State Socialism?

[Marshal of the People]

Greetings Comrades,

I am here to ask you about your opinion on state socialism and do you think it is good. I used to prefer an anarchist-socialist system but after reading some of Ferdinand Lassalle I agree with his opinion that the state doesn't have to be a bourgeois system and that the state can be used for the good of the people (as long as the people are in control of the state through democracy no soviet style dictatorships should be allowed). I now believe (though my opinion may change once more) that the state is not necessarily a bad thing (as it is now in most countries) but is capable of both terrible evil and great good and that we the people should use the state as an instrument of our will to perform good and not evil. So what are your opinions?

[Comrade Jacob]

Oh god not this again. There was a similar thread a few days ago.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-socialism-true-t183942/index.html

[Marshal of the People]

Of course I don't agree with most of the things Lassalle said but I do think that the state can be used for good as long as the state is under the complete control of the people. I think that politicians should be paid the minimum wage and not be given any privileges when they are in the government or after, they should be randomly selected by a lottery system of people who have signed up for the chance to help rule the nation (they should be subject to rule for only a few months and not be allowed to be selected again, they should be able to be instantly dismissible by the people if they misbehave or do anything else the people don't like, I think it is important to have a mix of both direct and representative democracy in a society because you can't have both alone (pure representative democracy can lead to corruption, not listening to the people and people making a career out of politics. while pure direct democracy can lead to oppression of minorities and it can be hard to get everyone together to vote.) one problem with direct democracy is a large proportion of people sometimes do things which are not in their best interest and in representative democracy the politicians do things which are in their interest but are not in the peoples interest, it is important that the rulers of the nation have trustful advisers so they actually know what they are doing (this idea is similar to and idea I discussed in a previous thread).

[Brotto Rühle]

Not that I'm okay with it, cause it's obviously deplorable, but there's a reason that Marx called him a "Jewish Nigger".

[Marshal of the People]

Not that I'm okay with it, cause it's obviously deplorable, but there's a reason that Marx called him a "Jewish Nigger".

Lassalle was a nationalist and an authoritarian (two groups which I hate) and I disagree with most of his ideas (like getting socialism from above, that's just stupid), though the thing I agree with him on is that the state can be used for socialism and not always against it. Wasn't Marx's family Jewish?

[Brotto Rühle]

Lassalle was a nationalist and an authoritarian (two groups which I hate) and I disagree with most of his ideas (like getting socialism from above, that's just stupid), though the thing I agree with him on is that the state can be used for socialism and not always against it. Wasn't Marx's family Jewish?

Marx came from a Jewish family, but was a bit his views are questionable on the topic...but here's the full quote:

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess)." - Karl Marx, Marx to Engels in Manchester (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm)

[Sharia Lawn]

State socialism is a paradoxical formulation. The existence of a socialist society presupposes the evolution of society beyond a social structure of class antagonisms in which states have lost their social basis and have as such whithered away or dissolved into society itself.

The state is an expression of the existence of an irreconcilable, contradictory pull of class forces and a specific organization of class relations that can only be sustained and reproduced through the peacekeeping body of a public power that has a military machine, organized and specialized bureaucratic administration, and instiutions of coercion (courts and prisons).


Therefore the existence of a coercive state implies that there is a struggle between classes taking place, the absence of which is the defining element of the development of socialism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Not that I'm okay with it, cause it's obviously deplorable, but there's a reason that Marx called him a "Jewish Nigger".
Marx really needed smacked in the mouth sometimes.

[Marshal of the People]

Marx really needed smacked in the mouth sometimes.

Discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.) is never justified!

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The workers can, and will, control the apparatus of the state and use it for their own interests. That isn't socialism, however. Socialism is achieved when the state withers away, presumably after private property and the class system has been dismantled, and the use of the state as a means to arbitrate between class conflicts becomes obsolete (as there are no longer classes). A workers' state would simply be used to suppress reaction and pull capitalism apart by the seams.

[Marshal of the People]

The workers can, and will, control the apparatus of the state and use it for their own interests. That isn't socialism, however. Socialism is achieved when the state withers away, presumably after private property and the class system has been dismantled, and the use of the state as a means to arbitrate between class conflicts becomes obsolete (as there are no longer classes). A workers' state would simply be used to suppress reaction and pull capitalism apart by the seams.

Thanks for the reply GiantMonkeyMan, I understand you point but lets say there is an invasion, a counter-revolution and natural disasters etc. how will the nation respond to these emergencies this is the problem which has been bothering me could someone please answer?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Thanks for the reply GiantMonkeyMan, I understand you point but lets say there is an invasion, a counter-revolution and natural disasters etc. how will the nation respond to these emergencies this is the problem which has been bothering me could someone please answer?
If you imagine socialism as a classless, stateless society then the apparatus of the state, including national borders, would be come obsolete (already borders are just arbitrary lines). There would be no risk of invasion because socialism is a global social system. In the period of the workers' state where capitalism has yet to be fully dismantled, if there is counter revolution or an invasion from a state still in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the workers would have control of the apparatus of the state, such as the armed forces, and be able to defend the gains they have achieved and hopefully assist workers across the world in spreading the revolution to prevent such an act ever occuring again.

Natural disasters can be handled as they always have been: organised workers with technical experts saving as many lives and protecting as much infrastructure and the environment as possible.

[Marshal of the People]

If you imagine socialism as a classless, stateless society then the apparatus of the state, including national borders, would be come obsolete (already borders are just arbitrary lines). There would be no risk of invasion because socialism is a global social system. In the period of the workers' state where capitalism has yet to be fully dismantled, if there is counter revolution or an invasion from a state still in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the workers would have control of the apparatus of the state, such as the armed forces, and be able to defend the gains they have achieved and hopefully assist workers across the world in spreading the revolution to prevent such an act ever occuring again.

Natural disasters can be handled as they always have been: organised workers with technical experts saving as many lives and protecting as much infrastructure and the environment as possible.

Thanks again I knew socialism was meant to be a global system but what I meant by invasion was all types of invasions including ones from other planets. And what about the police force how would that work in a stateless society, and also how would the planet be run in a socialist system (making decisions and laws etc.) thanks.

[LiamChe]

In order to bring about communism it will be necessary for workers and peasants to seize state power, so that they can directly and democratically control the means of production, under the guide of the socialist vanguard. The socialist phase of transition needs a state in order to function. It would be impossible for workers to make the transition without it.

[Red_Banner]

A socialist state and socialism aren't the same things.

A socialist state merely builds socialism.

Socialism could exist in one country, but it would be quickly over run by reactionists.
It would be futile.
Socialism must be World-wide.

[Remus Bleys]

In order to bring about communism it will be necessary for workers and peasants to seize state power, so that they can directly and democratically control the means of production, under the guide of the socialist vanguard.What peasants? Nevermind the fact that peasants are inherently reactionary, you live in America.


The socialist phase of transition needs a state in order to function. It would be impossible for workers to make the transition without it.
I think you are confusing socialism with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A socialist state and socialism aren't the same things.then why call it a socialist state?