Internal Debate-The necessity of the state

[Tolstoy]

For quite some time, I have considered myself a Marxist of some stripe and am pretty much an established Trotskyist/Castroist. However, lately ive been reading alot of Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Max Stirner and Hakim Bey and ive been beginning to reconsider certain things.

Is repression of the underclasses the root of all that is unequal and cruel in our society and what has to be done is eliminate the existing bourgeois class and replace it with a new Dictaorship of the Proles? Or will this inevitably become a new class of oppressors?

Seriously Revleft, im not telling you, im asking you

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The state is simply a tool that the ruling class use to adjudicate and mediate the struggle between classes. Since we currently live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the state is used to settle these disputes in favour of bourgeois interests and to prevent the proletariat from organising effectively.

The dictatorship of the proletariat occurs when the proletariat seize the organs of the state from the bourgeoisie in revolution. It is oppressive only in the sense that its historic mission is to destroy the bourgeoisie's status as the ruling class so, yes, it is oppressive to a minority of society (namely the capitalists and their allies). The dictatorship of the proletariat, utilising the state, will destroy the arbitrary divisions of society that are inherently against proletarian interests (such as ownership of the means of production, national borders etc) and we'll see the 'withering away of the state' which I see as essentially being the turning of the organs of the state into obsolete tools of administration rather than the effective tools of the ruling class to maintain their power.

It is not inevitable that this process will establish a new class of defacto-bourgeoisie and maintain the class system (and therefore oppression) but it is possible if the revolution becomes isolated and the forces of reaction overwhelm the forces of revolution. In Soviet Russia, the revolutionary forces became isolated (the revolution had been cut down in Germany, Italy, Hungary etc in the early 1920's) which lead to the Bolsheviks doing everything they could to ensure that the White forces didn't retake power. In my opinion, this is completely understandable and, in some part, forgivable but these measures were what lead to the degeneration of the workers' state and the establishment of a defacto-bourgeoisie from the bureaucrat segment of the proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

How can the working class become a new oppressive class?

There are no classes left in capitalism; the capitalists (who existed in feudalism) were able to exploit the proletariat (that also existed in feudalism); this gave them the economic leverage to dominate society economically then politically, leading to the creation of capitalist states and eventually the world capitalist economy. The bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class (it embodied a new mode of production) but also an exploiting class.

This is not possible for the working class; it is not an exploiting class - there is no class that the working class is building its economic power on, we're too busy working for the capitalists. If the working class could find another class to exploit we would cease to be the working class (because this new class would be the working class). So, really, I don't think the question really makes a lot of sense. The point about 'the working class' (the clue's in the name) is that it's the class that does the work. How does that class ever get to exploit anyone?

[Tolstoy]

But when workers take the power, they become ex-workers. Besides, smashing class differences is no guarantee of ending other forms of oppresion like patriarchy or homophobia (not that smashing the state will either)

[KurtFF8]

But when workers take the power, they become ex-workers.

Not necessarily. The working class moves from being not the ruling class to being the ruling class. This of course will be part of a process that radically reorganizes production and the logic of the economy itself but I'm not sure what you mean by "becoming ex-workers" exactly I guess.

[ckaihatsu]

But when workers take the power, they become ex-workers.




Besides, smashing class differences is no guarantee of ending other forms of oppresion like patriarchy or homophobia (not that smashing the state will either)


BB is correct in post #3, and the same applies here -- classlessness implies / means that there *is no class* to oppress with patriarchy, homophobia, racism, etc. Once all workers control the means of mass production in common, what group would remain to be singled out as a minority, as on the basis of class -- ? Without a state how exactly *could* any practices of racism, etc., be exercised -- ?





Not necessarily. The working class moves from being not the ruling class to being the ruling class.


People may note your use of the term 'ruling' and question it, because 'ruling' implies 'a class that is being ruled over'. A revolutionary dissolution of class and state would necessarily shift the proletariat to being 'ex-workers', because all would share roughly equally in the responsibilities and co-determination of humanity's first-ever consciously planned social order. It would be an unparalleled self-awareness at the collective level, and would make for an incredible social vibrancy and dynamism.





This of course will be part of a process that radically reorganizes production and the logic of the economy itself but I'm not sure what you mean by "becoming ex-workers" exactly I guess.

[tuwix]

Is repression of the underclasses the root of all that is unequal and cruel in our society and what has to be done is eliminate the existing bourgeois class and replace it with a new Dictaorship of the Proles?

To the second part of your question my answer is: direct democracy. It is only way to establish the DotP. Others forms will inevitably cause a creation of another upper class.

Repression of underclasses isn't root of all inequalities but the majority of them. It can be easily imagined that the class od celebrites in egalitarian society will be hated as all upper classes today. But capitalism threatens a life of people. And therefore, material inequality must be eliminated as first.