So, a Socialist revolution is achieved. How would the state be structured?

[Comrade Chernov]

Economic theory, while not my strongest point, is a fascinating concept to me, and I've often wondered which administrative subdivisions would strike a perfect balance between governmental administration ability (if any) and economic sustenance. Communism's end goal is, of course, the complete removal of the state, but that is something best done slowly, in my view, rather than immediately. How would the state be structured?

Would it be a Federal system, similar to the current American model, with a centralized Government which administers more local State governments, which in turn administer Counties, and the like?

Would it be more a Confederated system, with the Central government being reduced in power, if existing at all, with more power in the hands of each individual State?

Would it be complete and utter "every town/commune/etc for themselves" anarcho-communism?

Would it be a Totalitarian central government with whatever the Supreme Glorious Dear Et Cetera Leader says being the law?

Would there be trade between States/Communes, or would each State/Commune be self-sufficient?

Would Money even exist? If not, would Bartering be in place?

I'm curious to hear what you guys have to say.

[Tolstoy]

The existing machinery of the state would have to be utilized, so as to have a strong enough machine to facilitate the trials of all of the wall street murderers. I would prefer, a semi democratic central government made up of the different socialist parties. Unions would be handed majority power over the means of production/their workplaces. This of course opens up a bunch of new questions.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

(This is my personal take on things, no doubt some people will disagree on some things and agree on others - that's one thing that we can be assured of no matter where we find ourselves. That's a good thing :D )

Not that it's my (or really anyone elses') place to come up with a detailed plan of HOW THINGS WILL BE and all that, there are a few things that we can say will be features of a future socialist society.

Firstly - forget the state. Expunge any idea or concept of "State" when thinking about the future society. There won't be one. The state is a feature of bourgeois, capitalist society, the only thing we'll really be doing with it is dismantling it once the proletariat finally take the reins, so to speak. Intrinsic to the state are hierachies, power structures and rulers - and we should neither want nor need any of those. Dismantling the state slowly is not an option, as far as I'm concerned - it should be done as rapidly as possible in case anyone gets the taste for power over other people. Ideally I'd say it should be taken apart immediately.

Socialism is above all egalitarian, free and democratic - we'd organise ourselves - hell, to defeat capitalism we'd already have had to have done so. Think of it as a global commonwealth in very literal terms. No borders, no rulers, just the common happiness and welfare of humanity, decided upon by humanity.

You can see why this makes giving a definitive answer to what the Socialist future would be like - it's radically different to the way the world works now. Will there be some people who naturally gravitate towards administering things rather than anything else? Perhaps. But they will administer as equals.

As for money and bartering - again, that has no place in socialism. I'd say money is more odious than bartering, as it stands, but either way there should be no need for either. Systems of exchange would be obsolete in a society where, for all intents and purposes, we work for everyone and everyone works for us (that's a clumsy way of saying it but I hope it will suffice) "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and all that. Think of it as a commune encompassing the entirety of humanity.


I'm sure other people can give better and more complete answers than this but this is a sketchy outline of what I think are the answers to some of your questions. I hope this helps.

[Hivemind]

Communism's end goal is, of course, the complete removal of the state, but that is something best done slowly, in my view, rather than immediately.

Why?


Would it be a Federal system, similar to the current American model, with a centralized Government which administers more local State governments, which in turn administer Counties, and the like?

Would it be more a Confederated system, with the Central government being reduced in power, if existing at all, with more power in the hands of each individual State?

Neither of these are effective nor efficient nor fair nor desirable right now, let alone in some future "socialist" existence.


Would it be complete and utter "every town/commune/etc for themselves" anarcho-communism?

If you think this statement is what anarcho-communism is, you're only skimming the surface.


Would it be a Totalitarian central government with whatever the Supreme Glorious Dear Et Cetera Leader says being the law?

Seeing as worked extremely poorly in the past hundred years, I'd venture to say no.


Would there be trade between States/Communes, or would each State/Commune be self-sufficient?

Self sufficiency is pretty much impossible, as there cannot be an area on the planet that has all the resources it needs to be completely autarkic, so "trade" would have to exist, whether or not it will appear under that name or not.


Would Money even exist? If not, would Bartering be in place?

Money is currently meaningless, and it will not find meaning after a "socialist revolution". Such a thing would be a backwards move on the part of whoever decides that such a thing is viable or desirable. And bartering is a pointless vestige of the past; we're supposed to be moving forward, not backward.

Overall, the thread title is a loaded question, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. The past hundred years have yielded a vast amount of knowledge on the function of the state as an organ of oppression (when the ruling class is controlling it), and on the function of the state as an organ of the working class when or if it takes control away from the ruling class. So far, it can be said that the working class hasn't achieved the latter. But if it does, what will it do with it?

I personally can't see how a lot of people think that the state can be positive in any way; it's been a tool of oppression since day one, and no matter who runs it, that fact wont change. There are some who say that a socialist state wouldn't be like the political entity that it is now, yet those same individuals talk about a top down approach to left wing political parties, and a desire to run things pretty similarly to how they are run now.

Then there's those who would see the state evolve into a different type of "governance", led by the working class, for the working class, and has very little in common with the general consensus of what a state is. From my experience those people are in the vast minority, which is a shame because the view they express is more inline with what communism has as its end than those who wrote in the extra steps of a transitional state run by a party that stands above the working class that will eventually wither away, and then proceeded to be extremely dogmatic about it ("ya goddamn ultra left hippies and yer counterrevolutionary ideas" :laugh:)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

it's no wonder drinking and socialism are my favourite things, it's all about bottoms up

[Comrade Chernov]

Why?

Because it's the only way we'd be able to properly educate everyone for what was about to happen, and make sure that there's as few attempts at king-of-the-hill anarchism as possible.



If you think this statement is what anarcho-communism is, you're only skimming the surface.

I must admit, I don't know much about it, I'd love to learn more about it if you're willing to teach me. A bit of a side comment, on my part, but still relevant.


Seeing as worked extremely poorly in the past hundred years, I'd venture to say no.

Just trying to cater to any Juche fans on the site. :P


Self sufficiency is pretty much impossible, as there cannot be an area on the planet that has all the resources it needs to be completely autarkic, so "trade" would have to exist, whether or not it will appear under that name or not.

Not necessarily in terms of production of cars or something, but food, tools, homes, etc.? I'd say it's possible. The Amish do it.


Money is currently meaningless, and it will not find meaning after a "socialist revolution". Such a thing would be a backwards move on the part of whoever decides that such a thing is viable or desirable. And bartering is a pointless vestige of the past; we're supposed to be moving forward, not backward.

When I say bartering, I mean simply trading things you don't need for things you do. Is everyone, then, required to make what they need themselves?


Overall, the thread title is a loaded question, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. The past hundred years have yielded a vast amount of knowledge on the function of the state as an organ of oppression (when the ruling class is controlling it), and on the function of the state as an organ of the working class when or if it takes control away from the ruling class. So far, it can be said that the working class hasn't achieved the latter. But if it does, what will it do with it?

I personally can't see how a lot of people think that the state can be positive in any way; it's been a tool of oppression since day one, and no matter who runs it, that fact wont change. There are some who say that a socialist state wouldn't be like the political entity that it is now, yet those same individuals talk about a top down approach to left wing political parties, and a desire to run things pretty similarly to how they are run now.

Then there's those who would see the state evolve into a different type of "governance", led by the working class, for the working class, and has very little in common with the general consensus of what a state is. From my experience those people are in the vast minority, which is a shame because the view they express is more inline with what communism has as its end than those who wrote in the extra steps of a transitional state run by a party that stands above the working class that will eventually wither away, and then proceeded to be extremely dogmatic about it ("ya goddamn ultra left hippies and yer counterrevolutionary ideas" :laugh:)

I can agree with you very much to that extent, but the problem is that Americans have a different view of anarchism than what the actual definition is. Americans view anarchism as synonymous with post-apocalyptic scenarios where anyone can do what they want with no repercussions, because the media has fed that into their minds to be the truth. Many would, in such a stateless scenario, simply indulge in that, and I dare say that can't be called true Communism. Even with the abolition of the state, there are still the workers' councils to administer the people and make sure that compromises are made and equality kept in place. As sad a statement it is, I don't think people would work together without some kind of forcing, be it by a conscious or subconscious reason.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I personally can't see how a lot of people think that the state can be positive in any way; it's been a tool of oppression since day one, and no matter who runs it, that fact wont change.well this is just one of the general conceptual differences between Marxists and some anarchist views of the state. (In addition, Among anarchists or Marxists, there is no uniform agreement on this or the implications of various views.)

My view is that class rule and state can't be separated. What good is a tool of oppression, if it is directionless; isn't the need for repressive powers and ideological dominance a result, not a cause of, the need to keep people working for you, increasing your power and wealth?

So in this view the state is just the expression of the way an order of society is maintained, but a particular class order. And so if you are an aristocrat you need brute force of caste and direct exploitation, if you are a capitalist you need brute force to back property rights and standard laws, etc. states are necessarily repressive because they maintain an inherently unequal and unbalanced society.

Now if workers carry out a revolution, then they probably would have needed militias at some point for self-defense against fascists, for seizing property, all the way to open conflict with police and remaining military. Workers will also need to organize their economic power: they will have to protect their self control of production, they will have to figure out how to fairly distribute things; etc. to organize all of this and ensure that decisions impacting large sections of society are collective and democratic. These three elements are the basis of what makes up a state in Marxist terms. The bourgeoise state can control society because the have guns (military power) backing up laws (political power) which are designed to keep laborers laboring and capital flowing (economic power).

A revolution flips this and replaces top down power of a few over the many for the purpose of exploitation with an order of all the exploited class who can now run production for their mutual interests. This implies to me that a society run by a party is incapable of fully carrying out this task (the collective decision making of millions and millions). It also suggests to me that the forms of the existing state can not be directly made to carry out a non exploitive society: workers would need to have new structures that are able to allow for mass decision making.

How that would look specifically would probably vary and depend on what conditions for workers were like. But any structures would probably revolve around democratically managing work places, coordinating industries and distribution, committees for organizing community planning and tasks in a community, etc. people would probably work a lot less but might be much more involved in different decision making bodies.


Then there's those who would see the state evolve into a different type of "governance", led by the working class, for the working class, and has very little in common with the general consensus of what a state is. well, this is largely seen by marxists as the definition of a state: organized power of one group in society. because workers are an exploited, not exploiting class, their class rule would not be organized to maintain an unjust society, but instead to prevent injustice, exploitation, and oppression.


From my experience those people are in the vast minority, which is a shame because the view they express is more inline with what communism has as its end than those who wrote in the extra steps of a transitional state run by a party that stands above the working class that will eventually wither away, and then proceeded to be extremely dogmatic about it ("ya goddamn ultra left hippies and yer counterrevolutionary ideas" :laugh:)well this is a bit of a stawman... Though not always unfortunately. In this example the debate among Marxists would not be over what constitutes a state, but if a single party as opposed to organs of mass working class decision making can actually stand in on behalf of the class. But IMO really it's an attempt at reconciling the supposed socialism of the USSR or other countries with their realities (which in my view was a different form of class rule, that called itself socialist).

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism's end goal is, of course, the complete removal of the state, but that is something best done slowly, in my view, rather than immediately. How would the state be structured?


Because it's the only way we'd be able to properly educate everyone for what was about to happen, and make sure that there's as few attempts at king-of-the-hill anarchism as possible.

These assertions stem from an idealist paradigm. Whether the state exists or not is not subject to our conscious control. It will not be a decision to not have a state motivated from some communist ideal, rather the classlessness of communism necessarily means there is no state. The whole notion of having to educate people before statelessness can work is not relevant, as the disintegration of the state follows the social dynamics of socialist revolution itself. The social form of existence will be stripped of its coercive features resulting from these coercive features becoming obsolete.

[Sam_b]

Just wanted to pick up on this point:


Because it's the only way we'd be able to properly educate
everyone for what was about to happen, and make sure that there's as few attempts at king-of-the-hill anarchism as possible

Who do you mean by we? It's not our place or role to 'educate' anyone. It's not a school - we make political arguments based on strategy and tactics. I'm not looking to educate other workers as much as listen to them in an actual exchange on politics and the way forward. We have to stop thinking about the class as something separate from us, who need to be told what to do or drilled into the right way of thinking. Ultimately, we in our groups and forums, will not be leading anything - the mass of us, the workers, will.

[Comrade Chernov]

Just wanted to pick up on this point:



Who do you mean by we? It's not our place or role to 'educate' anyone. It's not a school - we make political arguments based on strategy and tactics. I'm not looking to educate other workers as much as listen to them in an actual exchange on politics and the way forward. We have to stop thinking about the class as something separate from us, who need to be told what to do or drilled into the right way of thinking. Ultimately, we in our groups and forums, will not be leading anything - the mass of us, the workers, will.

By we, I mean those who take time to think and plan for the revolution. The majority of the working class these days is apathetic, and for the revolution to succeed, they can't be. In a society that is said to have defeated Communism and encourages self-advancement to the point of insatiable greed, we need to properly educate our potential comrades to resist their urges to rob their neighbors. Of course, the majority of us won't, I like to think, but it's unquestionable that at some point there will be those who take advantage of the inevitable chaos resulting from the breakdown of the state to harm innocents, in the absence of law to protect them.

Even something simple as a self-governing Commune has a government. The total breakdown of all government is impossible, it will simply be government by another name. Unless every person were to tend their own fields, make their own tools, and live their own lives in solitude, then there will always be some sort of a state.

[Thundermind]

I believe the best model for a future Socialist state would function similarly to the way it functions now in most developed countries, with a few significant differences. First, government positions that are not elected would function similar to the military. That is, people wishing to work in a governmental role would start at the bottom and work there way up or be promoted through the ranks. Those wishing to run for an elected position would be required to have the right educational background (for example 'urban planning'), the appropriate work experience and level of promotion. As many political parties may exist as their are different ideas, providing they adhere to the constitutional requirement that 'no one person may exploit another by labor or other means for financial gain'. A modern Socialist state, being without a currency, and all property and production in the hands of the state, would not have corruption for monetary gain. People running for office would debate on public access television each week to espouse their views.

Government would exist in different forms at the municipal, provincial or state and federal levels of government. The government would follow a parliamentary system, including an executive, legislative, and judicial level of government. The legislative body would consist of two levels the lower and the upper houses. The upper house would elect the executive branch of government and the president or prime minister, which would in most cases come from the majority party.

In addition, a unelected oversight committee would regularly report directly to the public on matters of misconduct.

I would like to say that I do not believe it is in the best interest of a Socialist state to be without government. If I needed heart surgery, I would not enlist a random sample of the general public to operate on me. In matters of governance we need reliable experts, with the proper education and work experience to give us direction.

[Comrade Chernov]

I've been of the opinion that a Federal Socialist Republic shouldn't have a single head of state, rather it should be run by a council to make sure that issues are properly deliberated on.

[JPSartre12]

Economic theory, while not my strongest point, is a fascinating concept to me, and I've often wondered which administrative subdivisions would strike a perfect balance between governmental administration ability (if any) and economic sustenance. Communism's end goal is, of course, the complete removal of the state, but that is something best done slowly, in my view, rather than immediately. How would the state be structured?

Technical Marxist terminology holds "socialist" and "state" to be mutually exclusive. If there is a State, then there is no socialism; if there is socialism, there is no State. The State is nothing more than an organ to facilitate class hegemony which rises from the irreconcilable antagonisms between classes. The "withering away" of the State does not mean that there will no government per se; it implies that the governing administration would no longer have any class characteristics, that production and exchange would both be under direct worker control, and that the economy would be organized along the lines of production-for-use rather than production-for-profit.

There would still be an organized political system, but it would no longer be one subject to the principals of class or capital.


Would it be a Federal system, similar to the current American model, with a centralized Government which administers more local State governments, which in turn administer Counties, and the like?

Would it be more a Confederated system, with the Central government being reduced in power, if existing at all, with more power in the hands of each individual State?

It's impossible for us to say with any degree of apodictic certainty what the exact structure of socialist society would be like, but we can make several inferences. As part of the so-called ultra-Left, I would envision a highly organized council-based society; it should be based on popular, direct-democratic control at every level - control by working people of whatever institution that they're working in (factories, offices, etc), and control over their own communities. As the State withers away, decentralized, community-based "peoples assemblies" and co-operative enterprises' "worker councils" would assume much of the political responsibility that the bourgeois State originally presided over. These could be integrated through voluntary association and be regional, national, and even international in structure. The delegates in any democratic assembly/council would be subject to immediate recall, meaning that individuals who are chosen by their peers to act as their delegate in community assembly would be directly responsible and accountable to them, and could be removed at any point if the populace feels that that person does not hold their direct interests at heart.


Would it be complete and utter "every town/commune/etc for themselves" anarcho-communism?

Yes and no. You could consider each "town" to be a "commune", and these "communes" could be federated together into a complex politico-economic structure, but having each of them act alone and "for themselves" has radical possibilities. Chiefly, I would argue, it has the potential to morph into another variant of capitalism, because a confederation of "communes" would mean that there is no over-arching political structure to unify them; as such, if they're not connected in a dynamic and political way, profound material differences may occur amongst them, and an unequal distribution of capital would manifest itself, thus causing the "communes" to occupy the political space of classes by relating to one another based on their individual material-capital accumulation and trade with one another.


Would it be a Totalitarian central government with whatever the Supreme Glorious Dear Et Cetera Leader says being the law?

If by "totalitarian" you mean something akin to a Stalinist police-state, then no. If you mean "totalitarian" in the sense that "all political and economic authority will ultimately be concentrated in the proletarian workers councils", then yes.

"Totalitarian" is really an unproductive word to use, because the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy that so many people talk about is a false dichotomy. A revolution is "authoritarian" from the view of the bourgeoisie that is suppresses, and emancipatory and libertarian from the view of the proletariat.


Would there be trade between States/Communes, or would each State/Commune be self-sufficient?

Of course there would be "trade" between the various state/communes, but that trade would have lost the class character intrinsic to capital because the State will have withered away. It will simply exist as people trading materials necessary to live, grow, and exercise their creative potential; with production governed by production-for-use, the primary goal of all material production will be to satisfy the materials needs and necessities of the working class.

And, as I mentioned above, "self-sufficient" states/communes may be radically individualist and become materially-unequal "capitalist collectives", for lack of a better word. They would need to be federated in some manner in order to ensure that there would be political and economic cohesion.


Would Money even exist? If not, would Bartering be in place?

I'm sure that there will always be "bartering" as long as there are material goods, in some form or fashion. But, generally speaking, "money" as we know it will not exist because it would have lost its profoundly exploitative class character, and will instead "wither" into a mere means of calculating input-output ratios driven by (again) production-for-use by worker-owned and worker-controlled means of production.


I'm curious to hear what you guys have to say.

I'm also very interested to see some of the responses here.

[Comrade Chernov]

Personally, I've always held the term "state" to mean a governing body, and nothing more. My apologies for not saying so. However, Sartre, I think your post is a very interesting one. What I've always pictured would be something akin to a more decentralized form of government, with multiple communes in the equivalent of what are now known as counties, multiple counties in regions, and multiple regions in the country. Each commune would have an elected representative, each region would be run by a council of those representatives, and the country governance would be more of a congress of representatives from each region. It's a similar structure to what currently exists in the United States, except that laws would be passed at the region, or even commune, level, and each commune would be (ideally) self-sufficient, though perhaps there could be specially-designated economic communes (for the purpose of heavier industry/etc)? The dynamics and possibilities intrigue me, honestly.

[RedMaterialist]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat