Is it possible the bourgeois themselves will come to abolish the State?

[Stirnerian]

I apologize for innundating the forum with threads. But I am New, and can assure you I'll slow down. I'm just an unemployed, unschooled lumpen with a lot of free time to kill.

Anyway.

One of the major schisms between various schools of thought on the Left is the interrelation between the State, Capital, and the role it plays in the Revolution.

To simplify a subject I've only just begun to understand, these fault lines date to the open warfare between Marxists and Bakuninites during the First International, with the former, very broadly, arguing that the State that pre-exists the Revolution ought to be commandeered and directed against Capital, then allowed to 'wither away'; the latter held that this would lead to a process of bureaucratic ossification and, eventually, mass repression.

Today, Bakunin's heirs point to the eventual nature of the Soviet Union as proof that his prophecy was correct. Marxists, in turn, argue that Bakunin - and also the Soviets - misinterpreted the role Marx imagined the State would play in constructing socialism.

This, I think, is a fair appraisal of the basic argument.

There is a third possibility that, so far as I know, has not been advanced by anyone really notable. I'm certain someone somewhere has proposed something like this - and I'd appreciate being pointed in their direction, as I would think they'd have a good grasp on things by dint of it. But it doesn't seem to be a cornerstone of any particular tendency.

The possibility is this:

So far as an amateur historian like myself can see, the direct predecessors of most contemporary Western governments, and the model they'd subsequently impose on colonized peoples, is the product of the Peace of Westphalia. That Treaty codifying the 'Westphalian national-state' predates the victory of capitalism over feudalism by quite a long while. In a very real sense, the governments existing today are mutations of a form first imagined by the aristocracy our bourgeoisie would later abolish.

Is it not possible that the historical role of the capitalist class is to eventually, in the course of its ultimate development, abolish these remnants of the model of production preceding them?

This process seems to have begun in the middle of the twentieth century, and I cannot imagine it being completed in our lifetimes (I am a revolutionary pessimist). Both the Left and Right of the bourgeoisie have contributed to it in their own ways: by establishing a nucleic world-government in the United Nations - which will probably collapse in our lifetimes; by undermining the authority of the traditional State to regulate and tax multinational business - and destabilizing the very idea of nationality the Rightists wish to preserve.

This is the root of the antagonism for many so-called 'paleoconservatives' towards international Capital, and likely the source of those bizarre political hybrids of Left and Right we see increasingly today.

To sum this up, as I'm sure you're getting tired of my pretentiousness: is it not possible that that original argument between Bakunin and Marx might not just be, in the end, moot?

I am teleological enough to believe in the final inevitability of Revolution; but I think it will be far into the future, and that the world and capitalism will be structured very differently from today. Perhaps there will be no need for 'the State' to "wither away", as it will have already been completely replaced by globe-spanning colossi decades or centuries earlier.

And a more immediate question: if this is the case, how do we know it, and how long does it take for the distinction between orthodox anarchism and orthodox Marxism to become meaningless?

[Stirnerian]

I should add - and I'm doing this in another post because I like to document the assumptions I make in a given argument - that under some anarchist formulations of 'the State', it would still exist in this scenario, albeit not in a form recognized by those who understand the idea in its common sense.

This probably is more a product of my enjoyment for 1980s cyberpunk novels and films than a hard-headed analysis. I imagine the 'end-state' of capitalism to be a world in which territoriality associated with a physical location in space ('the nation') no longer exists, and those who are not class conscious identify as strongly with their employer as the most ardent nationalist does with his nation today.

If such a scenario does not exist, it is difficult to impossible for me to imagine our theoretical revolution ever taking hold. But I legitimately don't think it's implausible that capitalism could develop, and by its natural inclination would develop, to such an extent that the whole of human existence is structured around it in such a way that our exaggerations today look like understatements.

I suppose it's easier for me to envision a revolution in these circumstances because it will of itself eliminate many of the seemingly intractable problems we face today. A division between the spheres of capitalist development would no longer exist, for instance - the very idea of a territorial 'Third World' would be submerged under omnipresent Capital.

[ñángara]

Development of the economy, the means of production, the technological basis of the productive forces, is what Marx discovered to cause an eventual revolution in the relationships among men, in a given society, to keep pace with the production.

That reminds me a "star trek" scene. In year 3000 they revived a frozen guy from the 20th century. The guy right away asks for his money, financial assets, etc. Captain Jean-Luc Picard responded "We don't use those things any more" :lol:

[G4b3n]

The only goals of the revolutionary bourgeoisie were to abolish the economic institutions of feudalism and create a state that is representative of their societal dominance. Whether or not remnants of these insinuations or the former aristocratic state exist is not relative to the reactionary bourgeoisie so long as their supremacy is enforced. The same could be said of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is of no relevance to us if remnants of the bourgeois state limp along into the dictatorship, so long as the supremacy of the working class is enforced. I would argue that it would be extremely idealistic to hope to abolish all aspects of the bourgeois state upon the creation of a worker's state.

The state exists as a product of irreconcilable class antagonisms. At first glance, it appears to be a foreign element standing above society, but this is only so that the ruling class may keep the exploited class under its dominance by the most indirect and least explicit means possible. This was true in feudal society as it is in bourgeois society. So, basically, as long as classes exist, the state will exist. The bourgeoisie cannot abolish itself therefore it cannot abolish the state. Also, the liberal left has not destabilized the concept of the nation in any sense. Perhaps those on the farthest end of the liberal spectrum wish to put forth that sort of rhetoric, but it doesn't amount to anything more than rhetoric.

[Creative Destruction]

Is it possible the bourgeois themselves will come to abolish the State?

It's possible, I suppose. No one said that they were a completely rational class. It'd be interesting that they ended up being the gravediggers of capitalism, though. It's also possible that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow.

The bourgeoisie doesn't desire an end to the state, though. Should a proposition ever face them, they'd probably revert to fascism, which was a few miles away from happening back in the 1940s in the United States.

[tuwix]

Is it possible the bourgeois themselves will come to abolish the State?


Yes, but only by mismanagement of capitalism. If they will manage capitalism int a state of collapse, they can even abolish a state.



And a more immediate question: if this is the case, how do we know it, and how long does it take for the distinction between orthodox anarchism and orthodox Marxism to become meaningless?

As an ideology it will never become meaningless. But I'm not prophet to determine when it will be irrelevant in political reality.

[Mr. Piccolo]

It is hard to say for sure, but I don' think so. Capitalism is heavily dependent on state action to keep itself alive. This includes ensuring profitability and managing crises, as well as serving to suppress working-class movements.

That being said, I think that broadly speaking there may be two major roads for capitalist states.

1. Increased competition between national capitalist classes and their states as the world becomes more multipolar with the relative decline of the United States as the world hegemon in the face of new, developing capitalist powers such as the People's Republic of China.

2. More cooperation between the national capitalist classes and the eventual development of something like a World Government, in which case the old Westphalian concept of sovereignty ends and national states disappear. There may still be a global, capitalist state though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Since the bourgeois state is a tool by which the capitalist class dominated the working class, as long as capitalism exists, so will the bourgeois state.

[Stirnerian]

I disagree.

If by 'State' we mean a hierarchy of power, enforced at gunpoint, then it's absolutely true that the bourgeoisie require a State for the furtherance of their economic hegemony.

But if we take a narrower view of the 'State', a more common-sensical view, and ascribe to it all the qualities usually associated with government (political offices distinct from economic positions; assemblages like a Congress or a Parliament to debate laws, and a Court to interpret them), then I don't think it's obvious that the capitalists require one.

Already, in a very brief period of time, we have seen privatized militias like Blackwater - which, for some reason, the autocorrect on my phone knows about - acquire many of the traits and serve many of the same functions as traditional military or police units. This would have been a common practice in the era of marque and reprisal, but the centralization of force in the 19th and 20th centuries would have seemed to have put paid to it.

I can imagine a world in which governance and enterprise are synonymous. And if I can, so can the capitalist class.

This doesn't mean I'm suggesting that they'll embrace anarcho-capitalism or anything of the sort, but that they'll increasingly mesh the function of government and business to the extent that they become quite literally indistinguishable. You may even very well still have a public dole - but it'll be Brought To You By CharityCorps. (In fact, it already is in many nations, including America, where our food stamp program has been privatized).

In such a world, being an anarchist and being a Marxist would be the same thing.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I disagree.

If by 'State' we mean a hierarchy of power, enforced at gunpoint, then it's absolutely true that the bourgeoisie require a State for the furtherance of their economic hegemony.

But if we take a narrower view of the 'State', a more common-sensical view, and ascribe to it all the qualities usually associated with government (political offices distinct from economic positions; assemblages like a Congress or a Parliament to debate laws, and a Court to interpret them), then I don't think it's obvious that the capitalists require one.

Already, in a very brief period of time, we have seen privatized militias like Blackwater - which, for some reason, the autocorrect on my phone knows about - acquire many of the traits and serve many of the same functions as traditional military or police units. This would have been a common practice in the era of marque and reprisal, but the centralization of force in the 19th and 20th centuries would have seemed to have put paid to it.

I can imagine a world in which governance and enterprise are synonymous. And if I can, so can the capitalist class.

This doesn't mean I'm suggesting that they'll embrace anarcho-capitalism or anything of the sort, but that they'll increasingly mesh the function of government and business to the extent that they become quite literally indistinguishable. You may even very well still have a public dole - but it'll be Brought To You By CharityCorps. (In fact, it already is in many nations, including America, where our food stamp program has been privatized).

In such a world, being an anarchist and being a Marxist would be the same thing.

The United States government still pays for Blackwater's services, though. In the First World, where it is harder to stir up nationalist fervor and convince people to be conscripted to die in some far off country, mercenaries are a sensible option for states wishing to engage in warfare abroad. But the mercenaries still act at the behest of the capitalist state, just as mercenary companies did for monarchies in the past.

Even with the increase in privatization during the neoliberal era, we can still see the state playing an active role in maintaining the existence of the capitalist system. This is best exemplified during crises, such as the nationalizations and bailouts of banks and some important industries (for example, the automobile industry) during the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008-10. Less dramatically, the state will likely to continue to exist under capitalism to enforce property rights.

Also, the existence of the liberal state plays an important ideological role in creating a legitimizing façade for capitalist activity. By allowing people to vote for representatives in legislatures and executive branches, it gives workers the sense that they have a voice in how the system is run. Look how much time and energy people expend debating parliamentary politics (my party vs. your party, Blue Team vs. Red Team) while nothing substantive changes.

Even a fascist state would serve the same function for capitalists, but instead of rallying around liberal values, people would be encouraged to rally around "blood and soil" nationalist values.

[RedMaterialist]

I

To simplify a subject I've only just begun to understand, these fault lines date to the open warfare between Marxists and Bakuninites during the First International, with the former, very broadly, arguing that the State that pre-exists the Revolution ought to be commandeered and directed against Capital, then allowed to 'wither away';



Marx argued for the destruction of the existing state and replacing it with a worker's state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. (The Paris commune, and the critique of the gotha programme.)

[Bearded Beardist]

It's possible, I suppose. No one said that they were a completely rational class. It'd be interesting that they ended up being the gravediggers of capitalism, though. It's also possible that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow.

The bourgeoisie doesn't desire an end to the state, though. Should a proposition ever face them, they'd probably revert to fascism, which was a few miles away from happening back in the 1940s in the United States.

What exactly are you referring to here?

[Stirnerian]

What exactly are you referring to here?

More likely than not that poster is referring to the 'Business Plot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot), in which a small group of finance capitalists allegedly tried to hire the services of anti-imperialist Marine General Smedley Butler to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal in a coup. That event occurred in 1933, after Roosevelt partially suspended the gold standard, however, and not in the 1940s.

It's a very interesting subject. On the one hand, it argues against the 'vulgar Marxist' idea that left-liberal reformism is somehow a conscious conspiracy by Capital to overturn class consciousness, and demonstrates that there are real divisions within the ownership class. On the other, it's entirely possible the unsophisticated Butler misunderstood the situation, or even invented it wholesale - while otherwise a reliable man, we have nothing to go on but his word.

[cyu]

When a private army defeats the public army, it isn't that the state has been abolished, it's just that there is a new de facto state, with Erik Prince as the warlord.

If I were going to imagine the end of the state, then it would be like if someone named Obama, Prince, and Murdoch entered an internet chat room, and nobody took them seriously.

[Comrade #138672]

No. The bourgeoisie will abolish the state, since it is not in the class interest of the bourgeoisie to do so. The state exists solely as an instrument for the bourgeoisie to rule over the other classes (primarily the proletariat).

In an upcoming revolution, however, individual members of the bourgeoisie may side with the rising revolutionary proletariat, but it will not do so on its own. It will have to (1) recognize that capitalism will collapse and (2) that the proletariat will very likely seize power.