M-Ls: Could you please provide an example of where the state has 'withered away'?

[Skyhilist]

So let me begin by saying I'm not trying to attack anyone, just looking for examples here. I frequently here Leninists say that state socialism is necessary until capitalist opposition ceases and the states can "wither away", meaning society can move into full communism. It seems in past examples of leninist ideology the state never did wither away or even hint at doing so. Yes I know nations like Russia were going through modernization and whatnot which made things more difficult, but surely this should have been factored in by Leninists at the time right? Even so, if the state truly does "wither away" under state socialism, are there any actual examples of it? And if not (and if you think it didn't in the past for various reasons like "that country was still developing"), what leads you to believe that such a "withering away of the state" would actually occur in the future under state socialism (as opposed to a vanguard party's authority corrupting them, leading to another Russia, or China 2.0 or something along those lines)?

For the record, I would (as an anarchist) gladly participate in any communist revolution where I could actually be convinced that the state would actually wither away leading to full communism (as opposed to the revolution merely leading to state capitalism). So please don't dismiss me as merely being sectarian here; I'm just looking for answers.

[Brutus]

The Paris commune had a semi-state, so it was in the process of withering away. Also, why is this only for MLs?

[Skyhilist]

Also, why is this only for MLs?

Sorry, it should actually be for all communists who support the implementation of state socialism leading to a withering away of the state. M-Ls were just the most major supporters of that that jumped out at me.

[l'Enfermé]

No, that's a ridiculous strawman, skybutton. First of all, "Leninists" don't say that "state socialism" is necessary. Nope.

As for examples, what? Why would anyone have wanted the state to "wither away" in Russia? The vast majority of the world was under the bourgeoisie's control. The bourgeoisie, with its armies that numbered in the millions, could have restored the capitalists' and landowners' rule in a few weeks if Russia didn't have an army to protect itself. And that's just one example at the top of my head. How does your question make any sense?

[Captain Ahab]

The Paris commune had a semi-state, so it was in the process of withering away. Also, why is this only for MLs?
Don't be silly, the state cannot whither away in isolation.

[revoltordie]

Don't be silly, the state cannot whither away in isolation.

Is the meaning of this socialism in one country is impossible if a country is surrounded by capital's states?

[Skyhilist]

No, that's a ridiculous strawman, skybutton. First of all, "Leninists" don't say that "state socialism" is necessary. Nope.

As for examples, what? Why would anyone have wanted the state to "wither away" in Russia? The vast majority of the world was under the bourgeoisie's control. The bourgeoisie, with its armies that numbered in the millions, could have restored the capitalists' and landowners' rule in a few weeks if Russia didn't have an army to protect itself. And that's just one example at the top of my head. How does your question make any sense?

Well if they didn't actually want the state to wither away, then how can they be considered true Marxists, if a key part of Marx's ideology was that the state ought to wither away.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it's been my understanding that M-Ls do support state socialism. If not, then could you please tell me how Leninist ideology differs from state socialism and is not a type of it?

Is the goal of socialism not communism? Seeing as communism involves a world in which the state has withered after socialism, how could the Bolsheviks possibly have seen a socialist state that didn't seek to achieve communism as Marxist to begin with?

If my argument is fallacious please call me on it, but I assure you I'm not trying to discredit Leninism with strawman arguments. I'm merely trying to understand how a true communist can advocate no transition from socialism into communism via the withering away of the state that Marx advocated.

[Skyhilist]

Am I the only one who sees the paradoxes here?

-Socialism in one country impossible to maintain forever due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world
-They needed to maintain socialism in Russia (one country) because they couldn't wither away the state due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world


-Can't strive for communism (through the withering away of the state) with socialism in only one country (Russia) because of opposition in the surrounding world that would ruin it
-The goal of socialism is communism

[Ostrinski]

The state shouldn't be understood as something that can be willed in or out of existence. It is something that exists as a result of certain societal conditions, namely class antagonisms. The state comes into existence to mediate class conflict, to serve as the bastion of the ruling class's interests, and to provide an ideological or legal justification for the status quo or existing state of things.

The "withering away" narrative that you find among Marxists relates to this by basing itself on the premise laid out above. If the state exists to preserve the existing state of class relationships then it makes sense that any state of affairs where the workers are trying to preserve their revolutionary class dictatorship pending the unfurling of broader conditions that make socialism possible (international revolution) does indeed constitute a state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a semi-state, though, because whereas the state of class societies exists to preserve and justify the existing contradictions in society, the proletarian state exists only to preside over their neutralization.

The problem with the anarchist critique is that it supposes that we can indeed will the state in or out of existence. That before the dismantlement of global capitalism, we can create a tiny pocket socialism, which ironically constitutes a half-similarity between them and Stalinists even if their conceptions of what socialism is are different. It also kind of suggests that the state exists consciously on its own merit, to preserve itself, and has no relationship to class society, it just kinda exists as some kind of outgrowth of existing society. But if that is true, then that must mean that capitalism can be organized statelessly, which I don't see myself ever being ready to consider very persuasive.

[Skyhilist]

The state shouldn't be understood as something that can be willed in or out of existence. It is something that exists as a result of certain societal conditions, namely class antagonisms. The state comes into existence to mediate class conflict, to serve as the bastion of the ruling class's interests, and to provide an ideological or legal justification for the status quo or existing state of things.

The "withering away" narrative that you find among Marxists relates to this by basing itself on the premise laid out above. If the state exists to preserve the existing state of class relationships then it makes sense that any state of affairs where the workers are trying to preserve their revolutionary class dictatorship pending the unfurling of broader conditions that make socialism possible (international revolution) does indeed constitute a state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a semi-state, though, because whereas the state of class societies exists to preserve and justify the existing contradictions in society, the proletarian state exists only to preside over their neutralization.

Aha thanks for the feedback, I had not previously understood Marx's idea of "withering away the state" as being conditional.


The problem with the anarchist critique is that it supposes that we can indeed will the state in or out of existence. That before the dismantlement of global capitalism, we can create a tiny pocket socialism, which ironically constitutes a half-similarity between them and Stalinists even if their conceptions of what socialism is are different. It also kind of suggests that the state exists consciously on its own merit, to preserve itself, and has no relationship to class society, it just kinda exists as some kind of outgrowth of existing society. But if that is true, then that must mean that capitalism can be organized statelessly, which I don't see myself ever being ready to consider very persuasive.

The "tiny pocket of socialism" that anarchists strive for is not unlike other socialists necessarily. It'd be unrealistic to expect that an anti-capitalist revolution is going to occur around the entire globe at the exact same time, so of course there'd be times where some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not. The goal however is to expand that socialism to the world (in the case of anarchists, stateless socialism). I think us anarchists differ pretty widely on how we believe areas converted to socialism would be protected from capitalists before the entire world was converted to socialism. Personally, I'd support a common front whereas revolutionaries of different sects would agree to protect each other post-revolution, regardless of their own country was post-revolution (e.g. council communists and other libertarian-leaning leftists from such as common front [but from a pre-revolutionary region of the world] fighting to maintain anarcho-communism in a post-revolution region, and vice versa). This is unlike Stalinism in that it strives specifically for global revolution via a cooperative common front. This is certainly not an idea that all anarchists share, making how to protect post-revolution anarchist regions from capitalism (while aiding in global revolution) a variable amongst anarchists. However, while dealing with such a matter is a variable amongst, it does not mean that anarchists have no way of dealing with it in general. Additionally, I do not believe anarchy to be ignoring the state's relationship to class society. It merely states that society can exist cohesively with systems of governance other than the aforementioned state.

[Blake's Baby]

...
The "tiny pocket of socialism" that anarchists strive for is not unlike other socialists necessarily. It'd be unrealistic to expect that an anti-capitalist revolution is going to occur around the entire globe at the exact same time, so of course there'd be times where some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not...

That's why you think that there are 'state socialists'. It's unfortunately true that the revolution will not result in simultaneous seizures of power everywhere. What is the proletariat to do when it has seized power in one place but not everywhere? It can't institute 'socialism' - so, no, contrary to your expectation there aren't times when 'some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not', socialism in one country is impossible, socialist society depends on the end of capitalism.


...The goal however is to expand that socialism to the world (in the case of anarchists, stateless socialism)...

No, the goal is to expand the revolution. There is no 'socialism'.


... I think us anarchists differ pretty widely on how we believe areas converted to socialism would be protected from capitalists before the entire world was converted to socialism. Personally, I'd support a common front whereas revolutionaries of different sects would agree to protect each other post-revolution, regardless of their own country was post-revolution (e.g. council communists and other libertarian-leaning leftists from such as common front [but from a pre-revolutionary region of the world] fighting to maintain anarcho-communism in a post-revolution region, and vice versa). This is unlike Stalinism in that it strives specifically for global revolution via a cooperative common front. This is certainly not an idea that all anarchists share, making how to protect post-revolution anarchist regions from capitalism (while aiding in global revolution) a variable amongst anarchists. However, while dealing with such a matter is a variable amongst, it does not mean that anarchists have no way of dealing with it in general. Additionally, I do not believe anarchy to be ignoring the state's relationship to class society. It merely states that society can exist cohesively with systems of governance other than the aforementioned state.

Not while it's at war it can't. Not while production to help people survive while the world revolution is occurring it can't.

From the point where the working class (whether they're Marxists or anarchists or have no particular methodological framework and are just pissed of and determined to do something about an intolerable situation - I don't care because it doesn't matter which) seizes control in a particular place, to the completion of the destruction of capitalism and the state worldwide, that's the world civil war/world revolution.

While the world revolution is going on, the working class needs to organise society - production and distribution (food electricity gas petrol medicine etc); it needs to fight the encircling capitalist powers trying to attack the revolutionary territory; it needs to spread the revolution into the areas where the working class is not politically in control. It does this through its own state, because the state cannot (yet) 'whither away', because property and classes (which underpin the existence of the state) continue, and the revolutionary territory itself stands opposed to other territorial states.

So if you think that the revolution will not be simultaneous, what other choice does the working class have? States can't cease to be in a vacuum, because the gap will be filled by another state. Like a bubble bursting, when surrounded by other bubbles, they just move in to fill the gap. A post-revolutionary 'state' (of a kind) is a necessity; not a choice, but something that cannot be dispensed with, because the conditions that create states haven't been done away with. Only when property has all been collectivised, and therefore all classes done away with, can the state (in the end, an emination of a class society) 'whither away'. This has never happened; so how could the state 'whither away'?

[Skyhilist]

That's why you think that there are 'state socialists'. It's unfortunately true that the revolution will not result in simultaneous seizures of power everywhere. What is the proletariat to do when it has seized power in one place but not everywhere? It can't institute 'socialism' - so, no, contrary to your expectation there aren't times when 'some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not', socialism in one country is impossible, socialist society depends on the end of capitalism.

When the proletariat has seized control in one region, do you still consider that region to be capitalist then? What system of governance do you implement after the proletariat has done this? If not a socialist one, then what? Socialism in one country wouldn't be stable as it would either need to expand or cease to exist, but what would you call regions of the world that don't have a capitalist economy even while the world in general is largely capitalist? You're not going to have a global revolution everywhere, as you've recognized. "Revolution" is not a form of governance. You can't have the a society run by "revolution" a system of governance (when the proletariat has taken over that area but not all areas), even while trying to spread revolution. You have to advocate either a capitalist or a socialist or a communist government for the areas that the proletariat has taken over (before "global revolution") if you want a state.

Also, what makes you say that a state has to be what spreads global revolution? In fact, wouldn't states just build up more opposition due to the fact that they'd exercise authority over many people's lives causing even more resistance?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Skybutton, the state has never withered away. The state does not do that, it can only be abolished. You know this, you are anarchist.

I will help you with this discussion, because you seem to be horribly outnumbered.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

No, that's a ridiculous strawman, skybutton. First of all, "Leninists" don't say that "state socialism" is necessary. Nope.

As for examples, what? Why would anyone have wanted the state to "wither away" in Russia? The vast majority of the world was under the bourgeoisie's control. The bourgeoisie, with its armies that numbered in the millions, could have restored the capitalists' and landowners' rule in a few weeks if Russia didn't have an army to protect itself. And that's just one example at the top of my head. How does your question make any sense?

The creation of an army does not necessarily come from a state. There is such a thing as a militia.
The leninists are those who think the Soviet Union during Lenin's time was a workers state, when evidently it was not, unless they consider a workers state is a dictatorship of the communist party over the proletariat.
The question does make sense, because anarchist theory states the state can never wither away, it must be abolished through revolution. He is asking for an explanation, not attacks to his ideology. If you are not willing to provide him with the explanation you are worthless in this thread.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm going to quote myself, cause I'm lazy, blah:


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?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The state shouldn't be understood as something that can be willed in or out of existence.

It can't be willed in or out of existance, but it can wither away?


It is something that exists as a result of certain societal conditions, namely class antagonisms. The state comes into existence to mediate class conflict, to serve as the bastion of the ruling class's interests, and to provide an ideological or legal justification for the status quo or existing state of things.

Yeah, I reckognise this part of marxist theory.
Now let's see: The state can only dissapear when classes and property are abolished, but state will try to maintain these things which are fundamental for its existance; then we have the problem of classes and property not being able to be abolished in one country, which means the state can only be abolished after world revolution. This is problematic because it means you cannot change a thing unless the whole world follows you.
Yet one can set up a commune in the middle of a capitalist world and work in anarchy. How can communism only be implanted either in small communities or in the whole world?


The "withering away" narrative that you find among Marxists relates to this by basing itself on the premise laid out above. If the state exists to preserve the existing state of class relationships then it makes sense that any state of affairs where the workers are trying to preserve their revolutionary class dictatorship pending the unfurling of broader conditions that make socialism possible (international revolution) does indeed constitute a state.

So you support the dictatorship of the communist party?


The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a semi-state, though, because whereas the state of class societies exists to preserve and justify the existing contradictions in society, the proletarian state exists only to preside over their neutralization.

If only someone had informed the bolsheviks about that...


The problem with the anarchist critique is that it supposes that we can indeed will the state in or out of existence.

Lies! The state has to be abolished with the revolution. When the revolution comes we must collectivise, abolish the state, and fight the invaders and fascists, all at the same time.
You often speak of how anarchists think the state is a mythical entity, but you are the ones who say it has the power to fight for its own destruction.


But if that is true, then that must mean that capitalism can be organized statelessly, which I don't see myself ever being ready to consider very persuasive.

Capitalism can be organised statelessly, but that would lead to world control by companies, or dictatorship of the corporation. Instead of a state you have a corporation. I wonder if that can still be considered stateless.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I'm going to quote myself, cause I'm lazy, blah:

You still haven't explained the Paris Commune to me!

[Leftsolidarity]

The state has never withered away because capitalism has never been fully overthrown internationally. The DotP will have to exist has long as capitalism and imperialism exist throughout the world. At that point the state will "wither away" as it's put.

[Brutus]

The state has never withered away because capitalism has never been fully overthrown internationally. The DotP will have to exist has long as capitalism and imperialism exist throughout the world. At that point the state will "wither away" as it's put.
Yes, once classes No longer exist, the state will cease to have a purpose, so will wither away.
Classes need to be abolished world wide for this to happen, as an army is required.

[Blake's Baby]

When the proletariat has seized control in one region, do you still consider that region to be capitalist then? What system of governance do you implement after the proletariat has done this? If not a socialist one, then what?...

'Socialism' isn't a polical form or 'system of government', it's an economic form.



... Socialism in one country wouldn't be stable as it would either need to expand or cease to exist, but what would you call regions of the world that don't have a capitalist economy even while the world in general is largely capitalist? You're not going to have a global revolution everywhere, as you've recognized. "Revolution" is not a form of governance. You can't have the a society run by "revolution" a system of governance (when the proletariat has taken over that area but not all areas), even while trying to spread revolution. You have to advocate either a capitalist or a socialist or a communist government for the areas that the proletariat has taken over (before "global revolution") if you want a state...

What does 'want' have to do with it? States 'wither away' when the conditions that create states have been done away with, not before. Anyone can announce the abolition of the state - but without abolishing property relations, then the abolition of the state is a meaningless gesture.

Communism (AKA socialism) is a system that post-dates capitalism. Capitalism has never been abolished, so socialist society has never been established. There is no 'socialist' government.


...Also, what makes you say that a state has to be what spreads global revolution? In fact, wouldn't states just build up more opposition due to the fact that they'd exercise authority over many people's lives causing even more resistance?

What do you mean, 'states spread global revolution'? The working class spreads global revolution. But the working class can't 'abolish the state' any more than it can abolish gravity.

States are a reflection of class relations, so while there are different classes, there must be a state (there can't not be a state). So, the working class can't not have a state, if it exists as a class there must also be a state.

Only when the working class has seized power everywhere (when it has established control over the whole of the world economy and all states) can property be abolished. When there is no more property, then there are no more classes (because classes are an expression of different relationships to property). It's only after the successful world revolution that the working class can abolish the property system - ie capitalism - because capitalism is a world system. It needs to be abolished in totality, you can't just do away with it in one place.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lies! The state has to be abolished with the revolution. When the revolution comes we must collectivise, abolish the state, and fight the invaders and fascists, all at the same time.
You often speak of how anarchists think the state is a mythical entity, but you are the ones who say it has the power to fight for its own destruction.
Yes and no.

Yes, the state is abolished/smashed in the process of the proletariat taking power. But going onto your second point, how does the working class 'fight the invaders and fascists' while also organizing society's most basic functions (as stated before, production, food, housing and all that that entails). How does it defend itself? The militia, when applied to class and not some ideological group, serves as a functioning arm of force representing a class' interest. Those bodies which operate, organize, and direct those militias engender themselves as state institutions.

And no, the state does not have the power to destroy itself. There is no 'off switch' for the state. And the abolition of the capitalist or feudal state necessitates the creation of a proletarian state by virtue of class dynamics globally.

Unless class is abolished globally, the state cannot cease to exist. Class forces will seek to preserve or advance their class interests so long as class division exists. out of this the state arises, as has been pointed out several times already.


Capitalism can be organised statelessly, but that would lead to world control by companies, or dictatorship of the corporation. Instead of a state you have a corporation. I wonder if that can still be considered stateless.


"Dictatorship of the corporation," lol.

What runs a corporation is what would in this scenario exercise a position of class dictatorship. The bourgeoisie.


In such a scenario, there would still be class division as it is still capitalism. As a result, you have the institutions of the state coming into being.

If, hypothetically, one company ("Instead of a state you have a corporation.") became the sole ruler of a territory and people, then within it would exist antagonisms between those who produce but do not own that corporation and those who do own but do not produce. The corporate hierarchy would take on the characteristics of the state. you have regional directors, local management, various management bodies for the whole corporation, a board of directors and various top officers and finally a chief executive officer.

but how could that corporation actually be profitable if it is the only institution it does commerce with? would it produce everything? have different divisions and departments for the production of various goods?

does that corporation, if it takes the place of the state, therefore employ everyone? what does it do with those it fires? launch them into space?

and enforcement of policy obviously would take the form of security and various bodies that manage that 'division' of the company.

[ind_com]

Am I the only one who sees the paradoxes here?

-Socialism in one country impossible to maintain forever due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world
-They needed to maintain socialism in Russia (one country) because they couldn't wither away the state due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world


-Can't strive for communism (through the withering away of the state) with socialism in only one country (Russia) because of opposition in the surrounding world that would ruin it
-The goal of socialism is communism

From the Maoist point of view, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the beginning of socialism. Since classes exist in socialism, and the existence of classes implies the existence of state, the state cannot even start to wither away without capitalism being overthrown all over the world and the overthrown capitalist classes being weakened substantially. Until this happens, the workers' states that take over immediately after the revolutions, can only strengthen themselves.

[Ostrinski]

It can't be willed in or out of existance, but it can wither away?I don't see what is so hard hard about understanding this. Perhaps the phrase "whither away" wasn't the best way of communicating the point, Lenin wasn't a stranger to using phrases or words or definitions inaccurately and in turn spawning a century's worth of misconceptions and fruitless debate. Must have been a curse (at least I think it was Lenin who first used the phrase "whither away," might not have been, but in any event the concept can be traced back to Marx's and Engels's conception of the proletarian dictatorship, with it being wholly in line with their perspective on the state).

In any event, when we say "whither away" we are not making the same mistake as the anarchists who view the state as a self-serving entity conscious of itself and with the capability of ruling voluntarily for itself. Marxists generally just see it as an issue of a social entity existing only in relation to the conditions that necessitate its existence, and all the same ceasing to exist upon the conditions for its existence ceasing to exist.


Yeah, I reckognise this part of marxist theory.
Now let's see: The state can only dissapear when classes and property are abolished, but state will try to maintain these things which are fundamental for its existance; then we have the problem of classes and property not being able to be abolished in one country, which means the state can only be abolished after world revolution. This is problematic because it means you cannot change a thing unless the whole world follows you.
Yet one can set up a commune in the middle of a capitalist world and work in anarchy. How can communism only be implanted either in small communities or in the whole world?You're getting lost in your false premises, particularly your fantastic claim that not only can the state only exist in relation to classes and property (which is true), but that the only relationship it can have to property and classes is of defense rather than destruction.

I'm not sure if you're attributing that view to Marxists or if that is your own view. If the case is the former then it is no more or less than an outrageous strawman, if the latter, it is entirely inconsistent with your own view of the state as a pure "accident of history" if you will, as a random development that resulted from some conspiracy of people that wanted to be statesmen.

And you're goddamn right we can't change a thing until the majority of the world's workers commit to revolution. That's not pessimism or dogmatism, that's reality. Does that mean, however, that workers in a country that is ripe for revolution should not go through with it just because the rest of the world isn't ready? No, and nobody has ever argued as such. It just means that the isolated proletarian dictatorship can only hope to reorganize capitalism in different ways until it is ameliorated by world revolution.

Workers are the productive class, the backbone, and the foundation of society. But this does not mean that they are supermen and superwomen. They cannot supersede the conditions under which they operate through sheer force of will.


So you support the dictatorship of the communist party?Not particularly, but that isn't the issue at all. All I was saying was that whether or not we choose to call it a state, workers instituting armed enforcement of their isolated class dictatorship's defense does indeed qualify as what we would call a state. Whether we call it the Glorious People's Republic, the Freest and Most Stateless of all Free and Stateless Territories, or the Ninth Kingdom of Heaven makes no difference.

What I was saying, however, has nothing to do with how the proletarian dictatorship is expressed, which I am of the opinion will take a more council-oriented approach than party.




If only someone had informed the bolsheviks about that...Oh I wouldn't doubt that the Bolsheviks, most of whom were at least somewhat well-informed Marxists, had a basic understanding of the key tenants of Marxist theory.


Lies! The state has to be abolished with the revolution. When the revolution comes we must collectivise, abolish the state, and fight the invaders and fascists, all at the same time.
You often speak of how anarchists think the state is a mythical entity, but you are the ones who say it has the power to fight for its own destruction.Just like that, huh? Create and enforce with arms (fighting off invaders and fascists, mind you) the systematic liquidation of the old order, and call it stateless?

You stealthy bastard! :lol:


Capitalism can be organised statelessly, but that would lead to world control by companies, or dictatorship of the corporation. Instead of a state you have a corporation. I wonder if that can still be considered stateless.Oh boy. So please tell us. What is the social basis of the state, then? Does it just come out of fucking nowhere? Why is it that we can anthropologically identify the state as something that is only as old as class society give or take a little perhaps? Was it just a coincidental conspiracy that not only has held up until now without fault but has also kept social scientists of the last two centuries clueless? Do you know better than them? What makes you think you have the answers?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

From the Maoist point of view, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the beginning of socialism. Since classes exist in socialism, and the existence of classes implies the existence of state, the state cannot even start to wither away without capitalism being overthrown all over the world and the overthrown capitalist classes being weakened substantially. Until this happens, the workers' states that take over immediately after the revolutions, can only strengthen themselves.

...And before the semantic police come. No obviously the dictatorship doesn't necessarily equate socialism, we simply call it socialism because it is the first step to socialism, much like Marx used Communism and socialism interchangably. The recognition of capitalist social relations under the DOTP/socialism is an acknowledgement of the fact that the very existence of the DOTP logically implies that there is a class over which there is a dictatorship over.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see what is so hard hard about understanding this. Perhaps the phrase "whither away" wasn't the best way of communicating the point, Lenin wasn't a stranger to using phrases or words or definitions inaccurately and in turn spawning a century's worth of misconceptions and fruitless debate. Must have been a curse (at least I think it was Lenin who first used the phrase "whither away," might not have been, but in any event the concept can be traced back to Marx's and Engels's conception of the proletarian dictatorship, with it being wholly in line with their perspective on the state)...

It was Engels.

The idea is simple enough. Property relations are the roots of the state - destroy those roots and the plant - the state - will wither and die.


...In any event, when we say "whither away" we are not making the same mistake as the anarchists who view the state as a self-serving entity conscious of itself and with the capability of ruling voluntarily for itself. Marxists generally just see it as an issue of a social entity existing only in relation to the conditions that necessitate its existence, and all the same ceasing to exist upon the conditions for its existence ceasing to exist...

This exactly. You can't will the state out of existence because it depends on material conditions. It can wither away if those material conditions cease to exist.

Much as the garden doesn't weed itself just because you've decided that you're going to 'abolish' weeds. You actually have to go and dig them up.

[RedSun]

I see that ML's argue for the existence of the state as long as the revolution didn't become global and we still have a class society. However they fail to see that in countries where a revolution was successful, the bourgeoisie was abolished and the DOTP was established a new class of rulers emerged out of it as History as shown to us. Then how it would be after the revolution became global? You still have a class society even after the bourgeoisie was extinguished.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yes and no.

Yes, the state is abolished/smashed in the process of the proletariat taking power.

Love the use of "smashed".


But going onto your second point, how does the working class 'fight the invaders and fascists' while also organizing society's most basic functions (as stated before, production, food, housing and all that that entails). How does it defend itself? The militia, when applied to class and not some ideological group, serves as a functioning arm of force representing a class' interest. Those bodies which operate, organize, and direct those militias engender themselves as state institutions.

I forget you guys think everything is a state.


And no, the state does not have the power to destroy itself. There is no 'off switch' for the state. And the abolition of the capitalist or feudal state necessitates the creation of a proletarian state by virtue of class dynamics globally.

It can't be switched off, but it can wither away?


Unless class is abolished globally, the state cannot cease to exist. Class forces will seek to preserve or advance their class interests so long as class division exists. out of this the state arises, as has been pointed out several times already.

This brings up an interesting topic of discution. Imagine there had been a revolution on an isolated island, and the people had collectivised, ended private property and classes, and abolished the state. Theoreticaly that island could continue to exist in anarchy until some country nearby invades and occupies the island. So, theoreticaly, if one can defend the territory from invasions from outside, there can be socialism in one country.
If the problem is lack of acess to resources needed for the island, we can put into practice expropriative anarchism, meaning using the exproriated property of the rich (money and stuff like that) to trade for the island's resources. Although I am prety sure that, for example, Italy is perfectly able to provide for all its citizens with basic needs, and it can develop to provide for luxury needs. Now imagine the Iberian peninsula, if Spain and Portugal had their revolutions at the same time they could join together. Portugal has the ability to provide for all its citizens, but lacks industry, Spain can provide for itself, and has the industry needed to produce luxury items. A union of Portugal and Spain would make an area that would not have any problems with lack of resources. Plus with Spain's military we are safe until all of NATO decides to kill us all.


"Dictatorship of the corporation," lol.

Yeah, I know.


What runs a corporation is what would in this scenario exercise a position of class dictatorship. The bourgeoisie.

I distinguish the bourgeosie from the capitalists, because the first is refering to gigantic class with gigantic differences in power, and the latter is refering to a tiny class with big power over the world.


In such a scenario, there would still be class division as it is still capitalism. As a result, you have the institutions of the state coming into being.

Yeah, I know. In this case the corporation itself.


If, hypothetically, one company ("Instead of a state you have a corporation.") became the sole ruler of a territory and people, then within it would exist antagonisms between those who produce but do not own that corporation and those who do own but do not produce. The corporate hierarchy would take on the characteristics of the state. you have regional directors, local management, various management bodies for the whole corporation, a board of directors and various top officers and finally a chief executive officer.

but how could that corporation actually be profitable if it is the only institution it does commerce with? would it produce everything? have different divisions and departments for the production of various goods?


That is why they divide into several countries. A corporation could occupy the functions of a state, but still being a company.


does that corporation, if it takes the place of the state, therefore employ everyone? what does it do with those it fires? launch them into space?

It is still a corporation, it does not care what happens to you if you are not working. I imagine a corporation-state would have the powers of the state, but they would not have any of the state's responsabilities towards its citizens. Complete removal of social state.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I don't see what is so hard hard about understanding this. Perhaps the phrase "whither away" wasn't the best way of communicating the point, Lenin wasn't a stranger to using phrases or words or definitions inaccurately and in turn spawning a century's worth of misconceptions and fruitless debate. Must have been a curse (at least I think it was Lenin who first used the phrase "whither away," might not have been, but in any event the concept can be traced back to Marx's and Engels's conception of the proletarian dictatorship, with it being wholly in line with their perspective on the state).

Yeah, because to me wither away seems like you are saying that it will just gradualy lose power until it disapears completely. This completely ignores ambition and selfish desire to be superior to others, that some people have. Not to mention that it appears to see the state as something you create with your mind, and ignores the fact that it is a material thing, with real institutions, with real people.


In any event, when we say "whither away" we are not making the same mistake as the anarchists who view the state as a self-serving entity conscious of itself and with the capability of ruling voluntarily for itself.

Again you are forgetting the state is made up of individuals, with own wills, with own ambitions, with own lives. When one finds himself in a position of power he will do anything to remain there. If you apply this to the big ammount of people that make up the state, you get an entitiy with its own will. Even if the state was made up of only one person it would have the will of that one person.
The state does not serve itself, it serves to regulate society to maintain status quo. In capitalism the capitalists have the most power, so they ally with the state in symbiosis, one provides the individuals within the state with money and power, and the other provides protection.


Marxists generally just see it as an issue of a social entity existing only in relation to the conditions that necessitate its existence, and all the same ceasing to exist upon the conditions for its existence ceasing to exist.

You just said it couldn't be willed out of existance!


You're getting lost in your false premises, particularly your fantastic claim that not only can the state only exist in relation to classes and property (which is true), but that the only relationship it can have to property and classes is of defense rather than destruction.

A state cannot destroy property, it is the thing that maintains its relations with the capitalists. You destroy property and you destroy the capitalists, and without property the state cannot function.


it is entirely inconsistent with your own view of the state as a pure "accident of history" if you will, as a random development that resulted from some conspiracy of people that wanted to be statesmen.

I think the state originated right after property. Property originated with the great discovery of agriculture. You can see that communities that have not evolved agriculture have not developped a state. So if the state always worked for the defence of property, and depends on property to function, why would it do its utmost to destroy it? Even if the state was made up of harcore anarchists, you still wouldn't see the state working for its own abolition, because when one finds himself in a position of power, one does everything to maintain that position.


And you're goddamn right we can't change a thing until the majority of the world's workers commit to revolution. That's not pessimism or dogmatism, that's reality. Does that mean, however, that workers in a country that is ripe for revolution should not go through with it just because the rest of the world isn't ready? No, and nobody has ever argued as such. It just means that the isolated proletarian dictatorship can only hope to reorganize capitalism in different ways until it is ameliorated by world revolution.

You are justifying dictatorship of the party.


Workers are the productive class, the backbone, and the foundation of society. But this does not mean that they are supermen and superwomen. They cannot supersede the conditions under which they operate through sheer force of will.

Say what?
Can you translate that to a language I can understnad?


Not particularly, but that isn't the issue at all. All I was saying was that whether or not we choose to call it a state, workers instituting armed enforcement of their isolated class dictatorship's defense does indeed qualify as what we would call a state. Whether we call it the Glorious People's Republic, the Freest and Most Stateless of all Free and Stateless Territories, or the Ninth Kingdom of Heaven makes no difference.

Then abolish the old state and don't create another one that works exactly like the old one. That is what was done during all communist revolutions.
What I call a state is an institution that works like the state we have now, not a confederation of workers councils. State is an authoritarian institution. The closest you are going to get to a state in anarchist theory is the platform, which does the functions of a state but in a libertarian way.


What I was saying, however, has nothing to do with how the proletarian dictatorship is expressed, which I am of the opinion will take a more council-oriented approach than party.

That is not a state, that is a federation of soviets. Completely different things.


Oh I wouldn't doubt that the Bolsheviks, most of whom were at least somewhat well-informed Marxists, had a basic understanding of the key tenants of Marxist theory.

Yeah, they just disregarded it.


Just like that, huh? Create and enforce with arms (fighting off invaders and fascists, mind you) the systematic liquidation of the old order, and call it stateless?

You stealthy bastard! :lol:

Haven't you heard I am a statist and secretly a stalinist.

Seriously now. A state is authoritarian, a federation of soviets is not. How can a workers militia, controled by the workers through workers councils, be a state?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This exactly. You can't will the state out of existence because it depends on material conditions.

But you can abolish property and classes, and patiently wait for the state to wither away?

Also, who said the state can be willed out of existance? I have been trying to will the state out of existance for years and it still hasn't worked.

[Sir Comradical]

The question of the state withering away is not the immediate concern of a country that has undergone a socialist revolution that didn't spread beyond its borders. The priorities would then be defense, food security, healthcare, education, industrialization etc. That western leftists agonize over the body of armed men that is the state continuing to exist even if its purpose is to defend collectivised property relations while ignoring all the other far more pressing concerns is indeed a worry. What fascinates me about the 20th century workers states is not that they were dismantled eventually but how and why they were able to survive for that long and how those societies could have been strengthened to withstand their isolated existence through greater democracy etc.

[vanukar]

I've always been puzzled by how anyone could think that a draconian nightmare like the Soviet Union could simply "wither away" into communism.

[Blake's Baby]

It couldn't. No-one but the user here called 'RedShifted' has ever claimed it would or did. Why would anyone think it could?

[Leftsolidarity]

I've always been puzzled by how anyone could think that a draconian nightmare like the Soviet Union could simply "wither away" into communism.

Cute vocabulary but no substance.

The USSR was hardly a nightmare for the masses which gained so much from the revolution. And like I said in a pervious post, until capitalism is completely rid of there will need to be the DotP so of course the state of the USSR wasn't going to be fading away.

[Let's Get Free]

The state doesn't "whither away." any transitional state, no matter how revolutionary it's rhetoric, would tend to become an end in itself, to preserve the very material conditions it had been created to remove. For such a state power to whither away, or promote its own dissolution, would require that its leaders and bureaucracy be people of superhuman moral qualities.

[ind_com]

For such a state power to whither away, or promote its own dissolution, would require that its leaders and bureaucracy be people of superhuman moral qualities.

Or a series of mass-revolutions against the bureaucracy addicted to power.

[Let's Get Free]

Or a series of mass-revolutions against the bureaucracy addicted to power.

But this is supposed to be a "workers state." will the workers revolt against themselves?

[ind_com]

But this is supposed to be a "workers state." will the workers revolt against themselves?

A workers' state is not free from the remnants of capitalism or a bureaucracy. Hence, successive revolutions are required till the hierarchical state remains no more, and workers directly take control of the society without the mediation of a party.

[Art Vandelay]

The state doesn't "whither away." any transitional state, no matter how revolutionary it's rhetoric, would tend to become an end in itself, to preserve the very material conditions it had been created to remove. For such a state power to whither away, or promote its own dissolution, would require that its leaders and bureaucracy be people of superhuman moral qualities.

Your comments have made a stronger statement of your anti-materialist analysis, then it has on the material conditions which would necessitate the state withering away; its honestly quite funny how the longer you are on revleft, the more you realize the board is populated by mostly liberals waving red or black flags.

[vanukar]

Your comments have made a stronger statement of your anti-materialist analysis, then it has on the material conditions which would necessitate the state withering away; its honestly quite funny how the longer you are on revleft, the more you realize the board is populated by mostly liberals waving red or black flags.

I don't see how he's being "liberal" through his claim.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't see how he's being "liberal" through his claim.

Cause the argument he is putting forth is one which is ultimately 'power corrupts,' a notion which traces its roots to classical liberalism. The best of the anarchists have abandoned this notion about a century ago, but the vast majority of anarchists on revleft (including 'lets get free' are nothing but liberals waving black flags and coming from idealist paradigms). The only good anarchists I've engaged in polemics with on the site are VMC and Tim Cornellis (however Tim has recently stopped identifying as an anarchist).

[Art Vandelay]

I don't see how he's being "liberal" through his claim.

Cause the argument he is putting forth is one which is ultimately 'power corrupts,' a notion which traces its roots to classical liberalism. The best of the anarchists have abandoned this notion about a century ago, but the vast majority of anarchists on revleft (including 'lets get free' are nothing but liberals waving black flags and coming from idealist paradigms). The only good anarchists I've engaged in polemics with on the site are VMC and Tim Cornellis (however Tim has recently stopped identifying as an anarchist).

[Let's Get Free]

Not saying that "power corrupts," but that social relationships matter. every human power seeks to enlarge its prerogatives. He who has acquired power will almost always endeavor to consolidate and extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses. Anyone who subscribes to a 'materialist analysis' should know this. No ruling class in history has ever voluntarily given up power, and this so-called workers state will be no different.

[Art Vandelay]

Not saying that "power corrupts," but that social relationships matter. every human power seeks to enlarge its prerogatives. He who has acquired power will almost always endeavor to consolidate and extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses. Anyone who subscribes to a 'materialist analysis' should know this. No ruling class in history has ever voluntarily given up power, and this so-called workers state will be no different.

No once again you are coming from the paradigm of power corrupts. Positing the withering away of the state as the actions of benevolent bureaucrats shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the material conditions which lead to said state 'withering away' as well as the material conditions which lead to a state to begin with.

[vanukar]

Cause the argument he is putting forth is one which is ultimately 'power corrupts,' a notion which traces its roots to classical liberalism. The best of the anarchists have abandoned this notion about a century ago, but the vast majority of anarchists on revleft (including 'lets get free' are nothing but liberals waving black flags and coming from idealist paradigms). The only good anarchists I've engaged in polemics with on the site are VMC and Tim Cornellis (however Tim has recently stopped identifying as an anarchist).

I don't think that's the case, honestly. I can't speak for him, but the whole critique of the state is largely based on an understanding of the dangers of a centralized state, bureaucratic power structures, standing armies, etc. Believe it or not, but that's the type of state that most Marxists promote.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think that's the case, honestly. I can't speak for him, but the whole critique of the state is largely based on an understanding of the dangers of a centralized state, bureaucratic power structures, standing armies, etc. Believe it or not, but that's the type of state that most Marxists promote.

As a Marxist, I know fully what type of state that I promote and in the immediate aftermath of insurrection, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, in most material conditions, it will be a centralized organization.

[Let's Get Free]

No once again you are coming from the paradigm of power corrupts. Positing the withering away of the state as the actions of benevolent bureaucrats shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the material conditions which lead to said state 'withering away' as well as the material conditions which lead to a state to begin with.

So how exactly does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? Will this workers state effect a revolution against itself after its job is done?

[Art Vandelay]

So how exactly does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? Will this workers state effect a revolution against itself after its job is done?

The workers state withers away due to material conditions. A state doesn't arise in a vacuum, but due to class antagonisms; where irreconcilable class antagonisms exists, so will a state. It is, after all, a by product of class antagonisms. The idea that anarchists have, that they can create a stateless society in an isolated area, is honestly so absurd. Regardless of whether or not you wish to call federated soviets a state or not, misses the point: statelessness is only possible on a global scale. I've in the past made comments on how centralization and decentralization have been taken (by both dogmatic anarchists, as well as Marxists) to be considered as principles as opposed to tactics. Until the proletariat succeeds in its historic goal of abolishing itself as a social class (as well as surpassing classes, both tasks which can only be achieved on a global scale) states will exist (as a direct result of class society).

[Art Vandelay]

Will this workers state effect a revolution against itself after its job is done?

No it will not. This once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state; it isn't some entity which can act on its own right, I don't understand why anarchists give the state this mythical consciousness or power.

[Rational Radical]

If a workers state takes the form pf an armed democratic commune or workers council used to suppress the bourgeoisie i see no reason why anarchists would oppose it since historically they've actually participated in these forms of organization, i mean if this is what you're proposing you should be more specific to avoid semantics since i know alot of anarchists who have wholeheartedly advocated the DotP.Describing the state as a hierarchical,centralized body is inherently against the interest of the proletariat as it will cause a separate consciousness from the workers,creating a class of bureaucrats which is unhealthy,unneeded and outdated.

[Art Vandelay]

If a workers state takes the form pf an armed democratic commune or workers council used to suppress the bourgeoisie i see no reason why anarchists would oppose it since historically they've actually participated in these forms of organization, i mean if this is what you're proposing you should be more specific to avoid semantics since i know alot of anarchists who have wholeheartedly advocated the DotP.

It depends on the situation, on the material conditions in existence. Like I said above, decentralization and centralization are tactics and not principles. In certain cases the former or the latter will be more conducive to material conditions and to insist on one or the other, regardless of material conditions, is pure dogmatism. Some centralization will most likely be needed (largely for military purposes, given that the displaced bourgeoisie will mount an attempt at returning to their position of class hegemony), however ultimately federated soviets is the end goal.


Describing the state as a hierarchical,centralized body is inherently against the interest of the proletariat as it will cause a separate consciousness from the workers,creating a class of bureaucrats which is unhealthy,unneeded and outdated.

Just because you keep repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I've already dealt with this point multiple times and all this is regurgitated rhetoric. There is no substance to this statement. How does this new class spontaneously emerge, when the means of production are all held in common? What is this new consciousness which arises? How is centralization inherently against the interests of the proletariat? How is centralization 'unhealthy, unneeded and outdated' (this to me, seems exactly like the dogmatic approach I was outlining above)?

Unless you have some serious and detailed responses to those questions, then I see no reason to continue in polemics on the matter.

[RedMaterialist]

Yeah, the Soviet Union. Nobody can yet explain why the SU simply collapsed one day. Marx and Engels explained it 150 yrs ago.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are two different critiques - one is against centralism, the other is against the vanguard party, which is a particular notion of centralism outlined by Lenin and developed further by the majority of Communist parties after 1917.

A critique of the bureaucracy is not necessarily one of "power corrupts absolutely" so much as "a monopoly over the means of production by a group of people, regardless who they are, will lead to different interests between themselves and the masses of workers". There's really no other way to explain a counter-revolution that had a benefit for the greater majority of state bureaucrats who sought Capitalism as a more efficient way of exploiting the means of production. The problem with the vanguard party is that over time it leads to a fundamental alienation between the ruling elites and the workers, especially if there is no direct accountability towards the ruling elites on the part of the workers. It's a useful strategy for toppling an authoritarian despotism during a war but is it going to be the most effective strategy in all cases, and how do the workers ensure that the members of the Vanguard Party continue to work in their interests?

The bigger question from a strategic point of view is whether hierarchies in the abstract are necessarily going to cause these divisions, or how they can be used to actually liberate those on the lowest rungs of society.

Also, no strategy or system of organization is perfect. From a strategic point of view and regarding their ability to actually "liberate" the working class in the long run, they each have different advantages and disadvantages in certain contexts. Lenin's model was simply perfectly suited to ride the wave of the Urban proletariat in St Petersburg and the other major cities. The EZLN's model, which is anti-hierarchical, has worked effectively in parts of rural Mexico where people are accustomed to local, communal governance of political affairs and the means of production but its spread has mostly been limited to indigenous communities. Mao, Ho Chih Mihn and the Nepalese Maoists used forms of a mass people's war which worked in their context but failed to produce socialism to their countries, and which has failed in numerous other countries since. Castro and Guevara offered a model which was perfectly suited to take power in Cuba in 1959, but unsuited for Cold War Bolivia and Congo. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales were able to win a number of elections and consolidate economic power in state hands, but similar politicians have not been elected in every Latin American country and the ability of those governments to produce anything close to "real socialism" is questionable. In a way, talking about these models in absolutist terms seems to be a mistaken method of criticism. They each had a particular place and historical context in which they were wildly successful - to a point of course, as all of the old-guard "Leninist" regimes except arguably the Cubans ended up collapsing, becoming Capitalist republics, or turning into peculiar military despotisms in the case of the DPRK.

[kasama-rl]

I think there were elements in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of undermining the separation of "state and people" -- i.e. expanding the sphere of direct popular control, subjecting authorities of all kinds to criticism and public scrutiny, establishing a principle of "great debates" over the heights of policy (not just minor local matters) and more.

Clearly power was shredded in ways intended to break up "water tight kingdoms" that were consolidating (not weakening) class society.

Among the Maoists these were called "socialist new things" on the larger "communist road."