
Both capitalism and the state are limiting liberty, therefore anarchists stand against both.
The state must be abolished so that capitalism can be abolished. It must be done by that order. If you try to abolish capitalism first, and then abolish the state you will get what happened in the USSR. The state will not allow you to end capitalism.
The answer to what should be implanted after capitalism is ended: communism. The anarchist sees that communism is to be used, since it is based upon free distribution of goods.

The marxist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what the workers want. The anarchist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what will lead to freedom.

How can you say anarchists and authoritarian marxists are comrades if they fight for different reasons?

The theoretical differences are enormous. The methods are different, the goals are the same.
Both think that the other is trying to reach the goal with ineffective methods.




I haven't written something this big in ages.

[Art Vandelay]

First of all there can never be a workers state, there can only be a state. The state has stayed the same since its creation.

I'm sorry but this is simply false. The state has gone through many different changes throughout its history, depending on which class is in possession of it.


You cannot change the state to suit your needs. It will not do what you want. It does not matter if you have a communist party there, the state will never stay on your side.

Its as if you give the state this 'mythical' power to turn on its possessors, if it has this power, why has it never turned on the bourgeoisie?


It has been proven by history that the state does not let you achieve your goals. In the USSR did the state let the workers collectivise?

Yes it did.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

To the anarchist it is obvious that the state must be abolished.

It is so for the marxists as well.

There is no way of abolishing capitalism without abolishing the state altogether, since the state is the product of class struggle. Once class struggle no longer exists, there is no need for a state. Also, Lenin (sorry, did not find the quote) says that the bourgeoisie state must be crushed and replaced with proletarian state.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I'm sorry but this is simply false. The state has gone through many different changes throughout its history, depending on which class is in possession of it.

I mentioned that:
the bourgeosie gained power over the aristocracy after the liberal revolutions
I do not deny that the ruling class has changed, and so has the government system, but the state has remained more or less the same. It still retains its function of opression.


Its as if you give the state this 'mythical' power to turn on its possessors, if it has this power, why has it never turned on the bourgeoisie?

Because the state and the bourgeosie obviously work well together. The state has accepted the capitalists as the ruling class. I do not say the state is the tool of the rulling class, I say the state is the ally of the working class. I have already spoken about the symbiosis between the state and the ruling class. Remove one and the other cannot survive. They need each other, so they protect one another.
The state accepted the capitalists. after the liberal revolutions, as the ruling class because the capitalists are an opressive class. The state can only ally to opressive classes.

So I would say the state never turned on the capitalists, and would turn on the workers, because of class interests.


Yes it did.

For how long? As far as I am aware the state let them collectivise and then took away all the food from the peasants. The same happened with the state in the spanish civil war of 1936-1939: the state let them collectivise when it needed their support, then declared the organizations that were not on its side illegal, and stopped the collectivisation.

[Zukunftsmusik]

What forms, in your eyes (TRA123), a state? You seem to give it a nearly mystical ability to turn against those who control it, when, in my eyes, a state acts in the very interests of those who control the state. That is the state: the very apparatus through which the ruling class imposes its hegemony.

The state is not the same as it has always been, at least not in the sense you mean it. The state is the same as it has always been in the sense that it has always been a tool of class oppression. But different classes have fought for the class hegemony, and therefore the state has taken different forms.

The proletarian state will be different than the bourgeois state, just as the bourgeois state is different than the feudal etc. The proletarian state is not a bourgeois state in disguise, waiting to throw away its sheep costume and then tear the revolution down. The proletarian state is the tool for oppressing the proletariat's class enemy, the bourgeoisie.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The marxist will see that the workers must be the ruling class so that they can abolish themselves. To me that sounds like nonsense!Marx argues that th proletariat cannot emancipate itself without emancipating all society; i.e. ending classes, private property, the state and class struggle.

Some helpful quotes (at least in my opinion):


no class in civil society has any need or capacity for general emancipation until it is forced by its immediate condition, by material necessity, by its very chains.
In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

From the Introduction of Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

[Riveraxis]

[QUOTE=9mm;2572805]



Its as if you give the state this 'mythical' power to turn on its possessors, if it has this power, why has it never turned on the bourgeoisie?



[\QUOTE]

The state is just a tool. Used to oppress or progress, depending on who's using it. I wouldn't call it a mythical force, but it's certainly a force. The workers, if they gained control of the state, might use it to progress but only in the interest of themselves.
But as long as there is a tool that is capable of controling other people, there will be classes. Because there will still be leverage!

And besides that, he's right that capitalism can't be abolished if the state is still a factor. Capitalists ally with the state and the state allies with capitalists because they both have means of oppressing other people. What sense is there in attacking capitalism but leaving an equally dangerous force in place?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I mentioned that:
I do not deny that the ruling class has changed, and so has the government system, but the state has remained more or less the same. It still retains its function of opression.

Exactly! And the proletariat has to oppress the bourgoisie in order to abolish all classes, including ourselves.

[revoltordie]

marxists do call for the abolition of the state but do so in a different way from anarchists. engels outlines his opinion that anarchists call for the abolition of the state outright and believe that that would solve class society but marxists he argues want to seek to end class society. i agree that a worker's state is an oxymoron because there can be no thing like a proletarian state that just withers away because a state is something that seeks to mediate contradictions internally with in it self a thing that alleviates class conflict, keeping it within the bounds of order. this can be nothing other than state-capitalism, a power seemingly standing above society and placing itself above it. a proletariat can not seek to overcome a state in this manner because it seeks to alleviate class struggle.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It is so for the marxists as well.

I mentioned the goal is not the problem, the methods are.


There is no way of abolishing capitalism without abolishing the state altogether, since the state is the product of class struggle. Once class struggle no longer exists, there is no need for a state.

The state is not necessary.


Also, Lenin (sorry, did not find the quote) says that the bourgeoisie state must be crushed and replaced with proletarian state.

I heard that one before. Notice how he says "proletarian state".


TRA123

You fail, comrade. My name does not have a 1.


What forms, in your eyes, a state?

The state is an organ that controls the working classes. It is what it has done from its formation, the only thing that changed was the rulling class.


You seem to give it a nearly mystical ability to turn against those who control it, when, in my eyes, a state acts in the very interests of those who control the state.

Strange how I never said anything about it being able to turn against the bourgeosie, right?
Also strange is how you sincerely beleive the working class can become the ruling class. Seems like a contradiction to me.

I have several arguments as to why there can never be a proletarian state, you just read the working/ruling class paradox.


That is the state: the very apparatus through which the ruling class imposes its hegemony.

Prety much. You are, however ignoring the critical factor: symbiosis. The state and the rulling class depend on one another to survive. It is not the state that depends on the ruling class, the ruling class also depends on the state.
You want to abolish the state by making the working class the ruling class, but, if you consider symbiosis, this is impossible. The ruling class depends on the state, therefore it cannot allow the state to be abolish.

You just read the symbiosis paradox argument.


The state is not the same as it has always been, at least not in the sense you mean it. The state is the same as it has always been in the sense that it has always been a tool of class oppression. But different classes have fought for the class hegemony, and therefore the state has taken different forms.

Did you just take what 9mm said and made it bigger? In that case I already answered.


The proletarian state will be different than the bourgeois state

If only someone had warned the Bolsheviks about that...


just as the bourgeois state is different than the feudal etc.

Oh realy? The feudal state and the bourgeois state seem exactly the same to me. Both opressed, both had opressive ruling classes.
In both the people were opressed.


The proletarian state is not a bourgeois state in disguise, waiting to throw away its sheep costume and then tear the revolution down.

If only someone had told the Bolsheviks about that...


The proletarian state is the tool for oppressing the proletariat's class enemy, the bourgeoisie.

What if I told you the main enemy of the working class is not the capitalists, it is the state.

"But why do you say this heresy!?" you ask. As you and 9mm have both pointed out there have been more ruling classes than just the bourgeosie. Before it was the aristocracy, now it is the bourgeosie. One thing has always stayed the same: the state.
If you had gone back in time to the feudal period and you told the peasants their main enemy was burghers, would you still be right?
You said it yourself, the ruling class in those days was the aristocracy, not the burghers.

I just dicovered a new paradox.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Marx argues that th proletariat cannot emancipate itself without emancipating all society; i.e. ending classes, private property, the state and class struggle.

Funny then how the communist manifesto speaks of:
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Also you are not a boring clueless idiot.


Exactly! And the proletariat has to oppress the bourgoisie in order to abolish all classes, including ourselves.

And the state?
While you are busy colectivising, your state is busy gathering power. In the end you will get a dictatorship of the party.

[Art Vandelay]

I mentioned that:
I do not deny that the ruling class has changed, and so has the government system, but the state has remained more or less the same. It still retains its function of opression.

The state has not stayed 'more or less' the same. The fact that you are making this claim, shows that you don't have much historical knowledge. While it has retained its primary function (that of being a tool of class oppression) its characteristics have changed dramatically. To claim otherwise is absurd, unless you don't think there is a difference between a monarchy and a liberal democracy.


Because the state and the bourgeosie obviously work well together. The state has accepted the capitalists as the ruling class. I do not say the state is the tool of the rulling class, I say the state is the ally of the working class. I have already spoken about the symbiosis between the state and the ruling class. Remove one and the other cannot survive. They need each other, so they protect one another.

This is just jumbled up nonsense. I'll give you a pass since English is not your first language, but this is almost incomprehensible.


The state accepted the capitalists. after the liberal revolutions, as the ruling class because the capitalists are an opressive class. The state can only ally to opressive classes.

The state didn't 'accept' anything, it is not an entity which makes decisions, or has a mind, or turns on anyone. I'd suggest reading up on the relationship between the economic base in society and the social superstructure. But yes the state can only be used for its only purpose, that of class oppression; which is precisely why the proletariat must smash the bourgeois state, erect its own 'semi-state' to suppress counter revolution and class alien elements. It is only upon the destruction of itself as a class, that the proletariat can succeed in its historical task of the surpassing of capital and the liberation of humanity.


So I would say the state never turned on the capitalists, and would turn on the workers, because of class interests.

Which is literally nonsense.


For how long? As far as I am aware the state let them collectivise and then took away all the food from the peasants. The same happened with the state in the spanish civil war of 1936-1939: the state let them collectivise when it needed their support, then declared the organizations that were not on its side illegal, and stopped the collectivisation.

I'd also suggest reading some history, because you clearly don't have much of a grasp on the 20th century communist movement.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The state is not necessary.In fact it is. The state is the means the ruling class - no matter what class it is - oppresses another class.

The 'proletarian state' need was made clear after October's revolution. or even the Paris Commune: there must be a way for the proletariat to defend itself from the bourgeoisie. And how do they do that? Workers self-organized in arms. Another quote from Lenin:



And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.

Such is the DOTP; such is Socialism; such is the Proletarian State.

Have in mind that it is much easier written than done.



Funny then how the communist manifesto speaks of: Quote:
Originally Posted by Marx & Engels
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common planThe authors themselves in 1972, in the German Preface, say:


The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today.

And the Manifesto, despite its historical importance, is just a manifesto.


Also you are not a boring clueless idiot.:)

The quotes are messed up, sorry.
(a message said that I'm not allowed to post a link, even though I'm not trying to).

[Let's Get Free]

Abolition of the state? Yes. The state is an aspect of class society that should be done away with in the social revolution.

[Fourth Internationalist]

*copies and pastes thread*

*NEW THREAD: Why I am not an anarchist*

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, obviously, what constitutes "the state" is contested, and by no means a thing that is fixed in all times and places. That said, I think it's fair to assume that "the state" referred to be anarchists is likely the same type of state whose emergence parallels the emergence of anarchism - the contemporary nation state, defined by a standing army, contemporary militarized policing and judiciary, centralized political power, a central bank/national currency, and so on.
To say that different classes have controlled the state, in this sense, is maybe true superficially in that different classes may have occupied positions of decision-making power (e.g. in the Soviet Union). However, the modern state has always had a particular relationship to capital because of its particular form. This was, as is obvious in retrospect, as true in the Soviet Union, as in the West (though, obviously, there are many specificitties to flesh out).
Honestly, I don't expect MLs to abandon "the workers' state" as a concept, but, seriously, just being like, "Whatever, it'll be different with the proletarian party at the helm" is fucking weeeeeeaaaaak.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The state has not stayed 'more or less' the same. The fact that you are making this claim, shows that you don't have much historical knowledge. While it has retained its primary function (that of being a tool of class oppression) its characteristics have changed dramatically. To claim otherwise is absurd, unless you don't think there is a difference between a monarchy and a liberal democracy.

That is not state, that is form of government. It does not matter wether it is an absolute monarchy or a parlamentarist republic, the state is still there, and it is still doing its job.


This is just jumbled up nonsense. I'll give you a pass since English is not your first language, but this is almost incomprehensible.

They are several phrases that should be connected, but thanks to writting while listening to russian death metal, are separate.


The state didn't 'accept' anything, it is not an entity which makes decisions, or has a mind, or turns on anyone.

Call it whatever you want, the fact is the ruling class changed from the aristocracy to the bourgeosie.


I'd suggest reading up on the relationship between the economic base in society and the social superstructure.

I cannot. I must study for tests.


But yes the state can only be used for its only purpose, that of class oppression; which is precisely why the proletariat must smash the bourgeois state, erect its own 'semi-state' to suppress counter revolution and class alien elements.

WTF is a class alien element?
Semi-state? Minarchy?


It is only upon the destruction of itself as a class, that the proletariat can succeed in its historical task of the surpassing of capital and the liberation of humanity.

And the state? What happens to the state?


Which is literally nonsense.

So now class interests are nonsense? If I remember correctly "class interests" is a marxist term.


I'd also suggest reading some history, because you clearly don't have much of a grasp on the 20th century communist movement.

Thanks for not telling me anything about them.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

In fact it is. The state is the means the ruling class - no matter what class it is - oppresses another class.

I still don't see why it is necessary. Evidently without the state life would be much better.


The 'proletarian state' need was made clear after October's revolution. or even the Paris Commune: there must be a way for the proletariat to defend itself from the bourgeoisie. And how do they do that? Workers self-organized in arms.I don't see what you are talking about. I know that in the Paris Commune the revolutionaries did not do many of the things that should have been done from the start. They never begun colectivisation, they practialy only declared independance, starved, and got killed by the army.
Would it take a state for them to organise? My answer is no.
In Spain 1936 they did not need a state to organise.


Another quote from Lenin:Seems to me like he is repeating words that have vague meanings and serve only to confuse. Anarchists are much more simple in their writting.


Such is the DOTP; such is Socialism; such is the Proletarian State.Violence and supression?
My problem with all this is the belief that the state is necessary for the workers to organise.


Have in mind that it is much easier written than done. As proven by all communist revolutions in history.


The authors themselves in 1972, in the German Preface, say:Funny how it refers material conditions when obviously revolutions only happens in places where material conditions are not good.


And the Manifesto, despite its historical importance, is just a manifesto.I thought it was the bible of communists.
One of my uncles is harcore stalinist, he has photos of all the communist leaders in the walls of his home, and everywhere you turn you will see some communist book. That is how most portuguese communists are like, and the others are social-democrats who call themselves communists and vote in the communist party.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

I still don't see why it is necessary. Evidently without the state life would be much better.

I agree. Because if there is no state, it means we're already in communism. The state is not separated from civil society. It is not something that appears all of a sudden; it is a product of determined social relations, as stated before. Therefore, the state will cease to exist only when these determined social relations cease to exist as well.


I don't see what you are talking about. I know that in the Paris Commune the revolutionaries did not do many of the things that should have been done from the start. They never begun colectivisation, they practialy only declared independance, starved, and got killed by the army.

The armed workers, suppressing the bourgeoisie and controlling the production at some level, constitute a state. Not as the actual state is. Thus the quote from Lenin I posted.



Seems to me like he is repeating words that have vague meanings and serve only to confuse. Anarchists are much more simple in their writting.

Oh, no. That shortly explains what is socialism. What is this state I'm talking about.
I don't mean to be offensive, but anarchists seem to have a rather abstract conception of "freedom".


Violence and supression?

Of the bourgeoisie, yes. And we are not to blame, they are.


My problem with all this is the belief that the state is necessary for the workers to organise.

The organized workers suppressing the bourgeoisie and bourgeois class relation are the state.


Funny how it refers material conditions when obviously revolutions only happens in places where material conditions are not good.

Marx meant that those 10 steps were long obsolete. He says that at that time (1848), it was plausible in the more advanced countries.


I thought it was the bible of communists.
Nah. Let the bibles to religious people. If anything, commie's bible would be Capital or else.


One of my uncles is harcore stalinist, he has photos of all the communist leaders in the walls of his home, and everywhere you turn you will see some communist book. That is how most portuguese communists are like, and the others are social-democrats who call themselves communists and vote in the communist party.
Must be one beautiful home.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The state is an organ that controls the working classes. It is what it has done from its formation, the only thing that changed was the rulling class.

Yup. And the modern working class is the proletariat, the modern "ruling class" the bourgeoisie. The proletarian state, however, is the act the proletariat takes to oppress the bourgoisie, because in order to surpass class society this is necessary. In any proletarian revolution the working class has to oppress its class enemy. You may call this what you want. We call it a state, if you want to call it something else, fine.


Strange how I never said anything about it being able to turn against the bourgeosie, right?

You constantly set the state and the ruling class up as two different things. The state is the result of a certain class taking power. The bourgeois state, in its varying forms - liberal democracy, dictatorship etc -, is the the tools the bourgeoisie use to impose their hegemony. In other words: The state is controlled by the ruling class, at least different factions of it, at a more or less conscious level.



Also strange is how you sincerely beleive the working class can become the ruling class. Seems like a contradiction to me.

What does the proletariat have to do to emancipate humanity? Who stands in the way of our task? The bourgeois state, the modern form of class society. In order to take their power away, we need to strip them of their privileges, their political rule, in short: we need to oppress them. This is done through the proletarian state.


Prety much. You are, however ignoring the critical factor: symbiosis. The state and the rulling class depend on one another to survive. It is not the state that depends on the ruling class, the ruling class also depends on the state.
[...]
You want to abolish the state by making the working class the ruling class, but, if you consider symbiosis, this is impossible. The ruling class depends on the state, therefore it cannot allow the state to be abolish.


Who is this state and what interests does it have which are not the interests of the class who controls it?

Regarding your last sentence: Not until the proletariat has reached a point where they manage to oppress the bourgoisie on a more or less global level; in other words when its power is so great that they no longer need to worry about the bourgeoisie taking the power back.


Oh realy? The feudal state and the bourgeois state seem exactly the same to me. Both opressed, both had opressive ruling classes.
In both the people were opressed.

That's what a state is, on a general level. At a specific level, these two state forms were different, because there were different classes who controlled them, and the states took different forms. Ever heard of the aristocracy? Why do you think they disappeared with the bourgeois state?




If only someone had told the Bolsheviks about that...

I've seen you write this a few times. Even if you write this many times, it doesn't make an argument.



What if I told you the main enemy of the working class is not the capitalists, it is the state.

It is both, or, if you will, they are the same, because the capitalists rule through the state.


"But why do you say this heresy!?" you ask. As you and 9mm have both pointed out there have been more ruling classes than just the bourgeosie. Before it was the aristocracy, now it is the bourgeosie. One thing has always stayed the same: the state.
If you had gone back in time to the feudal period and you told the peasants their main enemy was burghers, would you still be right?
You said it yourself, the ruling class in those days was the aristocracy, not the burghers.

I just dicovered a new paradox.

I don't see the paradox.


And the state?
While you are busy colectivising, your state is busy gathering power. In the end you will get a dictatorship of the party.

I see problems with a party taking control of the state apparatus. But once again you see the state as this mystical thing with its own interests isolated from the class who rules it. How can the state "gather power" outside of or apart from the class who makes up that state?

[Art Vandelay]

So, obviously, what constitutes "the state" is contested, and by no means a thing that is fixed in all times and places. That said, I think it's fair to assume that "the state" referred to be anarchists is likely the same type of state whose emergence parallels the emergence of anarchism - the contemporary nation state, defined by a standing army, contemporary militarized policing and judiciary, centralized political power, a central bank/national currency, and so on.

I don't see why someone would limit their definition of the 'state' so narrowly, doing so would completely throw historical analysis out the window.


To say that different classes have controlled the state, in this sense, is maybe true superficially in that different classes may have occupied positions of decision-making power (e.g. in the Soviet Union). However, the modern state has always had a particular relationship to capital because of its particular form. This was, as is obvious in retrospect, as true in the Soviet Union, as in the West (though, obviously, there are many specificitties to flesh out).

This completely ignores the Marxist position on the issue. One of the earliest lessons learnt through praxis, was during the Paris Commune, after which Marx state that it had become clear that the proletariat could not simply pick up the bourgeois state apparatus and use it to their own ends. It had to be smashed and in its place erected a proletarian 'semi-state.' This would not resemble the modern state you are referring to.


Honestly, I don't expect MLs to abandon "the workers' state" as a concept, but, seriously, just being like, "Whatever, it'll be different with the proletarian party at the helm" is fucking weeeeeeaaaaak.

I don't believe any M-L's have posted in this thread and don't really appreciate being lumped in with them. Given my view of Marxism-Leninism representing the reaction to October, it would be the equivalent of me lumping you and all other anarchists in with anarcho-capitalists.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Also - a quick point on the base/superstructure thing: Simply positing the state as superstructure, ready to be wielded by whatever class, is a ridiculous evasion. For one, a state can't be held by a class - only by a fraction of it - and thus the crucial question, what is the relationship between all of the aforementioned? Here's where base and superstructure come in for realsies. Even if proletarians, and proletarians with a subjective commitment to proletarian politics, make up the party who has seized state power, how does the real economic and judico-political structure and function of the state change the relationship of the party to the means of production? How can a fraction of the proletariat remain capable of realizing a revolutionary communist project when its relationship to production has ceased to be proletarian? The 20th century seems to suggest that communist practice by parties that relate to capital not as proletarians but as state managers very quickly gives way to communist ideology - red window dressing for a system based on alienated labour and the appropriation of surplus value.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Also, sorry 9mm - I didn't see your most recent post before my post just above. Pray tell, what is a semi state? What is its relationship, if any, to semicapitalism?

Also, I don't think my definition of the state is ahistorical - it's simply specific. We could talk about various "leviathanic" proto-state forms that preceded the modern state, but they hardly seem relevant. The decentralized "slow" premodern state is unlikely to exist this side of the invention of the radio, the combustion engine, etc.

[Art Vandelay]

Also - a quick point on the base/superstructure thing: Simply positing the state as superstructure, ready to be wielded by whatever class, is a ridiculous evasion. For one, a state can't be held by a class - only by a fraction of it - and thus the crucial question, what is the relationship between all of the aforementioned?

This is imply false. There are many Marxists (left-coms, council-coms) who propose decentralized workers councils to be the form the dictatorship of the proletariat manifests itself in. Now you many disagree that this constitutes a 'state', however it would be a argument in semantics. However in that scenario the entirety of the class would be participating in the 'state.'


Here's where base and superstructure come in for realsies. Even if proletarians, and proletarians with a subjective commitment to proletarian politics, make up the party who has seized state power, how does the real economic and judico-political structure and function of the state change the relationship of the party to the means of production? How can a fraction of the proletariat remain capable of realizing a revolutionary communist project when its relationship to production has ceased to be proletarian? The 20th century seems to suggest that communist practice by parties that relate to capital not as proletarians but as state managers very quickly gives way to communist ideology - red window dressing for a system based on alienated labour and the appropriation of surplus value.

This seems to simply be a re-hashing of the power corrupts argument.

[Art Vandelay]

Also, sorry 9mm - I didn't see your most recent post before my post just above. Pray tell, what is a semi state? What is its relationship, if any, to semicapitalism?

I'm assuming that the last part of this quote was an attempt at humor and will just deal with the legitimate question. Upon successfully expropriating the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must dismantle the bourgeois state apparatus. Upon its destruction, the proletariat must establish its own state (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The reason it was referred to as a semi-state, is to distinguish it from all states which have prior existed. It serves not the purpose of strengthening itself and prolonging its existence, but seeing an end to its own destruction (just as the proletarian class does).


Also, I don't think my definition of the state is ahistorical - it's simply specific. We could talk about various "leviathanic" proto-state forms that preceded the modern state, but they hardly seem relevant. The decentralized "slow" premodern state is unlikely to exist this side of the invention of the radio, the combustion engine, etc.


Fair enough, I just haven't had anyone narrow their definition like that before. For our discussion that is an acceptable definition, however for my discussion with tra23, it wouldn't suffice.

[I <3 short shorts]

I have seen that most types of marixsts do not support the abolition of state. I am talking about the kind who speaks about vanguard parties and dictatorship of the proletariat.

I beleive the reason why some marxists would support something that has been proven does not lead to communism and leads to a dictatorship of the party, is that they are seeing it from a different prespective.
The marxist will see that the workers must be the ruling class so that they can abolish themselves. To me that sounds like nonsense!
They can argue that the bourgeosie gained power over the aristocracy after the liberal revolutions, but there are obvious big differences between the workers and the bourgeosie. Both the aristocracy and the bourgeosie are minorities and both are opressive. The workers are a majority (in most cases) and they are not opressive.

I wonder if they have ever thought about the paradox that it is to try to make the working class, which, as the name indicates, works, the ruling class, which, as the name indicates, rules. It simply makes no sense. How can they work and be masters over the other classes. It simply does not work. The workers can only gain power over themselves once they have abolished the opressive, classes.

The biggest fault with authoritarian marxism is thinking that the state will be on your side.
You are to use a state composed of a vanguard party that will abolish the other classes and open the way to communism and then fade away as if it had never been there in the first place?
This simply makes no sense.
First of all there can never be a workers state, there can only be a state. The state has stayed the same since its creation. You cannot change the state to suit your needs. It will not do what you want. It does not matter if you have a communist party there, the state will never stay on your side.
The reason for this is because the state does not want you to abolish it.
9mm may laugh at this, but I am telling the truth. No state wants to be destroyed, and it will not let you destroy it.
The problem is if you do not abolish the state, it will not let you reach your goals.
It has been proven by history that the state does not let you achieve your goals. In the USSR did the state let the workers collectivise?

To the anarchist it is obvious that the state must be abolished. The state limits liberty, therefore it must be abolished. The state allies with a ruling class, the capitalists, then capitalism must be abolished as well.
Both capitalism and the state are limiting liberty, therefore anarchists stand against both.
The state must be abolished so that capitalism can be abolished. It must be done by that order. If you try to abolish capitalism first, and then abolish the state you will get what happened in the USSR. The state will not allow you to end capitalism.
The answer to what should be implanted after capitalism is ended: communism. The anarchist sees that communism is to be used, since it is based upon free distribution of goods.

The marxist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what the workers want. The anarchist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what will lead to freedom.

How can you say anarchists and authoritarian marxists are comrades if they fight for different reasons?

The theoretical differences are enormous. The methods are different, the goals are the same.
Both think that the other is trying to reach the goal with ineffective methods.




I haven't written something this big in ages.


I support the absoluite abolishment of the state and for total freedom for people to locally organise themselves and their own choice in economy without coersion or force.

Some people might choose a free market type localised economy with a new form of value to replace the gold standard. I personally believe the most productive and free society would be for a libertarian communist prescribed state free non autoritarian council system based on cooperation and mutual aid.

In my view the free market can not susstain itself without the state but I do not think any economic or ideological system can be global or forced upon people without infringing on human liberty, freedom and rights.

I would describe myself as an anarchist rather than a Marxist though so maybe you don't want to hear my idea haha.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Double post.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

See, I would say that what you're positing as a semi state, I'd simply describe as "not a state" insofar as it doesn't really do any of what a state does. Like, I'd probably establish my bare minimum for state-ish-ness at some sort of heirarchicalized centralization. Not really a "thing" with workers councils, and I'm guessing that most anarchists (Stirner-lovin' grad students aside) would agree.

As for "power corrupts" - it's a bit of a simplification, and probably people using it actually mean "authority corrupts". In any case, what I'm trying to get at isn't moral/ethical, but material. Changing one's relationship to production (eg Becoming management) changes one's consciousness, and also the meaning of one's activity (a worker and a manager doing/saying ostensibly the same things can have different results).

[I <3 short shorts]

See, I would say that what you're positing as a semi state, I'd simply describe as "not a state" insofar as it doesn't really do any of what a state does. Like, I'd probably establish my bare minimum for state-ish-ness at some sort of heirarchicalized centralization. Not really a "thing" with workers councils, and I'm guessing that most anarchists (Stirner-lovin' grad students aside) would agree.

As for "power corrupts" - it's a bit of a simplification, and probably people using it actually mean "authority corrupts". In any case, what I'm trying to get at isn't moral/ethical, but material. Changing one's relationship to production (eg Becoming management) changes one's consciousness, and also the meaning of one's activity (a worker and a manager doing/saying ostensibly the same things can have different results).

I remember Ian bone talking about councilists at a newspaper thing and saying they are commies, but they are OK they ain't authoritarians. I think most anarchists share this sentiment yes.

[redblood_blackflag]

Its as if you give the state this 'mythical' power to turn on its possessors, if it has this power, why has it never turned on the bourgeoisie?



Yes it did.

The state is a lie.

If you say the bourgeoisie control it, then why would the state turn on them, theyre controlling it.

[Art Vandelay]

The state is a lie.

This literally doesn't make any sense. How a 'state' (which is an institution through which a class exerts its hegemony) can be a 'lie' is beyond me.


If you say the bourgeoisie control it, then why would the state turn on them, theyre controlling it.


Which is precisely my argument. Why then, would the state turn on the proletariat, when they are the ones controlling it.

[redblood_blackflag]

I have seen that most types of marixsts do not support the abolition of state. I am talking about the kind who speaks about vanguard parties and dictatorship of the proletariat.

I beleive the reason why some marxists would support something that has been proven does not lead to communism and leads to a dictatorship of the party, is that they are seeing it from a different prespective.
The marxist will see that the workers must be the ruling class so that they can abolish themselves. To me that sounds like nonsense!
They can argue that the bourgeosie gained power over the aristocracy after the liberal revolutions, but there are obvious big differences between the workers and the bourgeosie. Both the aristocracy and the bourgeosie are minorities and both are opressive. The workers are a majority (in most cases) and they are not opressive.

I wonder if they have ever thought about the paradox that it is to try to make the working class, which, as the name indicates, works, the ruling class, which, as the name indicates, rules. It simply makes no sense. How can they work and be masters over the other classes. It simply does not work. The workers can only gain power over themselves once they have abolished the opressive, classes.

The biggest fault with authoritarian marxism is thinking that the state will be on your side.
You are to use a state composed of a vanguard party that will abolish the other classes and open the way to communism and then fade away as if it had never been there in the first place?
This simply makes no sense.
First of all there can never be a workers state, there can only be a state. The state has stayed the same since its creation. You cannot change the state to suit your needs. It will not do what you want. It does not matter if you have a communist party there, the state will never stay on your side.
The reason for this is because the state does not want you to abolish it.
9mm may laugh at this, but I am telling the truth. No state wants to be destroyed, and it will not let you destroy it.
The problem is if you do not abolish the state, it will not let you reach your goals.
It has been proven by history that the state does not let you achieve your goals. In the USSR did the state let the workers collectivise?

To the anarchist it is obvious that the state must be abolished. The state limits liberty, therefore it must be abolished. The state allies with a ruling class, the capitalists, then capitalism must be abolished as well.
Both capitalism and the state are limiting liberty, therefore anarchists stand against both.
The state must be abolished so that capitalism can be abolished. It must be done by that order. If you try to abolish capitalism first, and then abolish the state you will get what happened in the USSR. The state will not allow you to end capitalism.
The answer to what should be implanted after capitalism is ended: communism. The anarchist sees that communism is to be used, since it is based upon free distribution of goods.

The marxist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what the workers want. The anarchist sees that communism must be implanted because it is what will lead to freedom.

How can you say anarchists and authoritarian marxists are comrades if they fight for different reasons?

The theoretical differences are enormous. The methods are different, the goals are the same.
Both think that the other is trying to reach the goal with ineffective methods.




I haven't written something this big in ages.

I agree with this for the most part, and I'm glad to see you're really exploring these contradictions.
The only thing I wouldn't agree with is the way you put forth abolishing the state, the abolishing capitalism.
Whatever comes after the state in terms of "economic system" is essentially meaningless- people call it many different things even now, but the one constant seems to be the underlying belief that the state has the "authority," or right, to forcefully alter "society," that is, impose on individuals, when nobody else has this "right."

Once people get passed the idea that one group should be "in charge" of "society," or that one group has the right to rule or should have the right to rule all others, there's nothing that can be said or done about "implementing" some sort of "economic system-" the only constant is opposition to external rule by force, and debate about what constitutes a "violation of rights," (based upon that principle.. opposition to external rule by force- the initiation of force.. the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, whatever. ideas that will most likely lump me in the lot of "anarcho capitalists" around here or whatever, but- if you can already see the contradiction of putting anarchists and people who say they advocate a state for any reason together- then I'd say you're on the right track) or "oppression," or "exploitation," and when it is just to use force in defense or reparation of those violations.

[Art Vandelay]

See, I would say that what you're positing as a semi state, I'd simply describe as "not a state" insofar as it doesn't really do any of what a state does.

Just for the record that isn't what I support (I support a centralized one party state), however I can think of many left-coms (Blake's Baby comes to mind) who support decentralized workers councils and would indeed consider this a state. Again this comes down to semantics, however, unless you consider simultaneous world revolution a possibility, then you believe that it is possible to create a stateless society within the confines of borders and surrounded by hostile bourgeois states. A notion which I find absurd.


Like, I'd probably establish my bare minimum for state-ish-ness at some sort of heirarchicalized centralization. Not really a "thing" with workers councils, and I'm guessing that most anarchists (Stirner-lovin' grad students aside) would agree.

Don't knock Stirner my man, I personally have a soft spot for him.


As for "power corrupts" - it's a bit of a simplification, and probably people using it actually mean "authority corrupts". In any case, what I'm trying to get at isn't moral/ethical, but material. Changing one's relationship to production (eg Becoming management) changes one's consciousness, and also the meaning of one's activity (a worker and a manager doing/saying ostensibly the same things can have different results).

Yes it was a bit of a simplification on my part and indeed you are not coming from a ethical or moral standpoint, although many who put forth that idea are. But to adequately answer that question, I think I would have to go in great deal on the type of party I imagine seizing state power and the relationship this party would have to the rest of the proletarian class. A task too big for me to undertake at the moment, sitting here drunk.

[redblood_blackflag]

This literally doesn't make any sense. How a 'state' (which is an institution through which a class exerts its hegemony) can be a 'lie' is beyond me.



Which is precisely my argument. Why then, would the state turn on the proletariat, when they are the ones controlling it.
11. The New Idol
Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.
This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbour understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.
But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.
False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.
Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign! Verily, it beckoneth unto the preachers of death!
Many too many are born: for the superfluous ones was the state devised!
See just how it enticeth them to it, the many-too-many! How it swalloweth and cheweth and recheweth them!
"On earth there is nothing greater than I: it is I who am the regulating finger of God."—thus roareth the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees!
Ah! even in your ears, ye great souls, it whispereth its gloomy lies! Ah! it findeth out the rich hearts which willingly lavish themselves!
Yea, it findeth you out too, ye conquerors of the old God! Weary ye became of the conflict, and now your weariness serveth the new idol!
Heroes and honourable ones, it would fain set up around it, the new idol! Gladly it basketh in the sunshine of good consciences,- the cold monster!
Everything will it give you, if ye worship it, the new idol: thus it purchaseth the lustre of your virtue, and the glance of your proud eyes.
It seeketh to allure by means of you, the many-too-many! Yea, a hellish artifice hath here been devised, a death-horse jingling with the trappings of divine honours!
Yea, a dying for many hath here been devised, which glorifieth itself as life: verily, a hearty service unto all preachers of death!
The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all—is called "life."
Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!
Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.
Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money—these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.
Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness—as if happiness sat on the throne! Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne.-and ofttimes also the throne on filth.
Madmen they all seem to me, and clambering apes, and too eager. Badly smelleth their idol to me, the cold monster: badly they all smell to me, these idolaters.
My brethren, will ye suffocate in the fumes of their maws and appetites! Better break the windows and jump into the open air!
Do go out of the way of the bad odour! Withdraw from the idolatry of the superfluous!
Do go out of the way of the bad odour! Withdraw from the steam of these human sacrifices!
Open still remaineth the earth for great souls. Empty are still many sites for lone ones and twain ones, around which floateth the odour of tranquil seas.
Open still remaineth a free life for great souls. Verily, he who possesseth little is so much the less possessed: blessed be moderate poverty!
There, where the state ceaseth—there only commenceth the man who is not superfluous: there commenceth the song of the necessary ones, the single and irreplaceable melody.
There, where the state ceaseth—pray look thither, my brethren! Do ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman?—
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


The Tiny Dot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs)
The Tiny Dot Explained (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI)

[La Guaneña]

Camarada,

I see that some part of this discussion sometimes relies on semantics.

When marxists talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat:

1-We do not seek to adapt the bourgeois state, but to destroy it;
2-The state we want to create is not like the bourgeois state, in the matter of who runs it;

First off, the state is not a living being with it's own will. It has always acted in the interest of the ruling class.

When a class organizes itself, and uses the monopoly of violence to impose it's interests, we prefer to call it a state, to put it simply. If us, the workers, organize ourselves as the whole class, and impose our interests (abolition of private property, mainly) using violence against our class enemy (the bourgeois and their allies), I prefer to call it a state.

As you said, the workers are the majority and don't have anyone to exploit. So that leads to the dissapearance of classes, since class is defined by one's relationship to property. If property is collective, everyone "owns it", so no classes exist. Since the state emerged from class struggle and the need to opress other classes, it dissapears.

If you don't want to describe the process of the workers organizing and supressing the bosses and centralizing their property using the monopoly of violence the DOTP, fine. I call it that for consistency.

Edit: Why isn't redblood blackflag in OI with his anarcho-liberal-classesdon'texist friends yet?

[redblood_blackflag]

Camarada,

I see that some part of this discussion sometimes relies on semantics.

When marxists talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat:

1-We do not seek to adapt the bourgeois state, but to destroy it;
2-The state we want to create is not like the bourgeois state, in the matter of who runs it;

First off, the state is not a living being with it's own will. It has always acted in the interest of the ruling class.

When a class organizes itself, and uses the monopoly of violence to impose it's interests, we prefer to call it a state, to put it simply. If us, the workers, organize ourselves as the whole class, and impose our interests (abolition of private property, mainly) using violence against our class enemy (the bourgeois and their allies), I prefer to call it a state.

As you said, the workers are the majority and don't have anyone to exploit. So that leads to the dissapearance of classes, since class is defined by one's relationship to property. If property is collective, everyone "owns it", so no classes exist. Since the state emerged from class struggle and the need to opress other classes, it dissapears.

If you don't want to describe the process of the workers organizing and supressing the bosses and centralizing their property using the monopoly of violence the DOTP, fine. I call it that for consistency.

Edit: Why isn't redblood blackflag in OI with his anarcho-liberal-classesdon'texist friends yet?

are you a materialist who believes in social class?? maybe i misunderstand your position.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

are you a materialist who believes in social class?? maybe i misunderstand your position.

Do you deny the existence of classes?

[redblood_blackflag]

Do you deny the existence of classes?


I don't deny the belief in social class, or the real world results of individuals acting on these beliefs.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

I don't deny the belief in social class, or the real world results of individuals acting on these beliefs.

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but class is not a matter of belief, it's a concrete relation of property. I mean, whether you believe in it or not, classes are objective (pardon me if I'm not clear enough).

[redblood_blackflag]

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but class is not a matter of belief, it's a concrete relation of property. I mean, whether you believe in it or not, classes are objective (pardon me if I'm not clear enough).
It's alright.

[La Guaneña]

are you a materialist who believes in social class?? maybe i misunderstand your position.

Yes, I "believe" in social classes.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I agree. Because if there is no state, it means we're already in communism. The state is not separated from civil society. It is not something that appears all of a sudden; it is a product of determined social relations, as stated before. Therefore, the state will cease to exist only when these determined social relations cease to exist as well.

If you were a rulling politician in a rulling party, would you give away your power to the workers? I forget marxists don't usualy beleive in the corruption that arrises from power and control.


The armed workers, suppressing the bourgeoisie and controlling the production at some level, constitute a state. Not as the actual state is. Thus the quote from Lenin I posted.

The situation you describe is not a state in the sense everyone but marxists defines a state. The situation you are refering to is the revolution, nothing more. The workers organising to collectivise and abolishing provate property is not a state.

Lenin was the biggest traitor to his beleifs the world has ever seen. Lenin was a politician, and politicians lie.
You cannot trust a vanguard party, you can only trust yourself.

The use of a vanguard party, and parlaimentary participation leads either to reformism and social-democracy, or dictatorship of the communist party.


Oh, no. That shortly explains what is socialism. What is this state I'm talking about.

And the average worker is supposed to understand that?


I don't mean to be offensive, but anarchists seem to have a rather abstract conception of "freedom".

You are not being offensive. The concept of freedom is organic to any anarchist. We all know what freedom is, we do not need a written definition of it. That is one of the most amazing things about anarchists, we are more united than many other groups, yet we have a very small theoretical base.
I would define freedom as: doing whatever you want to do without anyone limiting it, as long as you do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same.


Of the bourgeoisie, yes. And we are not to blame, they are.

Anarchists usualy speak of it as the glorious period when the people are given freedom. Of course we do see that we must fight for this liberty.


The organized workers suppressing the bourgeoisie and bourgeois class relation are the state.

What the anarchists call collectivisation.


Marx meant that those 10 steps were long obsolete. He says that at that time (1848), it was plausible in the more advanced countries

I do not know how you guys can still follow the indications of someone who lived so long ago. He never lived to see electrical power, modern agriculture, genetic advancements, etc.
Kropotkin once said coal power made it possible to reach anarchy anywhere. Now imagine if Kropotkin could see us now.


Nah. Let the bibles to religious people. If anything, commie's bible would be Capital or else.

Strange how anarchists don't have a great guidebook like the marxists have. We multiple books, written by many different people, all calling themselves anarchists. You could say that, while marxism arrises from the minds of few, anarchism arrises from the minds of many.


Must be one beautiful home.

If you don't mind being watched by Stalin everywhere you go.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yup. And the modern working class is the proletariat, the modern "ruling class" the bourgeoisie. The proletarian state, however, is the act the proletariat takes to oppress the bourgoisie, because in order to surpass class society this is necessary. In any proletarian revolution the working class has to oppress its class enemy. You may call this what you want. We call it a state, if you want to call it something else, fine.

My problem is not what you call it. My problem is that you support vanguard parties and parlaimentary participation. How can someone who wants to abolish the current system operate according to its rules?


You constantly set the state and the ruling class up as two different things.

The user redblood_blackflag reminded me of something I had forgotten some time ago. He reminded me that the state is a lie.
I make analysis of this society not through the classes that there exist, but through the behaviour of human beings. According to my analysis, there is no such a thing as a society, a state, classes, money, etc. All lies.
The only thing that exists are humans, nothing more. Everything else is an illusion we made ourselves accept.


The state is the result of a certain class taking power.

You lie. The state arrose before rulling classes. The great discovery of humankind that led to the creation of this great illusion we call society, is agriculture. From agriculture we settled down in villages, and then the first communities appeared, and from them rivalries appeared, and from those leaders appeared. Only after all of this do you see the creation of another illusion known as commerce. After commerce the working class and the traders formed. Certain traders made much money, and so they allied with the leaders. A symbiosis was formed. Without the state the rulling classes would be weakenned, and without the rulling classes the state would be weakenned.
You have been taught that the state is a consequence of classes, but the state is actualy a consequence of private property, not clases.


The bourgeois state, in its varying forms - liberal democracy, dictatorship etc -, is the the tools the bourgeoisie use to impose their hegemony. In other words: The state is controlled by the ruling class, at least different factions of it, at a more or less conscious level.

I would say that only the most rich can have an influence with the state. The lower bourgeois does not have any infuence with the state.


What does the proletariat have to do to emancipate humanity? Who stands in the way of our task? The bourgeois state, the modern form of class society. In order to take their power away, we need to strip them of their privileges, their political rule, in short: we need to oppress them. This is done through the proletarian state.

No, it is done through collectivisation.


Who is this state and what interests does it have which are not the interests of the class who controls it?

You are fooling yourself. The working class can never take control of the state. What the working class can do is abolish the state, collectivise, and defend against those who want to destroy us.


That's what a state is, on a general level. At a specific level, these two state forms were different, because there were different classes who controlled them, and the states took different forms. Ever heard of the aristocracy? Why do you think they disappeared with the bourgeois state?

The state has never changed, and it will never change.
The aristocracy lost thier power because the working classes decided that the bourgeoisie would do a much better work at running things.


I've seen you write this a few times. Even if you write this many times, it doesn't make an argument.

It does make it an argument, you just cannot accept that the workers state has always resulted in dictatorship of the party.


It is both, or, if you will, they are the same, because the capitalists rule through the state.

The state is not a tool, it is an entity.


I don't see the paradox.

You have said that the main enemy of the working class is the bourgeosie, but would this still apply within the feudal system?


I see problems with a party taking control of the state apparatus. But once again you see the state as this mystical thing with its own interests isolated from the class who rules it.

Remember the Bolsheviks...


How can the state "gather power" outside of or apart from the class who makes up that state?

Do you not see that the workers have never actualy taken control of the state, because that is impossible. They think that the vanguard party will be their workers state, but in fact the vanguard party will defend only its own interests. The party will become the state AND the rulling class.

A strange phenomenon that is only seen in the beggining of the vanguard party taking control. After this they revert back to capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you were a rulling politician in a rulling party, would you give away your power to the workers? I forget marxists don't usualy beleive in the corruption that arrises from power and control.Yes Marxists are aware of the corruption of beurocrats and politicians - we just don't see it as the fundamental issue or that "power" desires "power" in the abstract. If anything this sort of common corruption is just a parisitic side-effect of the system. But the power of current polticians and beurocrats does not exists outside of current capitalism - without capitalist support politicans can not run campaigns in places like the US, without revenue coming in, then the beurocracy has nothing to manage.

Capitalist politicians can't give power to the workers in part because they don't have any fundamental independant power - their role is as a lacky for the system.


state is a lieNo, it's existance as a social construction is empirical - it's frankly an insult to people who've been beaten by cops or arrested by dictators to say "the state is a lie". The myths about the state and one common "national interest" are complete bullshit and an example of the ruling class trying to universalize its interests as "common sense" but the actual state, that is the organized political, economic, and military force in society is unfortunatly very much fact.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

If you were a rulling politician in a rulling party, would you give away your power to the workers? I forget marxists don't usualy beleive in the corruption that arrises from power and control.Note that I have not mentioned the vanguard party untill now. I described the workers self-organized. But yeah, I acknowledge the necessity of a vanguard party, constituted by the most advanced sectors of the proletariat (we've all heard this before); that is, the ruling class is the proletariat organized as party.

That being sad, your question does not make much sense, since the party is formed mostly by workers.


The situation you describe is not a state in the sense everyone but marxists defines a state. The situation you are refering to is the revolution, nothing more. The workers organising to collectivise and abolishing provate property is not a state.What is a state then?


Lenin was the biggest traitor to his beleifs the world has ever seen. Lenin was a politician, and politicians lie.Now that is nonsense. I repeat: one thing is to write it down, other is to put in practice. You seem to disregard the material conditions. If the revolution had to centralize, it was not because of Lenin's will, or any bolshevik's will for that matter, it was because of the contradictions; it was class war pure and clear.

Your views are just too idealistic. As if the revolution depended only on our will.



You cannot trust a vanguard party, you can only trust yourself.Good luck with your revolution, where one cannot trust his/hers own comrades. The party is me, the party is you, the party is a collective intellectual.


The use of a vanguard party, and parlaimentary participation leads either to reformism and social-democracy, or dictatorship of the communist party.I'm ok with the latter, if the party does follow democratic (I underline because this is important as fuck) centralism and is linked with the workers. Then again, may there be times when democracy have to be suppressed. It's a burden we all shall be ready to accept.

Also, way good choice to organize the workers. Not believing in anyone and not participating in anything.


And the average worker is supposed to understand that?In fact, yes. In this situation, the proletariat has already seized to power. What makes you think they would go through a war and not have in mind that its their turn?


I would define freedom as: doing whatever you want to do without anyone limiting it, as long as you do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same.Sounds liberal to me. And awfully individualistic.


Anarchists usualy speak of it as the glorious period when the people are given freedom. Of course we do see that we must fight for this liberty.If there is a state, there is no freedom (and we agree at this point). And, yes, we must fight for our (by 'our' I mean the proletariat) liberty trough the dictatorship of the proletariat.


What the anarchists call collectivisation.Immediate collectivization may not be so effective. The workers know how to produce, but are they able to manage? The division between manual e intellectual work are not extinguished that fast. That is why the bolsheviks had to use a little help from bourgeoisie 'specialists'.


I do not know how you guys can still follow the indications of someone who lived so long ago. He never lived to see electrical power, modern agriculture, genetic advancements, etc. Because we do not see Marx as a Messiah. Marx is still useful because he gave the foundations of capitalist mode of production, which to this day haven't changed - and probably never will until capitalism is crushed.

The technical progress only evidences that the objective matters are mature. We can already (and for a long time now) achieve socialism. We lack the subjective matters.


Kropotkin once said coal power made it possible to reach anarchy anywhere. Now imagine if Kropotkin could see us now. He would probably be more than convinced that it is possible to reach anarchy now, yes.


Strange how anarchists don't have a great guidebook like the marxists have. We multiple books, written by many different people, all calling themselves anarchists. You could say that, while marxism arrises from the minds of few, anarchism arrises from the minds of many.Just look at revleft. We have tons of tendencies who call themselves marxists. There have been as much marxists as anarchists.


If you don't mind being watched by Stalin everywhere you go. I don't. I'm not afraid of ghosts.

[Art Vandelay]

If you were a rulling politician in a rulling party, would you give away your power to the workers? I forget marxists don't usualy beleive in the corruption that arrises from power and control.

You just can't seem to get it and I believe the reason that you're having such a difficult time understanding this concept is cause you are not coming from a materialist paradigm. I don't care if you disagree with it, but before you can disagree with something, you have to understand it and you clearly don't. Jimmie Higgins, who is one of my favorite posters, in my opinion should not have even responded to you in the manner that he did. Now I feel like the reason why he did, is cause he's trying to make this theory more accessible to you and the mindset that you're coming from, but allowing you to frame the question as a 'corruption' issue, already muddles the picture.

The state 'withering away' as it is called has nothing to do with benevolent 'politicians' handing down their bureaucratic positions. There is no need for them to 'step down' or hand away anything and to posit such a thing, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is and the very specific material conditions which give rise to it. The state isn't a constant and it certainly doesn't arise in a vacuum. There are very specific social relations which cause its existence, ie: class society; it is a by product of class society. Upon the proletariat's success in its historical task of abolishing itself (along with it abolishing all other social classes, class society, states, capitalist mode of production, etc.) the material conditions (class society) which give rise to the state, will no longer exist. On top of that, as society becomes one of 'free producers' the functions that the state carried out, will no longer be needed. It is only through this process that the state can 'whither away' or disappear. It is not something that you can just decide to abolish.

Do you see now why framing the question as it taking benevolent politicians to abolish the state, is absurd? Do you see how that is an un-materialist conception of the whole process?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The state 'withering away' as it is called has nothing to do with benevolent 'politicians' handing down their bureaucratic positions. There is no need for them to 'step down' or hand away anything and to posit such a thing, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is and the very specific material conditions which give rise to it. The state isn't a constant and it certainly doesn't arise in a vacuum. There are very specific social relations which cause its existence, ie: class society; it is a by product of class society. Upon the proletariat's success in its historical task of abolishing itself (along with it abolishing all other social classes, class society, states, capitalist mode of production, etc.) the material conditions (class society) which give rise to the state, will no longer exist. On top of that, as society becomes one of 'free producers' the functions that the state carried out, will no longer be needed. It is only through this process that the state can 'whither away' or disappear. It is not something that you can just decide to abolish.

Do you see now why framing the question as it taking benevolent politicians to abolish the state, is absurd? Do you see how that is an un-materialist conception of the whole process?

So, I want to commend you on what is mostly a pretty excellent analysis, one which with I agree almost entirely. There's one hitch: The state's relationship with class society is holistic, not mechanical. The state does not emerge from class society, but with it. To speak of the proletariat's historical project of abolishing itself as including the state, is like conceptualizing it as including the relationship between labour and capital. Rather it has to be defined against the relationships that constitute capital, of which the (modern) state is one, necessarily.
If you can explain to me how proletarian class rule can be expressed through a state - how the state can be used to abolish wages, dismantle the military and prison industrial complex, and actually carry out the tasks of revolution, maybe I will have to reassess. What does a proletarian state do and how is it fundamentally differentiated from the bourgeois state in terms of its activity? If it is not fundamentally different in its activity, why would we expect its function to be different? If anything, it is this attitude that assumes the goodwill of (communist) politicians. Will the party, ruling over capital, remain proletarian in practice while it is objectively capitalist? Due to what? Its high level of consciousness? Its democratic accountability to proletarians (NDP, SPD, Labour, etc. have that)? Condition precedes . . .

[Zukunftsmusik]

My problem is not what you call it. My problem is that you support vanguard parties and parlaimentary participation. How can someone who wants to abolish the current system operate according to its rules?

Don't have time to answer the whole post atm, but I had to answer to this: How can you conclude from my posts that I'm a supporter of vanguard parties and parliamentary participation? I don't have enough understanding of the vanguard party to form a full opinion yet, and I have serious issues with participation in parliamentary politics. And I most definitely don't think revolution comes through working according to its rules. To say that I support this is simply false and I don't know how you came to the conclusions that I think that, or how you think you're entitled to tell me what I believe or not.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The user redblood_blackflag reminded me of something I had forgotten some time ago. He reminded me that the state is a lie.
I make analysis of this society not through the classes that there exist, but through the behaviour of human beings. According to my analysis, there is no such a thing as a society, a state, classes, money, etc. All lies.
The only thing that exists are humans, nothing more. Everything else is an illusion we made ourselves accept.

First of all, you're speaking against yourself here. First you say that the state is something the proletariat cannot take control of, ie a "thing". Now you say it's a lie. How can anyone control something which doesn't exist, a lie?

Secondly, I think you and redblood_blackflag are way off. The state is a material thing, built up of and based on social structures and social relations. Is state violence against demonstrating workers in Greeca, Spain, Italy etc, a lie? Is imprisonment or deportation of so-called immigrants a lie? Is the police a lie? Imprisonment? Taxes? The state is a real existing thing.


You have been taught that the state is a consequence of classes, but the state is actualy a consequence of private property, not clases.

Classes and property is the same thing, or the first is based on the second. Different people have different realtions to property, which make up their class. So if you believe the state is a result of property relations, you actually speak for my view!



I would say that only the most rich can have an influence with the state. The lower bourgeois does not have any infuence with the state.

It's not necessarily the richest who have more power. But this doesn't contradict any of what I said: I said the state was conrolled by classes or factions of classes.




No, it is done through collectivisation.

To collectivise property you need to oppress the bourgeoisie, because they won't give away their private property peacefully.




You are fooling yourself. The working class can never take control of the state. What the working class can do is abolish the state, collectivise, and defend against those who want to destroy us.

What are you on about? I asked you a plain question: Who is this state who has its own interests different from the class who wields its power? This isn't an answer to my question. And here's a follow up question: How can it have its own interests if it's only an illusion, a lie?




The aristocracy lost thier power because the working classes decided that the bourgeoisie would do a much better work at running things.

No, the aristocracy lost its power because the bourgeoisie "revolutionised" against them. It was the bourgeoisie who took power on their own terms, not because the working classes "let" them.


You have said that the main enemy of the working class is the bourgeosie, but would this still apply within the feudal system?

In a sense, yes, because workers and bourgeoisie started to form within feudal society. But this class antagonism became even more apparent after the bourgeois revoultions, after capitalism had settled itself.

Also, the main enemy of the working class is the bourgeoisie, capitalism and the state, which are different sides of the same coin.


Do you not see that the workers have never actualy taken control of the state, because that is impossible. They think that the vanguard party will be their workers state, but in fact the vanguard party will defend only its own interests. The party will become the state AND the rulling class.

A strange phenomenon that is only seen in the beggining of the vanguard party taking control. After this they revert back to capitalism.

You can't simply conclude that what happened in Russia is because of a fault in the theory of the DotP. The failed Russian revolution is closely linked - actually dependent on - the failed German and European revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

So, I want to commend you on what is mostly a pretty excellent analysis, one which with I agree almost entirely.

Thanks for the compliment.


There's one hitch: The state's relationship with class society is holistic, not mechanical. The state does not emerge from class society, but with it.

I would agree with this.


To speak of the proletariat's historical project of abolishing itself as including the state, is like conceptualizing it as including the relationship between labour and capital.

Could you elaborate on this, I'm kinda confused as to what you mean.


Rather it has to be defined against the relationships that constitute capital, of which the (modern) state is one, necessarily.

Indeed (and I'll elaborate on this below) but the process of surpassing capital must include the smashing of the bourgeois state and the erection of the proletarian semi-state.


If you can explain to me how proletarian class rule can be expressed through a state - how the state can be used to abolish wages, dismantle the military and prison industrial complex, and actually carry out the tasks of revolution, maybe I will have to reassess.

The reason why proletarian class rule can be expressed through a state, is because that is the only function a state has; it is an institution through which a class exerts its hegemony, and suppresses the class interests of class alien elements. Through the state the proletarian class can also express its will (the state won't be a tiny section of bureaucrats running the whole show) and will be decentralized as much as possible given the material conditions. There are Marxists and Anarchists who uphold centralism and federalism respectively as principles; my view is much more fluid and flexible, I consider them both tactics that are applicable in certain circumstances. This aversion to centralization that many anarchists have, is simply absurd to me and I can't understand why someone would limit themselves solely to federalism regardless of material conditions. The sections of the state I would see as necessary to centralize would be the military and certain sections of the economy which provide resources that the military needs. In war situation like the Bolsheviks found themselves in 17' they simply didn't have the time to wait for workers to democratically decide whether or not to send certain resources to the front, they needed them sent asap. As far as the military and prison industrial complex being dismantled, I see that as one of the first acts of the revolution. The armed proletariat overthrows the state and burns most of the prisons. Obviously some prisons will be necessary for counter-revolutionaries, however the prison system is so bloated in bourgeois society that the majority of them will be dealt with immediately. The military will be replaced with a red army.


What does a proletarian state do and how is it fundamentally differentiated from the bourgeois state in terms of its activity? If it is not fundamentally different in its activity, why would we expect its function to be different?

The proletarian state will include large sections of federated workers councils that will continue to run society in a democratic manner. I know that you don't consider this a 'state' but that view is absurd to me. If you don't consider federated workers councils a state, then you believe it is possible for statelessness to be achieved in an isolated area, surrounded by hostile bourgeois countries. I think we can both agree that regardless of whether or not you want to call it a state, or acknowledge its existence, a state exists. Statelessness is only possible on a global level. The sections of the state which will require being centralized I have outlined above and will be administered by those democratically elected (from the bottom up) through the proletarian mass party.


If anything, it is this attitude that assumes the goodwill of (communist) politicians. Will the party, ruling over capital, remain proletarian in practice while it is objectively capitalist? Due to what? Its high level of consciousness? Its democratic accountability to proletarians (NDP, SPD, Labour, etc. have that)? Condition precedes . . .

Due to the fact that the state will incorporate the workers themselves. I don't see why a state has to be a sub-section of the proletariat ruling in the name of the working class and I find that those who subscribe to that view, are simply incapable of imagining any 'state' other then the modern bourgeois one.

[Comrade Jandar]

I honestly think that if Marx had just used a different word for the "workers' state," such as commune, which, correct me if I'm wrong, but Engels actually suggested, this argument between Marxist and Anarchists would never have been this heated.