Question about the "withering of capitalist support" under a state

[Skyhilist]

So, from what I've heard from usual Marxists, specifically M-Ls is that, after global socialism/DOTP/whatever is reached, capitalist support will cease to exist or at least be diminished eventually to the point where "it's safe to phase out the state", and full communism can be instituted. Well my question is, what makes us so certain that this pro-capitalist support would be relinquished enough for full communism to be instituted by Marxist standards?

I mean look at us. We, the people who support communism, are a small minority in most parts of the world. Yet even with the impact of the communist movement being relinquished so much in places like the U.S., we still feel like one day, we will be able to overthrow capitalism given the chance (otherwise what would even be the point?). So if we've established the belief that a small minority can one day seize power, why would it be any different with pro-capitalists once socialism/DOTP/whatever exerts it's global influence enough for them to become the minority to the point where Marxists feel it's "safe" to phase out the state?

After all, why do Marxists not want to phase out the state immediately? Of course, there are multiple reasons, but one is that they feel that a state can better defend itself than can a society with no state. So to be ready for "full communism" after have greatly diminished pro-capitalist support is essentially to state that we no longer need a state to defend ourselves from the capitalists, no?

But surely, these pro-capitalists would still exist, even if in very small numbers. After all, we're still here despite capitalism. We've already established that we believe a small minority (in this case us) can one day grow strong enough to seize power. So, given that there would be no state under "full communism" (and therefore less means to defend the revolution according to Marxists, who would deem it unnecessary by the time communism was established), and that a small majority might eventually grow and seize power, how would we stop pro-capitalists from being a threat someday after communism was implemented? And, if this were a threat, how would we eliminate it, if after all according to most Marxists a lack of a state means worsened defense?

[Skyhilist]

I guess my question kind of shifted as I wrote this... Sorry if the title is consequentially somewhat misleading.

[Blake's Baby]

Is this only directed at MLs? Because if it isn't, I'm happy to try to clear some things up.


So, from what I've heard from usual Marxists, specifically M-Ls is that, after global socialism/DOTP/whatever is reached, capitalist support will cease to exist or at least be diminished eventually to the point where "it's safe to phase out the state", and full communism can be instituted. Well my question is, what makes us so certain that this pro-capitalist support would be relinquished enough for full communism to be instituted by Marxist standards?...

I think this is a strange way to look at the question and betrays some misunderstandings.

It has nothing to do with it being 'safe to phase out the state'. The state is an organ of class rule. The state in the transitional period from capitalist society to socialist society exists because classes and property still exist. The working class is the ruling class in society ('the dictatorship of the proletariat') and it must administer the state in this period - primarily, to suppress the still-extant bourgeoisie and prevent the restoration of capitalism.

After the bourgeoisie has been defeated, and when other classes have been integrated into production, then classes will cease to exist (a society can have many classes but it can't have just one; if 'we're all working class' then classes as such - different groups in society - have ceased to exist).

The argument holds good for states too. If the whole human race is united in one 'state' then there is no state, because everyone is part of the decision-making apparatus; there is no external authority. We move from 'the governance of people' to 'the administration of things'. I'm beginning to think that this period could justifiably be called 'democracy' - ie, rule by the people as a whole.

There is no 'phasing out of the state' because states are the result of material conditions not human whims or decrees. You may as well 'phase out winter' or 'abolish sunlight'. Once property has been collectivised, classes will no longer exist (because classes are the expression of different property relations). Once classes no longer exist the state disappears or 'withers away' (because states are the organisations for one class to oppress another). To get apples, you need apple trees, which need roots. Destroy the roots and the tree dies, if the tree dies you don't get apples. You don't decide it's 'safe' to abolish the apples, you destroy the roots. The roots of the state lie in property. Abolish property and the state dies, retain property and the revolution dies.


...I mean look at us. We, the people who support communism, are a small minority in most parts of the world. Yet even with the impact of the communist movement being relinquished so much in places like the U.S., we still feel like one day, we will be able to overthrow capitalism given the chance (otherwise what would even be the point?). So if we've established the belief that a small minority can one day seize power, why would it be any different with pro-capitalists once socialism/DOTP/whatever exerts it's global influence enough for them to become the minority to the point where Marxists feel it's "safe" to phase out the state?...

Why do you think that revolution has anything to do with 'a small minority' that 'can one day seize power'?

The working class makes the revolution, not the party, and it does it on a worldwide basis. Is the USA not part of the world? When the working class launches a successful revolution that will engulf the US too, and the American working class will be part of that world revolution. It won't sit on the sidelines while the world changes around it, and it won't leave the action to some internet commie-nerds to organise.


...After all, why do Marxists not want to phase out the state immediately? Of course, there are multiple reasons, but one is that they feel that a state can better defend itself than can a society with no state. So to be ready for "full communism" after have greatly diminished pro-capitalist support is essentially to state that we no longer need a state to defend ourselves from the capitalists, no? ...

See the comments above about the state being the result of particular material conditions. It has nothing to do with 'feeling' that a state is better for defending itself. While classes exists, there is as state no matter what anyone might 'feel' about it. I agree though that once there are no capitalists (or other classes) there will be no state.



...But surely, these pro-capitalists would still exist, even if in very small numbers. After all, we're still here despite capitalism. We've already established that we believe a small minority (in this case us) can one day grow strong enough to seize power...

No, we haven't. You keep confusing 'the communist minority' that exists under capitalism with 'the working class'.



... So, given that there would be no state under "full communism" (and therefore less means to defend the revolution according to Marxists, who would deem it unnecessary by the time communism was established), and that a small majority might eventually grow and seize power, how would we stop pro-capitalists from being a threat someday after communism was implemented? And, if this were a threat, how would we eliminate it, if after all according to most Marxists a lack of a state means worsened defense?

'States' only 'defend' existing property relations. In communism there would still be the possibility of the defence of communism. Everyone would have access to arms. If, though it seems unlikely, a small group decided that they wanted to return to capitalism, they would have to quite literally fight the entire planet to do so, as I think very few people would want to go back to being impoverished wage-slaves. So who would volunteer to be the downtrodden in this capitalist restoration? As a result, it would be almost impossible to restore capitalism; it would require a small group essentially stealing part of the social product from everyone else. Why would we put up with it?

[Nicolas_Cage]

I'm not sure about capitalism and all but I'm hoping that one day we will come to the conclusion that eating animals which perform the act of sex indecently is a disgusting habit. I only eat fish or birds as they are respectful in how they have sex.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure about capitalism and all but I'm hoping that one day we will come to the conclusion that eating animals which perform the act of sex indecently is a disgusting habit. I only eat fish or birds as they are respectful in how they have sex.

This is a forum to discuss the struggle against capitalism, not the merits or demerits of the way animals make sex.

Luís Henrique

[Skyhilist]

Thanks for the clarification Blake's Baby, that actually does make a lot of sense, if the state is just seen as an organ of class rule. But I think I may have been unclear when referring to "a small minority that we think can someday seize power." I'm not talking about a party or anything. I'm talking about socialists... Of course the working class would need to carry out their own revolution, but to do so they would have to be enlightened about socialists... So socialists, a small minority now, we believe will hopefully one day grow to the entire working class, who will then be able to seize power as a whole, being enlighted about socialism and classes.

Also, if the state is just an organ of class rule, is anarchism (i know you might not view it as anarchism, but i mean what most would call anarchism) much different from left communism other than that workers use direct democracy instead of less direct democracy like electing soviets, for example? (Assuming of course that democratic decisions are made mainly by workplaces where workers have seized power)

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks for the clarification Blake's Baby, that actually does make a lot of sense, if the state is just seen as an organ of class rule. But I think I may have been unclear when referring to "a small minority that we think can someday seize power." I'm not talking about a party or anything. I'm talking about socialists... Of course the working class would need to carry out their own revolution, but to do so they would have to be enlightened about socialists... So socialists, a small minority now, we believe will hopefully one day grow to the entire working class, who will then be able to seize power as a whole, being enlighted about socialism and classes...

I think this is problematic; because it's not entirely clear to me what you mean.

Do you think that the working class has to be convinced of socialism before the revolution?

I think that the majority of the working class will begin the revolutionary process without accepting (or even knowing about) 'socialist theory'. I think 'events have a logic of their own, even when people do not' and it is the actual practice of revolution that will make 'revolutionaries'. I think 'mass defence', if you like, will at some point become 'mass attack'. On another thread (I think) I just wrote about how 'we're starving, we need to expropriate bread' can become 'we'll be starving tomorrow, we need to expropriate the bakery'. You don't need to have read Capital, State and Revolution or even The Conquest of Bread to figure that out. That's what I mean about the working class going into the revolution without having a fully-worked-out 'socialist theory'. it's actions which make the revolution, not ideas. Expropriating the bakery is a revolutionary act; reading a pamphlet by a dead German/Russian/Italian is not -even if you really understand it and agree. To do the first, you do not need to have done the second.


Also, if the state is just an organ of class rule, is anarchism (i know you might not view it as anarchism, but i mean what most would call anarchism) much different from left communism other than that workers use direct democracy instead of less direct democracy like electing soviets, for example? (Assuming of course that democratic decisions are made mainly by workplaces where workers have seized power)

I don't know why you think there are differences in how delegate councils are elected, and I don't know whether you think Anarchism or Left Communism advocates which method of election to elegate councils. I don't see any substantial difference between Anarchism and Left Communism in that regard.

[Skyhilist]

Also, it's my understanding that with post-revolutioniory society under left communist ideology certain members of the state apparatus still hold more power than others (like the people elected into soviets). So after classes ceased to exist, would someone simply say "well, we've integrated everyone, time to use direct democracy now and stop electing soviets"? If so, who? Or would there be some other process in transitioning to direct democracy?

[Skyhilist]

I think this is problematic; because it's not entirely clear to me what you mean.

Do you think that the working class has to be convinced of socialism before the revolution?

I think that the majority of the working class will begin the revolutionary process without accepting (or even knowing about) 'socialist theory'. I think 'events have a logic of their own, even when people do not' and it is the actual practice of revolution that will make 'revolutionaries'. I think 'mass defence', if you like, will at some point become 'mass attack'. On another thread (I think) I just wrote about how 'we're starving, we need to expropriate bread' can become 'we'll be starving tomorrow, we need to expropriate the bakery'. You don't need to have read Capital, State and Revolution or even The Conquest of Bread to figure that out. That's what I mean about the working class going into the revolution without having a fully-worked-out 'socialist theory'.



I don't know why you think there are differences in how delegate councils are elected, and I don't know whether you think Anarchism or Left Communism advocates which method of election to elegate councils. I don't see any substantial difference between Anarchism and Left Communism in that regard.

I see what you're saying; I guess it'd be more accurate to say that a minority who feel capitalism is against their best interest would have to, in the long run become the majority. But with the council: doesnt the fact that there are elections at all instead of direct decisions make left communism different?

[Blake's Baby]

Direct democracy can only work up to a certain size. Why would someone in Peru care if people on my street want to turn the streetlights on half an hour earlier?

Under 'Left Communist ideology' (not an ideology) there would be no 'state apparatus', after the period of the revolution was over. 'Direct democracy' (mass assemblies) would be the revolutionary vehicle of the working class. Co-ordination between mass assemblies would be via delegate councils and just delegations - sometimes it would be enough for Factory A to send some delegates to Factory B's meeting, rather than arranging a 'Council of Delegates of Factory A and Factory B (and ...)'. This would be the case during the revolution and after.

EDIT:

Right - we're posting past each other. We need to stop doing that.

Anarchists don't deny the need for delegate councils. Sometimes it's not feasible to consult everyone on every decision. Hence my mentioning consulting people in Peru about whether people on my street in Britain should turn on the streetlights half an hour earlier. Sometimes, the numbers of people who do need to be consulted is too large to be able to do it effectively. Smaller groups can do that and aggregate their opinions at a delegate council. Power still resides with the base assemblies though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Verbal Warning to Nicolas Cage: keep it on topic and don't troll.

If you want to just chit-chat, then there's a forum for that... it's called "Chit-Chat".


I'm not sure about capitalism and all but I'm hoping that one day we will come to the conclusion that eating animals which perform the act of sex indecently is a disgusting habit. I only eat fish or birds as they are respectful in how they have sex.

[RedMaterialist]

So, from what I've heard from usual Marxists, specifically M-Ls is that, after global socialism/DOTP/whatever is reached, capitalist support will cease to exist or at least be diminished eventually to the point where "it's safe to phase out the state", and full communism can be instituted. Well my question is, what makes us so certain that this pro-capitalist support would be relinquished enough for full communism to be instituted by Marxist standards?




Well my question is, what makes us so certain that this pro-capitalist support would be relinquished enough for full communism to be instituted by Marxist standards?

Well, we can't be certain about it. If history is any indication the capitalists will fight to the absolute bitter, bloody end to defend their profits. Imagine WWI and WWII times 10. Would the capitalists incinerate the world in a nuclear holocaust to defend their profits? JFK already answered that question. Better dead than red, as the fascists say.


Here are some of my idle thoughts on class and state.

All states previous to the socialist state have existed for the purpose of enforcing exploitation of a working class, whether the patriarchal, slave, feudal or capitalist state. The socialist state will exist for the purpose of oppressing, suppressing and finally eliminating the capitalist class. Once there is no class left to suppress the entire reason for the existence of the state will disappear, thus the state will wither away and die.

Recent history and the reality of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR shows that this can be achieved. Stalin in his paranoid, psychopathic way, eliminated the capitalist class in Russia in its entirety, as well as many other classes he suspected of secretly supporting the return of capitalism. By 1989 the Soviet state had ceased to operate qua state and simply collapsed. Immediately thereafter the world capitalist class reentered the former Soviet Union and re-established a quasi capitalist state.

As to your question of how do we know that a small pro-capitalist group will not go underground and then re-appear to take over society again; a capitalist is the personification of capital, his soul is the soul of capitalism, to paraphrase Marx. The capitalist can only exist in a system which exploits wage-labor for the benefit of the private owners of the means of production.

Under a socialist state this exploitation cannot exist for private individuals. Some on this site argue that the Soviet Union was "state capitalism." I don't agree with this, but even if it were true in an economic sense, the appropriation of the surplus value created by the working class was done for the purpose of increasing the value of the Soviet state. This increase in value defeated Hitler, turned Russia into a world industrial power, defended the Soviet state against the West in the cold war. The surplus value went to the socialist state, not to international capital.

In a sense, a capitalist cannot exist underground. He has to come out periodically to suck his daily quota of blood from the working class. The socialist working class in a factory, office, etc., will know exactly where their product is going and exactly who is profiting from the sale of their product. They will know exactly who owns the factory, the means of production. I don't think the identification of the capitalist will be that difficult.

The pro-capitalist support will not be relinquished easily or overnight. How bloody it will depend on the capitalists themselves.

[LifeIs2Short]

Direct democracy can only work up to a certain size. Why would someone in Peru care if people on my street want to turn the streetlights on half an hour earlier?

Direct democracy doenst mean that every person i the world gets to have a vote on every collective decision in the world. To me what it means is that decisions are voted on directly by those affected by them. People in Peru are in no way affected by your streetlights, so why would they have a vote on them? On the other hand decisions that affect the whole global population might be voted by you and the Peruans together with the rest of humanity.



Recent history and the reality of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR shows that this can be achieved. Stalin in his paranoid, psychopathic way, eliminated the capitalist class in Russia in its entirety, as well as many other classes he suspected of secretly supporting the return of capitalism. By 1989 the Soviet state had ceased to operate qua state and simply collapsed. Immediately thereafter the world capitalist class reentered the former Soviet Union and re-established a quasi capitalist state.

Are you with a serious face suggesting USSR's fall was an example of a 'state withering away'? Go read some history books or something.

[RedMaterialist]

Are you with a serious face suggesting USSR's fall was an example of a 'state withering away'? Go read some history books or something.

That is exactly what I am saying. The SU was the first example of a successful workers' revolution. It was also the first example in history of a world power suddenly, without any military invasion or civil war, collapsing.

Marx and Engels both predicted it would happen. Unless, of course, you believe that a 3rd rate Hollywood dime store cowboy frightened the Soviet Union into throwing up its hands and giving up.

[LifeIs2Short]

That is exactly what I am saying. The SU was the first example of a successful workers' revolution. It was also the first example in history of a world power suddenly, without any military invasion or civil war, collapsing.

Marx and Engels both predicted it would happen. Unless, of course, you believe that a 3rd rate Hollywood dime store cowboy frightened the Soviet Union into throwing up its hands and giving up.

Neither of of the explanations youve offered for the reasons behind the dissolution of the USSR are correct, nor considered as true by any historian, left or right wing. It was the failure of an economic system, the popular pressure for democracy and self-determination in the countries the USSR had annexed and the unwillingness to use military power to suppress popular demands. Gorbachevs reforms set the wheels in motion, and it culminated in the failed coup detat by the conservatives. Russian Federation continued and took over most of the responsibilities of the former USSR, while others fell on the new republics. If indeed the Soviet state had withered away as in completely disappeared from existance, than there wouldn't have been any kind of successor states left, yes? The Soviet Union didnt disappear into outer space, it simply divided into big part, and a handful of small ones, which then changed their respective names and entered into market capitalism. Big states have broken up several times in history before, take for example the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]Neither of of the explanations youve offered for the reasons behind the dissolution of the USSR are correct, nor considered as true by any historian, left or right wing.

This is an argument from authority.



It was the failure of an economic system,

the SU was the 2nd biggest economy in the world; was keeping pace with its space and military program - indeed, prominent historians and economists were arguing that the SU was on the verge of destroying western civilization. Not even economists use the economic argument any more.


the popular pressure for democracy and self-determination in the countries the USSR had annexed and the unwillingness to use military power to suppress popular demands.

This possibly is the best evidence that the Soviet state no longer existed for the purpose of suppressing a class of people. When a state decides not to use military power against its own citizens then it no longer has any reason to exist as a state.


If indeed the Soviet state had withered away as in completely disappeared from existance, than there wouldn't have been any kind of successor states left, yes? The Soviet Union didnt disappear into outer space, it simply divided into big part, and a handful of small ones, which then changed their respective names and entered into market capitalism.

So you're saying now that the Soviet State is still in existence? Just under a different name?



Big states have broken up several times in history before, take for example the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Well, there was the little matter of World War I. I didn't say large states have not broken up before. Most have been destroyed by war. The SU is the only one in history which suddenly collapsed overnight.

By the way, I appreciate your critique.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and this may have already been mentioned), but I believe Engels once said that Marx's post-capitalist 'State' was not a State as we typically consider it, but was the sum of workers' democratic governance in the process of distributing the means of production.

Of course, although I'm partial to Marx, I've never considered myself a pure Marxist through and through, so I could be WAY off base.

[LifeIs2Short]

[QUOTE=LifeIs2Short;2617486]
the SU was the 2nd biggest economy in the world; was keeping pace with its space and military program


While completely neglegting agriculture etc. leading to the era of stagnation starting with Brezhnev. There are resources in the web that you can read about the failures of the soviet economy more, I cant provide link because I'm too new here. :(




- indeed, prominent historians and economists were arguing that the SU was on the verge of destroying western civilization.

And who would those be? Unless they meant in the form of a nuclear apocalypse..




This possibly is the best evidence that the Soviet state no longer existed for the purpose of suppressing a class of people. When a state decides not to use military power against its own citizens then it no longer has any reason to exist as a state.

Anti-government demonstrations often happen in modern liberal democracies without being suppressed by the military. That is no proof that these sates arent oppressing their working classes.




So you're saying now that the Soviet State is still in existence? Just under a different name?

I'm saying that the institutions that comprised it didnt just vanish into the air but continued to exist and were than changed to respond to the needs of a market economy. Moscow militias didnt de-organize when the USSR ceased to exist as a legal entity. They continued their routine work under a new administration.



Well, there was the little matter of World War I. I didn't say large states have not broken up before. Most have been destroyed by war. The SU is the only one in history which suddenly collapsed overnight.

It didnt collapse, it broke up and the remnants mutated.



By the way, I appreciate your critique.


Thank you very much! :)

[Nicolas_Cage]

Verbal Warning to Nicolas Cage: keep it on topic and don't troll.

If you want to just chit-chat, then there's a forum for that... it's called "Chit-Chat".

How may I ask was I trolling? I wasn't trying to annoy anyone. As for staying on topic, I just felt like it was important to voice my own opinion. Seriously, though, I'm sick of people using the term trolling for almost anything other than its actual meaning (annoying someone for the sake of annoying someone).


In future I will try to stay closer to the topic.

[RedMaterialist]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and this may have already been mentioned), but I believe Engels once said that Marx's post-capitalist 'State' was not a State as we typically consider it, but was the sum of workers' democratic governance in the process of distributing the means of production.

Of course, although I'm partial to Marx, I've never considered myself a pure Marxist through and through, so I could be WAY off base.

I think both Engels and Marx believed the post-capitalist state would be a dictatorship of the working class. After this socialist/state/dictatorship destroyed the capitalist class, then there would be a transition to communism, i.e. a stateless society.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE=redshifted;2617524]


Anti-government demonstrations often happen in modern liberal democracies without being suppressed by the military. That is no proof that these sates arent oppressing their working classes.



Modern liberal democracies have, for the most part, learned how to control the population without the use of force. Chomsky has discussed this in Manufacturing Consent. However, if there is any serious threat to even a liberal democracy from its own citizens' democratic demands, the government wouldn't hesitate for a moment to use force. Greece is a good example. The Occupy movement in the U.S. was shut down by the police, which is essentially a para-military force. The Guantanamo prison is kept open mainly as a warning to U.S. citizens. The U.S. government even now maintains the right to murder its own citizens, by remote control, if necessary.

[Skyhilist]

Direct democracy can only work up to a certain size. Why would someone in Peru care if people on my street want to turn the streetlights on half an hour earlier?

Well, I think that's what the point of federalism is; so that the society and it's laws around you are actually relevant to you.


Under 'Left Communist ideology' (not an ideology)Sorry, what should I be calling it instead?


there would be no 'state apparatus', after the period of the revolution was over. 'Direct democracy' (mass assemblies) would be the revolutionary vehicle of the working class. Co-ordination between mass assemblies would be via delegate councils and just delegations - sometimes it would be enough for Factory A to send some delegates to Factory B's meeting, rather than arranging a 'Council of Delegates of Factory A and Factory B (and ...)'. This would be the case during the revolution and after.That doesn't sound unreasonable, although I'm still a little confused about how exactly the transition works from there being a state to there being direct democracy right as the revolution is finishing/has finished. Do the people who hold power under the revolutionary state apparatus just voluntarily give it up, or...?


EDIT:

Right - we're posting past each other. We need to stop doing that.

Anarchists don't deny the need for delegate councils. Sometimes it's not feasible to consult everyone on every decision. Hence my mentioning consulting people in Peru about whether people on my street in Britain should turn on the streetlights half an hour earlier. Sometimes, the numbers of people who do need to be consulted is too large to be able to do it effectively. Smaller groups can do that and aggregate their opinions at a delegate council. Power still resides with the base assemblies though.Right, we're in agreement on this one

[Red Nightmare]

I think that a communist revolution would entail not only abolishing capitalism itself but also capitalist ideology and its adherents themselves. Quite simply, if there are still capitalists after a revolution, the revolution is not complete. The reason why communists and communist ideology exists under capitalism is because there is a material basis for it, after the revolution there should be no basis for capitalism, so capitalist support should wither away.
Feudalist support has withered away due to capitalism, how many people today do you see proclaiming themselves to be feudalists and how many feudalist movements do you see today?

[Luís Henrique]

I think that a communist revolution would entail not only abolishing capitalism itself but also capitalist ideology and its adherents themselves. Quite simply, if there are still capitalists after a revolution, the revolution is not complete.

"Capitalists" aren't "adherents" to capitalist ideology; they are owners of capital.


The reason why communists and communist ideology exists under capitalism is because there is a material basis for it, after the revolution there should be no basis for capitalism, so capitalist support should wither away.

The reason communists exist under capitalism is that capitalism cannot exist without a proletariat, and the proletariat systematically produces and reproduces communist "ideology" (if that's the word, which is questionable).

The reason that support for capitalism will wither away in a communist society is not that capitalist ideology and its adherents are "abolished", but that the material basis for capitalist ideology will no longer exist. And why not? Because while capitalism needs a proletariat (which systematically produces and reproduces communist "ideology"), communism doesn't need a bourgeoisie at all.


Feudalist support has withered away due to capitalism, how many people today do you see proclaiming themselves to be feudalists and how many feudalist movements do you see today?

This, but even more radically.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Some quick and perhaps superficial thoughts.


It has nothing to do with it being 'safe to phase out the state'. The state is an organ of class rule. The state in the transitional period from capitalist society to socialist society exists because classes and property still exist. The working class is the ruling class in society ('the dictatorship of the proletariat') and it must administer the state in this period - primarily, to suppress the still-extant bourgeoisie and prevent the restoration of capitalism.

So the transitional period is no longer "capitalism"?


After the bourgeoisie has been defeated, and when other classes have been integrated into production, then classes will cease to exist (a society can have many classes but it can't have just one; if 'we're all working class' then classes as such - different groups in society - have ceased to exist).

We will not be "all working class"; we will abolish our class as much as we will abolish the bourgeoisie and the other classes characteristic of bourgeois rule.


The argument holds good for states too. If the whole human race is united in one 'state' then there is no state, because everyone is part of the decision-making apparatus; there is no external authority.

If the whole human race is united under one polity but still divided into classes, yes, that polity will be a State. Whether such union is a practical possibility or not, it is a different issue, but what makes a society stateless is not the absence of boundaries, it is the absence of classes.


Once property has been collectivised, classes will no longer exist (because classes are the expression of different property relations).

This is way simplistic, as the tragic example of the Soviet Union shows us. Property has to be abolished, not collectivised, and the mere formal abolition of property isn't enough. The working class needs to take material hold of the wealth it produces.


The roots of the state lie in property. Abolish property and the state dies, retain property and the revolution dies.

The roots of the state lie in class, not property.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Feudalist support has withered away due to capitalism, how many people today do you see proclaiming themselves to be feudalists and how many feudalist movements do you see today?

I don't think it is true to say that feudalism "withered" away under capitalism. It took several revolutions, most notably the French Revolution, over 2-3 centuries to destroy feudalism.

Even the U.S. civil war was a violent abolition of an economic system, slavery, which had regressed into pre-feudalism.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I think that's what the point of federalism is; so that the society and it's laws around you are actually relevant to you.

Sorry, what should I be calling it instead?...

Don't worry about it. An 'ideology' is an expression of false consciousness. That which is 'true' isn't ideology. As I hold that Left Communism is not false consciousness, it isn't an ideology.


...That doesn't sound unreasonable, although I'm still a little confused about how exactly the transition works from there being a state to there being direct democracy right as the revolution is finishing/has finished. Do the people who hold power under the revolutionary state apparatus just voluntarily give it up, or...?
...

The working class, through direct democracy (ie the mass assemblies), is the "people who hold power under the revolutionary state apparatus". Does 'the working class' give up power after the end of the revolution? After the end of the revolution, there is no 'working class' because everyone is integrated into social production. There are no 'workers' and 'non-workers'. Does the working class voluntarily give up the state after the revolution? The state is an instrument of class rule. Without classes, without external or internal enemies, when everyone is part of the 'administration of things', there is no state. No-one 'gives it up'.




Some quick and perhaps superficial thoughts.



So the transitional period is no longer "capitalism"?...

It's still capitalism, though capitalism in the process of being transformed into something else. I should have made it explicit that what is being restored is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


...

We will not be "all working class"; we will abolish our class as much as we will abolish the bourgeoisie and the other classes characteristic of bourgeois rule...

That's what I said, which is why I put 'we're all working class' in quote marks. The point was that there are no more classes.



...
If the whole human race is united under one polity but still divided into classes, yes, that polity will be a State. Whether such union is a practical possibility or not, it is a different issue, but what makes a society stateless is not the absence of boundaries, it is the absence of classes.

This is way simplistic, as the tragic example of the Soviet Union shows us. Property has to be abolished, not collectivised, and the mere formal abolition of property isn't enough. The working class needs to take material hold of the wealth it produces...

Absolutely agree - the 'formal' abolition of property is not enough. The actual collectivisation of all property is the abolition of property.



...
The roots of the state lie in class, not property.

Luís Henrique

The roots of the state are in property, because the roots of classes are in property. Property is the root, classes are the product of different relations to property.

[Skyhilist]

The working class, through direct democracy (ie the mass assemblies), is the "people who hold power under the revolutionary state apparatus". Does 'the working class' give up power after the end of the revolution? After the end of the revolution, there is no 'working class' because everyone is integrated into social production. There are no 'workers' and 'non-workers'. Does the working class voluntarily give up the state after the revolution? The state is an instrument of class rule. Without classes, without external or internal enemies, when everyone is part of the 'administration of things', there is no state. No-one 'gives it up'.

Wait so now the working class is holding power during the transition to communism through the revolutionary state apparatus using direct democracy? I thought that you were just arguing that direct democracy wasn't feasible though...? I mean, if direct democracy is being used then I honestly don't see what the difference is between left communism and certain anarchist tendencies other than whether or not you acknowledge that your society has a state.

That aside, don't left communists want there to be elections for leaders who make the decisions during the transition period (i.e. not-so-direct democracy)? This is really what I'm referring to. These specific people, elected into these positions obviously hold at least some amount of power, right? So when the state as you would call it ceases to exist, do these specific people still hold the positions they had during the transition (and yes I know, these people are supposed to represent the working class, but surely they'd be making at least some decisions on their own without consulting the working class, so it wouldn't be everyone within the working class holding an equal share of power)? Or do they give it up, voluntarily, or through some other means..?

[Blake's Baby]

Wait so now the working class is holding power during the transition to communism through the revolutionary state apparatus using direct democracy? I thought that you were just arguing that direct democracy wasn't feasible though...? I mean, if direct democracy is being used then I honestly don't see what the difference is between left communism and certain anarchist tendencies other than whether or not you acknowledge that your society has a state...

Which is why I said the same thing about 20 posts ago. I don't see any (significant) difference between how most Left Communists see the revolution, and how many Anarchists see the revolution. Same processes going on. We might call it a 'semi-state' (after Engels, the working class after all imposing its dictatorship on the bourgeoisie), and Anarchists might say there is no state (no minority suppressing the majority) but we're all for the workers' councils.


...That aside, don't left communists want there to be elections for leaders who make the decisions during the transition period (i.e. not-so-direct democracy)? This is really what I'm referring to. These specific people, elected into these positions obviously hold at least some amount of power, right? ...

I don't know what 'specific people' or elections you're talking about.



...So when the state as you would call it ceases to exist, do these specific people still hold the positions they had during the transition (and yes I know, these people are supposed to represent the working class, but surely they'd be making at least some decisions on their own without consulting the working class, so it wouldn't be everyone within the working class holding an equal share of power)? Or do they give it up, voluntarily, or through some other means..?

I don't know what you're talking about. Who are these people? Why do they have power?

If a group of people try to take power from the working class, they are the counter-revolution. Why do think that the counter-revolution is the revolution?

[Skyhilist]

Perhaps I'm mistaken. I had thought that one of the tenets of left communism was that workers elect people (I believe the terminology used was "elect them into soviets" or something like that) who are supposed to represent them and vote on matters concerning society. I don't mean like they're elected and they just inform others elected what their workplaces want... I mean like they're elected by workers and make the decisions that will govern society. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on my part, is this not a part of left communism?

[Blake's Baby]

Look, there are the Bordigists, and they believe whatever they believe, which is some ultra-orthodox Leninism, but most Left Communists see the workers' councils as being the revolutionary vehicle. The party is necessary, it isn't sufficient, and it doesn't 'take power' - the excercise of power in the dictatorship of the proletariat is the task of the proletariat, hence the name, hence that bit in the Address to the First International about the emancipation of the working class being the task of the working class.

'All power to the workers' councils' and 'for the international power of the workers' councils' and even Rudolf Rocker's 'everything for the councils! Nothing above them!' are I think pretty generally acceptable to Left Comms. I don't know why you're hung up on 'elections' being a difference between Left Communism and Anarchism here. I don't see any distinction between the Left Communist view of the DotP and the Anarchist view of the revolution. Terminology, yes, how we actually understand process, yes, but in terms of how it works, no.

[Skyhilist]

Alright so for everyday community stuff, do elected people make most of the decisions or are only there to convey what the workers want without actually being the ones to make the decisions? That's the only thing I'm unsure about, otherwise I think I pretty much get it.

[Skyhilist]

Also what you're describing seems to be basically what I've rea about council communists as well. So, since both consider themselves communists and both have such similar ideas... Where exactly is it that left communism and council communism vary? That's the only other thing I'm hung up on now. And sorry for being a pain in the ass and asking so many questions.

[Blake's Baby]

Alright so for everyday community stuff, do elected people make most of the decisions or are only there to convey what the workers want without actually being the ones to make the decisions? That's the only thing I'm unsure about, otherwise I think I pretty much get it.

My assumption is pretty much community meetings will decide things.

If there are things that are bigger than the community there will be a council of communities, I expect.


Also what you're describing seems to be basically what I've rea about council communists as well. So, since both consider themselves communists and both have such similar ideas... Where exactly is it that left communism and council communism vary? That's the only other thing I'm hung up on now. And sorry for being a pain in the ass and asking so many questions.

The Council Communist movement grew out of the German-Dutch current of the Communist Left. Left Communists and Council Communists share many positions. Ones we don't share, however, are over the necessity of the Party, and the nature of the October Revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think it is true to say that feudalism "withered" away under capitalism.

Of course feudalism didn't wither away.

Support for feudalism, which is what was mentioned in the post you were responding to, however, did wither away.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Of course feudalism didn't wither away.

Support for feudalism, which is what was mentioned in the post you were responding to, however, did wither away.

Luís Henrique

What does "support" for feudalism mean?

Feudalism was destroyed as an economic system (by, for example, the French Revolution), but support for feudalism then withered away? After the restoration under Louis Bonaparte it finally took the Franco-Prussian war to end the aristocracy/feudal ideal in France for good. The bourgeoisie were happy, of course, to see both the aristocracy and the communards defeated.

If the French monarchy had not been destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War, it certainly would have been in WWI (along with the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Russian empire.)

There will always be hangers-on to the Ancien Regime; you still see re-enactors of the Middle Ages, the Civil War, etc. But the point is that the economic system itself (slavery, feudalism, capitalism, the welfare state) cannot be destroyed without a violent revolution, there is no reforming or withering away of an exploitative economic system. Liberals have been trying to do that since 1929; we can see the results: an even stronger world wide capitalist domination.

The only state than can wither away is the dictatorship of the proletariat and only after a complete, world-wide defeat and extermination of capitalism and the capitalist class.

Revolution or reform? as someone once said. This is not to say that the revolution can be called up or put on the calendar, or that once started it will be successful. But if successful it won't be a matter of waiting for capitalism or its supporters or its support to "wither away."

If "support for feudalism" means a nostalgia for its ideology, ideals, the fantasies of nobles, knights, castles, and happy peasants working in the fields, then, of course, once a ruling class is replaced, its ideology will, as historical romance dictated by the new ruling class, probably continue to linger on until even it withers away. The old ideology becomes a kind of dream, enforced by the new ruling class, that lingers on after the death of the reality.

History repeats itself, as Marx said, first as tragedy then as farce. First the tragedy of the French Revolution, then the farce of the attempt of Louis Bonaparte to restore the aristocracy. The farce lingers on as "support" for feudalism, but only because feudalism has been violently destroyed. In France even the farcical support for feudalism had to be destroyed.

The U.S. has a nostalgia for the ideology of the small farmer, the small business man of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Yet the people of the U.S. are submerged by a monopoly capitalism which controls every aspect of their lives. If capitalism is finally destroyed by the working class, there won't be this kind of nostalgia or withering of support for capitalism because there won't be a ruling class to impose the false ideology of the good old days of capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

What does "support" for feudalism mean?

This (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm).

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

This (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm).

Luís Henrique


The support for feudalism is the social feudalism of the aristocracy? But feudalism as an economic system had been destroyed in the French Revolution. What the aristocrats got was the Bonaparte monarchies ruling over bourgeois empires. I still think the "withering of support for feudalism" means that feudalism must have continued to exist after 1789 in France. The aristocrats of course wanted to return to feudalism, but by 1830 that was impossible. The support had not only withered, it had become unreal except in the fantasies of the aristocrats.

[Luís Henrique]

The support for feudalism is the social feudalism of the aristocracy? But feudalism as an economic system had been destroyed in the French Revolution. What the aristocrats got was the Bonaparte monarchies ruling over bourgeois empires. I still think the "withering of support for feudalism" means that feudalism must have continued to exist after 1789 in France. The aristocrats of course wanted to return to feudalism, but by 1830 that was impossible. The support had not only withered, it had become unreal except in the fantasies of the aristocrats.

Yes, feudalism as a system was destroyed. Support for such destroyed system withered away, though.

And the aristocrats certainly didn't get the Bonaparte monarchies, which they opposed very much. They got Restoration, which of course was a feudal clique ruling over a bourgeois State.

As for the rest, I think you are nitpicking. Feudalism was ended at different times for different countries, starting by Switzerland in the 13th century and ending in Russia in the 20th. "Support" is merely a subjective attitude, and while nostalgic aristocrats couldn't restore feudalism in France in 1830, they still supported such mode of production and organised to fight for its restoration (and, of course, very much supported it where it was still extant, such as Russia or Prussia).

Luís Henrique