Non-Marxist, non-anarchist Communism?

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts. I'm not a Marxist though, so I can't describe myself as 'left communist' either. Are there non-Marxist, non-anarchist communist tendencies I don't know of?

I suppose communalism, as Bookchin called it, would be appropriate though 'communalism' has a too broad connotation.

[Brutus]

Christian communism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think Utopian Socialism could technically be communistic...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

sure, why not.
so: why aren't you a Marxist if you're a communist that sees reason for a transitional regime?

[Captain Ahab]

Why haven't you considered becoming a Marxist?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wikipedia only shows two types of non Marxist communism: Anarchism and Christian communism

[TheIrrationalist]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts. I'm not a Marxist though, so I can't describe myself as 'left communist' either. Are there non-Marxist, non-anarchist communist tendencies I don't know of?

I suppose communalism, as Bookchin called it, would be appropriate though 'communalism' has a too broad connotation.

I have been an anarchist for awhile now, but I have also started to question the feasibility of anarchism, and I don't really look too fondly at Marxism either. So I would call myself a non-anarchist, non-Marxist communist.

Usually I identify my political thought as "Surrealist", though it doesn't really mean anything...

[Bronco]

Yeah Bookchin's Communalism would probably fit this, or "Libertarian municipalism" is the name he gave to what he considered the main component of it. From what I understand this would see the creation of local assemblies at a grassroots level and try and gradually interlink these with each other in a confederation as a means of contesting the power of the state, a "community of communities" basically. He did consider this to be anarchist for a long time though, until he broke with anarchism late in his life

[Sasha]

Maybe something like this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization


Communisation (http://libcom.org/tags/communisation) theory describes a theoretical and practical sphere involved in re-theorising the communist tendency. Historically, it originated within the French ultraleft with the likes of Gilles Dauve and Dominique Blanc and those around the magazine La Banquise as well as the members of the group Theorie Communiste. These currents, as described by Dauve here (http://libcom.org/library/the-story-of-our-origins-dauve), broke with the historical communist left (ie. those standing in the tradition of the Dutch/German and Italian communist left and their current heirs ICC/ICP/ICT) and drew upon and further developed influences from the situationist international, italian autonomia, etc. A classic of the current is 'The eclipse and re-emergence of the communist movement' (http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement) by Gilles Dauve and François Martin.

In a nutshell the notion of communisation is summed up by Gilles Dauve and Karl Nesic (http://libcom.org/library/communisation):

"The idea is fairly simple, but simplicity is often one of the most difficult goals to achieve. It means that a revolution is only communist if it changes all social relationships into communist relationships, and this can only be done if the process starts in the very early days of the revolutionary upheaval. Money, wage-labour, the enterprise as a separate unit and a value-accumulating pole, work-time as cut off from the rest of our life, production for value, private property, State agencies as mediators of social life and conflicts, the separation between learning and doing, the quest for maximum and fastest circulation of everything, all of these have to be done away with, and not just be run by collectives or turned over to public ownership: they have to be replaced by communal, moneyless, profitless, Stateless, forms of life. The process will take time to be completed, but it will start at the beginning of the revolution, which will not create the preconditions of communism: it will create communism.

"Those who developed the theory of communisation rejected this posing of revolution in terms of forms of organisation, and instead aimed to grasp the revolution in terms of its content. Communisation implied a rejection of the view of revolution as an event where workers take power followed by a period of transition: instead it was to be seen as a movement characterised by immediate communist measures (such as the free distribution of goods) both for their own merit, and as a way of destroying the material basis of the counter-revolution. If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself. By contrast, the revolution as a communising movement would destroy - by ceasing to constitute and reproduce them - all capitalist categories: exchange, money, commodities, the existence of separate enterprises, the State and - most fundamentally - wage labour and the working class itself." "


This perspective had already been elaborated by the likes of Jacques Camatte in the wandering of humanity:

"Communism is not a new mode of production [21] ; it is the affirmation of a new community. It is a question of being, of life, if only because there is a fundamental displacement: from generated activity to the living being who produced it. Until now men and women have been alienated by this production. They will not gain mastery over production, but will create new relations among themselves which will determine an entirely different activity. "


Furthermore, there's a good introduction by Benjamin Noys (http://libcom.org/library/fabric-struggles) in the book 'communization and its discontents', which has a few good articles (and a few not so good ones).

Broadly speaking, the communisation milieu can be divided in two strands, though this isn't a black-and-white issue and there's a lot of grey there (among which i'd count myself): the more 'voluntarist' current (associated with Tiqqun (https://tiqqun.jottit.com/), the swedish Batko group (http://www.motarbetaren.se/batko/en_index.php), the authors of L'appel (http://anti-politics.net/distro/2009/call-read.pdf), elements within the California student milieu (http://1000littlehammers.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/dispatches-from-the-ruins/), etc.) and the more 'determinist' current (associated with Theorie Communiste (http://www.theoriecommuniste.org), Endnotes (http://endnotes.org.uk/), etc.) and then there's the grey area which would be groups like Blaumachen (GR), Troploin (FR), Riff-Raff (SE), Eis-Zeit (DE), etc.

Though united by a few key elements (including a complete break with socialism (including its "anarchist" variants in the form of orthodox syndicalist 'self-management') and any notion of a transitional state), there's tons of discussions within that current about the meaning of communisation, whether it is a an immanent, almost transhistorical possiblity or whether it has only become possible by the stage-ist opening up of the current period of capital's real subsumption and the limits inherent to the current phase of restructuring.

Instead of a clear-cut current such as 'Marxism-Leninism', 'Anarcho-Syndicalism', etc. I think it's best to see it as a complete reconceptualisation of what revolution and the communist tendency mean, as a prism through which to look at the revolutionary riddle rather than a blueprint to its answer.

There's also a discussion in the Imaginary party group here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=54365) and there's a communisation theory group here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=747).


http://www.revleft.com/vb/communisation-theory-t177747/index.html?

[ed miliband]

Maybe something like this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization


i agree in general; i don't really think that corresponds with the op's politics though, tbh.

[MarxArchist]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts. I'm not a Marxist though, so I can't describe myself as 'left communist' either. Are there non-Marxist, non-anarchist communist tendencies I don't know of?

I suppose communalism, as Bookchin called it, would be appropriate though 'communalism' has a too broad connotation.
You don't have to latch onto any Marxist or anarchist tendency to be a revolutionary communist. For me, I've read most of Marx's significant works and understand capitalism ; have also read most of the works relating to anarchism and over the last ten years or so, in my late 30's, I've moved away from any hard core positions or assumptions concerning how to organize and what form the transition from capitalism will take. I worked with a Troskyist organization in the 1990's and have, since 2007 or so, worked in the community with anarchists - there's some huge theory/practice differences but my personal view is in order to defend any attempts at socialism, more likely that not, that region or nation will need the state apparatus to do so. My view is anarchists have many valid points and defending any revolutionary gains made, defending them via the state should be done so with an eye, more of a giant spotlight, on worker democracy.

I split with many anarchists (not all or even a majority) because some anarchists, these days, seems to be operating from a foundation of idealism rather than materialism and this affects strategy/practice but it's not a deal breaker. I do oppose repeating the Russian Bolshevik strategy but material conditions in advanced western capitalist nations are quite different so the likelihood of that undemocratic process repeating in, lets say, France, Germany or Britain is nil - in the same vein I don't think we should push for 'socialist' revolutions in undeveloped regions while using "communism" to do capitalism's job.

Also, my experience has been, within revolutionary organizations, in times of low activity the stage gets set for all manner of conflict to take place which over the years has led me to a more hands off approach to getting too deeply involved with any one organization but this is a personal choice that somewhat expands into my social life in general.

Anyway, don't be too concerned with 'picking sides' or having a tendency. I'd focus on learning as much as you can so when a revolutionary period does arise you'll be better educated as to what to advocate. I don't think any one tendency is going to single handedly usher in the revolution. Key for me is somehow forming unity between the daily struggle at work places, student struggle, women and minority liberation first locally and then internationally under the banner of socialism rather than having everyone fight the struggle separately with reform under capitalism in mind. In my 20 plus years being in and around the struggle this, to me, is one of our biggest concerns, especially in times like this (economic crisis).

[Astarte]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts. I'm not a Marxist though, so I can't describe myself as 'left communist' either. Are there non-Marxist, non-anarchist communist tendencies I don't know of?

I suppose communalism, as Bookchin called it, would be appropriate though 'communalism' has a too broad connotation.

You are probably some kind of Neo-Marxist and don't even realize it.

[l'Enfermé]

Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communism, stop stealing our terms :(

[MarxArchist]

Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communist, stop stealing our terms :(
Ugh, Marx didn't invent communism but he did do a great job of forging the path to revolutionary communist theory, not to mention his top notch analysis of capitalism and his ground breaking historical materialism. Anyhow, I'm sure you're aware of the whole "Marx not wanting to be a Marxist" thing.

[vanukar]

Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communism, stop stealing our terms :(

If you think that everything associated with Marx is "Marxist" then I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

[Art Vandelay]

Ugh, Marx didn't invent communism but he did do a great job of forging the path to revolutionary communist theory, not to mention his top notch analysis of capitalism and his ground breaking historical materialism. Anyhow, I'm sure you're aware of the whole "Marx not wanting to be a Marxist" thing.

And based off of this statement, I'm fairly sure you have no idea what he meant when he said it. It was in reference to others claiming to be "Marxists." It wasn't that he didn't want to be known as a Marxist, he was just making the point that those he was critiquing weren't Marxists, ie: if they're Marxists, then I am not.

[MarxArchist]

And based off of this statement, I'm fairly sure you have no idea what he meant when he said it. It was in reference to others claiming to be "Marxists." It wasn't that he didn't want to be known as a Marxist, he was just making the point that those he was critiquing weren't Marxists, ie: if they're Marxists, then I am not.
I always thought he was referring to both reformism and the sectarianism within the political activity in his time. Strike me down with lighting if I'm wrong ;) Doesnt change the fact Marx didn't invent communism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts.

What a crappy reason to stop calling oneself anarchist. I never read in any anarchist text or book or even small phrase, that social hierarchy was going to dissapear immediately after the revolution. What I did read was that revolution was the only way to make it possible.

[Art Vandelay]

I always thought he was referring to both reformism and the sectarianism within the political activity in his time. Strike me down with lighting if I'm wrong ;) Doesnt change the fact Marx didn't invent communism.


"Now what is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’"
- Engels; letter to Bernstein, 1882.

[MarxArchist]

- Engels; letter to Bernstein, 1882.
Well, they use to throw the terms around as an insult as well, between he and Bakumin. Bakunin calling Marx's "followers" Marxists and Marx calling Bakunins "followers " Bakunists. I'm not aware of any of Marx's writings where he specifically calls himself a Marxist but this sort of thing is a tad pointless as I'm not trying to "debunk" the validity of Marxism. I completely understand the use of the term as Marx did indeed revolutionize communist theory and strategy. Didn't invent communism though.

If there's any sort of Marxism I advocate it's Orthodox Marxism but he might say they're not Marxist because of any perceived misuse of historical materialism. Anyhow this discussion has the potential to spider web into a millions different directions.

If the OP means non Marxist communism to mean he/she wants to advocate communism whilst throwing out all of Marx's ideas then I would say he's in the utopian branch rather than revolutionary branch of communism. Even anarchism is based on the foundation Marx put down.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communism, stop stealing our terms :(


Ugh, Marx didn't invent communism but he did do a great job of forging the path to revolutionary communist theory, not to mention his top notch analysis of capitalism and his ground breaking historical materialism. Anyhow, I'm sure you're aware of the whole "Marx not wanting to be a Marxist" thing.

Well, actually it is in no sense related to the invention of communism, nor was it meant as pure theory.

It is, in fact, the manifest of the Communist Party. It was meant as nothing more. Sure, it is great theory! Sure it is the most important writing in communism. But it's initial meaning was a party manifest.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Communism is an economic system, not a theory. There is such a thing as "primitive communism" which Marx talked about, but clearly there was no tribal Karl Marx going around telling ancient communities to share goods and services within their in-group. In that respect, Karl Marx did not think of himself as the "inventor" of "communism." On the contrary, he thought that it was up to the revolutionary working class to sort out what a communist system with modern technology and global economic connections would look like.

[MarxArchist]

Communism is an economic system, not a theory. There is such a thing as "primitive communism" which Marx talked about, but clearly there was no tribal Karl Marx going around telling ancient communities to share goods and services within their in-group. In that respect, Karl Marx did not think of himself as the "inventor" of "communism." On the contrary, he thought that it was up to the revolutionary working class to sort out what a communist system with modern technology and global economic connections would look like.

Communists before Marx were idealists and utopians. Marx's materialist and revolutionary theories were game changers as was more advanced industrialization. Before we had people like Owen, Henri de Saint Simon etc. It's not like Marx just sat down and a light bulb lit up above his head "ah communism!". :)

[Hit The North]

Communists before Marx were idealists and utopians. Marx's materialist and revolutionary theories were game changers as was more advanced industrialization. Before we had people like Owen, Henri de Saint Simon etc. It's not like Marx just sat down and a light bulb lit up above his head "ah communism!". :)

Weren't pre-Marxist communists hard-headed insurrectionists with conspiratorial tendencies? I think they were distinct from the utopian socialists like Saint-Simon and Owen who tended to be peace-mongers.

[MarxArchist]

Weren't pre-Marxist communists hard-headed insurrectionists with conspiratorial tendencies? I think they were distinct from the utopian socialists like Saint-Simon and Owen who tended to be peace-mongers.
I'm not sure as I haven't focused much on pre-Marx communism but because of this thread I just looked up who coined the term communism. It was Étienne Cabet. This is the positive side of having disagreements with people, you can learn something out of it ;)

[garrus]

I'm probably going to stop describing myself as anarchist as social hierarchy and coercive power will not disappear completely immediately when the revolution starts. I'm not a Marxist though, so I can't describe myself as 'left communist' either. Are there non-Marxist, non-anarchist communist tendencies I don't know of?

If find it qurious that you really disagree with all these 3.
Non of these 'plans' are perfect, but they are the best models we have for a transition to a communist society (each with a different strategy/approach).

Unless you have a better model (in which case i'd suggest you present it) , i'd say choose the most appealing of these (and any sub-branch of your choice) and try to improve it.

It's not like you're picking a football team or a nickname.Choices matter here ;)

[Hit The North]

I think that Cabet's predecessor, Francois-Noel 'Gracchus' Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/conspiracy-equals/index.htm) are generally credited as the first modern communists (in terms of being able to distinguish between communists and socialists).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Communists before Marx were idealists and utopians. Marx's materialist and revolutionary theories were game changers as was more advanced industrialization. Before we had people like Owen, Henri de Saint Simon etc. It's not like Marx just sat down and a light bulb lit up above his head "ah communism!". :)

Theorists=/=Societies. Perhaps you can argue that all European intellectuals who were talking about communism in the period immediately before Marx were idealists and Utopians (of course still "communists" in some sense of the term) but that doesn't mean that there weren't people in history before that who were committed to communist ideals, in many cases due to the very structure of their society (i.e people in a "primitive communist" society).

[Ravachol]

Why is it relevant what you call yourself or what niche you fit yourself into? Its not like we're picking factions in an RPG? (Though, to be honest, it probably is). What prevents you from drawing upon a wide range of influences and perspectives without buying the whole package and identity that comes with it?


Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communism, stop stealing our terms :(

Or else?

[Red Enemy]

The Impossibilists are a non-Marxist communist tendency. That's very clear when they acknowledge that they "dispose of Marx" when it suits them.

[CryingWolf]

Not being a Marxists does not automatically make you a utopian.

My own flavor of communism is both "scientific" and breaks with Marx and many other communists on some important points.

[Tim Cornelis]

To answer y'all questions, I have considered becoming a Marxist because it sounded as a brilliant analysis, but brilliant sounding is no substitute for science.


What a crappy reason to stop calling oneself anarchist. I never read in any anarchist text or book or even small phrase, that social hierarchy was going to dissapear immediately after the revolution. What I did read was that revolution was the only way to make it possible.

Marxists ultimately believe in a society without coercive power, little to no social hierarchy, that is, a stateless society. Anarchists do to, but believe, unlike Marxists, that statelessness will be immediately follow the abolition of the bourgeois state. If, however, anarchists admit that social hierarchy and some degree of coercive power will persist after the abolition of the bourgeois state, then there is no basis for their claim of an immediate transition to a stateless society as coercive power implies a state. Not a conventional state, but a semi-state of self-governing communes that still have some degree of coercive power.


Why is it relevant what you call yourself or what niche you fit yourself into? Its not like we're picking factions in an RPG? (Though, to be honest, it probably is). What prevents you from drawing upon a wide range of influences and perspectives without buying the whole package and identity that comes with it?

Specifying your political beliefs is convenient. Saying I'm a communist is too broad.

[Ravachol]

Anarchists do to, but believe, unlike Marxists, that statelessness will be immediately follow the abolition of the bourgeois state. If, however, anarchists admit that social hierarchy and some degree of coercive power will persist after the abolition of the bourgeois state, then there is no basis for their claim of an immediate transition to a stateless society as coercive power implies a state. Not a conventional state, but a semi-state of self-governing communes that still have some degree of coercive power.


Where did you get that idea? First of all, the idea of an 'abolition of the bourgeois state' as some kind of 'event' (like, the masses storming the winter palace, closing government offices and saying LOLNOMORESTATE4U) is really really weird. I mean Guastav Landauer expressed clearest what the state is (and what it isn't):



The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another… We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community.


The state cannot be abolished in an event or through an act of force, it will involve a protracted process of progressive breakdown as its hold upon society will slip as a result of the offensive development of different social relationships. As Pannekoek said, 'the self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism'.

I also don't see what you mean with 'coercive power'. If your conception of this 'semi-state' consists of an institution (or network of insitutions) seperate from and existing above its constituent components (ie. the proletariat in the process of self-abolition), I don't see how that differs from run of the mill state 'socialism'.



Specifying your political beliefs is convenient. Saying I'm a communist is too broad.

Is it? I mean clarifying where you are on certain issues is important and sometimes tendency denominators make this clear (ie. being a leftcom versus being an anarchist) but I don't see why trying to pidgeonhole yourself under a particular specific banner beyond rather general distinctions does much good.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Marxists ultimately believe in a society without coercive power, little to no social hierarchy, that is, a stateless society. Anarchists do to, but believe, unlike Marxists, that statelessness will be immediately follow the abolition of the bourgeois state. If, however, anarchists admit that social hierarchy and some degree of coercive power will persist after the abolition of the bourgeois state, then there is no basis for their claim of an immediate transition to a stateless society as coercive power implies a state. Not a conventional state, but a semi-state of self-governing communes that still have some degree of coercive power.

I regret to inform you that you may already be a Marxist, down to the word 'semistate', which I've never heard outside of Leninist theory. Do you disqualify yourself as Marxist because you don't think the semistate will ever fade away? This is quite a common theme for the Marxists I know IRL, and I personally have only been able to accept Marxism with a certain degree of skepticism towards the complete eradication of the semistate.

It's possible Rousseau was right, and there's no way back to stateless society after we've taken the plunge, but you'd better have worked out a sophisticated understanding of why this is other than just a simple appeal to 'human nature' (the former approach is scientific, the latter is your ideological inheritance). If this is your view, check out the recent debates over sociobiology and cognitive science to strengthen/nuance your understanding of human nature.

[Le Socialiste]

Sorry the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels there is no non-Marxist communism, stop stealing our terms :(

Socialists/communists had been around prior to Marx's lifetime; they were always centered around idealistic or utopian visions of society, though. Marx and Engels approached the subject from a scientific position, utilizing empirical evidence and reasoning. They didn't 'start' communism, but they certainly refined it and provided the scientific framework we know and understand today.

[Hit The North]

I mean Guastav Landauer expressed clearest what the state is (and what it isn't):


Originally Posted by Gustav Landauer
The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another… We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community.



On the contrary, that is one of the worst definitions of the state I've ever read, mired in a confusion of terms. The state is, above all, bodies of armed men. It is the organ by which the ruling class rule over society. The road to the revolution will be paved with confrontations between those armed men and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. And, as with all recorded revolutions, there will be a moment when the state power will topple and the revolutionary forces will rush in.


As Pannekoek said, 'the self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism'.


Good old Pannekoek said a very wise thing. But I fail to see how this supports your position. One could equally add 'the collapse of capitalism is the precondition for the collapse of the capitalist state.' It will be the economic and political crises of capitalism, proceeding hand-in-hand, that will make proletarian revolution a necessity.

[Ravachol]

On the contrary, that is one of the worst definitions of the state I've ever read, mired in a confusion of terms. The state is, above all, bodies of armed men. It is the organ by which the ruling class rule over society. The road to the revolution will be paved with confrontations between those armed men and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. And, as with all recorded revolutions, there will be a moment when the state power will topple and the revolutionary forces will rush in.


Yeah, the state is nothing but bodies of armed men, it is sheer force of arms that keeps the clock ticking, and all that is holding back the glorious red dawn is a wall of cops and soldiers :laugh:

The state is neither a mere body of armed men nor a simple idea, it is a particular type of social relationship that emerges in order to keep together a society fundamentally divided, that is, class society. Contrary to left-weberian delusions, the state is not the (de facto or de jure) monopoly on violence (history has shown that the state, in times of crisis, gladly relies on auxiliary elements, from organised crime to the para-statal freikorps or paramilitary in order to do its bidding) but it is the final monopoly on arbitrage. The state is a collection of bodies (from the parliaments, courthouses, army barracks, police stations and ministries down to the individual cop or social worker) representing a relationship of social mediation between both individuals and classes, the glue that keeps a fragmented society together. If all the parliaments, courthouses and police stations of the world were to disappear tomorrow, the first thing the masses would do was to rebuild and re-staff them, not usher in communism.

I mean sure, to the droves of people with terrible politics on this forum, routing several armed groups and dismantling a few public offices suffices to say 'the state is no more' or, more likely, behold: the workers' state! (insurgency prohibited after this point) But that just goes to show that even reactionary, bourgeois theorists on state power like Martin van Creveld or Carl Schmitt have a more thorough understanding of the matter.

[hatzel]

The state is, above all, bodies of armed men. It is the organ by which the ruling class rule over society.

If these two sentences are to be synonymous, then we would need to rely on a terribly shallow understanding of class dynamics. There's absolutely no way one can fully grasp class hierarchies and the processes that create and perpetuate them (aka 'the organ by which the ruling class rule over society' aka 'the state') and yet still honestly believe that this can all be reduced to 'bodies of armed men.' I mean excuse me if I'm being facetious here, but there are few things in this world less deserving of the label 'bodies of armed men' than, say, bus schedules, and yet somehow the public transport network can and does operate to preserve prevailing class relations, by which I must mean it is an 'organ by which the ruling class rule over society,' prevailing class relations being characterised by such domination. Obviously I'm taking an utterly ludicrous example more for comic effect than anything else, but the point we're really driving at here is that the absence of 'bodies of armed men' by no means implies the absence of 'organ[s] by which the ruling class rule over society,' only the absence of one particular organ, which should prompt us to think a little deeper about the task before us, no?

[Hit The North]

If these two sentences are to be synonymous, then we would need to rely on a terribly shallow understanding of class dynamics. There's absolutely no way one can fully grasp class hierarchies and the processes that create and perpetuate them (aka 'the organ by which the ruling class rule over society' aka 'the state') and yet still honestly believe that this can all be reduced to 'bodies of armed men.'

Firstly, I said above all, not reduced to. Of course the state also comprises of civil servants, judges and tax collectors who, admittedly, are not generally armed - although they are armed with legal powers and will call upon the armed men if you fail to pay your tax or parking fines. If we fail to see the fundamentally coercive nature of the state we can fall in to reformist illusions.

Secondly, in a capitalist society it is not the state that is the primary organiser of class hierarchies - this is performed by the mode of production and the distribution of material rewards. The state mainly provides a judicial seal on these arrangements though, at times, it can shape and temper class relations through economic and social policy. But even so, we should be clear that the state is analytically separate from the mode of production.


I mean excuse me if I'm being facetious here, but there are few things in this world less deserving of the label 'bodies of armed men' than, say, bus schedules, and yet somehow the public transport network can and does operate to preserve prevailing class relations, by which I must mean it is an 'organ by which the ruling class rule over society,' prevailing class relations being characterised by such domination. I think you'll find that the primary function (the design purpose) of the bus schedule is to organise transportation, not prevailing class relations. Meanwhile, is the bus company part of the state? It might be regulated by the state but is it part of the state?


Obviously I'm taking an utterly ludicrous example more for comic effect than anything else, but the point we're really driving at here is that the absence of 'bodies of armed men' by no means implies the absence of 'organ[s] by which the ruling class rule over society,' only the absence of one particular organ, which should prompt us to think a little deeper about the task before us, no?
Sure, I'm all for complexity, but we need to be clear of our analytical categories and I think the Landauer quote, and your own approach, are too vague.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, the state is nothing but bodies of armed men, it is sheer force of arms that keeps the clock ticking, and all that is holding back the glorious red dawn is a wall of cops and soldiers :laugh:


Ho ho.


The state is neither a mere body of armed men nor a simple idea.... The state is a collection of bodies (from the parliaments, courthouses, army barracks, police stations and ministries down to the individual cop or social worker) representing a relationship of social mediation between both individuals and classes, the glue that keeps a fragmented society together.
Buddy, everything you mention above is "bodies of armed men" - in other words the coercive apparatus of the bourgeois state. So either you think it's not bodies of armed men or you do. Which is it?


If all the parliaments, courthouses and police stations of the world were to disappear tomorrow, the first thing the masses would do was to rebuild and re-staff them, not usher in communism.
Apart from your touching faith in the masses (ahem), who has asserted that if all these institutions magically disappeared overnight (if only Harry Potter was on our side!) the proletariat would usher in communism? Not me. So take it up with those who do argue such nonsense.


I mean sure, to the droves of people with terrible politics on this forum, routing several armed groups and dismantling a few public offices suffices to say 'the state is no more' or, more likely, behold: the workers' state! (insurgency prohibited after this point) But that just goes to show that even reactionary, bourgeois theorists on state power like Martin van Creveld or Carl Schmitt have a more thorough understanding of the matter.Again, take that up with whomever argues it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, the state is nothing but bodies of armed men, it is sheer force of arms that keeps the clock ticking, and all that is holding back the glorious red dawn is a wall of cops and soldiers :laugh:

The issue is one of importance given to a specific facet of reality. I don't think the state represents only a body of armed men in defense of class rule, but this is quite important and yet more important, this function doesn't cease to exist in times of more or less sharp social and political turmoil (which is somehow suggested - or I'm picking up connotations that aren't there - by your argument of auxiliary measures).

But I agree generally, this reduction of the function and constitution of the state to mere repression is definitely not desirable.


Buddy, everything you mention above is "bodies of armed men" - in other words the coercive apparatus of the bourgeois state. So either you think it's not bodies of armed men or you do. Which is it?
The parliament is a "body of armed men"? Armed with what? Deadly ideas and intentions?

Really, this rehashing of the old mantra of the state as a body of armed men can really be taken as complete blindness of other facets and function which have come to light most conspicuously in the development of the welfare state, for instance.

[Hit The North]

But I agree generally, this reduction of the function and constitution of the state to mere repression is definitely not desirable.


But surely more desirable than seeing the state as an amorphous ensemble of relations and coming to the conclusion that a politics of pre-figurative behaviour is the key to dismantling it?


The parliament is a "body of armed men"? Armed with what? Deadly ideas and intentions?

Self-evidently, parliaments are armed with legislative power and if you don't consider this to be part of the coercive apparatus of the state you haven't been paying attention to the current struggles around austerity.



Really, this rehashing of the old mantra of the state as a body of armed men can really be taken as complete blindness of other facets and function which have come to light most conspicuously in the development of the welfare state, for instance.


Are you suggesting that welfare states mean that we need to rethink the nature of capitalist states as somehow benign?

Welfare states are contradictory entities born out of class struggles, but are also a means of disciplining labour, not to mention that they are chiefly used to subsidise capitalism. To not acknowledge this is to be willfully blind to the manner in which welfare states have been utilised by bourgeois governments in the past fifty years!

[Ravachol]

But surely more desirable than seeing the state as an amorphous ensemble of relations and coming to the conclusion that a politics of pre-figurative behaviour is the key to dismantling it?


lol who said that.



Self-evidently, parliaments are armed with legislative power and if you don't consider this to be part of the coercive apparatus of the state you haven't been paying attention to the current struggles around austerity.


So from 'bodies of armed men' we are now already in the murky waters of 'coercive apparatuses'. Maybe you'll even have to come back on that position of yours, who knows.



Are you suggesting that welfare states mean that we need to rethink the nature of capitalist states as somehow benign?

Welfare states are contradictory entities born out of class struggles, but are also a means of disciplining labour, not to mention that they are chiefly used to subsidise capitalism. To not acknowledge this is to be willfully blind to the manner in which welfare states have been utilised by bourgeois governments in the past fifty years!

So how does that function of the state fit in with it being nothing but 'bodies of armed men'?

[Hit The North]

lol who said that.


It is more than implied in the quote by Landauer:


Originally Posted by Gustav Landauer
The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another… We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community.


So how does that function of the state fit in with it being nothing but 'bodies of armed men'? It will be difficult to continue this debate as long as you misrepresent my position. To repeat, I argue that is is above all bodies of armed men, not that it is nothing but bodies of armed men.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't see how any of this refutes what I said, or even pertains to it for that matter.


Where did you get that idea? First of all, the idea of an 'abolition of the bourgeois state' as some kind of 'event' (like, the masses storming the winter palace, closing government offices and saying LOLNOMORESTATE4U) is really really weird. I mean Guastav Landauer expressed clearest what the state is (and what it isn't):

I didn't imply it was going to be a single event. I referred to the abolition of the bourgeois state, nothing more.


The state cannot be abolished in an event or through an act of force, it will involve a protracted process of progressive breakdown as its hold upon society will slip as a result of the offensive development of different social relationships. As Pannekoek said, 'the self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism'.


This doesn't pertain to it either.


I also don't see what you mean with 'coercive power'. If your conception of this 'semi-state' consists of an institution (or network of insitutions) seperate from and existing above its constituent components (ie. the proletariat in the process of self-abolition), I don't see how that differs from run of the mill state 'socialism'.

Coercive power doesn't imply a centralised state. It means, for example, taxing or banning certain substances.

All socialists, communists, anarchists, or otherwise, advocate a classless society, which means a stateless society. What differentiates anarchists from other socialists is that they seek to create an immediate state after the revolution. However, it is unlikely that self-governing communes will be devoid of all coercive power immediately.

[Ravachol]

It is more than implied in the quote by Landauer


I guess its your free choice to read advocacy of prefigurative politics into the quote...



It will be difficult to continue this debate as long as you misrepresent my position. To repeat, I argue that is is above all bodies of armed men, not that it is nothing but bodies of armed men.

Yeah I guess its difficult to continue this debate as long as you are misrepresenting my position as well. I don't deny the fundamentally coercive nature of the state, it resting upon and being rooted in violence, on the contrary. What I'm saying, though, is that the state is more complex than it being 'bodies of armed men', whether being nothing but them, or above all. The state, while being rooted in and permeated by coercion, cannot be simply reduced to sheer armed force. These bodies of armed men and the various other bodies that compose the state are the material representations of what is fundamentally a social relationship, similar to how capital is more than just a a stack of gold bullion waiting in a bank vault or a warehouse full of commodities or a network of factories and mines. You mistake appearance for essence. My remark regarding the fact that even if these material components of the state apparatus were to disappear overnight, communism would not be the logical result (something which has nothing to do with 'faith in the masses', not that I care about that, but everything with sober observations) was an example reflecting this.

If the state were above all bodies of armed men and not a type of social relationship reflected in the former, it would suffice to materially wipe them out in order to destroy the state. Ie. you're effectively arguing you CAN blow up a social relationship.

[Ravachol]

(..)

What is this 'after the revolution' you speak of. Everything in your post points towards the conception of revolution as an event, ie. a stage-ist apprach capitalism -> revolution -> the 'semi-state' -> communism. If there exists such a thing as a semi-state, if there exists such a thing as capital, its not 'after the revolution'.

[Tim Cornelis]

What is this 'after the revolution' you speak of. Everything in your post points towards the conception of revolution as an event, ie. a stage-ist apprach capitalism -> revolution -> the 'semi-state' -> communism. If there exists such a thing as a semi-state, if there exists such a thing as capital, its not 'after the revolution'.

'After the revolution' was a wrong phrase, replace it with 'after the disintegration of the bourgeois state'.

Capitalism -> revolution (semi-state) -> communism.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

You could always abandon the idea of having a label. Silly things group labels are sometimes, they result in sects being created and certain tendencies that combine really useful bits with really useless bits too. Without a label you can pick and choose the useful parts that you need.

[Ravachol]

'After the revolution' was a wrong phrase, replace it with 'after the disintegration of the bourgeois state'.

Capitalism -> revolution (semi-state) -> communism.

Do you conceive of the 'revolutionary period' as being neither capitalist nor communist in nature (if so, then what? if so, the how does this differ from the socialist transitory phase of leninist orthodoxy?) and if that is the case, how does this not imply the conception of revolution as an event? Surely, the conception of the 'revolutionary period' as the establishment of a 'semi-state' to be installed/maintained after the disintegration of the bourgeois state implies the ushering in of social peace and the gradual 'construction of communism'. How is this any different from the regular leninist model?

If you don't, then what is this 'semi-state' doing there at all? Not conceiving of the revolution as an 'event' implies seeing communism (not as a state of affairs to be established but as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, to quote old karl) and its elaboration from within and against the capitalist mode of production as concomitant with 'the revolutionary period'. The difference here is that in the former view, a state of stability between capitalism and communism (conceived of as an utopian project on the horizon) is identified and championed, whereas the latter view sees the DotP, if you will, as enacted from a protracted process elaborating the collapse of capitalism without identifying residual elements of state and capital as a 'stable situation' to be defended.

Regardless, even if one were to subscribe to the former model of orthodoxy, I don't see how this excludes one from being an anarchist. There is plenty of platformists and syndicalists around who aren't that different from leninists in their championing of socialism and the transitory model.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you conceive of the 'revolutionary period' as being neither capitalist nor communist in nature (if so, then what? if so, the how does this differ from the socialist transitory phase of leninist orthodoxy?) and if that is the case, how does this not imply the conception of revolution as an event? Surely, the conception of the 'revolutionary period' as the establishment of a 'semi-state' to be installed/maintained after the disintegration of the bourgeois state implies the ushering in of social peace and the gradual 'construction of communism'. How is this any different from the regular leninist model?

If you don't, then what is this 'semi-state' doing there at all? Not conceiving of the revolution as an 'event' implies seeing communism (not as a state of affairs to be established but as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, to quote old karl) and its elaboration from within and against the capitalist mode of production as concomitant with 'the revolutionary period'. The difference here is that in the former view, a state of stability between capitalism and communism (conceived of as an utopian project on the horizon) is identified and championed, whereas the latter view sees the DotP, if you will, as enacted from a protracted process elaborating the collapse of capitalism without identifying residual elements of state and capital as a 'stable situation' to be defended.

Regardless, even if one were to subscribe to the former model of orthodoxy, I don't see how this excludes one from being an anarchist. There is plenty of platformists and syndicalists around who aren't that different from leninists in their championing of socialism and the transitory model.

The transition from capitalism to communism is complex. The abolition of capital, of markets, of money, of social hierarchy, will not be possible within a short period of time. The transition from capitalism to communism thus constitutes workers' management of capital.

The semi-state arises, in my view, not out of class antagonisms, but out of the organisational and economic difficulties. If money cannot be abolished immediately, there will be a natural response to impose some tax, which is based on coercive power, to raise funds for maintaining collective infrastructure. It is also likely that some centralised soviet will arise out of the chaos of the revolutionary period. This is not a conscious decision of wanting to manage capital, wanting a state, and wanting some centralisation, it's a product of social movements. Thus, it's also not a decision to maintain a semi-state.

The Russian revolution was not stateless. The Bavarian Council Republic was not stateless. "Anarchist" Catalonia was not stateless. "Anarchist" Aragon was not stateless. The Italian Red Years were not stateless. The Zapatista communes are not stateless. How then can we continue calling ourselves anarchists if statelessness is never the immediate result of any proletarian revolution?

If immediate statelessness is impossible, which I think it is, then anarchism is a non-ideology as there is no basis for them to differentiate themselves from other socialists. In fact, anarchists have always been supportive of non-anarchist principles in practice. Anarchist principles simply seem not to correspond to a material reality.

[Hit The North]

I guess its your free choice to read advocacy of prefigurative politics into the quote...


I think it's written all over that quote: "The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another… We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community." How else could it be interpreted?

And in what sense are "we" the state? The state is super-imposed on society and imposed on the ruled. In fact, it expends power on excluding the ruled from important positions in its ranks. Ever wonder why the working class and the poor are massively under-represented in the upper echelons of the State? Landauer's assertion just sounds like utopian babble to me.


Yeah I guess its difficult to continue this debate as long as you are misrepresenting my position as well.That's fair.


I don't deny the fundamentally coercive nature of the state, it resting upon and being rooted in violence, on the contrary.Which is all I meant by above all the state is bodies of armed men. Counterposing this as a more concrete and realistic (not to mention useful) position compared to Landauer's woolly assertion that "we" are the state.


What I'm saying, though, is that the state is more complex than it being 'bodies of armed men'... The state, while being rooted in and permeated by coercion, cannot be simply reduced to sheer armed force.
I don't disagree that this is empirically obvious. I've already conceded to the existence of civil servants and welfare states. However, this falls far short of concluding that the state is a "condition" or a relationship that we can contract out of or abolish by behaving differently (more politely? more equally? more cooperatively?) with my fellow man, as Landauer appears to suggest in the offending quote.


These bodies of armed men and the various other bodies that compose the state are the material representations of what is fundamentally a social relationship, similar to how capital is more than just a a stack of gold bullion waiting in a bank vault or a warehouse full of commodities or a network of factories and mines.It's fundamentally an expression of the same relationship on the plain of politics. States are instruments of class rule are they not? The modern state is quintessentially the capitalist state.


You mistake appearance for essence. I don't see how this is possible as my argument is that if you strip the state to its essence, rid it of the appearances of bourgeois ideology, it is the organisation of class violence composed of bodies of armed men.


My remark regarding the fact that even if these material components of the state apparatus were to disappear overnight, communism would not be the logical result (something which has nothing to do with 'faith in the masses', not that I care about that, but everything with sober observations) was an example reflecting this.
But your 'remark' is an empty abstraction because the state will not just disappear over night and, I'm sure we are in agreement on this point, the masses need to reach consciousness through struggles against capital and its state. The spontaneous appearance of "communist consciousness" is as unlikley as the sudden disappearance of bourgeois rule.


If the state were above all bodies of armed men and not a type of social relationship reflected in the former, it would suffice to materially wipe them out in order to destroy the state.
How could you deny it? Real social relationships consist of real human agents. Dispose of one side of the relationship and you end the relationship in its entirety. Deprive the state of its armed men (through either fighting them or winning them over) and it will crumble.


Ie. you're effectively arguing you CAN blow up a social relationship.
Blowing up a social relationship sounds like an apt metaphor for revolution. Isn't that what we're all interested in?

[Ravachol]

The transition from capitalism to communism is complex. The abolition of capital, of markets, of money, of social hierarchy, will not be possible within a short period of time.


I don't think it'll be done within a 'short period of time', I'm merely pointing out that this protracted process of the 'revolutionary period', which does not establish the preconditions for communism, but establishes communism is the abolishment of capital not for, but by communism.



It is obvious that such a deep and all-encompassing transformation as communism will span decades, perhaps several generations before it takes over the world. Until then, it will be straddling two eras, and remain vulnerable to internal decay and/or destruction from outside, all the more so as various countries and continents will not be developing new relationships at the same pace. Some areas may lag behind for a long time. Others may go through temporary chaos. But the main point is that the communising process has to start as soon as possible. The closer to Day One the transformation begins and the deeper it goes from the beginning, the greater the likelihood of its success.

So there will a "transition" in the sense that communism will not be achieved overnight. But there will not be a "transition period" in what has become the traditional Marxist sense: a period that is no longer capitalist but not yet communist, a period in which the working class would still work, but not for profit or for the boss any more, only for themselves: they would go on developing the "productive forces" (factories, consumer goods, etc.) before being able to enjoy the then fully-matured fruit of industrialization. This is not the programme of a communist revolution. It was not in the past and it is not now. There is no need to go on developing industry, especially industry as it is now. And we are not stating this because of the ecology movement and the anti-industry trend in the radical milieu. As someone said forty years ago, half of the factories will have to be closed.




The transition from capitalism to communism thus constitutes workers' management of capital.


I fear that if that is your honest opinion we have little in common and you might be closer to leninist orthodoxy than you think...

I honestly don't see why people have such a fetishism for the masochistic (and highly unrealistic) application of self-managed exploitation. Workers' management of capital (which would probably end back up in capital's most efficient mode, that of the regular liberal capitalism) has no more prospect of withering away than the Stalinist "people's palaces".



The semi-state arises, in my view, not out of class antagonisms, but out of the organisational and economic difficulties.


How so? Organisational difficulties of what? The management of capital?



If money cannot be abolished immediately, there will be a natural response to impose some tax, which is based on coercive power, to raise funds for maintaining collective infrastructure.


What collective infrastructure? Under who's management? Again you are conceptualizing a situation where the working class supposedly has taken over the derelict shell of the old state apparatus and is now managing capital in order to build its way to 'communism'. How does your view differ from that of your average leninist?



It is also likely that some centralised soviet will arise out of the chaos of the revolutionary period.


Because? I don't have a crystal ball but I suspect that the councilist form (as opposed to the general communist content) lies buried under the rubble of the 20th century, especially given that the organic composition of the modern proletariat exists largely by grace of an ever expanding exclusionary mechanism forcing an expanding section of the proletariat into the margins where the councilist form, much like the syndicalist union-form tailored to the mass-worker of the large workshops or later fordist factories, simply no longer corresponds to today's realities.



This is not a conscious decision of wanting to manage capital, wanting a state, and wanting some centralisation, it's a product of social movements.

Can you back this up?



The Russian revolution was not stateless. The Bavarian Council Republic was not stateless. "Anarchist" Catalonia was not stateless. "Anarchist" Aragon was not stateless. The Italian Red Years were not stateless. The Zapatista communes are not stateless. How then can we continue calling ourselves anarchists if statelessness is never the immediate result of any proletarian revolution?


Because none of these situations ushered in communism. Hence our discussion and hence this forum. These situations shook the pillars of the old world and were expressions of the communist tendency throughout history at various points in time, yet for a myriad of complicated (and less complicated) reasons they either ran up against the limits of their historical period and/or were trapped in the counter-revolutions adequate to their particular historical conjuncture: those of the 'socialist transitory period', of 'self management', etc.

Regarding this matter I highly recommend Endnotes issue 1 on the 20th century and the questions it poses to us: http://endnotes.org.uk/issues/1. It argues my point much better than I do (and it saves me the time of typing it out over here) and presents both a more 'humanist' and a more 'structuralist' view on what made the 20th century what it was.



In fact, anarchists have always been supportive of non-anarchist principles in practice. Anarchist principles simply seem not to correspond to a material reality.

How so? I mean you're free to say this but what do you base any of this upon?

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think it'll be done within a 'short period of time', I'm merely pointing out that this protracted process of the 'revolutionary period', which does not establish the preconditions for communism, but establishes communism is the abolishment of capital not for, but by communism.

I fear that if that is your honest opinion we have little in common and you might be closer to leninist orthodoxy than you think...

I honestly don't see why people have such a fetishism for the masochistic (and highly unrealistic) application of self-managed exploitation. Workers' management of capital (which would probably end back up in capital's most efficient mode, that of the regular liberal capitalism) has no more prospect of withering away than the Stalinist "people's palaces".



How so? Organisational difficulties of what? The management of capital?



What collective infrastructure? Under who's management? Again you are conceptualizing a situation where the working class supposedly has taken over the derelict shell of the old state apparatus and is now managing capital in order to build its way to 'communism'. How does your view differ from that of your average leninist?



Because? I don't have a crystal ball but I suspect that the councilist form (as opposed to the general communist content) lies buried under the rubble of the 20th century, especially given that the organic composition of the modern proletariat exists largely by grace of an ever expanding exclusionary mechanism forcing an expanding section of the proletariat into the margins where the councilist form, much like the syndicalist union-form tailored to the mass-worker of the large workshops or later fordist factories, simply no longer corresponds to today's realities.



Can you back this up?



Because none of these situations ushered in communism. Hence our discussion and hence this forum. These situations shook the pillars of the old world and were expressions of the communist tendency throughout history at various points in time, yet for a myriad of complicated (and less complicated) reasons they either ran up against the limits of their historical period and/or were trapped in the counter-revolutions adequate to their particular historical conjuncture: those of the 'socialist transitory period', of 'self management', etc.

Regarding this matter I highly recommend Endnotes issue 1 on the 20th century and the questions it poses to us: http://endnotes.org.uk/issues/1. It argues my point much better than I do (and it saves me the time of typing it out over here) and presents both a more 'humanist' and a more 'structuralist' view on what made the 20th century what it was.



How so? I mean you're free to say this but what do you base any of this upon?

I feel like we're talking across. You don't seem to understand me, and I probably don't understand you. But let's try it again.

The question of workers' management of capital isn't a question of will, it is compelled by circumstance. I don't mean each workplace operating independently in the context of a market economy or workers' cooperatives. I do believe in the immediate transition to communism, but unless capital is abolish globally, or at least continentally, workers' management of capital is inevitable.

You referring to workers' management of capital not withering away implies you interpret my comments to mean some sort of workerism, in which case you're right, such won't wither away. The workers' management of capital isn't an aim, an end in itself, nor a means to get anywhere. It is in the process of being abolished, but before social conditions allow its disintegration we need workers managing it.

As for collective infrastructure, it means roads, public transportation, water, healthcare, etc. These still need to be distributed and since money wont disappear or be abolished, in the intermediate period it will require payment. In all likeliness, communes will choose to levy a tax until it being obsolete.

How do you reconcile the perpetuation of capital during the social transformation, which you admit to, with the absence of workers' management thereof? As long as there is capital there are three variants of management: state, private, or workers'.

In a sense I do believe in communisation, the immediate implementation of communism wherever and whenever social conditions allow for it. I oppose the conscious decision to purposely maintain the state, money, or capital as a transitional society. Though that is probably not what is meant by communisation.

Maybe I can sketch out how I believe a revolution is likely to commence and this will make clear my position:

I see the revolution as similar to what happened in Argentina in 2002, only far more distributed in scale, and more radical in scope. Workers begin to expropriate the means of production and organise popular assemblies, these are solidified in committees consisting of delegates, turned into communes, then more and more sectors of the economy are socialised until finally the total product is socialised.

This is not an event, this is a process. There is no "storming of a palace" and then the revolution is over. The revolution is over once the economy is completely socialised, capital abolished, and the state finito. Unlike (Marxist-)Leninists who think the revolution is over when the semi-state is established.

[Thirsty Crow]

But surely more desirable than seeing the state as an amorphous ensemble of relations and coming to the conclusion that a politics of pre-figurative behaviour is the key to dismantling it?Ravachol's argument was definitely not going towards this "amorphous ensemble of relations" line. I've never said anything like it as well.


Self-evidently, parliaments are armed with legislative power and if you don't consider this to be part of the coercive apparatus of the state you haven't been paying attention to the current struggles around austerity.
Well, here you engage in widening the scope of the notion of "armed body of men" - the state as a tool of class violence - and turning it into a "coercive apparatus" as coercion here is not only conditioned by the threat of violence, but by the operation of the dominant ideology as well. Of course, any state and para-state institution is a part of the coercive apparatus, but that is definitely not the same as arguing that the state is merely a tool of class violence - a body of armed men.


Are you suggesting that welfare states mean that we need to rethink the nature of capitalist states as somehow benign?No.


Welfare states are contradictory entitiesNo, they're most definitely not "contradictory entities" (mumbo jumbo terms won't get us far) as they do not represent a stepping stone to socialism.


To not acknowledge this is to be willfully blind to the manner in which welfare states have been utilised by bourgeois governments in the past fifty years!
You're arguing against a straw man.

[Willin']

will you stop describing yourself what political ideological you have and rather start thinking about your own political philosophy

[Jimmie Higgins]

will you stop describing yourself what political ideological you have and rather start thinking about your own political philosophyCan you clairify, I'm not sure who you are adressing or what you are getting at here.

[Hit The North]

Ravachol's argument was definitely not going towards this "amorphous ensemble of relations" line. I've never said anything like it as well.


Perhaps not. But my comments were against the formulation of the state by Landauer, which Ravachol presented as the best definition of the state he'd read, which certainly does go in that direction.


Well, here you engage in widening the scope of the notion of "armed body of men" - the state as a tool of class violence - and turning it into a "coercive apparatus" as coercion here is not only conditioned by the threat of violence, but by the operation of the dominant ideology as well. What I'm not doing is taking the term "armed men" pedantically as meaning guns and bombs. Do you think that when Engels referred to the bourgeois state as bodies of armed men that he was insensible to the existence of bureaucrats, tax collectors or MPs? Of course he wasn't. But he was making the point that stripped to its essence this is exactly what the bourgeois state is - an organisation of class violence.


Of course, any state and para-state institution is a part of the coercive apparatus, but that is definitely not the same as arguing that the state is merely a tool of class violence - a body of armed men.
Quite right and where I have written such a thing that the state is merely a tool of class violence?


No, they're most definitely not "contradictory entities" (mumbo jumbo terms won't get us far) as they do not represent a stepping stone to socialism. Contradictory in terms of being the result of class struggles and having to deal with two demands that run contrary to each other: the demand for collective welfare provision and the need to exist in a mode of production based on the demand for the urgent maintenance of private accumulation.

As for "mumbo jumbo terms", which part of the term are you having difficulty with, "contradictory" or "entity"? But before you launch into some philosophical objections to my sloppy use of language (a la Rosa Lichtenstein), the point I was making is that the rise of welfare functions by the state does not at all negate the fact that, in essence, the bourgeois state is an organ of class violence. So I don't employ the term to imply that welfare states are some "stepping stone to socialism" - otherwise, why would I characterise them as providing a means for disciplining labour and subsidising capitalism? Nevertheless, they do represent, in a small and very incomplete way, the requirements of the proletariat to socialise the means of production in order to liberate itself from the domination of capital.


You're arguing against a straw man.Then you should be welcoming me to your club.

[Thirsty Crow]

What I'm not doing is taking the term "armed men" pedantically as meaning guns and bombs. Do you think that when Engels referred to the bourgeois state as bodies of armed men that he was insensible to the existence of bureaucrats, tax collectors or MPs? Of course he wasn't. But he was making the point that stripped to its essence this is exactly what the bourgeois state is - an organisation of class violence.I think he actually was (well, not "insensible", but rather blind to some of the implications resulting from this) , and the whole of the post-Marx Marxism with him, but that's an argument for another thread.


Quite right and where I have written such a thing that the state is merely a tool of class violence?Don't be a pedant. You didn't need to insert this "merely" since providing a definition which reads "...is a body of armed men" is quite obviously a reduction, one which you tried to modify by introducing these coercive apparatuses.

If you mean something else by that traditional definition (which only accounts for repressive functions, that is the point), you should state it right from the start.


Contradictory in terms of being the result of class struggles and having to deal with two demands that run contrary to each other: the demand for collective welfare provision and the need to exist in a mode of production based on the demand for the urgent maintenance of private accumulation. There is nothing contradictory in that. It's very simple, if welfare (which is also a mode of labour discipline as we agree it is) is public, then it rests on the concrete prospects for profitable business. This demand you speak of is not incorporated into the state, unless you actually believe that labour representation can do such a thing.

Is it contradictory that working class struggles lead to a new form of our own discipline (disregarding the fact, for the moment, that both the needs of the reproduction of the worker and the needs of capital had been satisfied)? I don't see any use to such obfuscating rhetoric. And I think this whole notion of the welfare state being practically pushed onto the ruling class by working class militancy is at odds with the real development (for instance, the begginings of the NHS are to be located in the provision of healthcare for the soldiers of the Empire).


As for "mumbo jumbo terms", which part of the term are you having difficulty with, "contradictory" or "entity"? Contradictory entity. I don't wish to derail this thread, but as I stated above, this is merely jargon. It's best to get rid of it.


the point I was making is that the rise of welfare functions by the state does not at all negate the fact that, in essence, the bourgeois state is an organ of class violence.Of course.


So I don't employ the term to imply that welfare states are some "stepping stone to socialism" - otherwise, why would I characterise them as providing a means for disciplining labour and subsidising capitalism? Nevertheless, they do represent, in a small and very incomplete way, the requirements of the proletariat to socialise the means of production in order to liberate itself from the domination of capital. They represent...in a small and incomplete way, the requirements of the proletariat to socialise the means of production.

What does this actually mean? And how does it differ from the idea of the stepping stone to socialism?

Does it mean that comprehensive healthcare, schooling, public services such as childcare enable the working class to fight back and develop militant class politics since the daily struggle for mere survival was transcended?


Then you should be welcoming me to your club.Pay more attention. I never attributed to you this notion of the stepping stone to socialism. If you managed to read my argument properly, you'd see that I actually think this is the only way that the idea of "a contradictory entity" would make sense (disciplining the working class and providing a launchpad for socialism).

[KurtFF8]

I know this is a long thread now but to the OP: Hobsbawm has a whole chapter about pre-Marxist European socialism (and Marx and Engels' relationship to it) in this book http://www.amazon.com/How-Change-World-Reflections-Marxism/dp/030018820X

I read it the other day and highly recommend it.

[Hit The North]

Don't be a pedant. You didn't need to insert this "merely" since providing a definition which reads "...is a body of armed men" is quite obviously a reduction, one which you tried to modify by introducing these coercive apparatuses.


I didn't insert the word, YOU DID!

Originally I wrote:


On the contrary, that is one of the worst definitions of the state I've ever read, mired in a confusion of terms. The state is, above all, bodies of armed men. It is the organ by which the ruling class rule over society.

You were the one who wrote:



Of course, any state and para-state institution is a part of the coercive apparatus, but that is definitely not the same as arguing that the state is merely a tool of class violence - a body of armed men.



If you mean something else by that traditional definition (which only accounts for repressive functions, that is the point), you should state it right from the start.

Thank you for the advice. Now here is some advice for you:

a) do not jump feet first into an argument without understanding the context. My initial post, asserting that above all the state is bodies of armed men was a response to Landauer's typification of the state. This is a typification which you have not seen fit to defend but seem quite content to offer a critique of my position.

b) When your interlocutor points out that the term "above all" is not synomymous with "merely" (a word that you threw into the mix), you might have the good grace to acknowledge that you misinterpreted me and not pursue me with accusations of retreating from my initial definition.


Pay more attention. I never attributed to you this notion of the stepping stone to socialism.

Oh dear. Now here you should take your own advice. The strawmanning that you are guilty of is pretending that I think the state is merely bodies of armed men.

Aside from the above, I have very little else to add except that, misunderstandings apart, we probably have a very similar view of the capitalist state - one that is a million miles from the view expressed by the anarchist, Landauer.