Withering away of the state? [Archive]

Farseer

23rd July 2014, 10:33

Okay so I'm on vacation and don't have my sources at hand but I'll try my best with a quick reply.
According to Marxist theory, the state is the product of class struggle, where one class tries to surpress the other. This takes form in the Police, Army, taxes etc. The big idea here is that when there are no more classes, there is no more struggle and as such the intitutes of the state lack a purpose to fullfil and will 'wither away' as a result.
This can be interpreted on a number of ways. For example Lenin mentions this in The State and Revolution where he mentions abolishing high level government positions as a firs effect of the state withering away. Again, I don't have the actual text on me but maybe somebody else can provide. Die hard Marxist-Leninists will argue that therefore there is no problem with a very authoritarian state because the bureaucrats don't actually form a new class and will at some point of development cease to have a raison d'etre. Ofcourse, they often do warn against the possibility of them becoming a new class.
I tend to lean towards a more libertatian interpretation of Lenin where the withering of the state does need a democratic structure and essentially moves power downwards.

Tim Cornelis

23rd July 2014, 10:45

Blake's Baby

23rd July 2014, 11:25

For Marxists, the roots of the state are in economic formations - property relations that is. When property is abolished (ie, the working class has taken over all property and collectivised it) then there is no longer a class system (because classes are in the end a product of property relations) and there is not state (because states to are a reflection of property relations). On what basis is a 'communist state' constituted? Which class has power when there are no more classes (because there are no longer different relations to property)?

The state 'withers away' (in Engels' biological metaphor) like the leaves of a dead tree, when the roots of the tree (property relations) have been destroyed.

This is why Marxists regard the insistence of some Anarchists that the state needs to be 'abolished' as idealistic. States can't be created or abolished by wishing; they can only cease to exist when the material conditions for their existence have ceased to exist (in this case, ultimately, classes and property).

exeexe

23rd July 2014, 12:01

The state 'withers away' (in Engels' biological metaphor) like the leaves of a dead tree, when the roots of the tree (property relations) have been destroyed.

If this is true then the metaphor for roots isnt property relations, but individuals supporting the state. That is, for the state to wither away there shouldn't be any marxist, capitalist or any of that sort. Just anarchists.

Zukunftsmusik

23rd July 2014, 12:21

If this is true then the metaphor for roots isnt property relations, but individuals supporting the state. That is, for the state to wither away there shouldn't be any marxist, capitalist or any of that sort. Just anarchists.

None of this makes sense.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 14:21

It seems that according to marxists the state withers away in some magical way that cannot be explained except by giving some poetic metaphor, so Trotsky says:

"the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. ... Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction."

Can some Trotskyist maybe comment on this quote, its context etc? Because it seems to me, if taken on its face value, to be pretty contrary to the Marxist idea of the State and its inevitable withering away.

motion denied

23rd July 2014, 14:35

Can some Trotskyist maybe comment on this quote, its context etc? Because it seems to me, if taken on its face value, to be pretty contrary to the Marxist idea of the State and its inevitable withering away.

Trotsky is just saying that the DotP is a "ruthless form od State", the last form of State, that assumes such character to suppress counter-revolution and etc. He will also say "Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions" and "No organization except the army has ever controlled man with such severe compulsion as does the State organization of the working class in the most difficult period of transition. It is just for this reason that we speak of the militarization of labor" ('Terrorism and Communism', btw).

Of course the last part, 'embrace... authoritatively', sounds worst than it really is - which is not to say that it's not bullshit. He is defending the militarisation of labour. I'm no trot, though.

impossible did not give any context because, besides being quite dishonest, s/he is in a holy war against Marxism. Pathetic.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 15:32

Of course the last part, 'embrace... authoritatively', sounds worst than it really is - which is not to say that it's not bullshit. He is defending the militarisation of labour. I'm no trot, though.

Tell me if I got this right: Trotky's talking about militarization of labour and state compulsion, which for him is necessary in order to defend the revolution?

impossible did not give any context because, besides being quite dishonest, s/he is in a holy war against Marxism. Pathetic.

Well, he never gives context. I learnt to ignore him, although, he still manages to irritate me.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

23rd July 2014, 15:56

The state withers away in the sense that what we see as the "proletarian state" no longer takes on the character of "state" because classes have been abolished.

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 16:45

The state withers away in the sense that what we see as the "proletarian state" no longer takes on the character of "state" because classes have been abolished.

But how can a class said to have control if said control is via party parliamentary representation? As in, not direct control of the state or it's organs. That is what to me doesn't make sense. If the state is merely a system of property relations that will be destroyed or decay, how will this take place if a party or bureaucracy or what have you assume the same control over the means of production and of property just as the bourgeoisie?

motion denied

23rd July 2014, 16:49

Tell me if I got this right: Trotky's talking about militarization of labour and state compulsion, which for him is necessary in order to defend the revolution?

Basically yes. The militarisation of labour was considered necessary due to the calamitous state of Russian production caused by the war and the civil war. Period of 'war communism', need of resources for the army, principally.

Nothing's like the socialist boss innit.

sanpal

23rd July 2014, 18:43

If it is difficult to somebody to imagine how "the State would be withering away" ... then this scheme
could help you http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=22905 The State (the Proletarian state) exists while the DOTP is lasting. As you see on upper axis the capitalist mode of production is used during the DOTP period for a while but all the time capitalist (state-capitalist) sector of economy would be decreasing because of parallel communist sector of economy which would be increasing at the expense of capitalist sector. Selfmanagement under communism doesn't need any state governing, so
decreasing of capitalist/state-capitalist sector of economy would demand less and less of state governing, so functions of state gradually would be replaced by society selfmanagement - the state as though "withering away"

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 18:50

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 18:59

Some good points in this thread and Tim C did a pretty bang-up job himself. But one point that has been a little glossed over is that the whithering away of the state is also due to its administrative functions having been distributed out among the people. That is to say that even the central aspect of the apparatus will be fall away as well.

Anarchists inability to understand this relatively simple concept is strange to me.

I understand the DotP and I wouldn't call it an inability to understand it at all. It is relatively simple, but anarchists want direct and immediate destruction of the state and to not subject people to the cruelty of an organ of violent class rule and suppression. Anarchists want a direct revolution to destroy the state and the class system. In all honesty it depends on who is talking about the DotP and how much I agree with it, some Marxists make it sound worse or better than others. By the way I used to be a Marxist and read a lot of Lenin, but I went towards anarchism heavily because I agree with the anarchists more than the Marxists. I oppose the DotP and I don't think that the DotP could go any number of ways that include going fully to communism and degrading into a brutal state capitalist dictatorship. I also wouldn't call the DotP a phase of socialism before communism, but rather a stage of waning capitalism if that makes sense.

helot

23rd July 2014, 19:05

This is why Marxists regard the insistence of some Anarchists that the state needs to be 'abolished' as idealistic. States can't be created or abolished by wishing; they can only cease to exist when the material conditions for their existence have ceased to exist (in this case, ultimately, classes and property).

That is a strawman. No anarchist that has seriously considered the question claims the state can be abolished without the abolition of the very conditions that result in its social necessity.

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 19:06

helot

23rd July 2014, 19:09

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 19:15

Yeah and I want a pile of heroin and a place to live in that I didn't have to pay for, and then not ever overdose. Doesn't mean I can just get it. Material conditions matter, class war matter. Eradicating all the birthmarks of the previous society takes ages not minute. You talk to me about the supposed problems of DOTP, but at least we have a good idea that will work. Anarchists have shit all but "communism NOW!" which is downright impossible.

Lol. Material conditions do matter and class war does, do you think I don't advocate for a continuous revolution against this bullshit? We will have to transition, but transition can be done without siezing control of an organ of class rule and putting an elitist vanguard at the top. Organizations can be created by and for workers to utilize in the time of revolution. There is no need for a top down structure to nationalize the means of production. A two-phase transition isn't necessary and we can immediately advance into communism with organizations set up to prevent counterrevolution and to advance the revolution on ward.

Here, read some Kropotkin. The State: It's Historic Role (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-state-its-historic-role)

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 19:25

Lol. Material conditions do matter and class war does, do you think I don't advocate for a continuous revolution against this bullshit? We will have to transition, but transition can be done without siezing control of an organ of class rule and putting an elitist vanguard at the top. Organizations can be created by and for workers to utilize in the time of revolution. There is no need for a top down structure to nationalize the means of production. A two-phase transition isn't necessary and we can immediately advance into communism with organizations set up to prevent counterrevolution and to advance the revolution on ward.

Here, read some Kropotkin. The State: It's Historic Role (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-state-its-historic-role)

Okay, can you please read Tim's response at the very beginning of this thread, which is a standard Marxist response, and tell me where does your disagreement lie exactly?

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 19:29

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 19:31

Fuck you too Dagoth, I'm done with this thread.

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 19:33

That's a little bit flying off the handle bro. I'm sure you're pretty anti-Stalin but I still am happy to talk with you.

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 19:39

It can easily explained. According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result, at some point, in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state or revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions. These decisions are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. This is important since the revolutionary working class needs to generalise its conditions to consolidate victory. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and such organs will wield political power, while workers' associations will assume control of production. Through this process, socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and to restore the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear -- it's not a matter of giving up power, it's matter of it becoming obsolete. What remains of the workers' state -- the workers' state stripped of its coercive functions -- is the associations of producers and social ownership. In other words, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.

Okay, can you please read Tim's response at the very beginning of this thread, which is a standard Marxist response, and tell me where does your disagreement lie exactly?

I disagree with it specifically because he's advocating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. He's advocating the use of the Proletarian transitional state, and I specifically disagree with that. That fair enough? I'm an anarchist and agree with anarchism, so go figure.

@sinister: I don't need to read anymore by that worthless soppy **** and if I ever do again it'll be far too soon.

This will stay here in this quote for all to see you worthless piece of shit.

The workers must seize the state because it is too dangerous to be left in the hand of our enemies and because we have to oppress the bourgeoisie into non-existence so why not use the ready-made tools of oppression to handle this task? You're just talking about setting up some shadow anarchist state that would accomplish the same tasks as the DOTP.

Yeah I undestand the fucking DotP I just fucking disagree with it's use. That simple enough? An anarchist transition can be done without using a state and it'll perform the functions necessary to prevent counterrevolution and further reaction through freely associating anarchists organizations. It's decentralized, not centralized into the hands of some 'revolutionary' vanguard. What you advacate for is the creation of a new bourgeoisie that'll oppress and suppress the working class eventually. Look at fucking Russia, China, Cuba, all those wonderful countries using this method. What happended? They became state capitalist prisons for the working class and real communists and anarchists. I'm bourgeois technically and I fully support the idea of communism, so I should be oppressed and suppressed? Yet I am an anarchist communist, I hate the class I'm a part of and I hate capitalism with a motherfucking passion. How the fuck am I talking of creating a motherfucking 'shadow anarchist state'?

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 19:40

That's a little bit flying off the handle bro. I'm sure you're pretty anti-Stalin but I still am happy to talk with you.
Then why call me a ****?

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 19:41

@sinister: I don't need to read anymore by that worthless soppy **** and if I ever do again it'll be far too soon.

The workers must seize the state because it is too dangerous to be left in the hand of our enemies and because we have to oppress the bourgeoisie into non-existence so why not use the ready-made tools of oppression to handle this task? You're just talking about setting up some shadow anarchist state that would accomplish the same tasks as the DOTP.

Oh and @helot in what sense is my understanding of the DOTP different? You'll really have to qualify that statement before I begin to even tear into you over it.

It seems to me that you yourself don't really understand what DoPT means. It's not about "taking ready-made tool of oppression to handle this task". Marx and Lenin made it explicitly clear that it's not about that, but precisely about creating a new form of government, new form of oppression of the non-proletariat classes. For fuck's sake people, just read Tim's response at the beginning of the thread, I think it's definitive and exhaustive as far as the question in the OP is concerned.

Blake's Baby

23rd July 2014, 19:45

Oh, one of those 'reply to something then realise everyone else left it behind ages ago' threads.

Nothing to see here.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 19:46

I disagree with it specifically because he's advocating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. He's advocating the use of the Proletarian transitional state, and I specifically disagree with that. That fair enough? I'm an anarchist and agree with anarchism, so go figure.

SI, relax, I am merely trying to understand your position. But it seems to me that you don't really get it, i.e. what the DoPT is about. It's not about disagreeing with it or not. Any successful revolution will necessarily have and must have the DoPT, by definition. The organization of communes during the Spanish Social Revolution was an example of the DoPT, although a bad one, but still.

I referred you to Tim's response, because there is absolutely nothing in that response or in the concept of the DoPT that is non compatible with Anarchism. Unless, of course, you equate the DoPT with Vanguard Party, which is absolutely wrong.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 19:48

In which case there's no reason for all Anarchists not to wholeheartedly become Marxists (and I must haver misunderstood for the 20 years I was Anarchist).

Congratulations, you have re-united the red and the black, Bismarck I hope is spinning in his grave.

Well, yes, but that's precisely my point!

RedAnarchist

23rd July 2014, 19:50

@sinister: I don't need to read anymore by that worthless soppy **** and if I ever do again it'll be far too soon.

Verbal warning for sexist language.

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 19:56

SI, relax, I am merely trying to understand your position. But it seems to me that you don't really get it, i.e. what the DoPT is about. It's not about disagreeing with it or not. Any successful revolution will necessarily have and must have the DoPT, by definition. The organization of communes during the Spanish Social Revolution was an example of the DoPT, although a bad one, but still.

I referred you to Tim's response, because there is absolutely nothing in that response or in the concept of the DoPT that is non compatible with Anarchism. Unless, of course, you equate the DoPT with Vanguard Party, which is absolutely wrong.

I understand it but it's been a long time since I've read the literature on it. Perhaps I should brush up on it. And I don't disagree with it per se, I disagree with the use of a transitional state, I want the absolute destruction of the state. Also previously I held this and said that something along the lines of "the only state anarchists and communists want is the proletarian state." Then i got called on by 9mm about how it's wierd an anarchist is supporting the idea of the DotP and then that triggered me into a bit of a fucked up angry period with myself but that's besides the point. I equate the DotP with a vanguard party solely in the sense when it comes to Leninism

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 20:01

In which case there's no reason for all Anarchists not to wholeheartedly become Marxists (and I must haver misunderstood for the 20 years I was Anarchist).

Well, yes, but that's precisely my point!

I agree with Marxism so far as it is an analytical lens and grouping of theories. Anarchists can be marxists and I used to consider myself a Marxist, but anarcho-marxism cannot be a thing because of contradictions between the two, and a few people insist that the goal of anarchists and communists are not the same. I agree with decentralized transitional organizations to get back on point.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 20:07

I understand it but it's been a long time since I've read the literature on it. Perhaps I should brush up on it. And I don't disagree with it per se, I disagree with the use of a transitional state, I want the absolute destruction of the state. Also previously I held this and said that something along the lines of "the only state anarchists and communists want is the proletarian state." Then i got called on by 9mm about how it's wierd an anarchist is supporting the idea of the DotP and then that triggered me into a bit of a fucked up angry period with myself but that's besides the point. I equate the DotP with a vanguard party solely in the sense when it comes to Leninism

So do I and so does every Marxist. Again, I can just rehash what Tim said in his response, but I won't, because he did so very clearly and lucidly. I just can't see anything in his exposition of the State that Anarchists would find objectionable.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

23rd July 2014, 20:09

The dotp is the armed working class expressing it's will, nothing else. You're being confused by the fact that a lot of Marxists are unable to make a fundamental break with capitalist society and instead can only envision this in the form of existing state institutions being turned against the bourgeoisie, in spite of the track record of such an endeavor. There's nothing to say that the dotp exists for any set period of time following a revolution, there's just a task that needs to be performed. Maybe that task takes 6 months, maybe it takes a day, which is precisely why it cannot take the form of a state, it has to be performed by the working class itself, not on it's behalf.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 20:12

I agree with Marxism so far as it is an analytical lens and grouping of theories. Anarchists can be marxists and I used to consider myself a Marxist, but anarcho-marxism cannot be a thing because of contradictions between the two, and a few people insist that the goal of anarchists and communists are not the same. I agree with decentralized transitional organizations to get back on point.

Well, there are people who identify as Libertarian Marxists, but Marxism is libertarian by its nature. Anyway, I don't see any contradictions between the two and have no problem identifying with any one of these two isms.

Well, what do you mean by "decentralized transitional organizations"? Every commune minding its own business and having its own plans? If one commune is starving or can't fight back the reactionaries then another commune has "a right" to not help if it chooses so? What if one commune own factories and another doesn't, can the former refuse to share its wealth with other communes? If that's your position then I can see where your disagreement might lie, but then I don't think that this position has much to do with Communism or Anarchism for that matter and more to do with some weird federalist-market-anarchism or whatever.

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 20:14

So do I and so does every Marxist. Again, I can just rehash what Tim said in his response, but I won't, because he did so very clearly and lucidly. I just can't see anything in his exposition of the State that Anarchists would find objectionable.

Tim was very clear, I would just rather not using a long winded transition, though which may become an exponential transition. I agree with the idea of the DotP, but I'd rather have immediate destruction of the state and to not utilize a state as a transitory means considering what a state is. I do understand that the goal and end result is the destruction of all states and the class system and to create free access communism

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 20:14

This will stay here in this quote for all to see you worthless piece of shit.
And I'll proudly repeat it in the exact same phrasing. :confuse:

Yeah I undestand the fucking DotP I just fucking disagree with it's use. That simple enough?
I guess. But it's a shitty answer akin to "because I says so".

An anarchist transition can be done without using a state and it'll perform the functions necessary to prevent counterrevolution and further reaction through freely associating anarchists organizations.
How and by what mechanism? By who? Is organization autonomous or authority based?

It's decentralized, not centralized into the hands of some 'revolutionary' vanguard.
What are the revolutionaries if not a vanguard? Or is your view that revolution is only valid with hypermajorities?

What you advacate for is the creation of a new bourgeoisie that'll oppress and suppress the working class eventually. Look at fucking Russia, China, Cuba, all those wonderful countries using this method.
China never made it past their bourgeoisie revolution and Russia didn't get a new bourgeoisie until 1991. That's why the nomenklatura had to break up the union because it prevented them stealing like the bourgeoisie do and it prevented them from passing their stolen wealth to their children.

What happended? They became state capitalist prisons for the working class and real communists and anarchists.
Even if this charterization were true they were better prisons than any worker has ever seen before or since.

I'm bourgeois technically and I fully support the idea of communism, so I should be oppressed and suppressed? Yet I am an anarchist communist, I hate the class I'm a part of and I hate capitalism with a motherfucking passion.
So that's where all this anger is flowing from. Okay I get it, lots of anarchist kids are bourgeoisie. It's nothing new. And of course class traitors like yourself are welcome in OUR revolution.

How the fuck am I talking of creating a motherfucking 'shadow anarchist state'?
By setting up anarchist agencies and groups that essentially tackle the exact issues the DOTP is supposed to. I should have called it a crypto-DOTP really.

Oh and for the record I haven't insulted you even once, ever. Despite your willingness to return a favor I never gave you.

@KAF: I think you took ready-made a little too seriously. I'm just meaning the tool itself not the institution, which is what Marx is talking about. That is you cannot just overlay socialism onto a bourgeoisie state. Marx wasn't even saying that doing so was improper but that it failed to be meaningful in the long run.

Also I directly referenced the quality of Tim C's post already and I still fail to see how we are talking about anything different.

Dagoth Ur

23rd July 2014, 20:22

@sinister: why would you rather see the immediate destruction of the state? Serious question.

Sorry for the double post.

Kill all the fetuses!

23rd July 2014, 20:23

Tim was very clear, I would just rather not using a long winded transition, though which may become an exponential transition. I agree with the idea of the DotP, but I'd rather have immediate destruction of the state and to not utilize a state as a transitory means considering what a state is. I do understand that the goal and end result is the destruction of all states and the class system and to create free access communism

I don't know, you must be seeing something in Tim's response and the concept of the DoPT itself that I am just incapable of seeing, but if you want to talk it further, you can drop me a line.

One of the members has posted this in another thread I believe, but it's a very short piece where Marx critiques Bakunin's understanding of what Marxists mean by the State. For me it was obvious all along that Bakunin just doesn't get what Marx(ists) means when he talks about the State and the DoPT. In the very same way it seems to me that Anarchists in general tend not to get it.

Here's the piece: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

23rd July 2014, 20:31

I think the word state is what's causing the issue. I assume Tim's concept of a 'workers state' is different from an ML's working conception of one, mainly thats it's not actually a state.

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 22:28

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

23rd July 2014, 22:35

One of the members has posted this in another thread I believe

*cough* credit required *cough*

Seriously though, I seem to remember the "withering away" of the state to be part of the Leninist stage-ist talk that refers to a "(state) socialist" phase of society which eventually results in the "state" of "state socialism" withering away to achieve communism. I know this isn't representative enough of other, similar arguments.

Vanguardism (Leninist etc.) is nonsense in my eyes as the DotP cannot function/exist if the proletariat is being guided by the representation of the proletariat, instead of itself.

In terms of Hegel's ideas, the vanguard, as representation of the proletariat, constitutes a separate "self" in addition to the "self" of the proletariat. Thus what ever is achieved by the proxy is not achieved by and for the original "self", whatever the vanguard does must be for itself, not what it represents simply because wherever a proxy is, the original thing is not. Both function in separate frameworks and have separate interests by being separate constructs so vanguardism was guaranteed to fail after not absorbing itself into the proletariat.

Oh and stages are the ridiculous by-products of positivism, dialectical laws of nonsense from Engels and other things like that. So there you go. Don't forget to read Marx's conspectus on Bakunin, it explains the DotP well.

Wow, too much Hegel and Debord.

Plus Dagoth Ur is talking uninformed garbage about Anarchism, just ignore the person. Anarchists aren't stupid, they already incorporated the notion of a period of revolutionary change. The interesting thing to find out is how similar this notion is to Marx's understanding and how different it is to Marxism's concept of it.

Edit: Engels came up with it but I'm lobbing a criticism of it being used with transition stages and/or vanguardism.

Sinister Intents

23rd July 2014, 22:44

I don't know, you must be seeing something in Tim's response and the concept of the DoPT itself that I am just incapable of seeing, but if you want to talk it further, you can drop me a line.

Perhaps, but I, like you, am always still learning, so I could be completely fucked in everything I'm saying. Afterall I've only read so much Lenin, Marx, and Engels. I've read mostly Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta, Proudhon, and recently Stirner. I should read as much as I can from MIA and other sources like anarchy archives to gain more knowledge so I can feel I'll be able to better discuss this.

One of the members has posted this in another thread I believe, but it's a very short piece where Marx critiques Bakunin's understanding of what Marxists mean by the State. For me it was obvious all along that Bakunin just doesn't get what Marx(ists) means when he talks about the State and the DoPT. In the very same way it seems to me that Anarchists in general tend not to get it.

In all honesty I haven't really read Bakunin all that much, but I should, Bakunin is where I'm lacking in my politics perhaps? I've read Marx n Engels, but don't know if I've read that.

Here's the piece: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm Thanks

Dagoth Ur

24th July 2014, 00:51

@Vox: Let's compare tallies: You had Makhno, the bandit king and like three years of horror in the villages of Ukraine versus us with the USSR, domination of a third of the globe, assistance to more people than anarchists have ever helped ever, and 70+ years of it to boot. Sure our Union fell, and our Soviet motherland is now depressingly destroyed, but comparatively speaking I wouldn't be toting the success of anarchism any time soon.

Plus Dagoth Ur is talking uninformed garbage about Anarchism, just ignore the person. Anarchists aren't stupid, they already incorporated the notion of a period of revolutionary change. The interesting thing to find out is how similar this notion is to Marx's understanding and how different it is to Marxism's concept of it.
Seems I hit a nerve with you anarchists. Also way to try to make Marx into a secret anarchists that Marxists have distorted. That sure is original and new. :grin:

Also what am I misinformed on? The fact that anarchists regularly have this very discussion about the withering away of the state that barely any understand. It's not like I became a communist yesterday, I've been lurking anarchist forums and sites far longer than even communist ones.

Trap Queen Voxxy

24th July 2014, 01:18

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 03:06

A state exists for only one reason: the exploitation or suppression of a particular class of people. The slave state exploited slaves, the feudal state exploited serfs, the capitalist state exploits workers. The DOP suppresses the last exploiting class: the capitalists. When the capitalist classes are suppressed out of existence then there will be no basis for the existence of the state: it will wither away and die.

bropasaran

24th July 2014, 03:24

Trotsky is just saying that the DotP is a "ruthless form od State", the last form of State, that assumes such character to suppress counter-revolution and etc. He will also say "Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions" and "No organization except the army has ever controlled man with such severe compulsion as does the State organization of the working class in the most difficult period of transition. It is just for this reason that we speak of the militarization of labor" ('Terrorism and Communism', btw).

Of course the last part, 'embrace... authoritatively', sounds worst than it really is - which is not to say that it's not bullshit. He is defending the militarisation of labour. I'm no trot, though.

impossible did not give any context because, besides being quite dishonest, s/he is in a holy war against Marxism. Pathetic.
Sounds worse than it really is? LOL No, just no.

.

Anyways, to address the OP again, there's a theoretical framework of communism coming into being, Bukharin and Preobrazhensky give the ideal vision of how it's supposed to work out. As much as I'm an anti-leninist and even anti-marxist, it is written in general terms without going much into detail and it is written in an idealistic manner, so I could probably agree with a lot in it, of course, USSR never tried anything similar described in this book ABC of Communism, there is nothing in it about ednolichie/ ednonachalie [monocracy, single command, translated as one man management], dictatorial powers of party managers over the workers, militarization of labor, etc, so I guess it can maybe be said that this a sort of left-communist view of transition to communism.

So, we have capitalism, then comes the proletariat revolution and institutes the dictatorship of the proletariat:

"The proletariat makes its dictatorship actual through the conquest of the State power."

most important part of which is to destroy the old army-

"if we wish to gain the victory over the bourgeoisie, the first essential is to disorganize and destroy the bourgeois army." .. "Thus the revolution destroys the old power and creates a new one, a different power from that which existed before. Of course the new power takes over some of the constituent parts of the old, but it uses them in a different way."

This "workers' state" takes over the means of production, and it is not yet communism, but it's just there:

"Under the dictatorship of the proletariat (a temporary institution) the means of production will from the nature of the case belong, not to society as a whole, but only to the proletariat, to its State organization. For the time being, the working class, that is the majority of the population, monopolizes the means of production. Consequently there does not yet exist communist production in all its completeness. There still exists the division of society into classes; there is still a governing class (the proletariat); all the means of production are monopolized by this new governing class; there is still a State authority (the proletarian authority) which crushes its enemies. But as the resistance of the sometime capitalists, landlords, bankers, generals, and bishops, is crushed, in like measure the system of proletarian dictatorship will without any revolution undergo transformation into communism."

So, the main part of this transformation will be the disappearance of the mentioned classes (I suppose that means that the dictatorship of the proletariat would last only a few years, until the revolution is over and all counter-revolutionary insurrection is stamped out) - and then there will be "neither landlords, nor capitalists, nor wage workers" but "simply people - comrades."

Is some other transformation mentioned? Well, I see two points, the state's main function will become a system of planning production:

"Who is going to work out the plans for social production? Who will distribute labour power? Who is going to keep account of social income and expenditure? In a word, who is going to supervise the whole affair? The main direction will be entrusted to various kinds of book-keeping offices or statistical bureaux. There, from day to day, account will be kept of production and all its needs; there also it will be decided whither workers must be sent, whence they must be taken, and how much work there is to be done."

And the second point is that the structure of this bureaux is to be non-authoritarian - "Moreover, in these statistical bureaux one person will work today, another tomorrow. The bureaucracy, the permanent officialdom, will disappear. The State will die out."

Bukharin and Preobrazhensky shit a little on this nice vision by saying that my assumption that the state will last only a few years, until the revolution is over, is false:

"For a long time yet, the working class will have to fight against, all its enemies, and in especial against the relics of the past, such as sloth, slackness, criminality, pride. All these will have to be stamped out. Two or three generations of persons will have to grow up under the new conditions before the need will pass for laws and punishments and for the use of repressive measures by the workers' State."

But ignoring that and the ironic metaphor of the statistical bureaux being the conductor to the workers' orchestra, which Lenin used two years earlier for the workers' "unquestioning subordination to a single will", this sounds like a pretty much ok vision of transition to communism.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 05:25

Perhaps, but I, like you, am always still learning, so I could be completely fucked in everything I'm saying. Afterall I've only read so much Lenin, Marx, and Engels. I've read mostly Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta, Proudhon, and recently Stirner. I should read as much as I can from MIA and other sources like anarchy archives to gain more knowledge so I can feel I'll be able to better discuss this.

In all honesty I haven't really read Bakunin all that much, but I should, Bakunin is where I'm lacking in my politics perhaps? I've read Marx n Engels, but don't know if I've read that.

Thanks

This article on LibCom, which uses that pamphlet as a source, but also explores the issue a bit further. It's pretty interesting:

https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

Also, Andrew Kliman, of the Marxist-Humanist Initiative says some things about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg

Quail

24th July 2014, 10:23

@sinister: I don't need to read anymore by that worthless soppy **** and if I ever do again it'll be far too soon.

You might not like Kropotkin, but that's no reason to call him a ****.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 10:38

Anarchists have shit all but "communism NOW!" which is downright impossible.

No they don't. Constructing a premise that is false and then drawing a conclusion from it is fallacious. Either you are doing it deviously or you don't know what you're talking about. Which of those two things is it?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 10:49

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:09

Orthodox Marxists fail in their understanding of the state for two reasons: Firstly, they rely lazily on Marx's incomplete definition of the state. And by incomplete, I don't mean that Marx was necessarily wrong, just that the very limited stuff he wrote about it was incomplete. Taking Marx's unfinished position and then repeating it as truth ad nuseum is not a coherent argument. Secondly, orthodox Marxists fail to recognise the social relationships inherent within centralised political authority (a state) and naively reject the idea that perpetuating the existence of such relationships -- ones that are fundamentally antithetical to the establishment of a communist society -- might not actually achieve the desired results. Despite the history of the 20th century...But then agian, when have ortho-Marxists ever listend to anyone but themselves?

Some Marxists, as illustrated by this thread, attempt to mitigate these objections by trying to claim that a state can essentially be anything you want it to be providing it is "one class organised to oppress another". This of course is an absurd statement and neatly refuted by the last 1000 year history of the emergence of the modern day state (See Kropotkin and Bakunin). Other Marxists, such as the cretin that is Dagoth Ur, attempt to defend their position by simply misrepresenting their opponents, which as we all know is a time-honoured tradition of Marxists, including Marx himself (although I'm fairly confident that if he were alive today he wouldn't associate with those passing themselves of as such).

Anyway, if the word "moralist" has been banded around by some Trot or another by this threads end, I will be a very surprised man.

TAT, you critique Marxist for not understanding Anarchists' position, but it's painstakingly obvious that you don't really understand Marxists' position on the State question. I, of course, can be wrong, but such is my impression.

"This of course is an absurd statement and neatly refuted by the last 1000 year history of the emergence of the modern day state (See Kropotkin and Bakunin)"I don't understand what you mean by this. Was the Paris Commune not held in high regard by Anarchists and Marxist alike? Didn't Marx claim that the Paris Commune was closest that the proletariat came to the DoPT and workers' state in history?

Rednoise has just posted this, but I can not recommend it highly enough as it deals rather definitively and exhaustively on the Marxist view on the State and it implicitly shows how there is absolutely nothing in Marx that could be anti-anarchist apart some weird federalist Proudhonian notions that some of people have.

I challenge you TAT or any another anti-Marxist Anarchist, I challenge you to read the piece and tell me where is Marx wrong in his conception of the State and how Anarchist position is different.

Here's the link: https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:09

The workers must seize the state because it is too dangerous to be left in the hand of our enemies.

Let's take this neat little soundbite for example.

"The workers"? What exactly is "the workers"?

When a Marxist says "the workers must seize the state" what exactly does that mean? The workers being whom is quite an important question if we want to really understand the nature of what is being said. Because the workers, as far as I understand it, are a heterogenous mass of human beings who have a specific social relationship to the means of production...How exactly is it possible for them to "seize" anything, let alone the institutions of minority rule? What does that "seizing" even look like?

The statement "the workers must seize the state" is incoherent nonsense; it's nothing more than a slogan. But ortho-Marxists love slogans because ortho-Marxists are ostensibly populists and it's easier to just say something that makes only superficial sense instead of actually saying something that is meaningul -- because why bother, right?

It's also incredibly devious, because since "the workers" cannot, by definition, seize institutions of minority rule, the reality is that the state is actually seized by proxy and weilded on behalf of the workers. Cue further populist slogans.

The workers are no more in control of the state in a so-called transitionary period as they are in capitalist society. They are still subject to minority rule, representation, bourgeois judicial systems, security apparatus, property relationships and so on. What Marxists have to offer is an illusion and when that illusion is challenged then, it is brutally surpressed and when it is challenged now, the phrase "material conditions" is banded about as if it suddenly comes as a great surprise that capitalist material conditions have fucked up the world and those that live in...

If you want to create a communist society, you have to actually build one. This "scientific" application of theory actually bears no connection with reality as it unfolds in real-time, as evidence by the monumental failures of the Soviet Union. Failures that were not seen in the Ukraine or in Spain.

But fundamentally, ortho-Marxists just don't trust "the workers," either because of some engrained residual bourgeois prejudices or because of political expedience. Either way, ortho-Marxists are a danger to the communust movement.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 11:13

I dealt with the issue of proxies above, just so you know TAT.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:13

Let's take this neat little soundbite for example.

"The workers"? What exactly is "the workers"?

Anyone with any bit of reading of Marx would understand how desperately wrong you are and what a ridiculous straw-man have you just built.

Please, just read this piece (https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state) and answer my questions in the post above, don't make me beg you!

Tim Cornelis

24th July 2014, 11:18

I'm going to respond to some... odd, criticisms of the DOTP tomorrow probably. But this one is curious too. First, he defines the state in such and such way:

Orthodox Marxists fail in their understanding of the state for two reasons: Firstly, they rely lazily on Marx's incomplete definition of the state. And by incomplete, I don't mean that Marx was necessarily wrong, just that the very limited stuff he wrote about it was incomplete. Taking Marx's unfinished position and then repeating it as truth ad nuseum is not a coherent argument. Secondly, orthodox Marxists fail to recognise the social relationships inherent within centralised political authority (a state) and naively reject the idea that perpetuating the existence of such relationships -- ones that are fundamentally antithetical to the establishment of a communist society -- might not actually achieve the desired results. Despite the history of the 20th century...But then agian, when have ortho-Marxists ever listend to anyone but themselves?

Then he admits that Marxists may, and often do, have a different definition.

Some Marxists, as illustrated by this thread, attempt to mitigate these objections by trying to claim that a state can essentially be anything you want it to be providing it is "one class organised to oppress another". This of course is an absurd statement and neatly refuted by the last 1000 year history of the emergence of the modern day state (See Kropotkin and Bakunin). Other Marxists, such as the cretin that is Dagoth Ur, attempt to defend their position by simply misrepresenting their opponents, which as we all know is a time-honoured tradition of Marxists, including Marx himself (although I'm fairly confident that if he were alive today he wouldn't associate with those passing themselves of as such).

Anyway, if the word "moralist" has been banded around by some Trot or another by this threads end, I will be a very surprised man.

And finally concludes that Marxists are wrong because he superimposes his definition unto Marxism -- a strawman in other words.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:19

TAT, you critique Marxist for not understanding Anarchists' position, but it's painstakingly obvious that you don't really understand Marxists' position on the State question. I, of course, can be wrong, but such is my impression.

Imagine my surprise at reading that.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Then how have you come to the conclusion that I don't understand the Marxist position on the state?

Was the Paris Commune not held in high regard by Anarchists and Marxist alike? Didn't Marx claim that the Paris Commune was closest that the proletariat came to the DoPT and workers' state in history?

He may very well have done. I don't see how the abortive Paris Commune is relevant to my argument, however. I am challening the idea that Marx's limited description of the state is a definitive answer to the question: what is the state? I am not bringing into question what Marx thought about the Paris Commune.

Rednoise has just posted this, but I can not recommend it highly enough as it deals rather definitively and exhaustively on the Marxist view on the State and it implicitly shows how there is absolutely nothing in Marx that could be anti-anarchist apart some weird federalist Proudhonian notions that some of people have.

I don't doubt that this is possible. My issue isn't with Marx, it's with those who claim to follow his ideas.

I challenge you TAT or any another anti-Marxist Anarchist, I challenge you to read the piece and tell me where is Marx wrong in his conception of the State and how Anarchist position is different.

I'm neither an anarchsit nor an anti-Marxist.

Anyone with any bit of reading of Marx would understand how desperately wrong you are

Challenging my knowledge of Marx's texts is not an argument against what I said.

and what a ridiculous straw-man have you just built.

What strawman?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:21

But this one is curious too. First, he defines the state in such and such way

I've provided no definition. I have only said that the definition that Marxists use is based on an incomplete analysis.

Then he admits that Marxists may, and often do, have a different definition.

An incomplete definition. I highlighted that word twice in the post you are quoting, I don't understand how you are having difficulty with it.

And finally concludes that Marxists are wrong because he superimposes his definition unto Marxism.

So you claim that the Marxist definition of state is not "one class organised to oppress another"?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:23

I dealt with the issue of proxies above, just so you know TAT.

And very expertly, I might add :)

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:24

Imagine my surprise at reading that.

Well, if you are being told this time and again, maybe, you know, you can try to draw some conclusions?

I don't doubt that this is possible. My issue isn't with Marx, it's with those who claim to follow his ideas.

I'm neither an anarchsit nor an anti-Marxists.

Challenging my knowledge of Marx's texts is not an argument against what I said.

What strawman?

How can you understand orthodox Marxism if you don't understand Marx's position? You just build your own definitions, your own ideas, put these definitions, ideas and words in the mouths of Marxists and ask me "what straw-man"?

Just read the damn link TAT, whenever you have some spare time. It will pay off at least in that sense that you won't be wasting your time talking nonsense next time such thread arises.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:30

Well, if you are being told this time and again, maybe, you know, you can try to draw some conclusions?

I have, it's that Marxists rely too heavily on logical fallacies to defend their positions.

How can you understand orthodox Marxism if you don't understand Marx's position?

Once again, bringing into question my knowledge of Marx is not an argument here.

You just build your own definitions, your own ideas, put these definitions, ideas and words in the mouths of Marxists and ask me "what straw-man"?

Show me where Marx discussed the state, its history and its implicatiosn in any detail or that arrives at any conlusion other than a state is one class organised to oppress another.

Just read the damn link TAT, whenever you have some spare time. It will pay off at least in that sense that you won't be wasting your time talking nonsense next time such thread arises.

Does the text provide an exhaustive definition of the state based upon Marx's writings? And does the text provide a coherent defence of, or refutation of, the concept of proxies and bourgeois social relations inherent in vanguardism and centralised political authority? Yes or no?

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:41

Does the text provide an exhaustive definition of the state based upon Marx's writings? And does the text provide a coherent defence of, or refutation of, the concept of proxies and bourgeois social relations inherent in vanguardism and centralised political authority? Yes or no?

Yes.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:42

Yes.

I find that highly unlikely.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt...Probably the most dangerous thing anyone should do when it concerns a Marxist.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:48

This article is a defence of Marx...

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:48

I find that highly unlikely.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt...Probably the most dangerous thing anyone should do when it concerns a Marxist.

Well, I would be very glad to hear your comments afterwards.

From your posts that I read, I can bet that my politics are pretty much equivalent to yours, so you shouldn't worry too much about it.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 11:49

This article is a defence of Marx...

It's not "defence". It's a descriptive pamphlet about Marx's and Marxists' view of the State. What else do you want?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 11:59

It's not "defence".

Yes it is...That is exactly what it is lol.

It's a descriptive pamphlet about Marx's and Marxists' view of the State. What else do you want?

I've read the section on the bourgeois state and don't find in it anything I didn't already know. I mean, this is a position I have been giving on this board for years.

The following section will most likely be the interesting one, but the problem as I have forwarded it, is that despite the theoretical definition of the "workers' state," you simply cannot divorce form from content. A state is always going to maintain bourgeois social relations because that is what it developed to do. The state is inextricably bourgeois. You cannot reinvent the state, any more than you can reform capitalism.

It's all fine and well for Marx to position himself with a more generalised view of the state, but the reality is something entirely different, and that is what we should be concerning ourselves with.

The article is interesting, thank you for insistening. I will continue reading it.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 12:06

Yes it is...That is exactly what it is lol.

Defence against what? I just don't get it how it's a defence.

I've read the section on the bourgeois state and don't find in it anything I didn't already know. I mean, this is a position I have been giving on this board for years.

The following section will most likely be the interesting one, but the problem as I have forwarded it, is that despite the theoretical definition of the "workers' state," you simply cannot divorce form from content. A state is always going to maintain bourgeois social relations because that is what it developed to do. The state is inextricably bourgeois. You cannot reinvent the state, any more than you can reform capitalism.

It's all fine and well for Marx to position himself with a more generalised view of the state, but the reality is something entirely different, and that is what we should be concerning ourselves with.

The article is interesting, thank you for insistening. I will continue reading it.

Yes, can you give your comments after you finish the whole piece, would be interesting to hear.

So tell me if I get you right: it's not that much that you disagree with the definition of the State as given by Marx ("organization of one class for the suppression of another") in a vacuum, but that you see it as inevitably leading to some sort of Vanguard dictatorship, because you view the institution as some sort of minority rule and ultimately all of this means that the State can't be seized, because it's inherently anti-working-class in as much as is capitalism?

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 12:20

I'm confused about something in Marx's conspectus.

Bakunin says:

"The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed."

To which Marx says:

"If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other."

I'm not sure I understand this, I have some inkling of what he's saying...

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 14:03

Some Marxists, as illustrated by this thread, attempt to mitigate these objections by trying to claim that a state can essentially be anything you want it to be providing it is "one class organised to oppress another". This of course is an absurd statement and neatly refuted by the last 1000 year history of the emergence of the modern day state (See Kropotkin and Bakunin).

What state over the last 1,000 years has existed for any purpose other than the oppression of a particular class of people?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 14:05

What state over the last 1,000 years has existed for any purpose other than the oppression of a particular class of people?

What?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brotto RÃ¼hle

24th July 2014, 14:18

What?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's asking you in what period of time was the state not the tool of the ruling class; when was it a class neutral entity?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ignore_jpg_scale_super/11114/111142124/3898460-8864152835-

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 14:20

Then i got called on by 9mm about how it's wierd an anarchist is supporting the idea of the DotP and then that triggered me into a bit of a fucked up angry period with myself but that's besides the point.

I am genuinely puzzled by this, but in all sincerity I apologize for whatever distress I caused you. None the less I stand by my comment that an anarchist who supports the dictatorship of the proletariat, is either confused or not an anarchist at all.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 14:22

I am genuinely puzzled by this, but in all sincerity I apologize for whatever distress I caused you. None the less I stand by my comment that an anarchist who supports the dictatorship, is either confused or not an anarchist at all.

Who supports my understanding of the dictatorship*

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 14:25

Defence against what? I just don't get it how it's a defence.

Against the propositions it lays out in the opening paragraphs.

So tell me if I get you right: it's not that much that you disagree with the definition of the State as given by Marx ("organization of one class for the suppression of another") in a vacuum, but that you see it as inevitably leading to some sort of Vanguard dictatorship, because you view the institution as some sort of minority rule and ultimately all of this means that the State can't be seized, because it's inherently anti-working-class in as much as is capitalism?

It doesn't have to be as obvious as a dictatorship. Liberal democracy for example is perfectly capable of incorporating expressions of dissent within its paradigm. The state could even incorporate nominal associationist structures a là Venezuela and Cuba (although in a revolutionary situation the state would likely find that too dangerous). The point, however, is that dictatorship or otherwise, the working class are always going to be prohibited from having direct responsibility over the governance of their lives, because of the limiting nature of the states function in maintaining political authority.

The state maintains bourgeois social relationships through its occupation as collector of private property, judicial executor, security apparatus, employer, land lord and social administrator. This is the function of the state. And it cannot carry out those functions without maintaining a system of hierarchy that necessitates the existence of a bureaucracy to manage it, detached from the daily lives of the class.

The role of the state is to consolidate and consolidate until it is the supreme authority in all matters, and then by virtue of its need to be able to execute that authority -- in spite of any opposition -- entrenches the mechanisms of its authority and weds them to the ideology of those that manage those mechanisms I.e the bureaucracy.

What you are left with is nothing more than a self-serving, self-ideologically justifying bureaucracy, divorced from the realities of the class, protected by relationships of hierarchy and entrenched institutions that exist specifically to perpetuate themselves in order that they can maintain those hierarchies -- hierarchies that are necessary to exist if the state is to function effectively.

The state is not just one class organised to oppress another. It is the living expression of bourgeois authority; of minority governance over a majority. A majority that must always bend to the will of the state. For if they do not, the state is at threat, and if the state is at threat, it cannot, in the view of Marxists, succeed in its objectives of defending the revolution. But by defending the revolution you have simply subjugated the class to the ideology of the state rather than them being liberated from those relationships.

In other words, the state is a self-defeating tool and can never create the conditions for communism.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 14:26

He's asking you in what period of time was the state not the tool of the ruling class; when was it a class neutral entity?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ignore_jpg_scale_super/11114/111142124/3898460-8864152835-

Why am I being asked that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 14:51

Against the propositions it lays out in the opening paragraphs.

No it doesn't, really.

It doesn't have to be as obvious as a dictatorship. Liberal democracy for example is perfectly capable of incorporating expressions of dissent within its paradigm. The state could even incorporate nominal associationist structures a là Venezuela and Cuba (although in a revolutionary situation the state would likely find that too dangerous). The point, however, is that dictatorship or otherwise, the working class are always going to be prohibited from having direct responsibility over the governance of their lives, because of the limiting nature of the states function in maintaining political authority.

The state maintains bourgeois social relationships through its occupation as collector of private property, judicial executor, security apparatus, employer, land lord and social administrator. This is the function of the state. And it cannot carry out those functions without maintaining a system of hierarchy that necessitates the existence of a bureaucracy to manage it, detached from the daily lives of the class.

The role of the state is to consolidate and consolidate until it is the supreme authority in all matters, and then by virtue of its need to be able to execute that authority -- in spite of any opposition -- entrenches the mechanisms of its authority and weds them to the ideology of those that manage those mechanisms I.e the bureaucracy.

What you are left with is nothing more than a self-serving, self-ideologically justifying bureaucracy, divorced from the realities of the class, protected by relationships of hierarchy and entrenched institutions that exist specifically to perpetuate themselves in order that they can maintain those hierarchies -- hierarchies that are necessary to exist if the state is to function effectively.

The state is not just one class organised to oppress another. It is the living expression of bourgeois authority; of minority governance over a majority. A majority that must always bend to the will of the state. For if they do not, the state is at threat, and if the state is at threat, it cannot, in the view of Marxists, succeed in its objectives of defending the revolution. But by defending the revolution you have simply subjugated the class to the ideology of the state rather than them being liberated from those relationships.

In other words, the state is a self-defeating tool and can never create the conditions for communism.

TAT, the bolded part is exactly where you go wrong. Everything you say is true and I stand by your criticism, more or less... and yet I still think everything you say is perfectly compatible with the Marxist view of the State.

The problem is that you define State in a particular way and then whenever someone uses that word, you immediately think that they are talking about the same thing. That's why I suggested you the article, because it deals exactly with this question. You hold the Spanish Social Revolution in high regard, right? But it's bottom-up organization of communes, its militias, democratic gatherings to make certain decisions, its recallable delegates in certain positions of the commune - all of that is a State! Not in Anarchist sense of the word, but in Marxist sense. It is exactly that - one class organized to oppress the other without becoming some Vanguard dictatorship, which you so viciously oppose.

Marxists don't define the State in the same way as you do, can you get over it? It's like these Austrian idiots running around "value is subjective, value is subjective!" without realizing that Marx defines values in an entirely different way than they do...

Brotto RÃ¼hle

24th July 2014, 14:53

Some Marxists, as illustrated by this thread, attempt to mitigate these objections by trying to claim that a state can essentially be anything you want it to be providing it is "one class organised to oppress another". This of course is an absurd statement and neatly refuted by the last 1000 year history of the emergence of the modern day state (See Kropotkin and Bakunin).
It seems you're saying the state is NOT one class (the ruling class) organized for the purpose of suppressing another class.

That would lead to the assumption that you believe the state is a class neutral entity.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 14:56

It seems you're saying the state is NOT one class (the ruling class) organized for the purpose of suppressing another class.

That would lead to the assumption that you believe the state is a class neutral entity.

It could only "seem" that way if my posts are only being given cursory glances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 15:08

No it doesn't, really.

Suit yourself.

The problem is that you define State in a particular way and then whenever someone uses that word, you immediately think that they are talking about the same thing.

It isn't "my" definition, it is a straight forward articulation of what the state is. If you would like to bring that into dispute then do so. Stop this nonsense literary critique of my posts. If you have an argument that relates to the content of my posts then make it.

That's why I suggested you the article, because it deals exactly with this question. You hold the Spanish Social Revolution in high regard, right? But it's bottom-up organization of communes, its militias, democratic gatherings to make certain decisions, its recallable delegates in certain positions of the commune - all of that is a State!

No it isn't.

Not in Anarchist sense of the word, but in Marxist sense. It is exactly that - one class organized to oppress the other without becoming some Vanguard dictatorship, which you so viciously oppose.

And as originally stated in this thread, that is an incomplete analysis.

Marxists don't define the State in the same way as you do, can you get over it?

I'm sorry, but "this is what we think, deal with it" isn't an adequate position.

I mean, if you people want to call things that are not a state a state then so be it. But that's just absurd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 15:18

It isn't "my" definition, it is a straight forward articulation of what the state is. If you would like to bring that into dispute then do so. Stop this nonsense literary critique of my posts. If you have an argument that relates to the content of my posts then make it.

But this nonsense is exactly what you are incapable of understanding, for fuck's sake.

I mean, if you people want to call things that are not a state a state then so be it. But that's just absurd.

Yes, because you have a monopoly of defining what a State is or, sorry, "straightforwardly articulating what the state is." There is more than hundred of years of Marxist usage of this word in exactly this way. You can disagree with Marxist choice of words, you can call it absurd, but could you please then stop this bullshit about Marxists being authoritarians and whatnot.

So here it is: Marxists use the word State and the DoTP in this particular sense. You think it's not state and you think the usage of this word to define these things is absurd. Fine, but then these is no substantial difference apart from literary one as far as this discussion is concerned, is there?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 15:31

But this nonsense is exactly what you are incapable of understanding, for fuck's sake.

What exactly is it that I'm supposed to be understanding that I haven't already? Simply repeating that what I am saying is not the Marxist definition of the state is as boring as it is redundant, since I already know that. In fact it was I that said it to begin with.

Yes, because you have a monopoly of defining what a State is or, sorry, "straightforwardly articulating what the state is." There is more than hundred of years of Marxist usage of this word in exactly this way. You can disagree with Marxist choice of words, you can call it absurd, but could you please then stop this bullshit about Marxists being authoritarians and whatnot.

I haven't called Marxists authoritarian...

So here it is: Marxists use the word State and the DoTP in this particular sense. You think it's not state and you think the usage of this word to define these things is absurd. Fine, but then these is no substantial difference apart from literary one as far as this discussion is concerned, is there?

Except of course you're being disingenuous. You are after all a centralist, so even if I were to agree that decentralised political authority was by definition a state, you still propose the centralisation of political authority, which is what a state actually is and that which I'm critiquing. If you don't think that then I bring into question your credentials as a Marxist.

Moreover, I would also wager that in your view the state, or as you lot like to refer to it, the "bourgeois state," should be laid claim of in a revolution. That is what Marx argued for after all.

So yeah, as far as this debate is concerned it's one of semantics, but since as a Marxist you are a centralist and probably agree that the "bourgeois" state should be seized, I think what I'm saying has further implications than you suggest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 15:39

Except of course you're being disingenuous. You are after all a centralist, so even if I were to agree that decentralised political authority was by definition a state, you still propose the centralisation of political authority, which is what a state actually is and that which I'm critiquing. If you don't think that then I bring into question your credentials as a Marxist.

Moreover, I would also wager that in your view the state, or as you lot like to refer to it, the "bourgeois state," should be laid claim of in a revolution. That is what Marx argued for after all.

So yeah, as far as this debate is concerned it's one of semantics, but since as a Marxist you are a centralist and probably agree that the "bourgeois" state should be seized, I think what I'm saying has further implications than you suggest.

If I am being disingenuous, then it's not deliberate, but I don't think I am. As far as bourgeois State is concerned, then no, I don't think it should be seized, I think it should be smashed on the day one of the revolution. That's Marxism 101, even Lenin in his State and Revolution argued for that and Marx wrote about it time and again. I don't understand why would you even suggest such a thing.

As for centralization of political power, before I answer, could you please briefly explain what you mean by centralization and decentralization of political power?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

24th July 2014, 15:44

What a person writes about and then what they actually do in the real world is kind of the running theme of anarchist critiques of Marxism.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 15:48

If I am being disingenuous, then it's not deliberate, but I don't think I am. As far as bourgeois State is concerned, then no, I don't think it should be seized, I think it should be smashed on the day one of the revolution. That's Marxism 101, even Lenin in his State and Revolution argued for that and Marx wrote about it time and again. I don't understand why would you even suggest such a thing.

How is it then that Marxists constantly use the phrase "the workers must seize the state", if seizing the state is not your objective. Are you suggesting that actually what you mean to say is the anarchist phrase "smash the state"? An unusual Marxist you are.

But as it happens both Marx and Lenin argued for a seizure of the bourgeois state (I'm on my phone so you'll have to wait for the quotes -- but if I remember rightly they are actually in State and Revolution and The Communist Manifesto). Also, it should be noted that the seizure of the bourgeois state is precisely what Lenin actually did.

As for centralization of political power, before I answer, could you please briefly explain what you mean by centralization and decentralization of political power?

Sure. In the most simplest of terms, centralisation of political power is the state -- as it is conceived now and as it has developed throughout history. Decentralised political authority is any organised system of governance and social protection that is not the state.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 15:49

What a person writes about and then what they actually do in the real world is kind of the running theme of anarchist critiques of Marxism.

Yes, I know it, but then again this discussion is not about historical events, but about theory.

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 15:52

Moreover, I would also wager that in your view the state, or as you lot like to refer to it, the "bourgeois state," should be laid claim of in a revolution. That is what Marx argued for after all.

"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.." - M&E

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 15:56

How is it then that Marxists constantly use the phrase "the workers must seize the state"? are you suggesting that actually what you mean to say is the anarchist phrase "smash the state"? An unusual Marxist you are.

But as it happens both Marx and Lenin both argued for a seizure of the bourgeois state (I'm on my phone so you'll have to wait for the quotes -- but if I remember rightly they are actually in State and Revolution and The Communist Manifesto). Also, it should e noted that the seizure of the bourgeois state is precisely what Lenin actually did.

But that's precisely what Marxists argue for! Smashing the bourgeois State and establishing, what you would call, a non-State entity and what Marxists would call a State or the DoTP. How am I an unusual Marxist, if that's all in Marx and Marxist literature, written very clearly and very explicitly?

As for Lenin - sure, but then again we aren't discussing historical events, but theory, right?

Sure. In the most simplest of terms, centralisation of political power is the state -- as it is conceived now and as it has developed through out history. Decentralised political authority is any organised system of governance and social protection that is not the state.

TAT, you didn't make it any clearer or are you just making fun of me? So simply said that decentralized system of governance is not centralized system of governance...

I guess I have a clear idea of what you mean by centralized political power, but I am not sure where do you draw the line, i.e. when the organization for you is not centralized anymore. Could you be little more specific on this particular point?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:04

"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.." - M&E

I disagree with Marx here. The working class shouldn't lay claim to ready-made state machinery at all. Attempting to mitigate it isn't a solution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 16:06

I disagree with Marx here. The working class shouldn't lay claim to ready-made state machinery at all. Attempting to mitigate it isn't a solution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm just stupid (which is entirely possible) but I can't see a difference between what you just said and what Marx said in that passage.

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 16:10

I disagree with Marx here. The working class shouldn't lay claim to ready-made machinery [b]at all[b]

Well then, ironically enough, you are in complete agreement with M&E, as well as Lenin. The quote is from a later preface to the communist manifesto (1871 I wanna say, but don't quote me on that), when M&E reevaluated some of their views in light of the events of the paris commune, and is actually utilized by Lenin in state & revolution. The lesson M&E took from the experience of the commune was precisely that the bourgeois state must be smashed and in its place erected a proletarian semi state (Engels), or in other words the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:15

Maybe I'm just stupid (which is entirely possible) but I can't see a difference between what you just said and what Marx said in that passage.

He's not saying they shouldn't do it, he's saying it's not all that they need to do.

The sentence quoted comes as a response to the Paris Commune's Central Committee declaration that the workers have seized governmental powers. When Marx says "cannot simply lay hold" he is saying, by his use of the word "simply" (which is a synonym for "merely, just, purely, only, solely") that it is not all they need to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:17

Well then, ironically enough, you are in complete agreement with M&E, as well as Lenin. The quote is from a later preface to the communist manifesto (1871 I wanna say, but don't quote me on that), when M&E reevaluated some of their views in light of the events of the paris commune, and is actually utilized by Lenin in state & revolution. The lesson M&E took from the experience of the commune was precisely that the bourgeois state must be smashed and in its place erected a proletarian semi state (Engels), or in other words the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think it is originally from The Civil War in France.

Unless you are redefining the English language or bringing into question the translation, I'm afraid your wrong on his meaning. That's not to say Marx didn't want to smash the "bourgeois" state eventually. I'm sure he did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 16:18

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 16:19

He's not saying they shouldn't do it, he's saying it's not all that they need to do.

The sentence quoted comes as a response to the Paris Commune's Central Committee declaration that the workers have seized governmental powers. When Marx says "cannot simply lay hold" he is saying, by his use of the word "simply" (which is a synonym for "merely, just, purely, only, solely") that it is not all they need to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read that as a more dismissive statement. One does not "simply walk into Mordor," for example. In other words, you can't just waltz into Mordor like it's a Walmart. Here, you can't just lay your hands on state machinery and expect social conditions to change. Given the context of what Marx says in respect to the state, this would lead me to believe that he was saying that you can't do that -- you have to do something else. Engel's confirms this when he said, as Old Bull Lee pointed out, the proletariat must destroy the state and enact a proletarian semi-state.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:19

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:22

I don't know what this Engels quote is or where it's from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 16:23

Erect a semi-state? I don't care if that's what they said because that's nonsense. No way would I agree to dismantling this one and then building a half-new one. I'm in for the slow tearing down of everything, because that IS the revolution which negates the current state of affairs. The procees of total negation itself will produce things to fill the gap.

it's not "non-sense." when Marx and Engels refer to a state in this sense, they assume a state that is not like the one we have today. it would be completely different in character, relations and reasons for existing. the DoTP (the 'semi-state') is meant to suppress capitalist rebellions and socialize the means of production, while a social revolution happens concurrently. it's not meant to expand and preserve an oppressive class but to aid in abolishing the oppressive class system. by that very reason, the nature of this "state" changes completely.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:27

Edit: wow this whole thread is such a waste of time. Why can't we talk about ways to influence ordinary people to be aware of a greater threat when we struggle with them? Or even talk about criticising the need for that?!

Because I'm pretty sure that would be just as pointless tbh.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 16:29

The only way for you to be correct is if the sentence read "the working class simply cannot lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes."

But that's not what he said.

adverb: simply
1.
in a straightforward or plain manner.
"speaking simply and from the heart"
2.
merely;just.
"simply complete the application form"
synonyms: merely, just, purely, solely, only More
absolutely; completely (used for emphasis)

One cannot just/simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and weild it for proletarian interests, ie: it cannot be done. When taken into the context of M&E's work, post the paris commune, the meaning is clear.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 16:29

it's not "non-sense." when Marx and Engels refer to a state in this sense, they assume a state that is not like the one we have today. it would be completely different in character, relations and reasons for existing. the DoTP (the 'semi-state') is meant to suppress capitalist rebellions and socialize the means of production, while a social revolution happens concurrently. it's not meant to expand and preserve an oppressive class but to aid in abolishing the oppressive class system. by that very reason, the nature of this "state" changes completely.

Right I understand you here, I assumed wrongly that the word "state" had the same content with different occupants. Also it seems a poor choice of words to want to "erect" a semi-state, seeing as it should be a necessity as a consequence of communising society.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:31

One cannot just lay hold of the ready made state machinery.

Yes, "cannot just do that" or in other words "do something along with it"...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:35

I guess I have a clear idea of what you mean by centralized political power, but I am not sure where do you draw the line, i.e. when the organization for you is not centralized anymore. Could you be little more specific on this particular point?

Centralisation necessitates a hierarchy and hierarchy necessitates the existence of a minority.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 16:38

I think you're being somewhat selective in your interpretation TAT. But of course you are entitled to think what you like. I'm on my phone, so not interested in getting into a long exchange or anything, its quite the hassle to quote/type on here.

I certainly urge anyone interested in the matter to interpret the quote within the context of the totality of M&E's work, specifically their writings following the events which prompted the statement in question.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 16:38

Centralisation necessitates a hierarchy and hierarchy necessitates the existence of a minority.

For fuck's sake TAT... But if I understand you correctly, which you don't want to allow me to, then no, I don't support this particular kind of centralization. And neither does Marx support this particular kind of centralization.

However, if you would make yourself clearer...

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:46

I think your being somewhat selective in your interpretation TAT. But of course you are entitled to think what you like. I'm on my phone, so not interested in getting into a long exchange or anything, its quite the hassle to quote/type on here.

I don't know what your training is, but I've a Bachelors degree in professional writing and work as a professional copy writer, editor and proofreader. I like to think that my command of the English language is at least nominally expert, if there can be such a thing.

Now I'm not saying I have a definitive understanding of that sentence, but I am saying -- from a position of confidence -- that the arrangement of words does not say what you are claiming it does. That's not interpretation, that is a recognition of how the English language operates. You don't use the adverb 'simply' in that way if you mean to say "absolute, complete." If that's what he meant why would he have arranged the words in that way?

I certainly urge anyone interested in the matter to interpret the quote within the context of the totality of M&E's work, specifically post the events which prompted it.

I'm fairly certain it's from The Civil War in France, so yeah, people should give it a read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

motion denied

24th July 2014, 16:51

"The centralized State machinery which, with its ubiquitous and complicated military, bureaucratic, clerical and judiciary organs, entoils (inmeshes) the living civil society like a boa constrictor, was first forged in the days of absolute monarchy as a weapon of nascent modern society in its struggle of emancipation from feudalism [...] This parasitical [excrescence upon] civil society, pretending to be its ideal counterpart, grew to its full development under the sway of the first Bonaparte. [...] All revolutions thus only perfected the State machinery instead of throwing off this deadening incubus [...] The true antithesis to the Empire itself – that is, to the State power, the centralized executive, of which the Second Empire was only the exhausting formula – was the Commune. [...] This was, therefore, a revolution not against this or that, legitimate, constitutional, republican or imperialist form of State power. It was a revolution against the State itself, of this supernaturalist abortion of society, a resumption by the people for the people of its own social life. It was not a revolution to transfer it from one fraction of the ruling classes to the other, but a revolution to break down this horrid machinery of class domination itself." (bold mine)

- Marx, First Draft of The Civil War in France

Marx came to a negative concept of politics as soon as 1844. Since then he never considered the State, no matter its character, as the agent of revolution. All other revolutions were from classes seeking "the causes of evil" in the form of the state, not in its nature. That's why old Karl distinguished political revolution from social revolution.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:54

For fuck's sake TAT...

Look pal, you need to back off with the attitude. You don't have some kind of entitlement to my time, okay? I don't owe you my attention.

But if I understand you correctly, which you don't want to allow me to, then no, I don't support this particular kind of centralization. And neither does Marx support this particular kind of centralization.

Centralised political authority cannot be exercised any other way. Marx was a centralist. This was expressed both in his work and his actions. To be a centralist you must therefore accept the need for a hierarchy, since you cannot centralise authority into a mass, because then it wouldn't be centralised. And for a hierarchy to function it must be based on minority administration.

Centralisation necessitates hierarchy, which necessitates a minority. In other words, one thing leads to the other in order for it to exist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 16:54

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 16:57

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 17:01

Look pal, you need to back off with the attitude. You don't have some kind of entitlement to my time, okay? I don't owe you my attention.

I wouldn't have suggested that you owe me anything, but if you take time to respond to me anyway, why not respond in a way that would allow me to reply back productively?

Centralised political authority cannot be exercised any other way. Marx was a centralist. This was expressed both in his work and his actions. To be a centralist you must therefore accept the need for a hierarchy, since you cannot centralise authority into a mass, because then it wouldn't be centralised. And for a hierarchy to function it must be based on minority administration.

Centralisation necessitates hierarchy, which necessitates a minority. In other words, one thing leads to the other in order for it to exist.

Well, again, I think you are simply wrong here. You can also be a centralist in a sense that you are against federalism. So if one doesn't think that a commune can treat its means of productions as private property, if one doesn't think a commune can simply say "fuck off" to another commune if it needs help, if one thinks that one commune simply can't exist politicalt independently of other communes, if one thinks that it's not workers of a factory and not communards of a commune that own the means of production, but the society in general, then one is a centralist.

It seems to me that Marx was a centralist in this specific sense, considering his vicious opposition to Proudhonian federalism. But this kind of centralism doesn't imply hierarchies and minorities, which is evidently clear from Marx works - why otherwise he would talk about recallable delegates and the power in the hands of the masses to control them?

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:04

Yes, "cannot just do that" or in other words "do something along with it"...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not the right interpretation, in the context of their works at large, or even in the context of the Paris Commune address.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:05

Well, again, I think you are simply wrong here. You can also be a centralist in a sense that you are against federalism. So if one doesn't think that a commune can treat its means of productions as private property, if one doesn't think a commune can simply say "fuck off" to another commune if it needs help, if one thinks that one commune simply can't exist politicalt independently of other communes, if one thinks that it's not workers of a factory and not communards of a commune that own the means of production, but the society in general, then one is a centralist.

How does that operate if not through a system of hierarchy and minority administration?

It seems to me that Marx was a centralist in this specific sense, considering his vicious opposition to Proudhonian federalism. But this kind of centralism doesn't imply hierarchies and minorities, which is evidently clear from Marx works - why otherwise he would talk about recallable delegates and the power in the hands of the masses to control them?

Except of course practically speaking that is precisely what it is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:05

That's not the right interpretation, in the context of their works at large, or even in the context of the Paris Commune address.

Suit yourself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 17:11

How does that operate if not through a system of hierarchy and minority administration?

And how do you imagine a society being organized? By an invisible hand of some sorts? Unless you support federalism or some sort of market socialism, then someone will have to make decisions that will be impossible/impractical to be made by people coming together and voting.

As example of Spanish Social Revolution and Paris Commune shows, people most probably will delegate some people to do certain tasks and recall them whenever necessary.

What's problematic about this? Where's minority and hierarchy?

Except of course practically speaking that is precisely what it is.

Spanish Social Revolution? Paris Commune?

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:15

Can somebody please fill me in on what this debate is about? I think it's pretty obvious that Marx and Engels wanted the proletariat to seize state power, to assume the role of the ruling class at the head of a proletarian state, that would smash the bourgeois state and then proceed to oversee a transition to socialism. Anarchists disagree with this model, and think that any attempt to have a centralized instrument of coercion is bound to result in something akin to Stalinism. What's the controversy. Seriously, I've carefully read every post for the past page and a half and can't find it.

helot

24th July 2014, 17:16

Well, again, I think you are simply wrong here. You can also be a centralist in a sense that you are against federalism. So if one doesn't think that a commune can treat its means of productions as private property, if one doesn't think a commune can simply say "fuck off" to another commune if it needs help, if one thinks that one commune simply can't exist politicalt independently of other communes, if one thinks that it's not workers of a factory and not communards of a commune that own the means of production, but the society in general, then one is a centralist.

Are you seriously trying to suggest an interdependent relationship is by definition centralist? Do you like playing with words?

It seems to me that Marx was a centralist in this specific sense, considering his vicious opposition to Proudhonian federalism. Proudhon advocated social ownership of land and MoP btw.

But this kind of centralism doesn't imply hierarchies and minorities, which is evidently clear from Marx works - why otherwise he would talk about recallable delegates and the power in the hands of the masses to control them?

So basically you're taking the federalism of anarchism which is traced back to Proudhon and claiming it's called centralism and that it's a fundamental component of Marx?

If Marx's centralism was in opposition to Proudhon's federalism yet is federalism like Proudhon advocated then either you don't know what Marx's centralism is or Marx was completely disingenuous in his attacks on Proudhon.

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 17:17

I don't know what your training is, but I've a Bachelors degree in professional writing and work as a professional copy writer, editor and proofreader. I like to think that my command of the English language is at least nominally expert, if there can be such a thing.

Now I'm not saying I have a definitive understanding of that sentence, but I am saying -- from a position of confidence -- that the arrangement of words does not say what you are claiming it does. That's not interpretation, that is a recognition of how the English language operates. You don't use the adverb 'simply' in that way if you mean to say "absolute, complete." If that's what he meant why would he have arranged the words in that way?

Well it's not quite as impressive, but when I finish my degree I'll have a double major in English and political science; so I'd like to think I have a working grasp on the English language and an adequate understanding of the work of M&E, which I have been reading since about the age of 14. Regardless, this is why I mentioned the importance of taking into account the totality of their writing post 1871. I'm out of the country at the moment and unfortunately didn't have much room in my backpack for books. The one I did bring with me, however, was Lenin's selected works and as I mentioned before this quote is discussed at length in state & revolution. Maybe another comrade could step into the discussion for me (glances in 870 and FYP's direction) since it's a pain to type on this phone and I don't often have access to WiFi.

I'm fairly certain it's from The Civil War in France, so yeah, people should give it a read.

You are right, but I also wasn't entirely off base. It was quoted in the 1872 preface to the manifesto.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:18

And how do you imagine a society being organized? By an invisible hand of some sorts? Unless you support federalism or some sort of market socialism, then someone will have to make decisions that will be impossible/impractical to be made by people coming together and voting.

You've evaded my question.

As example of Spanish Social Revolution and Paris Commune shows, people most probably will delegate some people to do certain tasks and recall them whenever necessary.

What's problematic about this? Where's minority and hierarchy?

The Spanish revolution is an example of decentralised political authority, at least where anarchist practices were concerned.

But to answer your question, if these delegates are making political decisions on behalf of those they represent, then that is a hierarchy, that is minority governance. It is no different to a liberal democracy.

Spanish Social Revolution? Paris Commune?

In Spain and in the Ukraine, delegates didn't make decisions on political and economic matters. Plenums and communities made decisions and the delegates acted as nothing more than conduits for information and the relaying of those decisions to wider delegate meetings. Decisions were not made by minority groups of representatives, they were made by those in the communities or workplaces.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trap Queen Voxxy

24th July 2014, 17:20

I think Marxs incomplete definition of the state and revolution, as TAT has pointed out, is being swept under the rug and being talked around. I think even a cursory glance at Max Weber's theories regarding social authority and organization gives a very clear indication of this. I've read this entire thread, word for word and I still don't get this things. It doesn't make sense.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:21

I don't know what your training is, but I've a Bachelors degree in professional writing and work as a professional copy writer, editor and proofreader.

Fancy that. That's what I do for a living, as well.

I like to think that my command of the English language is at least nominally expert, if there can be such a thing.

Same.

Now I'm not saying I have a definitive understanding of that sentence, but I am saying -- from a position of confidence -- that the arrangement of words does not say what you are claiming it does. That's not interpretation, that is a recognition of how the English language operates. You don't use the adverb 'simply' in that way if you mean to say "absolute, complete." If that's what he meant why would he have arranged the words in that way?

When you say something like "You just simply can't do that!" it can be a long-winded way of saying, "you can't do that."

One thing to keep in mind is that Marx enjoyed embellishment and being long-winded. And although Marx had a great command of English, it was still his third language, after German and French. Even so, there are times when even native English speakers will add something like "simply" or "just" to emphasize that it's just something you can't or shouldn't do. Not everything we know about language and how people use words can come out of a textbook. It requires reading or listening to what they're saying in context. And in the context of Marx's works, when he says the proletariat just "simply" cannot take the power of ready-made state machinery, he's saying that's something that the proletariat just shouldn't do. At all.

He explains why this is in several places, but most of it has to do with the fact that just taking over the previous state institutions isn't going to affect the primary economic conditions that touch all of us. You could, in theory, institute a social change using "ready-made state machinery" but it would be for naught because the character of the system would be the same as it was before, since property relations would be the same or similar. (Again, I suggest watching Andrew Kliman's speech on this subject, which I posted a few pages back.)

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:22

Well it's not quite as impressive, but when I finish my degree I'll have a double major in English and political science; so I'd like to think I have a working grasp on the English language and an adequate understanding of the work of M&E, which I have been reading since about the age of 14. Regardless this is why I mentioned the importance of taking into the contezt , the totality of their writings post 1871. I'm out of the country at the moment and unfortunately didn't have much room in my backpack for books. The one I did bring with me however, was Lenin's selected works and as I mentioned before this quite is discussed at length in state & revolution. Maybe another comrade could step into the discussion for me (glances in 870 and FYP's direction) since it's a pain to type on this phone and don't often have access to WiFi.

Dude, this isn't a political or literary argument, it's one based purely on syntax. If what you are saying is correct then explain to me why this particular syntax was used. Why is this particular example different to all the other standard uses of that adverb?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 17:23

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:23

Dude, this isn't a political or literary argument, it's one based purely on syntax. If what you are saying is correct then explain to me why this particular syntax was used. Why is this particular example different to all the other standard uses of that adverb?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you please explain, in a sentence, what's at dispute here? I've read your exchange, and can't seem to find the disagreement.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:25

Suit yourself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a "suit yourself" kind of thing. I'm telling you, as a matter of fact, that's not how it is interpreted correctly.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:28

When you say something like "You can't just simply do that!" it can be a long-winded way of saying, "you can't do that."

Okay but that's not what he said ugh.

He didn't say "you just simply cannot lay claim" did he? No. What he said was "you cannot simply lay claim." Now by standard syntax that doesn't mean you don't do if, it means you do something with it.

Now if you want to continue disputing that, you explain to me why this is different in that sentence structure to all other uses of that word.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:28

Well, I am an Anarchist of sorts who agrees with this model, TAT is an Anarchist of sorts (a libertarian Communist?) who thinks that Marxist conception of the State necessarily leads to hierarchy and minority rule, which I dispute. And so it goes...

Oh, okay. Well it seemed that a dispute was arising over what Marx and Engels thought about states and their relationship to the transition from capitalism to socialism. Their views are clearly stated, which is why I am confused about whether people are debating what Marx's views were, or their assessment of Marx's views.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:29

It's not a "suit yourself" kind of thing. I'm telling you, as a matter of fact, that's not how it is interpreted correctly.

I'm reading it and taking what he is writing at face value. If you want to claim that what he wrote is not what he means, then suit yourself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:31

TAT is right in the literal interpretation of the phrase "simply lay hold," but is missing the more nuanced meaning of the phrase in the context of M&E's larger body of work. There are many quotes you can pick out where Marx and Engels talk about "adapting" the state functions to suit the new ruling class, shedding exploitative functions and harnessing other, new functions. M&E viewed these transformations as necessarily the product of the proletariat asserting its own political supremacy, in a forcible and rapid series of socio-political convulsions known as a revolution.

Later in their career, they articulated this clearly as the smashing of one form of state, and its replacement by an entirely different form of state.

motion denied

24th July 2014, 17:32

In the light of my last post (which the people rejecting the DotP seemed to agree), i'd like to add.

Have in mind that Marx condemned all bourgeois states, considered politics only a negative mean against the bourgeoisie; Marx had wrote that to positively overcome capitalism, ie, to bring about socialism, the "political mask [would be] thrown aside". The revolution happens in the way mankind appropriates nature, because "[t]he mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life". However, given the complexity of the division of labour (to cite one), this transitions is not likely to happen quickly as we'd wish. As long as there are classes (and there will be until the transition is complete, and therefore so will politics), the proletariat must impose its hegemony, the political means, to guarantee the transition.

If one don't like the use of "dictatorship" or "(semi) state". We could use, idk, cow... The CotP (Cow of the Proletariat) will be necessarily, and should rule until is useless and "loses its political character".

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:33

I think it's pretty obvious that Marx and Engels wanted the proletariat to seize state power,

This is what is in dispute. Whether that is in fact what Marx wanted.

You cannot seize the state and smash the state simultaneously.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 17:35

You cannot seize the state and smash the state simultaneously

Maybe you can? As an act of sublation. Pure conjecture of course.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:35

Okay but that's not what he said ugh.

He didn't say "you just simply cannot lay claim" did he? No. What he said was "you cannot simply lay claim." Now by standard syntax that doesn't mean you don't do if, it means you do something with it.

Now if you want to continue disputing that, you explain to me why this is different in that sentence structure to all other uses of that word.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The expanded criticism I made of your post already explains this, even when you make the distinction that you're making. "You cannot simply lay claim" does not necessarily mean you have to do something else in addition to doing whatever it is you're doing. That depends on what you're going to say after and what you've said before; i.e. context. It also depends on whether the person is prone to embellishing their sentences, which Marx was.

When that phrase is taken in the context of the Paris Commune address, and other M+E works, it's clear that he is saying the proletariat, simply put, should not lay claim to ready-made state machinery. You're taking this phrase out of context and, consequently, misinterpreting what Marx meant.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:36

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 17:36

Are you seriously trying to suggest an interdependent relationship is by definition centralist? Do you like playing with words?

No, it's not about interdependent relationship, but about where decision making power ultimately lies, I suppose.

So basically you're taking the federalism of anarchism which is traced back to Proudhon and claiming it's called centralism and that it's a fundamental component of Marx?

If Marx's centralism was in opposition to Proudhon's federalism yet is federalism like Proudhon advocated then either you don't know what Marx's centralism is or Marx was completely disingenuous in his attacks on Proudhon.

Okay, now I am confused, because I might really not know what Marx's centralism is or what Proudhon's federalism is. Well, will have to take a closer look, I suppose.

You've evaded my question.

No I didn't? I just don't think it's hierarchy and minority rule.

The Spanish revolution is an example of decentralised political authority, at least where anarchist practices were concerned.

But to answer your question, if these delegates are making political decisions on behalf of those they represent, then that is a hierarchy, that is minority governance. It is no different to a liberal democracy.

In Spain and in the Ukraine, delegates didn't make decisions on political and economic matters. Plenums and communities made decisions and the delegates acted as nothing more than conduits for information and the relaying of those decisions to wider delegate meetings. Decisions were not made by minority groups of representatives, they were made by those in the communities or workplaces.

Well, yes, but that's what I support. Now, I might be reading this into Marx, while none of it exists there. Or I might not. Well, someone can help me out here?

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:36

I'm reading it and taking what he is writing at face value. If you want to claim that what he wrote is not what he means, then suit yourself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you say you're "reading it at face value," what you actually mean is you're reading it out of context.

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:41

I didn't introduce the quote into this debate, nor does the quote establish a fait accompli for the dogmatic Marxists in this thread against my position. It's just tangential nonsense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the quote was introduced to speak to a position unrelated to what you've been claiming, which is why I have asked repeatedly what the debate is actually about. In your last post to me, you claimed the debate was about whether M&E wanted to seize state power.

The quote about "simply laying hold" shows that M&E wanted the proletariat to seize state power, then to use that state power to smash the bourgeois state.

Their clearest formulations on this were after the Paris Commune because, if I had to take a guess, they witnessed the fact that the proletariat of Paris formed its own state which was then directed against the existing state. The proletarian state, they saw, predates the extinction of the bourgeois state. And for a period of time there exists dual power.

Their prior formulations, while technically correct, could be interpreted as the proletariat simply smashing the bourgeois state then forming its own state after the fact. The Paris Commune forced them to sharpen their discussions about the revolutionary process, not surprising since the Paris Commune was a revolutionary process.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:42

When you say you're "reading it at face value," what you actually mean is you're reading it out of context.

Okay. If this is true, can you explain to me where in the pamphlet your position is vindicated?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 17:43

And totally ignored...

Art Vandelay

24th July 2014, 17:44

I didn't introduce the quote into this debate, nor does the quote establish a fait accompli for the dogmatic Marxists in this thread against my position. It's just tangential nonsense.

You didn't introduce the quote into the debate, but I'd like to mention that in practically every contribution I made after initially posting said quote, I stressed the importance of taking into account the totality of M&E's writing following the paris commune. Which is key in assessing what they meant, by interpreting it against the backdrop of the many words they penned elaborating their conception of the process in question.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:50

So the debate was introduced to speak to a position unrelated to what you've been claiming, which is why I have asked repeatedly what the debate is actually about. In your last post to me, you claimed the debate was about whether M&E wanted to seize state power.

Well first of all I didn't say it was unrelated and secondly I've already told you what the debate is about.

The quote about "simply laying hold" shows that M&E wanted the proletariat to seize state power, then to use that state power to smash the bourgeois state.

I agree, seizing state power is precisely what he wanted, but the state they're seizing was bourgeois, so how then do you smash the thing you're using to exercise your authority?

Let's look at this as an executable theoretical formulation for the present day. How does it make any sense?

Their clearest formulations on this were after the Paris Commune because, if I had to take a guess, they witnessed the fact that the proletariat of Paris formed its own state which was then directed against the existing state. The proletarian state, they saw, predates the extinction of the bourgeois state. And for a period of time there exists dual power.

Their prior formulations, while technically correct, could be interpreted as the proletariat simply smashing the bourgeois state then forming its own state after the fact. The Paris Commune forced them to sharpen their discussions about the revolutionary process, not surprising since the Paris Commune was a revolutionary process.

I reject the concept of a proletarian v bourgeois state, first of all. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure I understand what the point of this information is...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 17:54

You didn't introduce the quote into the debate, but I'd like to mention that in practically every contribution I made after initially posting said quote, I stressed the importance of taking into account the totality of M&E's writing following the paris commune. Which is key in assessing what they meant, by interpreting it against the backdrop of the many words they penned elaborating their conception of the process in question.

Cool. So provide for me the many and substantial passages from Marx and Engels's canon that proves irrefutably that they didn't want the class to seize the ready-made state machine, but wanted to smash it from the get go. Where is all this context you keep alluding to?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 17:56

Okay. If this is true, can you explain to me where in the pamphlet your position is vindicated?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus Christ, dude.

Yeah, first off, read The Civil War In France, particularly the section where he leads off with the apparent quote-in-dispute. It'll be clear enough that he's not talking about the proletariat taking over bourgeois functions and institutions. He goes on a fairly lengthy exposition of how the Paris Commune was a break from the bourgeois state and represented a blueprint for a new kind of state that was completely different in character, that is, they abandoned using the ready-made state machinery, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the armed expression of the working class in aid of abolishing the class system, rather than the bourgeois conception of the state, which expanded and preserved the rule of the capitalist class.

He explained why the republicans in the previous revolutions failed to bring any substantive change or relief to the working class, and he nailed it down to them taking over the previous organs of power and using it to do as all other ruling classes have done in the past, rather than abolishing them and starting anew.

Second, this article, which has been posted a few times in the thread, explains Marx's view of the state, drawing from his own works:

https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

Third, just read Marx whenever he is talking about the state. Anywhere. It's not hard to find this sort of thing, considering it's sort of core to his political foundation.

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 17:57

I agree, seizing state power is precisely what he wanted, but the state they're seizing was bourgeois, so how then do you smash the thing you're using to exercise your authority?

Let's look at this as an executable theoretical formulation for the present day. How does it make any sense?

Your interpretation is collapsing together the two senses in which M&E speak of state power. In one sense, it is a more abstract usage that refers to seizing control over the functions that constitute the state as a state, and distinguish it from every other type of institution, namely the capacity to deploy force to impose the rule of the class in charge. The second sense is to refer to the concrete form a state power assumes, which can be feudal, bourgeois, or proletarian (among others). When M&E talk about seizing "the state" and "state power," they are talking about seizing the functions assigned in meaning one, not seizing and maintaining the functions implied in meaning two. That's why you are detecting contradiction and confusion here. You simply aren't making a distinction that was crucial to them.

I reject the concept of a proletarian v bourgeois state, first of all. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure I understand what the point of this information is...

Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat's perfectly fine. I am about to go for my daily run and didn't intend to engage in a lengthy debate about whether there should be, or can be, a workers' state. It was to clarify what Marx and Engels thought, regardless of our assessments of their thought.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 18:01

Jesus Christ, dude.

Yeah, first off, read The Civil War In France, particularly the section where he leads off with the apparent quote-in-dispute. It'll be clear enough that he's not talking about the proletariat taking over bourgeois functions and institutions. He goes on a fairly lengthy exposition of how the Paris Commune was a break from the bourgeois state and represented a blueprint for a new kind of state that was completely different in character, that is, they abandoned using the ready-made state machinery, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the armed expression of the working class in aid of abolishing the class system, rather than the bourgeois conception of the state, which expanded and preserved the rule of the capitalist class.

He explained why the republicans in the previous revolutions failed to bring any substantive change or relief to the working class, and he nailed it down to them taking over the previous organs of power and using it to do as all other ruling classes have done in the past, rather than abolishing them and starting anew.

Second, this article, which has been posted a few times in the thread, explains Marx's view of the state, drawing from his own works:

https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

Third, just read Marx whenever he is talking about the state. Anywhere. It's not hard to find this sort of thing, considering it's sort of core to his political foundation.

No no no. I'm sorry, you don't get out of it that easily. I want to see quoted sections from the pamphlet that vindicate your position. If it's the case that I am reading that out of context, provide the context. Demonstrate to me with the dearth of texts at your disposal what context I am overlooking.

You claim that Marx didn't call for the class to seize the "bourgeois" state and use it for their own purposes. That is your position. You further argued that there is a wealth of writing to support your claim. Well then show it me.

I'm in the process of reading that article everyone seems to put so much faith in, but I want quotes and ions to the works from you please. It shouldn't be that difficult if what you say is true. Come on. Money. Mouth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 18:03

No no no. I'm sorry, you don't get out of it that easily. I want to see quoted sections from the pamphlet that vindicate your position. If it's the case that I am reading that out of context, provide the context. Demonstrate to me with the dearth of texts at your disposal what context I am overlooking.

You claim that Marx didn't call for the class to seize the "bourgeois" state and use it for their own purposes. That is your position. You further argued that there is a wealth of writing to support your claim. Well then show it me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just did. I'm not going to cut and paste an entire essay that answers the very question you're asking. I'm sorry, but I am "getting out" that easily. You've asked the question and it's been answered. It's up to you to do some of the work and read what I've provided you, instead of being lazy about it. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest here.

Marx wrote on this extensively, as anyone who has read Marx will tell you. He's also written in breadth about it and I'm not going to troll through his works to find specific quotes for Revleft forums poster "The Anarchist Tension" to probably not take in totality, either. You have a misinformed view of what Marx is saying about the state. It's not up to anyone but you to fix that.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 18:04

I'm in the process of reading that article everyone seems to put so much faith in, but I want quotes and ions to the works from you please. It shouldn't be that difficult if what you say is true. Come on. Money. Mouth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you actually are "in the process" of reading the article, you'll find quotes and citations to Marx's works, as well as discussion alluding to other works that you can readily find on MIA.

You live in the Internet age. Figure it out.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 18:07

I just did. I'm not going to cut and paste an entire essay that answers the very question you're asking. I'm sorry, but I am "getting out" that easily. You've asked the question and it's been answered. It's up to you to do some of the work and read what I've provided you, instead of being lazy about it. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest here.

Weak.

The fact is the pamphlet doesn't vindicate your position. Neither does the rest of his texts. I don't need to re-read them to understand that. And I have no reason to change my mind when you categorically refuse to demonstrate your views with the so-called wealth of texts you've been bragging about being available.

Then you have the audacity to call me dishonest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 18:08

If you actually are "in the process" of reading the article, you'll find quotes and citations to Marx's works, as well as discussion alluding to other works that you can readily find on MIA.

You live in the Internet age. Figure it out.

Lol. You failed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 18:10

Weak.

The fact is the pamphlet doesn't vindicate your position. Neither does the rest of his texts. I don't need to re-read them to understand that. And I have no reason to change my mind when you categorically refuse to demonstrate your views with the so-called wealth of texts you've been bragging about being available.

Then you have the audacity to call me dishonest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol. Called it. I'm doubtful you even read the article. Or The Civil War In France for that matter. Yes, everyone should read it. You especially.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 18:15

Lol. You failed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If "knowing what i'm talking about" is failing, then I guess so!

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 18:19

Your interpretation is collapsing together the two senses in which M&E speak of state power. In one sense, it is a more abstract usage that refers to seizing control over the functions that constitute the state as a state, and distinguish it from every other type of institution, namely the capacity to deploy force to impose the rule of the class in charge. The second sense is to refer to the concrete form a state power assumes, which can be feudal, bourgeois, or proletarian (among others). When M&E talk about seizing "the state" and "state power," they are talking about seizing the functions assigned in meaning one, not seizing and maintaining the functions implied in meaning two. That's why you are detecting contradiction and confusion here. You simply aren't making a distinction that was crucial to them.

But how are they practically different? If we accept what you say, or what Marx says, that we seize the state as an idea, but smash the bourgeois representation of it in actuality, how is it that you divorce the idea from the actualisation of it?

The state exists as an expression of bourgeois control and actualises itself as such. If you remove the actualisation of it you are still left with the abstract notion of its existence as an expression of bourgeois control.

Moreover, if you smash the state as an actuality, what use is the state in the abstract?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 18:21

lol. Called it. I'm doubtful you even read the article. Or The Civil War In France for that matter. Yes, everyone should read it. You especially.

Cute. Interesting that you are exerting energy to bring my character into dispute, but apparently you don't have the energy to simply prove me wrong by providing a simple quote.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 18:31

Cute. Interesting that you are exerting energy to bring my character into dispute, but apparently you don't have the energy to simply prove me wrong by providing a simple quote.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did provide "simple" quotes to you. They're in the article I linked off to. Even if you did read it (which I'm still doubtful that you did), and either don't understand, or you're just trying to save face, isn't my fault. Sorry!

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 18:55

But how are they practically different? If we accept what you say, or what Marx says, that we seize the state as an idea, but smash the bourgeois representation of it in actuality, how is it that you divorce the idea from the actualisation of it?

The state exists as an expression of bourgeois control and actualises itself as such. If you remove the actualisation of it you are still left with the abstract notion of its existence as an expression of bourgeois control.

Moreover, if you smash the state as an actuality, what use is the state in the abstract?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I could put on my Marx cap, and pretend to be him for a moment, I would say that states don't exist (as you put it) as an expression of bourgeois control specifically. They exist as a means of class control. There are slave states, feudal states, bourgeois states, and, although this is a controversial point among anarchists, proletarian states.

The difference in class form, while maintaining the abstract power of "stateness," is important, because it allows the working class to use its concentrated, institutionalized class power to force the bourgeoisie to accept its rule. Because it involves one class suppressing another by force, it's a state act and requires a state. That state power, however, no longer rests on exploitation. Instead it rests on the democratically run community of proletarian struggle.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

24th July 2014, 18:56

ITT:

TAT refutes everyone claiming that Marx believed in the smashing of the bourgeois state by simply proclaiming the contrary.

:blackA::thumbdown:

"...the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must...do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself..." - Freddy Engels

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 19:06

Hello? I asked a question about Marx's conspectus and would like an answer, for the third time.

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 19:10

Hello? I asked a question about Marx's conspectus and would like an answer, for the third time.

Would you mind repeating your question?

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

24th July 2014, 19:15

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 19:26

This.

I haven't studied this text in depth, but Marx here seems to be taking issue with the idea that it even makes sense to talk about somebody engaging in self-control as a form of "rule" or government. He's actually not directly disputing what Bakunin is saying in that little snippet. He's just preparing to point out that such a state of affairs, in which there is no state, or "rule" in the political sense of the word, presupposes the end of class antagonism.

Marx consistently argued that anarchists were reversing the logical relationship between state and class when they argued that abolishing the state was necessary to abolish all class antagonisms. Some form of state must exist, he thought, for as long as class antagonisms existed because the state arises on the material basis of those class antagonisms. He argued that the revolutionary proletariat would have to use the state to abolish class antagonisms. When that process was complete, the state would wither away completely, not before the process was done.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 19:32

What?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't you say that the Marxists say that a state can be anything as long as it is class suppression? You then said that was contradicted by the history of the last 1000 yrs.

My question is, what kind of any state has existed for the past 1,000 yrs that has not involved class suppression?

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 19:57

Didn't you say that the Marxists say that a state can be anything as long as it is class suppression? You then said that was contradicted by the history of the last 1000 yrs.

My question is, what kind of any state has existed for the past 1,000 yrs that has not involved class suppression?

What I said was that Marx's definition of the state is incomplete and that the state is more than just a one class organised to suppress another, as demonstrated by t development of the history.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 20:01

ITT:

TAT refutes everyone claiming that Marx believed in the smashing of the bourgeois state by simply proclaiming the contrary.

Actually, what I said was that while Marx may have wanted to smash the state, he also called for the workers to seize the state and use its institutions, something Marxists call for and what they have done in practice.

:blackA::thumbdown:

I'm not an anarchist.

"...the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must...do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself..." - Freddy Engels

How then does the working class come to power to do away with the repressive machinery used against it if it hasn't seized the state? What does it mean for the working class "to come to power" if they do not seize the state?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 20:35

If I could put on my Marx cap, and pretend to be him for a moment, I would say that states don't exist (as you put it) as an expression of bourgeois control specifically. They exist as a means of class control. There are slave states, feudal states, bourgeois states, and, although this is a controversial point among anarchists, proletarian states.

What is a slave class or a feudal class then? Does class exist in a slave or feudal society? Surely class is a relatively modern phenomenon, coming about because of the rise of capitalism?

If the state exists as a means of class control it has become so through its historical development. No state has existed like this before, because private property, the means of production and markets expressed as they are now, have never existed before. The modern state is an expression of bourgeois control and has become so because of the material history of human society. There aren't different states for different people, there is only the development of the historical state to it's logical conclusion as a tool of bourgeois control. Just as our material history has developed through stages to this logical degree, so too has the political mechanisms of those who have risen to control our material realm.

You can't simply divorce that historically determined reality from the development of the mechanisms of control used by those who have benefited from that history. You cannot simply say "oh here is the state as an idea, let us build our institutions" because the idea of the state is necessarily the idea of the bourgeoisie.

The difference in class form, while maintaining the abstract power of "stateness," is important, because it allows the working class to use its concentrated, institutionalized class power to force the bourgeoisie to accept its rule. Because it involves one class suppressing another by force, it's a state act and requires a state. That state power, however, no longer rests on exploitation. Instead it rests on the democratically run community of proletarian struggle.

When those institutions exist and are capable of suppressing the ruling class, they are not a state, they are institutions of proletarian power. It is the direct antithesis of the state. It is the anti-state. It isn't the "proletarian state", it is the realisation of the class as a class seeking to abolish itself; in essence it is the destruction of history.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 20:42

What is a slave class or a feudal class then? Does class exist in a slave or feudal society? Surely class is a relatively modern phenomenon, coming about because of the rise of capitalism?

What? No. Absolutely not. "Classes" have been endemic to states since the advent of agriculture and storing surplus crops, creating sedentary civilizations.

I'm kind of baffled that this is even a suggestion. Were you being sarcastic here, and I just wasn't picking up on it?

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 20:46

When those institutions exist and are capable of suppressing the ruling class, they are not a state, they are institutions of proletarian power. It is the direct antithesis of the state. It is the anti-state. It isn't the "proletarian state", it is the realisation of the class as a class seeking to abolish itself; in essence it is the destruction of history.

Ah so the entire discussion of today was utterly pointless. Nice to know.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 20:51

Ah so the entire discussion of today was utterly pointless. Nice to know.

there's no head desk gif appropriate enough.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th July 2014, 21:00

there's no head desk gif appropriate enough.

I am an ESL speaker, don't get it, sorry. What does this mean?

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 21:03

I am an ESL speaker, don't get it, sorry. What does this mean?

When there's just something so infuriating, frustrating or dumb that you run into, you can imagine someone smacking their heads on the desk repeatedly. People make small animations that represent this frustration, that you can post on forums in the form of .gifs. Like this:

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq7epbE4dW1qkrmxlo1_250.gif

(If that was an over explanation, I apologize in advance.)

Tim Cornelis

24th July 2014, 21:06

The problem is, when you have these "proletarian institutions" that you describe as the "antithesis to the state", is that they will still, if they are to be potent and effective, use violence, force, pressure, and coercion. So we have these "proletarian institutions" that are very much like the structure of a stateless society -- they are not like the modern state at all -- but still possess coercive functions -- which is antithetical to the concept of statelessness. Therefore, this is a semi-state, and therefore the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It contains within the (preliminary) structures and institutions for a stateless society based on the free association of producers and consumers, and it wields coercive power to consolidate the progress and power.

For instance, the "anarchist" communes in rural Spain used coercion and pressure (to varying extends) to consolidate and enforce socialisation. For this reason these communes were not 'stateless', they were organs of a (flawed) semi-state.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 21:07

What? No. Absolutely not. "Classes" have been endemic to states since the advent of agriculture and storing surplus crops, creating sedentary civilizations.

You're an idiot. Stop talking to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 21:08

You're an idiot. Stop talking to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop saying stupid shit first and I won't have to keep pointing them out.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 21:10

The problem is, when you have these "proletarian institutions" that you describe as the "antithesis to the state", is that they will still, if they are to be potent and effective, use violence, force, pressure, and coercion. So we have these "proletarian institutions" that are very much like the structure of a stateless society -- they are not like the modern state at all -- but still possess coercive functions -- which is antithetical to the concept of statelessness. Therefore, this is a semi-state, and therefore the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It contains within the (preliminary) structures and institutions for a stateless society based on the free association of producers and consumers, and it wields coercive power to consolidate the progress and power.

Ugh. A state isn't defined by its use of force.

I also reject the idea that the use of force would be non-existent in a stateless society.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 21:11

Stop saying stupid shit first and I won't have to keep pointing them out.

You don't have to point out things that you think are stupid. That's not your role here. Leave me alone, okay? Please. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 21:15

You don't have to point out things that you think are stupid. That's not your role here. Leave me alone, okay? Please. Thank you.

My "role" is to participate in discussions and this includes calling out bad information. Like I said, stop giving bad information and I'll stop pointing it out. Pretty simple, I think.

The Feral Underclass

24th July 2014, 21:19

Edit: Blocked him.

Five Year Plan

24th July 2014, 21:25

What is a slave class or a feudal class then? Does class exist in a slave or feudal society? Surely class is a relatively modern phenomenon, coming about because of the rise of capitalism?

According to Marx, a feudal state upholds the exploitation of feudal lords over peasants and serfs; a slave state is used to prop up the rule of slave-owners over slaves. The feudal lords and wealthy slave owners are classes, in that they engage in a process of exploitation upon which they depend in order to escape having to do direct labor themselves. They use force to suppress the exploiters when they rise up in rebellion against exploitation, as would be expected in exploitative circumstances.

If the state exists as a means of class control it has become so through its historical development. No state has existed like this before, because private property, the means of production and markets expressed as they are now, have never existed before. The modern state is an expression of bourgeois control and has become so because of the material history of human society. There aren't different states for different people, there is only the development of the historical state to it's logical conclusion as a tool of bourgeois control. Just as our material history has developed through stages to this logical degree, so too has the political mechanisms of those who have risen to control our material realm.Yes, capitalism is a new type of class society that differs from previous class societies. But private property certainly predates capitalism, as do markets. The point about different forms or types of state is that, as instruments of coercion arising from class exploitation, states tend to be overhauled rapidly in response changes in the economy that are far more gradual. It took capitalism hundreds of years to develop within the interstices of feudal and tributary societies. But the political transformation by which the state suddenly shifted from being an instrument geared toward shoring up feudalism to one geared toward shoring up capitalism was abrupt and brief. By their very nature, that's what revolutions are. For examples, see the English Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War.

You can't simply divorce that historically determined reality from the development of the mechanisms of control used by those who have benefited from that history. You cannot simply say "oh here is the state as an idea, let us build our institutions" because the idea of the state is necessarily the idea of the bourgeoisie.I don't see where you are getting the idea that I am divorcing the state from a historically determined reality. I have stated repeatedly that, for Marx at least, the state was the product of historically conditioned class antagonisms, and that therefore the state cannot disappear without those antagonisms at the source of the state disappearing first. This calls for a class to seize state power that has no interesting in exploiting: the proletarian class, exercising its dictatorship through a proletarian state.

When those institutions exist and are capable of suppressing the ruling class, they are not a state, they are institutions of proletarian power. It is the direct antithesis of the state. It is the anti-state. It isn't the "proletarian state", it is the realisation of the class as a class seeking to abolish itself; in essence it is the destruction of history.First of all, if the proletariat is the ruling class and has state power, such state power would not be used to suppress the ruling class (the proletariat) as a class, though it might need to suppress reactionary portions from time to time. It would be used, primarily at least, to suppress the former ruling class. But if you want to make the argument that the proletariat by definition cannot wield state power, I would be open to hearing it. My point has been that such a thing is not impossible according to Marx's and Engels' definition of the state.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 21:59

How then does the working class come to power to do away with the repressive machinery used against it if it hasn't seized the state? What does it mean for the working class "to come to power" if they do not seize the state?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By smashing the capitalist state and setting up their own state. As Marx described in The Civil War in France. The proletarian state then suppresses the capitalist class until it dies. With no further class to suppress or exploit, the state, as state, then withers away and dies.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 22:01

What I said was that Marx's definition of the state is incomplete and that the state is more than just a one class organised to suppress another, as demonstrated by t development of the history.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I asked you to describe any state in the past 1000 yrs which was "more" than a class organized to suppress another.

Tim Cornelis

24th July 2014, 22:01

Ugh. A state isn't defined by its use of force.

I also reject the idea that the use of force would be non-existent in a stateless society.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Force would exist. But coercion. Institutions of public authority using force and coercion certainly is a defining feature of a state.

One factor that moved me away from anarchism was that the Koma Civaken Kurdistan, which is supposed to be a grassroots, stateless social structure, in fact taxes people. How can this use of force be reconciled with statelessness? I don't think it can. And this made me reconsider whether the transition can be stateless at all. Surely, such force (coercion) will be used.

You mentioned the failure of Marxism, but here's the failure of anarchism:

the experience of Spanish Anarchism could give no clearer proof that insofar as collectivization was anarchist, it was capitalist, and insofar as collectivization was socialist, it was statist. The only solution to this dilemma, if solution it may be called, is to retain the all-powerful state, but use a new word to designate it ... The cities became capitalist and anarchist; the country became socialist and statist.

There is a need to impose central control to an extend:

Inequality existed within collectives as well as between them. Invariably, the participants attribute the tolerance of inequality to the fact that it was impossible for one collective to impose equal wages unless the other collectives did the same. As Fraser summarizes the testimony of CNT militant Luis Santacana, "But the 'single' wage could not be introduced in his plant because it was not made general throughout the industry. Women in the factory continued to receive wages between 15 per cent and 20 per cent lower than men, and manual workers less than technicians."[137] In other words, it was impossible to impose equality so long as there was competition for workers. If one firm refused to pay extra to skilled workers, they would quit and find a job where egalitarian norms were not so strictly observed.

"According to Daniel Guerin, an authority on the Spanish Anarchist movement, 'it appeared... that workers' self-management might lead to a kind of egotistical particularlism, each enterprise being concerned solely with its own interests. This was remedied [in Barcelona] by a central equalization fund. As a result, the excess revenues of the bus company were used to support the street cars, which were less profitable.'

It is necessary to aggregate all economic collectives into a single central organ, then from this organ, impose the a single rule to prevent this perpetuation of market logic and capitalism.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 22:09

What is a slave class or a feudal class then? Does class exist in a slave or feudal society? Surely class is a relatively modern phenomenon, coming about because of the rise of capitalism?

It is only a modern phenomenon in the sense that it was Marx who discovered class struggle as the force of historical-political development.

Surely it is easy to see that slave owners constituted a class of society exploiting slaves. We even had it here in the US only a 160 yrs or so ago.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 22:14

Ugh. A state isn't defined by its use of force.

Not only is that exactly and essentially the definition of a state, it is the use of political, economic, military force by one class against another.

Црвена

24th July 2014, 22:28

helot

24th July 2014, 22:30

Force would exist. But coercion. Institutions of public authority using force and coercion certainly is a defining feature of a state.

So if a public force existed, even if it was immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power, this would still be a state?

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 22:31

I don't see how the proletariat is expected to be able to utilise the bourgeois state apparatus without a new ruling class rising to power.

No one is expecting them to do this. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fundamental break with the bourgeois state apparatus.

Tim Cornelis

24th July 2014, 22:38

So if a public force existed, even if it was immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power, this would still be a state?

If a public authority uses coercive power (to impose, for instance, taxes and laws and rules), yes.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 22:39

I don't see how the proletariat is expected to be able to utilise the bourgeois state apparatus without a new ruling class rising to power. The state inherently perpetuates itself through its centralised, hierarchical structure and the fact that it's a large concentration of power, meaning that those who seek power will be drawn to it and attempt to manipulate it themselves. There's no point in preserving an institution that's just as oppressive and harmful as capitalism is.

That's exactly the point of the new proletarian state...to establish a new ruling class (the working class) to destroy the old class (the capitalists.) The working class cannot exploit or suppress itself and there will be no new class to exploit. Only then will all suppressing and ruling classes disappear and the state begin to wither away and die.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 22:44

So if a public force existed, even if it was immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power, this would still be a state?

It would be a state only if the new public force acted to suppress a particular class of people. Once there is no suppressed class for the armed power to act against then the force, as an armed political power, would wither away and die.

An organization of the people would still be possible, but only as an administration of things. Things like crime, poverty, etc. would no longer exist.

helot

24th July 2014, 22:46

If a public authority uses coercive power (to impose, for instance, taxes and laws and rules), yes.

You'll have to go onto define a public authority i'm afraid as even in a classless society there will be a public force that imposes certain rules backed by violence if needs be.

edit:

It would be a state only if the new public force acted to suppress a particular class of people. Once there is no suppressed class for the armed power to act against then the force, as an armed political power, would wither away and die.

An organization of the people would still be possible, but only as an administration of things. Things like crime, poverty, etc. would no longer exist.

'Crime' in a general sense most definitely would still exist. You think everyone will play nice after the revolution? Some people will no doubt get attacked here and there. You can't rule out all harmful behaviour. There would thus still be a public force. The fundamental distinction here is that it would be immediately identical to the people's own organisation as an armed power.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 23:32

'Crime' in a general sense most definitely would still exist. You think everyone will play nice after the revolution? Some people will no doubt get attacked here and there. You can't rule out all harmful behaviour. There would thus still be a public force. The fundamental distinction here is that it would be immediately identical to the people's own organisation as an armed power.

Crime is only a result of poverty, mental illness and class suppression. No, not everyone will play nice after the revolution, especially the capitalist classes and their death squads. But the revolution is only the beginning. Once all classes, including the worker's class, disappear, then the coercive power of the "state" will disappear.

That is what a proletarian dictatorship is: a "people's organization as an armed power."

There was no "crime" for hundreds of thousands of years before the first imposition of class rule and exploitation. I did search on "crime" in wikipedia and there was no entry before the Sumerian Code. I wonder if there is any archeological evidence of "crime" in the modern sense. Is there any evidence of murder among a tribe of 100K yr old humans? There wouldprobably have been revenge killings for offenses against family honor, etc., but nothing like what exists now.

Creative Destruction

24th July 2014, 23:36

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 23:36

You'll have to go onto define a public authority i'm afraid as even in a classless society there will be a public force that imposes certain rules backed by violence if needs be.

The imposition of rules by force is the definition of a state. If that still existed after the socialist revolution and the victory of communism, then what would have been the point of the struggle? Why not just save ourselves the blood and misery?

Sinister Intents

24th July 2014, 23:39

This thread accurately illustrates the schism between anarchists and Marxists. It highlights one of the many contradictions between these two tendencies and shows how far they are apart, yet they both seek the same end result. I'm pretty sure LinksRadikal came up with a great idea of this in a similar thread and I wish I could see him add his two cents here. Also at 9mm: It's quite alright, I wasn't doing very well to begin with at that point, so it's not your fault, it just exposed the cognitive dissonance I had and compelled me to research and study harder, so if anything you really helped me break out of a moment of cognitive dissonance and develop further knowledge on my understanding of politics. Don't apologise, say you're welcome for helping me realize how backwards I was at that point, and I'm still learning and growing politically, but I'm very sure of the tendency I align with now. Also sorry Dagoth Ur for thinking you called me a ****. I messaged you about that though.

RedMaterialist

24th July 2014, 23:59

Prehistoric groups usually had some kind of restorative justice system.

I wonder if even the concept of crime existed in prehistoric society. There was certainly "war" between tribes, but war crimes? I remember reading in The Last of the Mohicans when Uncas, the Mohican, was captured by the Hurons. There was an elaborate ceremony in which the Hurons were preparing to torture Uncas to death. There was no sense of crime or of violation of a social norm. It was just something they did to captured warriors. Uncas escaped.

Kill all the fetuses!

25th July 2014, 09:55

You mentioned the failure of Marxism, but here's the failure of anarchism:

While I agree with the sentiment of the argument, I think it's just factually flawed in a sense that centralization was already occurring in the rural areas with most of the collectives moving sharply towards centralization.

But anyway I think your quotes are just full of ridiculous misinformation, because in most of the communes single/equal wages were observed, both among men and women. Discrepancies between different communes didn't matter all that much, except, maybe, in industrial towns and plants, that weren't collectivized in any meaningful extent and at the end of the day were simple an appendage to the Republican government.

Like I said, I think idea of such federalism as indicated in your quotes is ridiculous. But I also think that your quotes are simply disingenuous.

This thread accurately illustrates the schism between anarchists and Marxists. It highlights one of the many contradictions between these two tendencies and shows how far they are apart, yet they both seek the same end result.

No, I think it just shows ridiculous dogmatism of a certain member(s) above anything else.

exeexe

25th July 2014, 11:25

"But the 'single' wage could not be introduced in his plant because it was not made general throughout the industry. Women in the factory continued to receive wages between 15 per cent and 20 per cent lower than men, and manual workers less than technicians."[137] In other words, it was impossible to impose equality so long as there was competition for workers. If one firm refused to pay extra to skilled workers, they would quit and find a job where egalitarian norms were not so strictly observed.
Ofcourse, the manual workers were refused the opportunity to get an education under capitalism. To have an education doesnt change over a day or over a revolution. But after some time people will get their skills and there will be no workers left doing only manual work theefore in the end, the manual work will have to be divided between skilled workers, and so competition will end between workers.

And for the women you have to consider what background they came from. They came from this

The position of workers and peasants in Spain in the 1920s and 1930s was bad. If you were female it was appalling. Conditions for Spanish women were oppressive and repressive in the extreme. The position of women in Spain in the 1930's was similar to that in many Muslim countries today. They had no independence, could be "given away" in arranged marriages and single women were not allowed out without chaperones.
And in the short period of time were freedom was the order of the day it got changed into this:

During it's short two year existence Mujeres Libres came to number 30,000 women and achieved much throughout republican Spain. A major focus was on education. In Barcelona they set up the Casa de La Dona, a major women's college, in 1937. By December 1938 the Casa was taking in 600-800 women per day. They ran numerous schools and courses to train women to enter industry in both Madrid and Barcelona. As well as technical training they urged trainees to fight for full equality within the workplace.
They also undertook military training, setting up a shooting range in Madrid. They opened maternity hospitals in Terrasa and Barcelona, and many schools for young children. These schools based themselves on the anarchist idea of education as a process of development and exploration rather then one of factual brainwashing.
They also fought for and won legalised abortion, contraception and divorce and, locally, some rights to child care for women workers.So yeah at lot of progress was made but womens mindset had to be changed too from accepting full domination to a state where they would demand unconditional liberty. This also just doesnt happen over a day. And of course if you let the state do all the work then no mindset will be changed at all, it will just serve to put women further behind in the struggle. Now they are not only subservient to males but also to the state.

Source:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/spain48.html

helot

25th July 2014, 11:41

Crime is only a result of poverty, mental illness and class suppression. No, not everyone will play nice after the revolution, especially the capitalist classes and their death squads. But the revolution is only the beginning. Once all classes, including the worker's class, disappear, then the coercive power of the "state" will disappear. When i say after the revolution i mean a classless society, there would be no capitalist.

There was no "crime" for hundreds of thousands of years before the first imposition of class rule and exploitation. I did search on "crime" in wikipedia and there was no entry before the Sumerian Code. I wonder if there is any archeological evidence of "crime" in the modern sense. Is there any evidence of murder among a tribe of 100K yr old humans? There wouldprobably have been revenge killings for offenses against family honor, etc., but nothing like what exists now.

Crime may well be the wrong term but there will be behaviour that is harmful towards others in a classless society and there will be forms of rules based around conduct that is backed by violence if needs be. Rednoise aptly points out restorative justice systems in prehistoric societies.

I see no reason why there wouldn't entail a public force in a classless society.

That is what a proletarian dictatorship is: a "people's organization as an armed power."

That is debatable on multiple grounds.

The imposition of rules by force is the definition of a state. If that still existed after the socialist revolution and the victory of communism, then what would have been the point of the struggle? Why not just save ourselves the blood and misery? It's a bit reductionist considering there'll probably always be forms of rules about human conduct. We don't want, for example, people who lack training to be operating dangerous machinery so we'd necessarily have to have a rule, backed up by force if needs be, to stop someone being a danger to others in this regard The point isn't to have no rules.

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 12:45

You'll have to go onto define a public authority i'm afraid as even in a classless society there will be a public force that imposes certain rules backed by violence if needs be.

Not really. Customary law will replace laws imposed by a public authority.

While I agree with the sentiment of the argument, I think it's just factually flawed in a sense that centralization was already occurring in the rural areas with most of the collectives moving sharply towards centralization.

Not sure what your point is.

But anyway I think your quotes are just full of ridiculous misinformation, because in most of the communes single/equal wages were observed, both among men and women. Discrepancies between different communes didn't matter all that much, except, maybe, in industrial towns and plants, that weren't collectivized in any meaningful extent and at the end of the day were simple an appendage to the Republican government.

Again, not sure what your point is. The quote is about inequality in industrial urban areas due to the lack of central control, not rural communes.

Ofcourse, the manual workers were refused the opportunity to get an education under capitalism. To have an education doesnt change over a day or over a revolution. But after some time people will get their skills and there will be no workers left doing only manual work theefore in the end, the manual work will have to be divided between skilled workers, and so competition will end between workers.

And for the women you have to consider what background they came from. They came from this

And in the short period of time were freedom was the order of the day it got changed into this:
So yeah at lot of progress was made but womens mindset had to be changed too from accepting full domination to a state where they would demand unconditional liberty. This also just doesnt happen over a day. And of course if you let the state do all the work then no mindset will be changed at all, it will just serve to put women further behind in the struggle. Now they are not only subservient to males but also to the state.

Source:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/spain48.html

Literally none of this has to do with what I tried to convey, and all of it misses the point. You basically change the subject.

Who said anything about the problem being that there were manual workers and technicians?

The point was the continued existence of market logic due to the absence of central control.

helot

25th July 2014, 13:27

Not really. Customary law will replace laws imposed by a public authority.

Yes really. Your previous post implies to me that you consider the existence of a public force in general as being a defining criteria of the state as opposed to a public force that is not immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power.

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 13:51

Yes really. Your previous post implies to me that you consider the existence of a public force in general as being a defining criteria of the state as opposed to a public force that is not immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power.

Not really. I said a public authority using force (coercion). Not public force or something. I don't know what that is.

exeexe

25th July 2014, 13:59

The point was the continued existence of market logic due to the absence of central control.
Yes you deem anarchism to have failed because it was unable to abolish the market. But the goal of anarchism is not to abolish the market, only wage robbery, what anarchist calls capitalism. That and hierarchy.

To achieve a wider and more varied consciousness Proudhon and Bakunin envision anarchist society as composed of numerous productive enterprises equal in power but diverse in kind distinguished by their differentiated functions related by negotiated bargains and united by reciprocal dependence
http://books.google.dk/books?id=0SUsfPCJGk4C&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=anarchism&source=bl&ots=NTRZ1FOhN3&sig=cMSwOy4eevG0Hmx-b-m1ZjLK8hQ&hl=da&sa=X&ei=R03SU8mWK-mw7AbSqYH4DA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=anarchism&f=false page 50

If a group of anarchists wants communism, fine they can do that, but that doesnt mean all anarchist are in favor of communism.

So anarchism in Spain was much more successful than you think in achieving its goal.

helot

25th July 2014, 14:12

Not really. I said a public authority using force (coercion). Not public force or something. I don't know what that is.

I asked you to define 'public authority' as public coercion will still occur in a classless society.

motion denied

25th July 2014, 14:31

But the goal of anarchism is not to abolish the market

Anarchists confirmed for craftsmen that miss the pre-capitalist heaven.

No, not really. But hey

BIXX

25th July 2014, 17:36

There are many quotes you can pick out where Marx and Engels talk about "adapting" the state functions to suit the new ruling class, shedding exploitative functions and harnessing other, new functions.

This is the problem that TAT is talking about! Marx(ists) want to seize the state and transform it, meaning they cannot just (see: simply) seize the state; they must also change it! This is what I believe TAT to have a problem with as this revolves around an incomplete understanding of the state (one class organized to oppress another), while a more complete definition (centralized political power, which of course necessitates minority rule (unless you wish to redefine centrality to the point of it being entirely meaningless)) recognizes that a state cannot be used for mass rule, and furthermore cannot be used for proletarian revolution!

Sorry, don't know if someone already addressed this or whatever.

Five Year Plan

25th July 2014, 17:43

This is the problem that TAT is talking about! Marx(ists) want to seize the state and transform it, meaning they cannot just (see: simply) seize the state; they must also change it! This is what I believe TAT to have a problem with as this revolves around an incomplete understanding of the state (one class organized to oppress another), while a more complete definition (centralized political power, which of course necessitates minority rule (unless you wish to redefine centrality to the point of it being entirely meaningless)) recognizes that a state cannot be used for mass rule, and furthermore cannot be used for proletarian revolution!

Sorry, don't know if someone already addressed this or whatever.

Yes, I already addressed it in my responses.

helot

25th July 2014, 18:32

Sinister Intents

25th July 2014, 18:38

The ridiculous thing is though that there is some basis for a more complex conception of the state within Marxism. I've not seen it materialise though.

I don't think I've ever see that. Ice also seen Marxists spout the same exact thing as anarchists, just in different ways. I've seen too many times where wording gets attacked and its obnoxious. With the conception of the state I've stated that it simply put is an organ of class rule, then got called wrong and an idealist, only for the Marxist say the same exact thing

motion denied

25th July 2014, 18:45

Weberian anarchists m8

go figure

Sinister Intents

25th July 2014, 18:56

Weberian anarchists m8

go figure

Huh?

helot

25th July 2014, 20:18

I don't think I've ever see that. Ice also seen Marxists spout the same exact thing as anarchists, just in different ways. I've seen too many times where wording gets attacked and its obnoxious. With the conception of the state I've stated that it simply put is an organ of class rule, then got called wrong and an idealist, only for the Marxist say the same exact thing

Yeah, i think this forum isn't exactly a place for honest discussion on the topic tbh with you. Too much 'revolutionary point scoring' going on.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

25th July 2014, 20:57

Weberian anarchists m8

go figure

You mean idealism, right?

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 21:05

Yes you deem anarchism to have failed because it was unable to abolish the market. But the goal of anarchism is not to abolish the market, only wage robbery, what anarchist calls capitalism. That and hierarchy.

http://books.google.dk/books?id=0SUsfPCJGk4C&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=anarchism&source=bl&ots=NTRZ1FOhN3&sig=cMSwOy4eevG0Hmx-b-m1ZjLK8hQ&hl=da&sa=X&ei=R03SU8mWK-mw7AbSqYH4DA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=anarchism&f=false page 50

If a group of anarchists wants communism, fine they can do that, but that doesnt mean all anarchist are in favor of communism.

So anarchism in Spain was much more successful than you think in achieving its goal.

Then you're advocating self-managed capitalism.

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 21:07

I asked you to define 'public authority' as public coercion will still occur in a classless society.

Public coercion will not exist in a classless society. That's ridiculous.

BIXX

25th July 2014, 21:35

Public coercion will not exist in a classless society. That's ridiculous.
Explain why you believe this, Tim.

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 21:40

Explain why you believe this, Tim.

Because... it's a stateless society...

There is no need to impose laws through (the threat of) violence. And it wouldn't be stateless if they did.

motion denied

25th July 2014, 21:48

Countless Marxists have tried to 'expand', so to speak, the supposedly "narrow" notion of State as class-rule only. Gramsci would be the more famous example (coercion + consent, in a identity-distinction relationship; the machiavellian centaur, half man half beast)... bloody Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband debate. However, when we are bombarded with such nonsense as "Marx wants to take hold of the State and transform it", it's hard to move along. Are we back in the IWA or something? Is Bakunin here?

The bourgeois state is immanent to the capitalist era of capital; the political sphere and the socioeconomic sphere complement each other in a mutual relationship, being the latter the preponderant. Guess what, "the State" is not a transhistorical entity that possesses the poor men and haunts them in their dreams, it's historically determined. The modern bourgeois state arose outta bourgeois revolutions, universalizing its class interests, although "each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones." The course of history proved Marx right. Whenever capital needs regulation - and it always does - the State is there, happy to change the interest rates, to expand credit, subsidize, etc. We could even remember mercantilism, Fichte's rational state so on and on.

This bloody "abortion of nature" rests in the separation between political sphere and civil-society; the contradiction: abstract equality between the citoyens (political sphere) and really existing misery of really existing men. Acknowledged by Marx as "second order mediations" (state, private property, exchange etc) could only arise on the basis of the estranged "first order mediations" (men's relationship with nature, production). "The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery", that's Marx, the lover of the State, in 1844!

While some are concerned with centralised power, Marx was, as we would expect, radical: destroy power.

The DotP is "the reabsorption of the State power by society as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it, by the popular masses themselves, forming their own force instead of the organized force of their suppression", it is the "political form" of the social emancipation. And what constitutes the social emancipation? You guessed it, the social management of social labour. And to do so, there will be hierarchy, commissariats, etc. Not even the Parisian Commune could get away with it, and it was restrained to Paris. To say that out off these mere administrative bodies will grow a new ruling class (whatever that is) is saying "muh human nature", "muh eternal corruptive power God". Gimme a break.

motion denied

25th July 2014, 21:49

apparently, the internet made me mad again

exeexe

25th July 2014, 21:49

Then you're advocating self-managed capitalism.
How about self-managed socialism

Socialism: democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/

BIXX

25th July 2014, 21:53

Because... it's a stateless society...

There is no need to impose laws through (the threat of) violence. And it wouldn't be stateless if they did.
The public is not the state, though. Public coercion would still be a thing (unless I've horribly misunderstood what was being said).

bropasaran

25th July 2014, 21:56

How about self-managed socialism
That's a pleonasm.

"Self-managed capitalism" and "petite-bourgeoise" are signal words for state-capitalists to recognize and then pat themselves on back for throwing labels at the idea of emancipation of the working people, and continue lying themselves and others that socialism can have anything to do with authoritarianism.

Blake's Baby

25th July 2014, 21:59

You think that the working class will liberate itself by becoming capitalists?

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 22:18

How about self-managed socialism

http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/

Oh reddit. How did I forget about the absolute theoretical authority on socialist theory that is reddit.

How 'bout no. A socialist society is not whatever you want it to be, whatever way you want to define it. Why is Denmark not socialist then? 'Because of this one completely arbitrary definition that I just happen to prefer based on ideological preferences', oh okey... An accurate, that is, materialist, analysis, at least, defines socialism not on the basis of abstract ideological considerations, but through analysing the social fabric that results from objective and observable social development, which itself comes about through an objective factor of productive forces.

We see the social development of the socialisation of the productive and labour process, the concentration of capital which furthers planning (though still constrained by the 'anarchy of the market'), and we observe class antagonisms giving rise to class struggle. Social ownership comes about through socialised production being confronted with class struggle, which, as consequence (once class struggle culminates in a social revolution) has the socialised production process slipped into the hands of public property. It is "slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible." Then, associations assume control of production, the logical consequence of workers overthrowing bourgeois class rule. They replace the bourgeois management. Associated labour replaces wage-labour not because we prefer it (although we do), but because of social progress. And commodity production is "entirely inconsistent with" associated labour.

If you have worker-owners of enterprises you have private property in the sense that all these means of production are carved up into separate owned and controlled productive establishment, that exchange commodities on markets for profits. It is capitalism under self-management. How can it be anything other than that?

The public is not the state, though. Public coercion would still be a thing (unless I've horribly misunderstood what was being said).

By public authority, I mean some authority, some institution, that regulates and directs all kinds of aspects of public life. FIFA is not a state despite having authority and imposing rules, since its power is limited to sports, and not public life. There will be no public institution that imposes laws through violence (a state, more or less) in a stateless society.

That's a pleonasm.

"Self-managed capitalism" and "petite-bourgeoise" are signal words for state-capitalists to recognize and then pat themselves on back for throwing labels at the idea of emancipation of the working people, and continue lying themselves and others that socialism can have anything to do with authoritarianism.

Weren't you the bloke that said, regarding executions, "I don't care if they are authoritative [sic!]" (trying your best not to use authoritarian, even though these words mean different things). I guess I'm just a dull state-capitalist, silly me, advocating communism, a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership, free association of producers and consumers, and production for use.

exeexe

25th July 2014, 22:52

Weren't you the bloke that said, regarding executions, "I don't care if they are authoritative [sic!]" (trying your best not to use authoritarian, even though these ...
No that was me, and the explaination came right after which you conveniently refused to mention. But im not gonna give you the full quote, if you are so curious about it go find it yourself. But something tells me you dont care about it...

bropasaran

25th July 2014, 23:20

You think that the working class will liberate itself by becoming capitalists?
If having possession over the means of production, control over production, not being exploited in production or circulation means being a capitalist, then yes, I think that all workers should be capitalists. But of course, you don't even know what a capitalist is, I can bet you don't know how to define it, you're just being a smartass.

Tim Cornelis

25th July 2014, 23:32

If having possession over the means of production, control over production, not being exploited in production or circulation means being a capitalist, then yes, I think that all workers should be capitalists. But of course, you don't even know what a capitalist is, I can bet you don't know how to define it, you're just being a smartass.

Well... You did do a fairly good job, although you defined capitalist negatively. For instance, the owner of a corporation or enterprise (i.e. a capitalist) has "possession over the means of production, control over production, not being exploited in production or circulation", as you said. If we define it positively, a capitalist is the personification of the social relationship of capital. Capital is profits, derived by purchasing commodities, reinvested into new and additional commodities to generate (more) future profits. What you propose is bringing capital under control of workers thereby promoting workers to the role of collective capitalist actor.

Owning means of production as individual or in association, then hiring employees to use it makes you a capitalist.
Owning means of production as individual or in association, but not hiring employees to use it, makes you a capitalist still. (Self-employed people are still entrepreneurs and capitalists). Worker-ownership collectively owning (in association) private property of the means of production, so yes. You elevate workers to capitalists.

No that was me, and the explaination came right after which you conveniently refused to mention. But im not gonna give you the full quote, if you are so curious about it go find it yourself. But something tells me you dont care about it...

Man, you often come up with these non-sequitur, it's weird man. You complained about how 'we' were authoritarian and this has nothing to do with socialism, while you admit you support authoritarianism in some contexts. It doesn't matter how you justify these executions, that's irrelevant, what's relevant is that you're a hypocrite.

exeexe

26th July 2014, 00:02

Man, you often come up with these non-sequitur, it's weird man. You complained about how 'we' were authoritarian and this has nothing to do with socialism, while you admit you support authoritarianism in some contexts. It doesn't matter how you justify these executions, that's irrelevant, what's relevant is that you're a hypocrite.
Which proved my point. You would rather spend your time playing the antisocial blame game than trying to fix your malicious quote.

bropasaran

26th July 2014, 01:10

Well... You did do a fairly good job, although you defined capitalist negatively.
No, actually, my sarcastic definition doesn't have anything to do with being a capitalist.

For instance, the owner of a corporation or enterprise (i.e. a capitalist) has "possession over the means of production, control over production, not being exploited in production or circulation", as you said.
Is that what makes him a capitalist? Not by a long shot.

Capital is profits, derived by purchasing commodities
Capitalist profits have nothing to do with purchasing commodities, being that it's not only possible to buy and sell commodities without capitalist relations, it's possible to have to have capitalist relations without there any commodity production.

What you propose is bringing capital under control of workers
You obviously have no idea what is "capital". Capital is that property which is used to acquire income based on it, or to use the marxist faulty definition it's that means of production that is used to exploit labor. An artisan is not a capitalist by virtue of owning his tools, and his tools are not capital, even though they are privately owned means of production.

Owning means of production as individual or in association, but not hiring employees to use it, makes you a capitalist still.
No, it doesn't. Sure, if you want to redefine economic terms used in socialist theory for two centuries, and use some new meanings in the line of the vague labels that are used in the mainsteam media, sure, do it, but then you would have to explain what's the point of putting people who exploit other people and those who don't in the same group and calling them by the same name- does that means that exploitation is irrelevant?

Creative Destruction

26th July 2014, 01:31

^ lmao holy shit.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

26th July 2014, 04:05

^ lmao holy shit.

Le Mao holy shit*

bropasaran

26th July 2014, 04:57

Pointless one-liners are a direct infraction in the Learning forum if I'm not mistaken?

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 06:35

Impossible, would you mind providing us with your definition of capitalism and how you think commodity production does or does not relate to that definition?

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2014, 11:17

No, actually, my sarcastic definition doesn't have anything to do with being a capitalist.

I was being sorta sarcastic/facetious myself. Anyway, the point is, those qualities do not not make you a capitalist either.

Capitalist profits have nothing to do with purchasing commodities, being that it's not only possible to buy and sell commodities without capitalist relations, it's possible to have to have capitalist relations without there any commodity production.

:confused:

How the hell do you have capitalist relations without commodity production? That makes no sense.

Capitalist profits have everything to do with commodities. How did they get the instruments to produce commodities? By buying them. Commodities (bought) used to produce commodities (to sell) to produce profits, is roughly the process of capital.

"Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

The word “capital” was first used in its current meaning in England around 1611, derived from “capital grant,” meaning a grant of land from the King – i.e. the head – which would be the basis of a new estate, and so meaning ”original” funds, thus carrying in its genealogy a mirror of the changing sources and origins of power, with the rise of the bourgeois revolution in England."

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

You obviously have no idea what is "capital". Capital is that property which is used to acquire income based on it, or to use the marxist faulty definition it's that means of production that is used to exploit labor. An artisan is not a capitalist by virtue of owning his tools, and his tools are not capital, even though they are privately owned means of production.

Okay mate. I have no idea. "to use the Marxist faulty (lol) definition, it's that means of production that is used to exploit labour"

"Capital is not just wealth, but wealth in a specific historically developed form: wealth that grows through the process of circulation. As an aside, it should be noted that wealth itself is a social relation, not just an accumulation of things. For example, if you owe someone a favour, then that is something personal between the two of you; if your debt is determined by a third party or by some social ritual such as a birthday, then that is a social relation. Wealth is a social relation in the same sense, and its various historically developed forms are social relations. The issue is to understand exactly what kind of social relation is capital and where it leads."

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

No, it doesn't. Sure, if you want to redefine economic terms used in socialist theory for two centuries, and use some new meanings in the line of the vague labels that are used in the mainsteam media, sure, do it, but then you would have to explain what's the point of putting people who exploit other people and those who don't in the same group and calling them by the same name- does that means that exploitation is irrelevant?

I don't care for the socialist theory you misread. I only care for accurate analysis of capitalist society.

Which proved my point. You would rather spend your time playing the antisocial blame game than trying to fix your malicious quote.

What are you babbling on about? You can't go "you are filthy authoritarians and this has nothing to do with socialism!" the one minute and say "Yeah I support executions in a socialist revolution and they are authoritarian" the next.

Creative Destruction

26th July 2014, 15:50

Pointless one-liners are a direct infraction in the Learning forum if I'm not mistaken?

It wasn't pointless, so you are mistaken. It was exasperation expressed as astonished laughter at your utterly wrong point of view.

helot

26th July 2014, 15:57

Public coercion will not exist in a classless society. That's ridiculous.

Because... it's a stateless society...

There is no need to impose laws through (the threat of) violence. And it wouldn't be stateless if they did.

By public authority, I mean some authority, some institution, that regulates and directs all kinds of aspects of public life. FIFA is not a state despite having authority and imposing rules, since its power is limited to sports, and not public life. There will be no public institution that imposes laws through violence (a state, more or less) in a stateless society.

It seems that this definition of public authority could include the organisation of a classless population. This body will determine rules that are backed up by violence if needs be. I'm pretty sure that, for example, they will not allow someone to use dangerous equipment without adequate training. If someone decided to ignore this they will be stopped with force if necessary because their actions would be putting others' lives in jeapardy. What we have then, is an organisation which not only sets rules that are backed with violence but also may restrict someone's use of specific use-values depending on the circumstances.

But this doesn't negate statelessness nor classlessness. This body that engages in public coercion can be immediately identical to the population itself.

bropasaran

26th July 2014, 16:07

Impossible, would you mind providing us with your definition of capitalism and how you think commodity production does or does not relate to that definition?
Capitalist relations are specific relations of exploitation, either (in the sphere of production) by a workers' alienation of labor to a boss, or (in the sphere of circulation) by extracting income on the basis of permission of use of any property of the lessor.

Capitalism is the abstract attribute of there (predominantly) being capitalist relations, without determinants of scope in it's definition. Doesn't relate to commodity production at all, being that one can exist without the other and vice-verse.

How the hell do you have capitalist relations without commodity production?
In a comprehensive system where there is only one capitalist- there is no commodity production but there are still capitalist (boss-employee) relations.

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.This is just standard marxist irrationality. Just because something happened in a certain way doens't mean that it can (/ could have) only happen that way. Capital / capitalst relations can exist both in a planned economy and in a barter economy, neither of which have commodity production.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.The conclusion is incorrect even from the premises given (that would mean that capital in circulation [not in itself] exists only with the process of buying and selling), and besides that, the premises themselves are wrong. There is no exploitation in simple trading of a merchant, M-C-M doesn't turn money into capital, M-M' (loan on interest) does- why- because of the definition of what capital is (in classical economic terminology, which socialist theory uses); and it is that property on the basis of which income is acquired- which is done if income is asquired in exchange for either explicit or effective permission of use of that property (explicit in circulation, effective in capitalist production).

It wasn't pointless, so you are mistaken. It was exasperation expressed as astonished laughter at your utterly wrong point of view.
And your arguments that it is wrong? You don't have any, don't you?

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2014, 16:43

Capitalist relations are specific relations of exploitation, either (in the sphere of production) by a workers' alienation of labor to a boss, or (in the sphere of circulation) by extracting income on the basis of permission of use of any property of the lessor.

Capitalism is the abstract attribute of there (predominantly) being capitalist relations, without determinants of scope in it's definition. Doesn't relate to commodity production at all, being that one can exist without the other and vice-verse.

In a comprehensive system where there is only one capitalist- there is no commodity production but there are still capitalist (boss-employee) relations.

Wha'? That makes zero sense. What do the employees produce?

This is just standard marxist irrationality. Just because something happened in a certain way doens't mean that it can (/ could have) only happen that way. Capital / capitalst relations can exist both in a planned economy and in a barter economy, neither of which have commodity production.

Wha'? Seriously, what. A planned economy definitely (can have) has commodity production. The USSR's enterprises produced for the market. Large-scale corporations produce commodities for the market. A barter economy? What, like feudalism? By definition, that's not capitalism.

The conclusion is incorrect even from the premises given (that would mean that capital in circulation [not in itself] exists only with the process of buying and selling), and besides that, the premises themselves are wrong. There is no exploitation in simple trading of a merchant, M-C-M doesn't turn money into capital, M-M' (loan on interest) does- why- because of the definition of what capital is (in classical economic terminology, which socialist theory uses); and it is that property on the basis of which income is acquired- which is done if income is asquired in exchange for either explicit or effective permission of use of that property (explicit in circulation, effective in capitalist production).

And your arguments that it is wrong? You don't have any, don't you?

Man. I'm sorry. But your paradigm is so far gone, I can't change it through debate. It's too exhaustive.

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2014, 16:47

It seems that this definition of public authority could include the organisation of a classless population. This body will determine rules that are backed up by violence if needs be. I'm pretty sure that, for example, they will not allow someone to use dangerous equipment without adequate training. If someone decided to ignore this they will be stopped with force if necessary because their actions would be putting others' lives in jeapardy. What we have then, is an organisation which not only sets rules that are backed with violence but also may restrict someone's use of specific use-values depending on the circumstances.

But this doesn't negate statelessness nor classlessness. This body that engages in public coercion can be immediately identical to the population itself.

It does negate statelessness, though not classlessness, and what you advocate is definitely a state. You need to seriously reconsider your views of what communism is, because you are extrapolating your experiences of living under bourgeois society unto communism -- which produces this anachronistic view of communism with a body, that for all intents and purposes, is a state.

bropasaran

26th July 2014, 16:59

Wha'? That makes zero sense. What do the employees produce?
Products. But they are not sold, and are therefore not commodities. There is only one firm for which all the employees work and the products get rationed (rations forming wages).

Wha'? Seriously, what. A planned economy definitely (can have) has commodity production. The USSR's enterprises produced for the market.Again, just because the USSR wasn't a completely planned economy, doesn't mean that a completely planned (capitalist) economy cannot exist.

A barter economy? What, like feudalism? By definition, that's not capitalism.Feudalism as it existed in history had trade. I meant a possible barter economy of capitalist firms. Wages get payed not in money but by bartering. Nothing impossible about that.

Man. I'm sorry. But your paradigm is so far goneIt's the paradigm of socialism as it was defined when it formed as a school of political economy in it's own right and that continues in anarchism.

I can't change it through debate. It's too exhaustive.You can't change it through enything but debate/ discussion.

It does negate statelessness, though not classlessness, and what you advocate is definitely a state. You need to seriously reconsider your views of what communism is, because you are extrapolating your experiences of living under bourgeois society unto communism -- which produces this anachronistic view of communism with a body, that for all intents and purposes, is a state.
Which would mean, as I have said many times, that any communism that isn't anarchist and therefore voluntary is state system.

helot

26th July 2014, 17:01

It does negate statelessness, though not classlessness, and what you advocate is definitely a state. You need to seriously reconsider your views of what communism is, because you are extrapolating your experiences of living under bourgeois society unto communism -- which produces this anachronistic view of communism with a body, that for all intents and purposes, is a state.

Wow so you really do think that any restrictions on people doing what they want constitutes a state. Your understanding of the state is fundamentally flawed and simplistic.

You do know this 'body' i'm talking about is the population itself, right? I don't really like using quotes from dead beards to back my point but the fact you don't even have a clue about your own tradition's body of work is just startling.

Let's go to Engels' Origin of the Family...

The second distinguishing characteristic [of the state] is the institution of a public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power.

Ring any bells?

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 17:38

Impossible, can you give me an example of a form of capitalism in which commodities are not produced?

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2014, 17:47

Products. But they are not sold, and are therefore not commodities. There is only one firm for which all the employees work and the products get rationed (rations forming wages).

So feudalism?

Again, just because the USSR wasn't a completely planned economy, doesn't mean that a completely planned (capitalist) economy cannot exist.

uh, okay.

Feudalism as it existed in history had trade. I meant a possible barter economy of capitalist firms. Wages get payed not in money but by bartering. Nothing impossible about that.

Well it is kinda. It is not inconceivable in the abstract sense, like it's not inconceivable in the abstract sense to have liberal democracy as political form that manages feudalism, but this is realistically never going to happen.

It's the paradigm of socialism as it was defined when it formed as a school of political economy in it's own right and that continues in anarchism.

No it's the paradigm of idealism (u) and materialism (meh).

You can't change it through enything but debate/ discussion.

k, mate. Good luck with yar idealism and stuff. But provoking paradigm shifts are too exhaustive.

Which would mean, as I have said many times, that any communism that isn't anarchist and therefore voluntary is state system.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Wow so you really do think that any restrictions on people doing what they want constitutes a state. Your understanding of the state is fundamentally flawed and simplistic.

You do know this 'body' i'm talking about is the population itself, right? I don't really like using quotes from dead beards to back my point but the fact you don't even have a clue about your own tradition's body of work is just startling.

Yes, if you conceive of a public authority, expressed through popular assemblies, imposing laws under the threat of violence you have conceived of a very decentralised state, but a state nonetheless. Notice that you conceive of it, but its existence will not be realised. The fact that you advocate a state despite being an anarchist is startling and worrying. Your concept of a 'stateless' society is indebted to the present order of things, bourgeois society. You extrapolate this social order into communism, which corrupts your vision of what communism is, and ends up with a warped vision where laws are legislated into existence (whereas customary law will replace this) and the threat of violence and coercion is replaced by voluntary association (a sort of 'social contract') through which arrangements and regulations come into existence.

There will be no laws imposed by violence, and if you conceive of that, you conceive of a state form.

Let's go to Engels' Origin of the Family...

Ring any bells?

The state form you conceive of is a very decentralised state. But it's not a realistic concept, and it will not come into existence. So yes, all states that can realistically exist conform to this where the state is separate and above the people. I also don't know why you expect me to agree with 100% of what Engels and Marx wrote. I'm a Marxist, not a Marx-follower.

What you advocate is a state in communism.

bropasaran

26th July 2014, 18:14

Impossible, can you give me an example of a form of capitalism in which commodities are not produced?
A fully centrally planned state-capitalism would be one example. Or a single firm, or a single cartel of firms running a comprehensive economic system.

So feudalism?
In capitalist production labor is alienated, in feudalism a part of labor's produce is assumed to be alienated (as a part of partial of partial self-alienation), it's a different type of exploitation in production. So, it's centrally planned capitalism.

No it's the paradigm of idealism (u) and materialism (meh).
Those are just meaningless marxist labels, like much of marxist "terms", I'm positive you can't define either of them, let alone argument why should one expect one instead of the other.

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 18:19

A fully centrally planned state-capitalism would be one example. Or a single firm, or a single cartel of firms running a comprehensive economic system.

A fully planned economy without mass democratic participation is impossible. It results in central "planners" guessing and, in the end, competing with one another to be as high up on the totem pole, and as far away from alienated labor, as possible. The de facto result of such a setup is commodity production. What do you think a "commodity" is, anyway?

helot

26th July 2014, 18:37

Yes, if you conceive of a public authority, expressed through popular assemblies, imposing laws under the threat of violence you have conceived of a very decentralised state, but a state nonetheless. Notice that you conceive of it, but its existence will not be realised. The fact that you advocate a state despite being an anarchist is startling and worrying.

It sure is real worrying that an anarchist says that there'll need to be rules backed by force if needs be after the revolution and you spit your dummy out because you can't believe someone could claim something other than "there'll be no need for violence ATR"

Your concept of a 'stateless' society is indebted to the present order of things, bourgeois society. Is this what you do? Realise you don't have any argument so you try claiming i'm thoroughly 'bourgeois' in my thinking?

and ends up with a warped vision where laws are legislated into existence (whereas customary law will replace this)

Oh so a stateless society can't make any new rules? Good to know.

and the threat of violence and coercion is replaced by voluntary association (a sort of 'social contract') through which arrangements and regulations come into existence.

Lol @ social contract. Are you Rousseau?

The state form you conceive of is a very decentralised state.

What have i conceived? Where have i conceived it? You don't know what a state is, Tim. This thread is proof of that.

You might say i conceive of a classless society with any public force being immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power. In other words, that is to say if there's any situation in which a group of hooligans would go running around attacking random people they'll be stopped with violence if necessary by the population itself organised for its own protection. Of course i don't think this is likely, but likely to happen and 'could possibly happen without society negating itself' are two different things.

You however, seem to imply any organised use of force would necessarily constitute a state. Or does it also have to be able to make rules? Eitherway it doesn't matter because that's every society ever.

I also don't know why you expect me to agree with 100% of what Engels and Marx wrote. I'm a Marxist, not a Marx-follower.

What you advocate is a state in communism.

Do you disagree with Engels on this then?

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2014, 19:32

A fully centrally planned state-capitalism would be one example. Or a single firm, or a single cartel of firms running a comprehensive economic system.

No, do u even? USSR had commodity production. A single firm produces commodities. They produce products to sell.

In capitalist production labor is alienated, in feudalism a part of labor's produce is assumed to be alienated (as a part of partial of partial self-alienation), it's a different type of exploitation in production. So, it's centrally planned capitalism.

no.

Those are just meaningless marxist labels, like much of marxist "terms", I'm positive you can't define either of them, let alone argument why should one expect one instead of the other.

No. You are just 'prejudiced' and biased against Marxism, so you dismiss all things associated with it out of hand immediately. They are not meaningless terms. You are idealist and I'm materialist. That's not meant as dismissal, it's simply describing two different paradigms. I think mine is correct obviously. At least own it.

It sure is real worrying that an anarchist says that there'll need to be rules backed by force if needs be after the revolution and you spit your dummy out because you can't believe someone could claim something other than "there'll be no need for violence ATR"

That's not what I'm saying.

Is this what you do? Realise you don't have any argument so you try claiming i'm thoroughly 'bourgeois' in my thinking?

I accompanied that with arguments and an explanation.

Oh so a stateless society can't make any new rules? Good to know.

If those rules come about through legislative activity and are enforced by the threat of violence, no. That'd be a state form.

Lol @ social contract. Are you Rousseau?

Honestly, these last three bits I quoted, it seems like you're getting upset. I thought while me and exeexe and impossible could not have a fruitful discussion, at least we could, but apparently not.

I actually 'borrowed' that concept from Proudhon, but wha'ever, apparently you're getting offended for no real reason, so this discussion is going downhill and I'm out.

"While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon.27s_individualist_social_contract_ .281851.29

What have i conceived? Where have i conceived it? You don't know what a state is, Tim. This thread is proof of that.

You might say i conceive of a classless society with any public force being immediately identical to the people's own organisation of themselves as an armed power. In other words, that is to say if there's any situation in which a group of hooligans would go running around attacking random people they'll be stopped with violence if necessary by the population itself organised for its own protection. Of course i don't think this is likely, but likely to happen and 'could possibly happen without society negating itself' are two different things.

You however, seem to imply any organised use of force would necessarily constitute a state. Or does it also have to be able to make rules? Eitherway it doesn't matter because that's every society ever.

Do you disagree with Engels on this then?

No... I thought I explained already, but apparently there's need for clarification.

"ny organised use of force would necessarily constitute a state." Of course not. That'd mean that the Mafia is a state, or militant antifascists in Germany or something.

If these hooligans initiated violence (that breaks customary norms) then organised violence to counter it would not be a state. That would not be coercion, since the force was not initiated by the public authority of sorts.

What I say is a state is when that public authority legislates law into existence (in a popular assembly voting on laws) and then enforcing these through violence or the threat thereof, it's a highly decentralised state. Not that any organised violence constitutes a state. I didn't say that anywhere.

And yeah, let's just say Engels was wrong then. Why are you trying this appeal to authority?

helot

26th July 2014, 20:41

Honestly, these last three bits I quoted, it seems like you're getting upset. I thought while me and exeexe and impossible could not have a fruitful discussion, at least we could, but apparently not.

I actually 'borrowed' that concept from Proudhon, but wha'ever, apparently you're getting offended for no real reason, so this discussion is going downhill and I'm out.

"While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon.27s_individualist_social_contract_ .281851.29

Nah, i just thought it was funny. Confused you tell me i advocate a state though heh. I'm pretty sure we can reach agreement, ive been under that impression for a long time.

I think the issue comes down to whether i ask good enough questions :p

If these hooligans initiated violence (that breaks customary norms) then organised violence to counter it would not be a state. That would not be coercion, since the force was not initiated by the public authority of sorts.

Ok, so initiation is important. I'd imagine it's possible to initiate violence before it occurs yet it still be self-defense. We can take alot from social cues so we'll include pre-emptive use of violence as the same.

What I say is a state is when that public authority legislates law into existence (in a popular assembly voting on laws) and then enforcing these through violence or the threat thereof, it's a highly decentralised state. Not that any organised violence constitutes a state. I didn't say that anywhere.

I'm not sure i know exactly what you mean here. I'm not sure on your uses of the words 'legislate' and 'law' and i don't want that to come off as some pedantic shite.

I've not been talking about any group legislating, i've not talked about law. I've not used those words and instead have been using phrases such as 'making rules' as a shorthand for collective agreements about human conduct.

There will of course be a need to come to agreements. If some new piece of technology, flying cars maybe, is invented a communist society would need to reach agreements to do with what is adequate training, the 'rules of the sky', use of dangerous materials (don't want uranium left on a bus!) etc etc. So the population gathers to discuss the issues of the day and reach their agreements through their methods of decision-making. Is this legislating law?

There is a possibility, then, that there'll be a need to enforce these agreements. The circumstances determine how and some of those may be violent. Is enforcing these agreements, through violence if necessary, enforcing law?

If you're saying this is legislating law and constituting a state i'm completely lost as i fail to see how any society could exist without such mechanisms. Or is this where initiation of violence comes in?

And yeah, let's just say Engels was wrong then. Why are you trying this appeal to authority?

Just trying to get a more accurate view of your thoughts. Personally I think that is a characteristic of the state but it's not the only one. Plus i love Origin of the Family...