Withering away of the state.

[Overcome]

Apologies if there is already a thread about this, but I'll ask here anyway.

By what process or mechanism is the state formed by the dictatorship of the proletarianat supposed to wither away?

Will different state functions become superfluous and naturally cease to function?

If so what would replace them.

Many thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Apologies if there is already a thread about this, but I'll ask here anyway.

By what process or mechanism is the state formed by the dictatorship of the proletarianat supposed to wither away?

Will different state functions become superfluous and naturally cease to function?

If so what would replace them.

Many thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Well the larger theory of states that informs this idea (which you might know anyway) is that states exist because the interests of different classes (specifically exploiting and exploited classes) prevents a sort of universal way to run society and so states exist as a way to bring stability to inherently unstable (class) societies by ensuring that one way of organizing things remains dominant. Typically this looks like some form of organized class economic, political, and military power hegemony.

Since the working class (as the exploited class in capitalism) can produce potentially through cooperation and without creating a new exploited class, in theory workers could be able to reorganize society so that the exploiting classes are removed from their control of society and other classes can begin to be brought into the working class, in effect dissolving class differences. This eliminates the practical need for one specific class in society to dominate others and can lead to a universal administration because one section of society doesn't benifit off of other sections, but people mutually benifit. So decisions that in capitalism are political because of competing interests, could simply be practical decisions where really it's the merrit of the ideas that's the issue, not who is going to benifit most from this or that way of doing things.

I could only guess at what the specific mechanisms or process of development for this might be. I think in some cases it would simply be getting rid of redundant decision-making bodies or tasks. Right off the bat, many of the present functions of the state would just be abolished outright - the capitalist military, all the beurocracy around certain industries and governmental institutions would have to be neutralized and jetisoned through the process of revolution itself.

As for new bodies created by the workers to facilitate their immediate rule after a revolution, I think people would need to create bodies for deciding how to restructure the way we produce things, the way our communities are developed, where resources go, how to account for housing and placing people into homes, figuring out where material gaps and needs are and how to develop ways of satisfying those needs. I think initially all this heavy decision making needs to be incredibly democratic and so there would be a lot of effort put into these areas. But, take housing for example, once we are beyond the point of just trying to reappropriate existing living spaces and finding homes for everyone and are now creating our own communities, a general democratic plan can be decided on which reduces the amount of day to day decisions and prioritization. Communities wouldn't need to decide at that point if they spend their efforts on creating a new hospital or improving transportation because both could be done since neither would require creating new methods and new infrastructure for that.

So I think both the permanent administration of things would wither as would the political character of these decisions. We could all agree that we want health services and decent and pleasant communities, so there wouldn't have to be prioritization of one need over another, things could be more automatic and collective decisions more ad-hoc.

[ChrisK]

Much of this deals with unknowns. We do not know what a communist society will look like. We can conjecture that it will involve democratic organizations, but no state.

How the state withers away is a process that occurs because people re-socialize and learn how to live without classes. As this happens, the state will eventually cease to exist since the role of the state is to protect the interests of the ruling class. Without classes, it will simply be abandoned.

For more information I would read this link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm). This is part of The Critique of the Gotha Program, in which Marx describes the transition between the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism.

[ChrisK]

Well Jimmie Higgins posted something at the same time as me and his is better. Read that post.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I've talked with some people who believe that the state in the non-marxist sense (they've called it avoiding the question of the state by creating ones' own definition) doesn't really 'wither away' at all, and that there is no evidence of such a thing happening. Of course, in the marxist sense (a society in which a ruling class presides over other classes) the state definitely would wither away (as the ruling class is a single class, there are no other classes they can really exploit). They argue that the changing of terms for something which already has it's own (transition to class society, rather than 'the state withering away') is an excuse for Marxists to ignore the role of the state.


Just an interesting opinion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well Jimmie Higgins posted something at the same time as me and his is better. Read that post.Meh, just more long-winded:lol:

[Overcome]

Thanks for your replies.

So there would still be a "government" of sorts? Just more local, such as workplaces, estates and villages that sort of thing. With no overall "national" government.

Is that correct?

(Forgive my lack of correct terminology)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Tim Cornelis]

The workers' state is a network of organs of workers' power (workers' associations to manage production and workers' councils to manage central affairs, especially concerning politics and civil-military coordination). This network of organs of workers' power -- the workers' state -- is a semi-state because it is administrated from below. It more resembles the future structure of a stateless society than it does the modern state. However, due to the immature nature of these structures and economic problems arising from the transition there would be -- presumably -- taxation as well as a workers' militia. There would likewise be incidental hierarchy or a committee taking decisions on the basis of passive consent. These problems will gradually fade as workers become more accustom to managing their own affairs and the transition is completed. However, as long as there is a reactionary force and the immature transitional problems persist the network of organs of workers' power will still wield coercive features, and thus constitute a semi-state.
Taxation would become obsolete and impossible as would a workers' militia. The coercive features disappear incidental hierarchy is eliminated because structures of decision-making and accountability have matured.



I could only guess at what the specific mechanisms or process of development for this might be. I think in some cases it would simply be getting rid of redundant decision-making bodies or tasks. Right off the bat, many of the present functions of the state would just be abolished outright - the capitalist military, all the beurocracy around certain industries and governmental institutions would have to be neutralized and jetisoned through the process of revolution itself.


Too me this sounds too much like you consider socialism to be a matter of policy, and that statelessness, likewise, is a policy. As if there is an option to not get rid of redundant bodies.
The process by which the state will wither away is fairly clear (see above)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Too me this sounds too much like you consider socialism to be a matter of policy, and that statelessness, likewise, is a policy. As if there is an option to not get rid of redundant bodies.
The process by which the state will wither away is fairly clear (see above)Well "maturation" is not really a specific mechanism, I thought the OP was asking what will people do subjectivly about this or if it will just happen and that's what I was taking a shot at in that section. And to that question I don't have any real idea but I would guess that it would be a combination where more specific tasks of worker's rule would be consiously eliminated and other features along with the whole basis of a worker's state would more organically disappear as relations change to the point where they are needed less and less and then are just gone. No, there wouldn't likely ever be some vote or decree about ending the era of worker's rule, but there might be decisions made by militias to disband themselves, certain post-revolution organization or services ended as they become redundant, etc. So I'd guess that ending specific tasks of the worker's state can be whittled down as certain tasks become redundant long before statelessness as a whole is achieved.

[The Feral Underclass]

The workers' state is a network of organs of workers' power (workers' associations to manage production and workers' councils to manage central affairs, especially concerning politics and civil-military coordination). This network of organs of workers' power -- the workers' state -- is a semi-state because it is administrated from below.

With all respect, this is just idealistic gibberish.

What is a network? What is an organ of workers' power? What is a workers' association? What is managing production? What does managing central affairs mean? What the hell is a "semi-state"?

Just throwing vague terms around based on a half-formed, spurious theory about transition is an inadequate and incoherent response to the question of establishing a communist society.

You haven't defined a state, you haven't defined hierarchy or political authority or presented an understanding of what power is, both "workers" and "bourgeois" power.

[Tim Cornelis]

With all respect, this is just idealistic gibberish.

What is a network? What is an organ of workers' power? What is a workers' association? What is managing production? What does managing central affairs mean? What the hell is a "semi-state"?

Just throwing vague terms around based on a half-formed, spurious theory about transition is an inadequate and incoherent response to the question of establishing a communist society.

You haven't defined a state, you haven't defined hierarchy or political authority or presented an understanding of what power is, both "workers" and "bourgeois" power.

With all due respect it seems like you're playing stupid in some effort to incite an irrelevant debate -- which I have no particular interest in, but here I go nonetheless. You would think that someone asking a question regarding the withering away of the state would possess some elementary knowledge of socialism. It's not necessary, I don't think, to go over every single definition of every single word in every single discussion before proceeding to the actual content.
I expect OP to know that socialism is based on associated labour so a workers' association managing production would not need elaboration, I expect most people on here to know "workers' power" and what is generally meant by it so saying 'organs of workers' power' logically meaning decision-making organs by and for workers, I would think that 'semi-state' would be understandable to anyone who knows a little bit about Leninism, and for those that don't I gave a brief explanation. I would certainly expect a communist 'senior' if not vetaran like yourself to know all this. And I would think that most people in general would know the meaning of the word 'network' or 'power'.


With all respect, this is just idealistic gibberish.

Your issue seems to be with the supposed "vagueness" of how I describe the withering away of the state, which doesn't pertain at all "idealism." I don't see how it's idealistic at all, it seems more likely that you used it as a buzzword.


What is a network?

Really now? A network is 'net' of interconnected actors. (I hope I don't need to define interconnected and actors). In this particular context it would refer to different organs of workers' power connecting for purposes of decision-making and coordination.
A network can be a confederation, federation, central, a workers' republic (as the Bavarian Soviet Republic was prospected to be, as well as Russia for that matter), or a movement like the MST or CNT.


What is an organ of workers' power?

An organ of workers' power is just that, an organ of workers' power. These can take a multitude of variations, and given that they can take a multitude of variations I choose to refer to them as such without listing them all. Soviets, workers' councils, workers' committees, the decision-making bodies of revolutionary trade unions, etc. As with organs they are part of a body (the network, trade union, or federation).


What is a workers' association?

An association of producers to carry out production of consumer goods. You join an association to produce,


What is managing production?

The decision-making, coordination, and execution of productive activities.


What does managing central affairs mean?

If all organs of workers' power are left to their own devices it leads to the perpetuation or recreation of market exchange due to sectional interests overriding class interests. To prevent this, deputies organs of workers' power of all industries, workplaces, sectors, regions need to be gathered into a central assembly where from decisions are coordinated and executed as to not elevate the interests of a section of the proletariat over that as a whole. They are central affairs because they affect the whole of the network (appeal for definition above).


What the hell is a "semi-state"?

A state whose basic structures resembles a future stateless society more so than it does the modern state. It's a semi-state because it is built from the bottom-up on the basis of classlessness by destroying class dynamics.


Just throwing vague terms around based on a half-formed, spurious theory about transition is an inadequate and incoherent response to the question of establishing a communist society.

You haven't defined a state, you haven't defined hierarchy or political authority or presented an understanding of what power is, both "workers" and "bourgeois" power.

That you lack understanding of it does not mean it's "half-formed" or "spurious" or "incoherent" or "inadequate". Don't project your own lack of understanding on me. There is no need to write an entire glossary. He asked how the state would wither away and thus I presume he knows what the state is, or else he would be asking what a state is.

[The Feral Underclass]

With all due respect it seems like you're playing stupid in some effort to incite an irrelevant debate

It seems to me that you have understood my questions as a request for literal definitions of terms. I am not asking you to provide a literal definition of the word "network." My questions are designed to interrogate the structure of your thinking when you use terms like "workers' association."


It's not necessary, I don't think, to go over every single definition of every single word in every single discussion before proceeding to the actual content.

In the context of what I am saying, it seems to me what you are trying to assert here is that it is not necessary for people who are asking questions to interrogate the fundaments of the answers they are receiving.

I think it is of vital necessity to demand definitions of every single word in every single discussion before proceeding to the actual content, otherwise how is one able to frame the nature of the content without understanding the language that is being used...This seems to me to be a very basic principle.


I expect OP to know that socialism is based on associated labour so a workers' association managing production would not need elaboration

Except there are a multitude of ideas for the term "socialism" with a multitude of thinkers giving various nuanced insights into what is important and what is not so important.

For example, you use the word "state" as if it is a neutral word that can be applied to any structure, seemingly disconnected from its historical role, while at the same time calling yourself a socialist. I also call myself a socialist, but I also reject your nonchalant use of the word "state" to apply to other equally vague terms such as "network."


I expect most people on here to know "workers' power" and what is generally meant by it so saying 'organs of workers' power' logically meaning decision-making organs by and for workers

Why would you expect that? Especially on a forum such as this, why would you expect people to know what you mean by "workers' power". I suspect that your definition of workers' power is fundamentally different to other people's definition.


I would think that 'semi-state' would be understandable to anyone who knows a little bit about Leninism, and for those that don't I gave a brief explanation. I would certainly expect a communist 'senior' if not vetaran like yourself to know all this. And I would think that most people in general would know the meaning of the word 'network' or 'power'.

Like I said, I wasn't asking you for a literal definition. The term "semi-state" is nonsense and fraught with incoherency, predicated primarily on an incomplete and inadequate definition of the state.


Your issue seems to be with the supposed "vagueness" of how I describe the withering away of the state, which doesn't pertain at all "idealism." I don't see how it's idealistic at all, it seems more likely that you used it as a buzzword.

I am implying that your views are naive, not that they are predicated on the philosophy of idealism.


Really now? A network is 'net' of interconnected actors. (I hope I don't need to define interconnected and actors).

Well, it would help...


In this particular context it would refer to different organs of workers' power connecting for purposes of decision-making and coordination.

...The problem with this vague definition is that it doesn't really address the fundamental issue of power. What is power? How is it derived? How does it manifest itself? What are the issues of power?


An organ of workers' power is just that, an organ of workers' power.

Something is something because it is something?


These can take a multitude of variations, and given that they can take a multitude of variations I choose to refer to them as such without listing them all. Soviets, workers' councils, workers' committees, the decision-making bodies of revolutionary trade unions, etc. As with organs they are part of a body (the network, trade union, or federation).

My question aimed to interrogate the nature and concept of an organ of workers' power rather than to get you to provide examples of what someone might call an organ of workers' power.


If all organs of workers' power are left to their own devices it leads to the perpetuation or recreation of market exchange due to sectional interests overriding class interests. To prevent this, deputies organs of workers' power of all industries, workplaces, sectors, regions need to be gathered into a central assembly where from decisions are coordinated and executed as to not elevate the interests of a section of the proletariat over that as a whole. They are central affairs because they affect the whole of the network (appeal for definition above).

The language you employ immediately implies that there is an external force or structure outside these organs of workers' power.

That notwithstanding, you make an assumption that not having a "central assembly" would necessarily mean that organs would operate counter-intuitive to the necessities of collective organising or would begin to operate in their own interests. What is this assumption based upon?

But again, aside from that, how can an organ of workers' power actually have power if it is subordinated to a central authority? And here in lies the fundamental issue with everything you are saying.


A state whose basic structures resembles a future stateless society more so than it does the modern state. It's a semi-state because it is built from the bottom-up on the basis of classlessness by destroying class dynamics.

A state is a specific structure designed to manage capitalist social relations and administer and defend a class society. It cannot resemble anything other than what it is.

Trying to describe material conditions in a particular time and space as a "semi-state" is nonsensical.


That you lack understanding of it does not mean it's "half-formed" or "spurious" or "incoherent" or "inadequate".

Marx's ideas about the state and the fantasy that is the "withering away" theory is half-formed, spurious, incoherent and inadequate. That is true whether I lack understanding or not.


Don't project your own lack of understanding on me. There is no need to write an entire glossary.

Which is a view, ironically, based on your misunderstanding of my post.


He asked how the state would wither away and thus I presume he knows what the state is, or else he would be asking what a state is.

And you failed to answer that question adequately.

[Tim Cornelis]

It seems to me that you have understood my questions as a request for literal definitions of terms. I am not asking you to provide a literal definition of the word "network." My questions are designed to interrogate the structure of your thinking when you use terms like "workers' association."

Yeah I got that as, in contrast with you, my reading comprehension is fine. But if you need too, unnecessarily, inquire into what I mean by 'network of organs of workers' power' by asking what I mean by network then I'm going to be unnecessarily condescending by breaking it down to you by providing the literal definition then expanding on its context.
So a network is an innterconnectivity between different actors, then it logically follows that a network of organs of workers' power is an interconnected web of organs of workers' power. Precisely because this should speak for itself it should not require elaboration.


In the context of what I am saying, it seems to me what you are trying to assert here is that it is not necessary for people who are asking questions to interrogate the fundaments of the answers they are receiving.

Not when it's redundant. It should speak for itself that, socialists advocating associated labour, a workers' association is an association of producers engaged in productive activity.


I think it is of vital necessity to demand definitions of every single word in every single discussion before proceeding to the actual content, otherwise how is one able to frame the nature of the content without understanding the language that is being used...This seems to me to be a very basic principle.

I presume that people are familiar enough with basic concepts that I do not need to elaborate on them.


Except there are a multitude of ideas for the term "socialism" with a multitude of thinkers giving various nuanced insights into what is important and what is not so important.

That's irrelevant. Leninism and anarchism are different (part of the multitude of ideas), yet you are familiar with Leninism and the concept of a semi-state and thus there is no need to inquire into what it is and you can proceed to critique it (or not).


For example, you use the word "state" as if it is a neutral word that can be applied to any structure, seemingly disconnected from its historical role, while at the same time calling yourself a socialist. I also call myself a socialist, but I also reject your nonchalant use of the word "state" to apply to other equally vague terms such as "network."

I don't see how its use is "nonchalant."


Why would you expect that? Especially on a forum such as this, why would you expect people to know what you mean by "workers' power". I suspect that your definition of workers' power is fundamentally different to other people's definition.

I doubt it.


Like I said, I wasn't asking you for a literal definition. The term "semi-state" is nonsense and fraught with incoherency, predicated primarily on an incomplete and inadequate definition of the state.

In other words you already knew what it meant so asking what it means is redundant. Say I'm on the other side of the issue and someone would use 'semi-state' I would not ask what it means (especially when a meaning has been provided) since I know what it means and would begin with saying "it strikes me as incoherent." A semi-state, as it emerges from the abolition of class dynamics, would be the equivalent of the proto-state -- the chiefdom -- which emerged from the arising of class dynamics. It's not an incoherent concept, and it's not an inadequate definition of the state.


I am implying that your views are naive, not that they are predicated on the philosophy of idealism.

How is it naive? How does it pertain to naivety at all? That you would argue I have a wrong or inadeqate definition of the state seems plausible, but that it's naive makes no sense. Is it naive to believe coercive features will persist in the transitional period? I hardly think so, believing anything on the contrary is naive. It's a question of whether these coercive features are a state, not whether it's naive to believe they will persist.


...The problem with this vague definition is that it doesn't really address the fundamental issue of power. What is power? How is it derived? How does it manifest itself? What are the issues of power?

I don't think these questions are particularly relevant. Workers' power is simply the ability of and for workers to decide their collective affairs.


Something is something because it is something?

My point being, it should speak for itself.


My question aimed to interrogate the nature and concept of an organ of workers' power rather than to get you to provide examples of what someone might call an organ of workers' power.

That should speak for itself. The nature and concept of an organ of workers' power is that it's an organ based on workers' power. I don't see why you're so needing for redundant defining. Is it relevant what we call things like workers' councils when we all advocate it? Of course not, so stop asking about it. Call it what you will. 'Institutions through which workers make decisions regarding their collective affairs', 'structures through which workers' power manifests itself', 'workers' assemblies', 'organs for workers to deliberate on issues as equals and make decisions on the basis of participatory democracy'.


The language you employ immediately implies that there is an external force or structure outside these organs of workers' power.

Hardly.


That notwithstanding, you make an assumption that not having a "central assembly" would necessarily mean that organs would operate counter-intuitive to the necessities of collective organising or would begin to operate in their own interests. What is this assumption based upon?

I fail to see how operating in your own interests is counter-intuitive, the risk of it happening is real precisely because it is intuitive.

If you lack a means of coordination, some organ above, then the only decisions a lower organ can make are guessing what the collective or common interests are (which is a very weak basis for decision-making and therefore improbable) or aspiring to your interests.
For instance, if each workplace in a particular industry operates independently without coordination through some collective assembly then each will aspire to their own interests (maximising profits, as money has not yet been abolished). If each industry has a collective assembly of sorts, but between industries there is no collective assembly, each industry will seek to aspire their own self-interest, and so forth. Hence the need for a central assembly that collects deputies from all industries, sectors, workplaces, and geographical locations.


But again, aside from that, how can an organ of workers' power actually have power if it is subordinated to a central authority? And here in lies the fundamental issue with everything you are saying.

I never said central authority. They subordinate their interests but not their decision-making power. Decision-making power always rests with the lowest organ of workers' power -- whichever that may be.


A state is a specific structure designed to manage capitalist social relations and administer and defend a class society. It cannot resemble anything other than what it is.

Ridiculous, a capitalist sate is a specific structure designed to manage capitalist social relations and administer and defend class society. In previous discussions you have sort of superimposed this bizarre definition of the state, fallaciously, to make it seem every state is capitalistic and hence so is a workers' state -- to quickly close the discussion. In reality, the federation of constituent organs of workers' power as advocated by anarchists will possess coercive features. It will levy taxes, among other things, and it will deploy violence against the reactionary forces. For this reason it is not stateless as a stateless society is based on free association and voluntary relations, yet its structure does not resemble any conventional state. It is a state under the direct control of the masses, governed from below, and it is used to destroy class relations, hence a semi-state.


Trying to describe material conditions in a particular time and space as a "semi-state" is nonsensical.

I don't see how it is.


Marx's ideas about the state and the fantasy that is the "withering away" theory is half-formed, spurious, incoherent and inadequate. That is true whether I lack understanding or not.

It's not and you do. Your Anarchist Federation will possess coercive and "impure" features (incidental hierarchy) as all previous anarchist revolutions have had, yet these features will wither away because workers will accustom themselves with decision-making and accountability of deputies, as well as fading chaos of the insurrection, they will no longer need to levy taxes eventually as money has been abolished, and so forth.
In other words your Anarchist Federation was a workers' state in the transition but the state has withered away and what remains is the administration of collective affairs by a free association of equals.



Which is a view, ironically, based on your misunderstanding of my post.

Not really.


And you failed to answer that question adequately.

Idem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah I got that as, in contrast with you, my reading comprehension is fine. But if you need too, unnecessarily, inquire into what I mean by 'network of organs of workers' power' by asking what I mean by network then I'm going to be unnecessarily condescending by breaking it down to you by providing the literal definition then expanding on its context.

So you understood what I said but you chose to answer me in a way that had no relation to what you understood I was saying? That seems like a bizarre thing to do.


So a network is an innterconnectivity between different actors, then it logically follows that a network of organs of workers' power is an interconnected web of organs of workers' power. Precisely because this should speak for itself it should not require elaboration.

I can only really repeat myself: "I am not asking you to provide a literal definition of the word "network." My questions are designed to interrogate the structure of your thinking"


Not when it's redundant.

So you think that questioning the fundaments of your views is redundant?


It should speak for itself that, socialists advocating associated labour, a workers' association is an association of producers engaged in productive activity.

So I should just accept your assumptions because you believe we share some common understandings? That's a pretty narrow-minded view to take, since evidently we do not.


I presume that people are familiar enough with basic concepts that I do not need to elaborate on them.

Fine, but I am asking you to elaborate, so...


That's irrelevant. Leninism and anarchism are different (part of the multitude of ideas), yet you are familiar with Leninism and the concept of a semi-state and thus there is no need to inquire into what it is and you can proceed to critique it (or not).

I don't know you. I don't presume to know what you mean. That would be incredibly rude and arrogant of me. I don't know what you mean just because you say something.


I don't see how its use is "nonchalant."

That is evidently clear.

It is nonchalant because you apply the word "state" to various forms and concepts and that is false.


I doubt it.

You doubt that your definition of workers' power is fundamentally different to other peoples? Don't you think that's quite an arrogant position to take?


In other words you already knew what it meant so asking what it means is redundant.

I don't know what you meant by it, that's why I asked...


Say I'm on the other side of the issue and someone would use 'semi-state' I would not ask what it means (especially when a meaning has been provided) since I know what it means and would begin with saying "it strikes me as incoherent."

But the point of my post, as I've already said, was to interrogate the structure of your thinking, not critique Lenin's ideas. I framed my post as a series of questions to that end.


A semi-state, as it emerges from the abolition of class dynamics, would be the equivalent of the proto-state -- the chiefdom -- which emerged from the arising of class dynamics. It's not an incoherent concept, and it's not an inadequate definition of the state.

But the concept of a "semi-state" as you seem to define it is based on "coercive features" and the "deployment of violence" (as well as the collection of taxes). That is not a coherent or adequate definition of a state, not even a proto- one.


How is it naive?

Because you clearly believe a state can "wither away".


How does it pertain to naivety at all?

Because your belief lacks judgement and wisdom.


That you would argue I have a wrong or inadeqate definition of the state seems plausible, but that it's naive makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you, but hopefully I can clear that up.

We have seen what a "workers' state" looks like, and the anarchist critique has been vindicated every time. It is hugely naive (at best) to assume that any further attempt to achieve a different result using the same formula will be successful. Centralised political authority, i.e. the state, cannot negate itself. That is a historical fact.


Is it naive to believe coercive features will persist in the transitional period? I hardly think so, believing anything on the contrary is naive. It's a question of whether these coercive features are a state, not whether it's naive to believe they will persist.

Coercive features do not define a state, they are merely one particular characteristic of it.


I don't think these questions are particularly relevant.

Because you have accepted basic assumptions without challenging them. You are clearly not interested in interrogating those assumptions on any level (as evidenced by the fact you are criticising me for attempting to do so), which is precisely why you are doomed to make the same mistakes again.


Workers' power is simply the ability of and for workers to decide their collective affairs.

That is not what power is.

Power is the capacity, strength and authority -- not only to decide your own affairs -- but to influence or prevent external events and affairs.


My point being, it should speak for itself.

The idea that "workers' power" is some kind of axiom is either an incompetent or nefarious one. Just because someone says "workers' power" doesn't automatically result in the meaning being understood. Why would you think that?


That should speak for itself.

Why should it?


The nature and concept of an organ of workers' power is that it's an organ based on workers' power.

But I have no idea what an "organ" is or what "power is" when spoken in this context. For example, you may think that a permanent, centralised, hierarchical committee with executive power is an "organ of workers' power", many socialists do.

In that case I would challenge that on various levels, not least because it would not consist of workers.


I don't see why you're so needing for redundant defining.

Evidently. Authoritarians consistently reject the notion that their ideas should be interrogated. Nevertheless, I bring into question the entire basis of your views and the assumptions you make in defending them.


Is it relevant what we call things like workers' councils when we all advocate it? Of course not, so stop asking about it. Call it what you will. 'Institutions through which workers make decisions regarding their collective affairs', 'structures through which workers' power manifests itself', 'workers' assemblies', 'organs for workers to deliberate on issues as equals and make decisions on the basis of participatory democracy'.

It appears you didn't actually read the part of my post that you are quoting with this response.

This part of your post above was in response to me saying: "My question aimed to interrogate the nature and concept of an organ of workers' power rather than to get you to provide examples of what someone might call an organ of workers' power." You consequently provided me with a list of names to call an organ of workers' power.

Let me put it more simply for you: You can say "soviet", "council", "association", "federation", but unless you articulate the mechanics of what that is there is no basis for any understanding of what you actually mean.

In other words: How does this council and soviet operate? In your view it should be managed by central political authority, i.e. a state, which by definition perpetuates bourgeois social relationships, rendering these "organs" not of workers' power, but of state power.


Hardly.

You said: "If all organs of workers' power are left to their own devices". If there is no external force or outside structure how can it be "left"? It either occupies the totality of political reality or it doesn't.

But in any case, this one word response is completely disingenuous since you go on to say: "deputies organs of workers' power of all industries, workplaces, sectors, regions need to be gathered into a central assembly", which in other words positions "all organs of workers' power" subordinate to a central assembly.


I fail to see how operating in your own interests is counter-intuitive, the risk of it happening is real precisely because it is intuitive.

I said counter-intuitive to the necessities of collective organising or would begin operating in their own interests.

You are not paying attention to what I am writing.


If you lack a means of coordination, some organ above, then the only decisions a lower organ can make are guessing what the collective or common interests are (which is a very weak basis for decision-making and therefore improbable) or aspiring to your interests.

Spoken like a true statist.

What you are saying is that organs of power must be managed through a hierarchy of centralisation. You are defending the traditional (exclusive) definition of a state, yet attempting to convince us all that this isn't really what you mean.

Workers cannot have political power if political power is subordinated to a central authority...


For instance, if each workplace in a particular industry operates independently without coordination through some collective assembly then each will aspire to their own interests (maximising profits, as money has not yet been abolished).

This is an assumption. What basis is this assertion founded upon?


If each industry has a collective assembly of sorts, but between industries there is no collective assembly, each industry will seek to aspire their own self-interest, and so forth. Hence the need for a central assembly that collects deputies from all industries, sectors, workplaces, and geographical locations.

In other words workers cannot be trusted to take collective responsibility for the organisation of their lives.

Herein lies the contradictions of authoritarians. This is precisely what I have been trying to prod at with my question; it is precisely what I wanted to understand.

The rhetoric is all beautiful and flowery: Workers' councils and organs of workers' power sounds like a great slogans. But in reality the workers are not capable of actually exercising that power independently in case they fall back towards capitalist social relations and therefore it is justified to exert political authority from the centre over them.

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!


I never said central authority. They subordinate their interests but not their decision-making power. Decision-making power always rests with the lowest organ of workers' power -- whichever that may be.

If, by your logic, those organs left to their own devices would fall back on their interests, how can they subordinate those interests to this central assembly (in other words authority) without subordinating their decision-making power?

Even if we are able to navigate that illogical position, if these organs are capable enough of making their own decisions, why are they not capable enough to co-ordinate their activities without a central body?


Ridiculous, a capitalist sate is a specific structure designed to manage capitalist social relations and administer and defend class society.

All states are capitalist states. Even Lenin accepts this. The only reason you call a state a "workers' state" (other than political expedience) is because the state machinery claims to function in the interests of the working class, not because it fundamentally alters its mechanics.


In previous discussions you have sort of superimposed this bizarre definition of the state, fallaciously, to make it seem every state is capitalistic and hence so is a workers' state -- to quickly close the discussion. In reality, the federation of constituent organs of workers' power as advocated by anarchists will possess coercive features.

I don't deny that, but "coercive features" does not define a state.


It will levy taxes

This I bring into question, but I am not interested in debating that right now.


it will deploy violence against the reactionary forces.

Again, this is not a definition of a state. "Reactionary forces" is essentially an abstract term. It's another way of saying "forces which hinder our progress". Hunter-gatherer tribes deploy violence. That doesn't make them a state.


For this reason it is not stateless as a stateless society is based on free association and voluntary relations, yet its structure does not resemble any conventional state. It is a state under the direct control of the masses, governed from below, and it is used to destroy class relations, hence a semi-state.

So your claim is that a communist society will never require coercive features or require the deployment of violence?


I don't see how it is.

Well that's too bad.


It's not and you do.

Please enlighten me then. In all honesty, I am more than willing to be shown how I am wrong. Show me how I have misunderstood Marx...


Your Anarchist Federation will possess coercive and "impure" features (incidental hierarchy) as all previous anarchist revolutions have had, yet these features will wither away because workers will accustom themselves with decision-making and accountability of deputies, as well as fading chaos of the insurrection, they will no longer need to levy taxes eventually as money has been abolished, and so forth.

The state isn't a social relationship, it is a material structure.

And I don't know what you mean when you refer to "my" "anarchist federation". I don't have an anarchist federation. I'm not part of one and I don't advocate for one...


In other words your Anarchist Federation was a workers' state in the transition but the state has withered away and what remains is the administration of collective affairs by a free association of equals.

But a state isn't the relationship of hierarchy. It's not violence. It's not the need to "levy taxes".


Not really.

If you are unwilling to see how you are wrong then there is really no hope for you.


Idem.

If you think what you have said to the OP is adequate then so be it.

[cliffhanger]

In other words workers cannot be trusted to take collective responsibility for the organisation of their lives.

Herein lies the contradictions of authoritarians. This is precisely what I have been trying to prod at with my question; it is precisely what I wanted to understand.

The rhetoric is all beautiful and flowery: Workers' councils and organs of workers' power sounds like a great slogans. But in reality the workers are not capable of actually exercising that power independently in case they fall back towards capitalist social relations and therefore it is justified to exert political authority from the centre over them.

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!
The thinking that underlies this critique is that somehow the working class can come into a situation of self-consciousness and self-control that makes individual desires congruent with the needs of the class. That is, it allows the working class to become a sort of Leviathan made out of the bodies of its members, united in action and without serious disagreements between themselves. The destruction of a specific machinery of the state is therefore a sort of liberation of some species-being that is fully realized in the conditions of a free anarchist society.

There's nothing uniquely anarchist about that theory. It's fundamental to all of modernism. It's at the core of bourgeois culture. Anarchism, as a petty-bourgeois theory, tries to graft the idea of a universal humanity onto the socialist tradition.

The Marxist view of the state is not in these terms. It is not about mastery of humanity over itself. Rather, it's about the emergence of classes in society, the problems this class system produces, a strategy to combat class society, and the observation that the state is a weapon in that struggle. The fact that the state diminishes in importance when classes fade is similar to the fact that a rifle is not needed much after the hunting is finished, it is not primarily an observation about transcendence in some spiritual sense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We have seen what a "workers' state" looks like, and the anarchist critique has been vindicated every time. It is hugely naive (at best) to assume that any further attempt to achieve a different result using the same formula will be successful. Centralised political authority, i.e. the state, cannot negate itself. That is a historical fact.
...
Even if we are able to navigate that illogical position, if these organs are capable enough of making their own decisions, why are they not capable enough to co-ordinate their activities without a central body?


What is a central authority then - do you mean some kind of party accountable just to itself, or are you talking about regional or shop councils sending a rep to a larger coordinating body?

Where does a central authority get it's authority and power? If councils of workers electet representatives for a coordinating body, how does that coordinating body have power outside of the power from below?

If worker's have militias to defend themselves, who is that repressive power accountable to... the soldiers themselves or the working class? If the revolutionary militias need to coordinate, does the practical necissity of coordination create a seperate outside authority above and outside the worker's movement?

[The Feral Underclass]

The thinking that underlies this critique is that somehow the working class can come into a situation of self-consciousness and self-control that makes individual desires congruent with the needs of the class.

I don't hold the position that working class people are currently unconscious or out-of-control. To try and claim that working class people lack the foresight to understand the principles of a revolution they have made betrays a lack of experience of interacting with groups of working class people.

To agree with your position we have to accept that working class people are currently incapable of understanding themselves, as well as being feral towards their own survival. This, of course, is a way for authoritarians to legitimate their political control over the class.

That's not to say that working class people will not have a whole range of baggage, both cultural and political, but it denies logic to claim that in the course of a revolution, in which the working class have become conscious enough to begin transforming society, that they will be unable to understand basic principles required to organise their economic lives.

It's also not to say that the organisation of our economic lives won't be difficult and complex, but humans engage in hugely complex tasks on a daily basis and navigate that complexity by their ingenuity and ability to rationalise. There is an argument to be made that without central authority logistics will fuck up and people might go without, but that's already happening.

The transition from capitalism to communism is not from a perfect society into chaos.


That is, it allows the working class to become a sort of Leviathan made out of the bodies of its members, united in action and without serious disagreements between themselves. The destruction of a specific machinery of the state is therefore a sort of liberation of some species-being that is fully realized in the conditions of a free anarchist society.

This is a caricatured interpretation of the anarchist position.


There's nothing uniquely anarchist about that theory.

Or anarchist at all, really.


Anarchism, as a petty-bourgeois theory, tries to graft the idea of a universal humanity onto the socialist tradition.

Anarchism as a critique of power has never attempted, as far as I have understood the various texts I am familiar with, to claim that "humanity is universal", except to accept that the working class are united by common interests. On the contrary, anarchism understands clearly the inherent divisions within class society.


The Marxist view of the state is not in these terms. It is not about mastery of humanity over itself.

I'm sorry, but I cannot decipher what this is supposed to mean.


Rather, it's about the emergence of classes in society, the problems this class system produces, a strategy to combat class society, and the observation that the state is a weapon in that struggle. The fact that the state diminishes in importance when classes fade is similar to the fact that a rifle is not needed much after the hunting is finished, it is not primarily an observation about transcendence in some spiritual sense.

Yes, this is the Marxist position. The anarchist critique is that the state cannot be used as a tool for the creation of a stateless society because of the structural nature of a state.

[cliffhanger]

I don't hold the position that working class people are currently unconscious or out-of-control. To try and claim that working class people lack the foresight to understand the principles of a revolution they have made betrays a lack of experience of interacting with groups of working class people. Well, we both agree that working class people, in general, currently do not have correct ideas about their place in society and the potential for change. Otherwise we would be apologists for the status quo, since it would be impossible to explain why society is not socialist. The difference is that I think that these systems of power have a certain material basis which probably requires the use of the state to change this material basis to make it consistent with social planning so that classes can disappear. If there is no need centralization then you won't have to worry about me and I hope your revolution succeeds soon.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, we both agree that working class people, in general, currently do not have correct ideas about their place in society and the potential for change.

Do the working class have any ideas? Does that mean working class people are unconscious of what is going on around them or incapable of exercising rational thought?

In my experience it's not as if working class people have a banner for capitalism. Most people I interact with recognise that capitalism fucks them over and wish it didn't. Just because they aren't communist revolutionaries doesn't mean they are incapable or understanding the world. And in actual fact do they need to be communist revolutionaries to push for revolution?

I'm not sure if social transformation will even be viewed in those terms while it is happening.


The difference is that I think that these systems of power have a certain material basis which probably requires the use of the state to change this material basis to make it consistent with social planning so that classes can disappear. If there is no need centralization then you won't have to worry about me and I hope your revolution succeeds soon.

Well, it depends on what you mean by change. I agree that it is a tool that can change the material basis of power (if by material basis of power you mean production), but change into what? It certainly cannot change it into a communistic material reality.

I reject this Marxist assumption that there is an inevitable link between this material basis and the requirement of the state as a tool to change society into a communist one. It is nothing more than a theoretical position -- that is all it is -- and has been invalidated countless times.

Centralised political authority cannot negate itself. It cannot create the necessary conditions for its own dismantlement. That's not a political position. It is an empirical fact.

[Remus Bleys]

I reject this Marxist assumption that there is an inevitable link between this material basis and the requirement of the state as a tool to change society into a communist one. It is nothing more than a theoretical position -- that is all it is -- and has been invalidated countless times.

Centralised political authority cannot negate itself. It cannot create the necessary conditions for its own dismantlement. That's not a political position. It is an empirical fact.
You gonna do more than just say this? What's your reasoning here, other than this claim?

[The Feral Underclass]

You gonna do more than just say this? What's your reasoning here, other than this claim?

History.

[Remus Bleys]

History.
Which is only applicable if there was a genuine marxist state that wasn't destroyed by the reactionary forces.

[The Feral Underclass]

Both the Chinese and Russian revolutions, as with the revolutions in other parts of the world were all military successful.

[Remus Bleys]

Both the Chinese and Russian revolutions, as with the revolutions in other parts of the world were all military successful.

Good thing I added in that Marxist qualifier, right?
Good thing I added the destroyed by reactionary forces (in the case of the USSR).

[The Feral Underclass]

Good thing I added in that Marxist qualifier, right?
Good thing I added the destroyed by reactionary forces (in the case of the USSR).

I'm sorry but what you're saying doesn't make sense. Are you saying the Bolshevik and communist revolutions in Russia and China were not Marxist? Are you also saying that "reactionary force" means something other than a military one?

[Remus Bleys]

I'm sorry but what you're saying doesn't make sense. Are you saying the Bolshevik and communist revolutions in Russia and China were not Marxist? Are you also saying that "reactionary forces" means something other than a military one?

The Chinese Revolution wasn't marxist.
Reactionary forces, in this case, is the petty bourgeoisie that co-opted the State for their own purpose.

You seem to be thinking that anyone who isn't an anarchist upholds the Bolsheviks and Maoists.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Chinese Revolution wasn't marxist.

Well that's definitely a new tactic...Just deny that revolutions were Marxist to begin with.


Reactionary forces, in this case, is the petty bourgeoisie that co-opted the State for their own purpose.

Several things: Firstly, this is an idealist position to take. The deformation of the state was not because some individuals had hidden ideological or class agendas, it was because the state (centralised political authority) has to respond to the material realities of a revolution, but is limited by its structure in how it can actually respond. In any case, if you are saying that there existed a group of individuals who had petite-bourgeois class interests that were able to seize the state, the idea that the state is a useful tool to defend a revolution is clearly false. Also, if these people had petite-bourgeois class interests, why did they continue to pursue a socialist economic plan?

Secondly, your position seems to be void of history. When exactly do you imagine these "petite-bourgeois" conspirators actually took control of the state? Are you saying the the state was perfectly Marxist up until a particular event? If you are saying that, then what was this event?


You seem to be thinking that anyone who isn't an anarchist upholds the Bolsheviks and Maoists.

That's just a stupid reductive interpretation of my views.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Both the Chinese and Russian revolutions, as with the revolutions in other parts of the world were all military successful.so these were examples of centralized proletarian authority? Centralized aristocratic authority? Centralized authority authority? Authority is a non-thing, what are you talking about... Whose authority, authority for what and authority organized how? Organic authority, imposed authority? If your definition of a state is centralized authority, then you are providing a synonym, not a definition... An abstraction of an abstraction. Where does the state get power and for what interests and purpose?

[The Feral Underclass]

so these were examples of centralized proletarian authority? Centralized aristocratic authority? Centralized authority authority? Authority is a non-thing, what are you talking about... Whose authority, authority for what and authority organized how? Organic authority, imposed authority? If your definition of a state is centralized authority, then you are providing a synonym, not a definition... An abstraction of an abstraction. Where does the state get power and for what interests and purpose?

Read the fucking thread or the countless other threads you've lambasted me about this subject. I don't want to talk to you, Jimmy. Leave me alone!

[The Feral Underclass]

But to answer the question for other people: centralised political authority doesn't take on a specific ideological characteristic. It is used to serve the interests of a minority that has control over it, who can then project ideological characteristics onto its institutions, even claiming it is working in the interests of the proletariat, but these interests can never serve the proletariat, since proletariat interests are to negate minority governance.

[cliffhanger]

Centralised political authority cannot negate itself. It cannot create the necessary conditions for its own dismantlement. That's not a political position. It is an empirical fact.The aim of Marxists is not for centralized political authority to negate itself, which is meaningless in any case. The aim is to end specific historical conflicts founded on the persistence of class society under capitalism. Marxists believe this is possible because the proletariat has a real, material interest in doing this. That is, socialism will be good for the real lives of everyday people. It has nothing much to do with ending the state as such, that's more a secondary effect projected into the likely future.

Socialism is not a sort of inverse Hobbesian view where the state is chaotic and evil and the people are virtuous and good, and therefore the state must simply be negated through the people to realize their goodness. Marxists have no real moral objections to the state except insofar as its real effects on people within capitalist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

The aim of Marxists is not for centralized political authority to negate itself, which is meaningless in any case. The aim is to end specific historical conflicts founded on the persistence of class society under capitalism. Marxists believe this is possible because the proletariat has a real, material interest in doing this. That is, socialism will be good for the real lives of everyday people. It has nothing much to do with ending the state as such, that's more a secondary effect projected into the likely future.

The state is centralised political authority. If you require the institutions of the state to become obsolete and disappear, then you require the centralisation of political authority to negate itself, i.e. to become obsolete and disappear.


Socialism is not a sort of inverse Hobbesian view where the state is chaotic and evil and the people are virtuous and good, and therefore the state must simply be negated through the people to realize their goodness. Marxists have no real moral objections to the state except insofar as its real effects on people within capitalist society.

Like clock-work. It's like you people have a check list you work through. When all else fails accuse me of being a moralist.

Please stop projecting your reductive, caricatured interpretations of anarchism onto my views. I have made no mention of good and evil nor have I made any moralist objections to the state.

[cliffhanger]

The state is centralised political authority. If you require the institutions of the state to become obsolete and disappear, then you require the centralisation of political authority to negate itself, i.e. to become obsolete and disappear.Not precisely. The central authority could be challenged from below within a process of revolution over a long period of time, changing its character, especially if class struggles changed their character through the social organization of production and consumption on a planned basis. It's not a matter of imagining a certain kind of machine and then trying to spontaneously hope it will become something different.
Like clock-work. It's like you people have a check list you work through. When all else fails accuse me of being a moralist.You talk about "trusting" the workers to represent their own interests and the "wolf in sheep's clothing" of "totalitarianism", this is deeply moral language.

Anyway, I'd be interested to know why you think your political beliefs have failed so thoroughly throughout history.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not precisely. The central authority could be challenged from below within a process of revolution over a long period of time, changing its character, especially if class struggles changed their character through the social organization of production and consumption on a planned basis.

This is not possible. For this to occur the state would have to begin a process of de-centralising political authority, which is counter-intuitive to the functions of the state. This is a liberal position, similar to the idea that you can reform capitalism. You can't reform the state and use it to dismantle its power, it functions specifically to prevent that.


It's not a matter of imagining a certain kind of machine and then trying to spontaneously hope it will become something different.

I cannot make my position any clearer to you.


You talk about "trusting" the workers to represent their own interests

God forbid! If it is the case that I "trust" my fellow workers to represent their own interests it's because I have seen them do that without any external force guiding them to do so.

There's nothing moralist about experience.


and the "wolf in sheep's clothing" of "totalitarianism", this is deeply moral language.

If you want to reduce my entire argument down to a flippant idiom then you are a fool.


Anyway, I'd be interested to know why you think your political beliefs have failed so thoroughly throughout history.

I don't accept the premise of your question.

[cliffhanger]

This is not possible. For this to occur the state would have to begin a process of de-centralising political authority, which is counter-intuitive to the functions of the state. This is a liberal position, similar to the idea that you can reform capitalism. You can't reform the state and use it to dismantle its power, it functions specifically to prevent that.The state has some relative autonomy from the rest of society but it is still part of society. It's autonomy is heightened by the function of repression, first against the working class but then later against the forces of reaction under a socialist regime. The advance to socialism is in itself a qualitative leap towards a more free society. Stalin's Soviet Union, for example, was in a sense more "free" than Tsarist Russia, despite the large state apparatus.

[The Feral Underclass]

The advance to socialism is in itself a qualitative leap towards a more free society.

But clearly that is not the case.


Stalin's Soviet Union, for example, was in a sense more "free" than Tsarist Russia, despite the large state apparatus.

Well, we should all aspire to that, then.