Explaining the difference between "state" and "government"

[Ritzy Cat]

Well, I have found myself debating with someone who believes communism and socialism to be the same thing. I have already exhausted usage of the obvious disparities between the raw definitions of Communism and socialism, so we have moved onto another topic.

Nonetheless, when I say communism includes the overthrow of the state by the working class, he asks who will relegate food, shelter, and other resources in a stateless society. I recommend the formation of communes to relegate said resources on a small scale. This would simply mean some sort of direct democracy on a local/community scale.

While I know you all may have differing opinions on how society should be governed in a post-Socialist world, he is under the impression we are simply "replacing", at least in the USA, a form of government with another form of government.

While I understand the state in capitalism is inherently oppressive because it is controlled by the bourgeois, thus corrupting any fallacious democracies, how can I put that in more colloquial terms? How can I draw the difference between, supposedly creating communes within a state and creating communes in a post-socialist society?

Due to the ignorance of my friend here I have been spottily referencing the High School Commie's Guide. I have refrained from referencing higher works of Marxian literature because I do not think he will be able to comprehend them.

Also, what are your best arguments against the whole "Greed" thing? I have said the supposed human tendency to be greedy is inherently baseless because humans, throughout history, have been a communal species. Before the advent of civilization and there was no oppression, the hunter-gatherer societies and early agricultural societies lacked any social structure and were very communal in nature. Greed has only increased alongside the expansion of the wealth gap between the bourgeois and proletarian, thus a product of capitalism/its predecessors.

[Sinister Intents]

The state simply and not completely defined is an organ of class rule. A form of governance has existed for a vastly longer time than that of the state. The state is like a boa constrictor strangling it's prey to death for nourishment. Look at this snake as have a food supply that never dies and it keeps swallowing and living off of it. The state in it's crushing coercive and violent authority seizes a monopoly on governance. This state mandated and controlled government is ruled by a minority which oppresses and suppresses a majority for it's own ends. The state relies on a variety of methods to normalize it's oppression and suppression. The government of a minority must be destroyed for the government of all human beings within the fabric of society to have a say in administration. The state controlled government influences and controls peoples lives through use of media, marketing campaigns they're in direct control of, religions that the state allows to exist because often times the bourgeoisie are a part of religion. Religion becomes a tool to normalize oppression and normalizes a slave type mindset. Tye people, given a god that is not there to blind them. The sheep have the wool pulled of their eyes, they're given many distractions, insisted upon ms ny lessons, brainwashed, tortures, and forced into submission. The state determines it's laws and regulations, the state effectively governs the people with violence, terror, it's extreme all encompassing authority. The people must shatter the state to take government and administration into their own hands, eliminating all coercive and hostile authority, effectively putting the power into the hands of all of the masses. No longer would we be given the illusion and lie of democracy, we would establish the reign of anarchy, the rule of all people equally in society. The communities directly controlled by all it's citizens would determine their own lives themselves, they'd be able to have a say in what happens around them so that all decisions can be achieved democratically. This wouldn't be democracy in the bourgeois sense, it'd be the dictatorship of all human beings over their own lives. All individuals within society would be able to freely associate and disassociate. These individuals would hold the means and modes of production in common so distribution and productiom would be owned and controlled collectively. No longer would there be bosses, but everyone would be able to freely and collectively decide what needs to be done. All of the communities would be freely linked in a federation of decentralized communities in which if one collective needed something necessary or luxuries were wanted people would be able to organize to supply demands both locally and beyond. It would be a society of abundance rather than scarcity which is prevalent in rare materials but also gets created by the state that currently exists. To not sound utopian or an idealist: To achieve all of this we need a direct revolution to topple the bourgeois state and their monopoly on governance and society. Class consciousness would need to be raised amongst all proletarians and amongst all other disenfranchised individuals, so they may see the necessity to organize against and attack the government and the state to take it into their own hands to eliminate the class system we're swept into and forced to see as normal. Going back to government: Government is administration while the state is an organ of class based rule.

[Sinister Intents]

I started ranting and may or may not have missed the point in certain areas but oh well fuck it

[Ritzy Cat]

I read your whole post and it was a very eloquent rant, if I say so myself. The last sentence sort of answered my question though.


Government is administration while the state is an organ of class based rule.

How should I explain how democracies in the yoke of a state are fallacies?

Also this is probably a vast question that has no direct answer, but how do we raise people to class consciousness, or let alone, care enough to where they'd go through the trouble of revolting?

I've been reading mostly Marx's early philosophy lately (pre-economics/capitalism critique) so I am very rusty on the revolutionary method.

[Sinister Intents]

I'll reply when I get home :) lest someone gets to it becore me

[Sinister Intents]

I read your whole post and it was a very eloquent rant, if I say so myself. The last sentence sort of answered my question though.



How should I explain how democracies in the yoke of a state are fallacies?

Also this is probably a vast question that has no direct answer, but how do we raise people to class consciousness, or let alone, care enough to where they'd go through the trouble of revolting?

I've been reading mostly Marx's early philosophy lately (pre-economics/capitalism critique) so I am very rusty on the revolutionary method.

Government is administration, it is people organizing to decide policies, rules and such, but not just all of that. Government is administering society and this can be done with all people in society having a say in their communities. The state is the organ with the monopoly on governance and is an organ of class rule plus with everything else I've said in my above rant applies.

Democracy through the bourgeois state is quite simply a lie. The state gives us our 'rights' and determines laws, they even give us the choice of our dictator. That isn't democracy, that isn't administration by all people, demos=people kratos=power. Democracy literally means peoples power. All power should be given to all of the people in society. Under the bourgeois state we're given the choice of our rulers, we're told we're free when in reality we live in modern feudalism.

Methods we could use to raise class consciousness could involve utilizing marketing to sell people socialism and things pertaining to socialism. But this presents it's own vast problems, it destroys the power of these ideas and turns it into a commodity/product/service and so on. People need to agitate and organize and spread word of the reality of what we live under. We could sell papers... Which has shown to do practically nothing. Fliers, pamphlets, web ads, and a variety of other media such as this forum in fact could be introduced to people in a variety of ways to help people see the light of what's really going on. We have to shatter people's perceived realities and expose them to what capitalism really is. You could also have random discussions with people in hopefully a polite manner, too many people want to defend 'Murica and try to say we have it so good, the goal in my opinion is to shatter these illusions with evidence, but people are rather staunch in their later years.

Just keep reading, expand into sociology, psychology, read economics from a variety of perspectives. I'm currently reading some of Adam Smith's works.

[Blake's Baby]

Why do you think socialism and communism are different things?

[Ritzy Cat]

I think Socialism is a state with the working class in political power. I think Communism is the stateless society where the infrastructure of the old bourgeoisie state have been dissembled and it is no longer necessary. Of course this includes other things, its just the only difference I see between communism and socialism.

However, of course, I've only read Leninist revolutionary method mostly so I can't really put much conviction behind my thoughts there. I more wanted to demonstrate to my friend the difference between the commonly seen "socialist" parties and nations, ie. Francois Hollande, Norway, SPUSA etc, and actual socialism. I don't know too much about the intricacies of what constitutes the aftermath of revolution so I won't go there.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, as my question was 'why' do you think that, 'I've only read Leninist(s)' goes a long way t answer the question.

Right, a history/philosophy lesson.

The fact that France has a president from the 'Socialist' party no more makes it a society in which socialism has been created than the fact that the USA has a president from the 'Democratic' party means that the USA is a country in which 'the people rule', or indeed that China is 'a 'Communist' country.

The 'Socialist' party in France doesn't stand for socialism. It was founded in 1969 and in the early 1970s claimed the French seat at the 'Socialist International'. It was seen as a 'centre-left' party comparable to the Labour Party in the UK and the Social Democrats in Germany.

There used to be a Socialist Party in France (in fact there have been several) that actually were 'socialist' (in that they stood on a platform of emancipation of the working class) but the majority of 'socialist' parties supported 'their own' bourgeoisies in 1914. The parties that remained true to the working class generally (not all of them) took the name 'communist' instead.

Since 1914 most 'socialist' parties - such as the PS in France - have in fact been pro-capitalist. That doesn't mean 'socialist' means pro-capitalist. It means that the name of a political party doesn't necessarily equate to what that party stands for.

[Ritzy Cat]

It means that the name of a political party doesn't necessarily equate to what that party stands for.

I think that is very true, esp. with "communist" parties that are/were heads of states in China, Soviet Union North Korea etc. Served more as a group by which individuals can have those rally around them more so than actually those who want to strive for communism.

Nonetheless I'm sure The Russian Revolution / Chinese Revolution had roots in proletarian movement they were corrupted. I haven't done too much research on the latter but after reading Lenin and some of his critics I came to the conclusion that the "vanguard party" evolved into the communist party itself and sort of ruined the whole revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree. I think the revolution failed because a revolution against capitalism must be worldwide. In one country things can only go to a certain point but must necessarily return to a capitalist status quo ante.

Which means what you call 'socialism' would be 'capitalism' in my book.

To me (because I'm a Marxist) 'socialism' is not equal to 'capitalism'. In fact they're opposites.

[Ritzy Cat]

I agree. However I do not agree that socialism is capitalism, I think they are different things.

Perhaps it may have been a combination of those factors in the case of the Russian Revolution. The world was too young in the early 20th century to have made global revolution feasible because lack of global communications, but I think that has changed. A worker's uprising in the context of a capitalist world will have to fall back into its yoke eventually, and it didn't help that the revolutionaries were "lead" by a more "intelligent" group of individuals, thus leading to the nature of the USSR... But in the context of a revolutionary world....

What do you think the differences between the state and government are?

[Hatshepsut]

Perhaps it may have been a combination of those factors in the case of the Russian Revolution. The world was too young in the early 20th century to have made global revolution feasible because lack of global communications...


I don't know too much about the intricacies of what constitutes the aftermath of revolution so I won't go there...


I disagree. I think the revolution failed because a revolution against capitalism must be worldwide. In one country things can only go to a certain point but must necessarily return to a capitalist status quo ante.

The first successful trans-Atlantic cable was laid in 1866, by which time the developed countries were crisscrossed by telegraph lines, so that in the latter 19th century it was possible for Berliners to know about an event in Chicago within an hour. International postal service also existed. I doubt the lack of ability to communicate impeded a global revolution. Instead, it is probably that the globe is simply too big for taking at one stroke. Even today I don't think a worldwide revolution as a single event is feasible.

Lenin seems to have known that he couldn't revolutionize even Germany alone, and chose to stick with Russia, an arena where he had chances to win, for his "socialism in one country." What followed was civil war, which is the usual aftermath of revolutions if you don't get chaos of the bourgeois French variety. The Red Army almost didn't win the civil war as it was.

Whatever might be said about Lenin, he was not a dreamer and not tempted to overreach. The Bolshevik way was to enforce party unity at all times—a brutal yet necessary prerequisite to success.

But it's important to realize the USSR survived 69 years, casting some doubt on an inevitability of return to capitalism. Cuba's revolution also remains ongoing if diluted 55 years later. Several unfortunate things happened, one of which was the split between the USSR and China. Then, in the 1980s, notably when the USSR was required to discipline Poland but refrained from the degree of force it had used in Hungary or Czechoslovakia in earlier years, divisions with its East Bloc allies in Europe began, a set of events the Western presses didn't much publicize at first. Outside capitalist countries, notably the USA, never let up on economic and military pressure.

I don't claim to know history from the viewpoint of communism; however that's my understanding of how it probably went down. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Blake's Baby]

Quote not working.

'I think a revolution that happens worldwide at one stroke is not feasible'.

And who has suggested such a thing?

The 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' would hardly be necessary if revolution was worldwide and instantaneous.

The point is not that revolutions can't happen at different times, the point is that when those revolutions happen at different times their revolutionary content has an expiry date. If the revolution doesn't expand beyond the borders of a single country or even a group of countries then the revolution will die. So there is a window of opportunity that isn't decades and I suspect isn't more than a couple of years.

But perhaps, if (for example) the working class of the whole of Europe revolted, managed to establish the revolutionary dictatorship and to not get nuked by any other countries, while at the same time trying to encourage the working class of China, India, North America and Japan (to name only the most advanced capitalist regions and biggest concentrations of proletarians) to revolt, it would have a greater chance of lasting longer than say the workers of South Africa or Brazil establishing the revolutionary dictatorship on its own. But either way, I doubt any revolutionary dictatorship could reasonably last a decade. The examples we have (the Commune and the Soviets) can be measured in years or months. I think if the 'world revolution' takes more than 10 years it's almost certainly already been lost.