State Withering Away

[Servia]

When I say this to people a lot of them get confused.

So, I explain it as the society and state forge together. There becomes no distinction between the two. The traditional idea of the state has withered away.

Do you agree?

[Sinister Intents]

Yes and no, the necessity for the state withers away and the function transforms into that of an administrative function, rather than an organ of class rule (almost typed orgasm of class rule.) When class distinctions disappear, so to does the state because it transforms with the transition to workers' control.

Maybe I'm close, I'm sure what I say can be improved or said better, I hope this helps :)

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe consider what the state is *for* -- what is its material function in society -- ?

Basically it's *coordination*, something that people are far more technically able to do than ever before, with Internet communication technologies.

While hobbyist types self-coordinated to bring the online commons into existence from decades ago, the conventional world is still using antiquated 'political representative' kinds of substitutionist roles, and private control of the means of mass production.

So if today's software developer employees can be thought of as 'workers' -- which they are, depending on how they're paid -- then why wouldn't all other workers, white- and blue-collar, be able to coordinate just as well, to effect production of all kinds, for society's benefit -- ?

One may realize that the state's traditional function of 'social / political hub' no longer has a monopoly on social communications since people are more able than ever before to communicate and organize very organically, without formal institutional structures. And, since the bourgeois state only serves to uphold private property, we can empirically prove that the state is no longer realistically needed since producers can simply self-organize to effect whatever production they / we think is best.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

When I say this to people a lot of them get confused.

So, I explain it as the society and state forge together. There becomes no distinction between the two. The traditional idea of the state has withered away.

Do you agree?

Honestly, I think that the whole "withering away" business is one of those funny points in Marxism where Karl and Freddie decide to get terrified of the real consequences of their analyses. The whole "a free people's state" business flies in the face of the understandings of "special bodies of armed men" as differentiated from "self-acting armed organization of the population".
Seriously, the bizarre leap from " government of persons" to "the administration of things" contradicts the best parts of Marxian analyses, which reveal the fundamental interrelationship between the two.

This glaringly obvious contradiction in Marxism, pointed out pretty early on by anarchists, remains unaddressed because Marxists are a bunch of closet liberals. J/k.

[ckaihatsu]

Honestly, I think that the whole "withering away" business is one of those funny points in Marxism where Karl and Freddie decide to get terrified of the real consequences of their analyses. The whole "a free people's state" business flies in the face of the understandings of "special bodies of armed men" as differentiated from "self-acting armed organization of the population".
Seriously, the bizarre leap from " government of persons" to "the administration of things" contradicts the best parts of Marxian analyses, which reveal the fundamental interrelationship between the two.

This glaringly obvious contradiction in Marxism, pointed out pretty early on by anarchists, remains unaddressed because Marxists are a bunch of closet liberals. J/k.


I think you're addressing the *revolutionary* period specifically -- after the elitists have been usurped and everything collectivized there would be no distinct class or stratum that would *require* the tool of violence to maintain a privileged position in society since the state would have withered away.

[RedMaterialist]

When I say this to people a lot of them get confused.

So, I explain it as the society and state forge together. There becomes no distinction between the two. The traditional idea of the state has withered away.

Do you agree?

The purpose of a state is to suppress and exploit a certain class of people. In the DOP the state suppresses the capitalist classes. Stalin decided the best way to do this was to exterminate anybody he suspected of being bourgeois.

When the DOP finally suppresses the entire world capitalist class then there will be no remaining class to suppress. The DOP can't suppress itself. The basis for the existence of the state, class suppression, will no longer exist. The state will wither away and die.

[Cumulus]

Without a state, how could the economy be planned? Or, would the organisation in charge of such planning not be considered a state?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Without a state, how could the economy be planned? Or, would the organisation in charge of such planning not be considered a state?

Consider the operation of the human body - according to what plan does your heart beat? Who "directs" the growth of new tissue? The onset of puberty? Hunger? The body is a brilliant display of "anarchist economics" in practice. The autonomous activity of billions of cells playing out their roles, not according to a central plan, but in constant (chemical, electrical) communication across a complex and chaotic system.

The "mind"/brain is not state-like - the "individual" is an effect - a consequence emerging out of chaos (like lightening in a storm).

I see no reason, outside of liberal/Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideological hegemony, why society ought not to be possible according to similar organizational models.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Consider the operation of the human body - according to what plan does your heart beat? Who "directs" the growth of new tissue? The onset of puberty? Hunger? The body is a brilliant display of "anarchist economics" in practice. The autonomous activity of billions of cells playing out their roles, not according to a central plan, but in constant (chemical, electrical) communication across a complex and chaotic system.

The "mind"/brain is not state-like - the "individual" is an effect - a consequence emerging out of chaos (like lightening in a storm).

I see no reason, outside of liberal/Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideological hegemony, why society ought not to be possible according to similar organizational models.

How is that *literally* not a copy-paste of an argument a right-wing libertarian makes for capitalism?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Honestly, I think that the whole "withering away" business is one of those funny points in Marxism where Karl and Freddie decide to get terrified of the real consequences of their analyses. The whole "a free people's state" business flies in the face of the understandings of "special bodies of armed men" as differentiated from "self-acting armed organization of the population".
Seriously, the bizarre leap from " government of persons" to "the administration of things" contradicts the best parts of Marxian analyses, which reveal the fundamental interrelationship between the two.

This glaringly obvious contradiction in Marxism, pointed out pretty early on by anarchists, remains unaddressed because Marxists are a bunch of closet liberals. J/k.

Yes, either that or you just have no idea of what you are talking about.

[Cumulus]

Consider the operation of the human body - according to what plan does your heart beat? Who "directs" the growth of new tissue? The onset of puberty? Hunger? The body is a brilliant display of "anarchist economics" in practice. The autonomous activity of billions of cells playing out their roles, not according to a central plan, but in constant (chemical, electrical) communication across a complex and chaotic system.

The "mind"/brain is not state-like - the "individual" is an effect - a consequence emerging out of chaos (like lightening in a storm).

I see no reason, outside of liberal/Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideological hegemony, why society ought not to be possible according to similar organizational models.
It's true that not everything is centrally controlled in a completely totalitarian manner, but the brain is undoubtedly the most powerful part of the body. It can control the beating of the heart, the flow of blood, and the movement of nearly every muscle in the body. Without a state, what's to stop capitalism from reappearing? While coöperation may be an inalienable part of human nature, equally so is competition. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat, what's to stop someone from amassing material wealth, while the population has no choice in their desperation but to buy it? This is why I think that the "withering away of the state" should be a merger of the state and the people. The state ceases to exist as a separate entity because it has become fully merged with the population in a system of direct democracy, with leaders and bosses fulfilling simply the task of organisation. The state becomes a framework for the people instead of an instrument of oppression. Society needs a skeleton to facilitate coöperation between its members, and this must be a framework that they build themselves. To quote a state that has not at all fulfilled this goal, we need a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How is that *literally* not a copy-paste of an argument a right-wing libertarian makes for capitalism?

Well, the body certainly doesn't function on the basis of contact law, wage labour, ownership . . . Plus, y'know, this is quite literally an attack on the fundamental methodological individualism that underpins "libertarian" thought - like, this is literally an argument against the discrete individual as a possibility. So ............

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well, the body certainly doesn't function on the basis of contact law, wage labour, ownership . . . Plus, y'know, this is quite literally an attack on the fundamental methodological individualism that underpins "libertarian" thought - like, this is literally an argument against the discrete individual as a possibility. So ............

Yes, you make the same argument as right-wing libertarians, then add that "individual is an effect" as a bypass and this is somehow a critique of methodological individualism? You, like so many of of the most infantile sort of anarchists, merely substitute the "commune" for the "individual" as if that's a devastating criticism of methodological individualism.

To the degree that this sounds provocative, to the same degree this is true - there is nothing in methodology that distinguishes your approach from that of the most crazed types of right-wing libertarian - for them it's individuals interacting with one another, which somehow achieving optimal outcomes of everything, as if through a miracle, as if it's ingrained in human nature or eternal laws, while you merely substitute individual for communes or whatever, while the rest of the argument remains the same - these random interactions are somehow supposed to lead to optimal outcomes, "like cells in a body interacting and producing a living organism". If one pushes this analogy to its logical extreme - if you wish to argue by analogy - how doesn't it fall on some sort of idea of human nature? What then, you simply substitute this libertarian law of "each for all" for the law "of solidarity"? How ridiculous!

The world economy must be organised as a whole, must organised through a state-like entity, if you may. The only question is how.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

As for the question initially raised, I find Tim's answer quite spot-on:


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.

[ckaihatsu]

Consider the operation of the human body - according to what plan does your heart beat? Who "directs" the growth of new tissue? The onset of puberty? Hunger? The body is a brilliant display of "anarchist economics" in practice. The autonomous activity of billions of cells playing out their roles, not according to a central plan, but in constant (chemical, electrical) communication across a complex and chaotic system.

The "mind"/brain is not state-like - the "individual" is an effect - a consequence emerging out of chaos (like lightening in a storm).

I see no reason, outside of liberal/Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideological hegemony, why society ought not to be possible according to similar organizational models.


I'll agree that the *evolution* of the human organism (or any organism) is the emergence of 'self-organization' from non-conscious component parts -- this doesn't, though, imply that the billions of cells are 'autonomous', but rather that they're all *interdependent*. And, they *are* operating according to a central plan, that of DNA and specific protein production, which shapes the overall biological environment.

'Complex' and 'chaotic' are two different things -- I'll agree that the billions of cells are in a *complex* arrangement, and with signaling throughout.

'Emergence' is more about order-from-chaos, which is in line with chaos theory and biological evolution:





Spontaneous order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Emergence and Self-organization

Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks, as well as economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent "watch-like" precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.[citation needed]

Spontaneous orders are to be distinguished from organizations. Spontaneous orders are distinguished by being scale-free networks, while organizations are hierarchical networks. Further, organizations can be and often are a part of spontaneous social orders, but the reverse is not true. Further, while organizations are created and controlled by humans, spontaneous orders are created, controlled, and controllable by no one.[citation needed] In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as "the result of human actions, not of human design."[citation needed]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order


---





It's true that not everything is centrally controlled in a completely totalitarian manner, but the brain is undoubtedly the most powerful part of the body. It can control the beating of the heart, the flow of blood, and the movement of nearly every muscle in the body.




Without a state, what's to stop capitalism from reappearing?


The general level of material productivity.

Today the economic norm is wage-labor, so that workers are as offloadable and disposable as any (inanimate) commodity -- this is a material *advancement* for private ownership since the exploiters of labor don't have to directly be responsible for any laborer's upkeep and well-being, the way they had to under slavery or serfdom. (Not to apologize for either, of course.)

Likewise, once the workers of the world have overthrown all commodity production the economic norm would be where no one is directly responsible for any *means of mass production* -- private ownership would give way to a *collective* administration of productive assets, but without the need for a *specialized bureaucracy* / fixed-state, since everyone could just share cooperatively in such duties, or abstain / forfeit altogether.





While coöperation may be an inalienable part of human nature, equally so is competition.


No, there's nothing to say that competition is an inherent part of human nature -- there's a much better case for it being the result of empirically *scarce* conditions, particularly if one was conditioned by one's culture to *favor* competition over cooperation.





Without the dictatorship of the proletariat, what's to stop someone from amassing material wealth, while the population has no choice in their desperation but to buy it?


I'll again say 'economic norms', because if humanity is able to overcome the regime of commodity production *once* then that's most likely sufficient to change society and its material productivities forever.





This is why I think that the "withering away of the state" should be a merger of the state and the people. The state ceases to exist as a separate entity because it has become fully merged with the population in a system of direct democracy, with leaders and bosses fulfilling simply the task of organisation. The state becomes a framework for the people instead of an instrument of oppression. Society needs a skeleton to facilitate coöperation between its members, and this must be a framework that they build themselves.


A 'framework' is different from a 'state' in that 'framework' implies transience, or some kind of non-permanence, among the internal parts of the whole. Contrast this with a 'state' where each participant has a real individual interest in staying in power, even just *close* to it.

If all that society really needs, once production is collectivized, is some kind of social framework that enables cooperation over what is produced and how, then the emphasis would no longer be on the fixed-identity of *private*-based productive assets, but instead would be on the social *task* of how to produce for society. In this kind of arrangement no one *could* have any private, individualistic, or fixed interests, especially since their life and livelihood would not *depend* on their participation or non-participation in the 'framework'. As long as social cooperation was (emergently) *sufficient*, society would be on a good footing.





To quote a state that has not at all fulfilled this goal, we need a government of the people, by the people, for the people.


---





Without a state, how could the economy be planned? Or, would the organisation in charge of such planning not be considered a state?





The world economy must be organised as a whole, must organised through a state-like entity, if you may. The only question is how.


Here's my own proposal, to all:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[Cumulus]

Here's my own proposal, to all:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'


So, you're suggesting a system of labour credits issued by an authority that is not a state?

[ckaihatsu]

So, you're suggesting a system of labour credits issued by an authority that is not a state?


Yes, essentially. It would be a 'locality' -- any local population that sees itself as a group and makes decisions that way, collectively.

The specifics of this topic were covered recently at another thread:


labour credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-credits-t192713/index.html





The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits -- but it's a *political* act since they're expecting their "local brand" (by serial numbers) to be honored at face value by everyone else in the world. The people of that issuing locality haven't done *any work* for their issuing of those labor credits, and everybody knows it because it's all part of the public record.

What that locality *could* do is send enough of its own people out to anywhere else, to do work and bring labor credits from outside back to their own locality, so as to show real backing for the batch of labor credits that they issued from debt. That, too, would be part of the public record.

Here's from a recent thread:




The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The purpose of a state is to suppress and exploit a certain class of people. In the DOP the state suppresses the capitalist classes. Stalin decided the best way to do this was to exterminate anybody he suspected of being bourgeois.

When the DOP finally suppresses the entire world capitalist class then there will be no remaining class to suppress. The DOP can't suppress itself. The basis for the existence of the state, class suppression, will no longer exist. The state will wither away and die.

I think that this points to some of the inconsistency within a lot of Marxist/Marxian theorization of the state. It posits that the dictatorship of the proletariat - a peculiar sort of state - exists to "suppress" the bourgeoisie; to act as an organ through which one class abolishes another. The thing is, no state has ever functioned this way - "special bodies of armed men" exist to fix relations between classes. The bourgeois state as an organ of bourgeois rule doesn't cause the proletariat to disappear, but, on the contrary, solidifies a class relationship. So-called "proletarian" states have, unsurprisingly, done the same, acting as a form through which class relations are not overcome, but "managed" by the ordering of bodies.
That such an arrangement might "wither and die" by the playing out of its own logic is without precedent (and is essentially incoherent) - states collapse, or are smashed not in-and-of-themselves, but as part of a total social dynamic of which they are part when they are outpaced, out maneuvered, and overcome. It is always and everywhere a violent process - from the Aztecs to the Soviet Union.


Without a state, how could the economy be planned? Or, would the organisation in charge of such planning not be considered a state?

You answer your own question relatively effectively here. Though I'd go a step further and say that such planning ought not resemble a state according to the definitions provided by Karl and Freddie - if you need a military force in order for your economy to function, then you're not doing communism right.


Yes, you make the same argument as right-wing libertarians, then add that "individual is an effect" as a bypass and this is somehow a critique of methodological individualism? You, like so many of of the most infantile sort of anarchists, merely substitute the "commune" for the "individual" as if that's a devastating criticism of methodological individualism.

To the degree that this sounds provocative, to the same degree this is true - there is nothing in methodology that distinguishes your approach from that of the most crazed types of right-wing libertarian - for them it's individuals interacting with one another, which somehow achieving optimal outcomes of everything, as if through a miracle, as if it's ingrained in human nature or eternal laws, while you merely substitute individual for communes or whatever, while the rest of the argument remains the same - these random interactions are somehow supposed to lead to optimal outcomes, "like cells in a body interacting and producing a living organism". If one pushes this analogy to its logical extreme - if you wish to argue by analogy - how doesn't it fall on some sort of idea of human nature? What then, you simply substitute this libertarian law of "each for all" for the law "of solidarity"? How ridiculous!

The world economy must be organised as a whole, must organised through a state-like entity, if you may. The only question is how.

Of course, by doing away with "the commune", "the common", forms of life, subjectivity, and all those processes which transcend the individual in favour of "state planning" you reinscribe the logic of the liberal individual and the liberal state - just with a red gloss. You posit a form of organization in which the (ideologically - in both senses) correct individuals, vested with state power will behave "optimally".

As for "human nature", I think it is worth returning to Marx's species being (putting aside as a sign of the time his dim view of non-human animals) and its implications for communist forms of life (ie gemeinwesen). One of the things Karl does right is to imagine human life not as a tabula rasa but to locate it within real bodies that exist historically. In your shallow critique here you break with some of the best of Marx - the emancipatory projectuality - in favour of a "grim Marx", an anti-humanist Marx. ie The Marxism of Althussarian Stalinism. It's pr. unappealing.

(And you can take cheap-shots at my being an anarchist all you want - it doesn't mean you have a better handle on the Marxist classics than I do)

[RedMaterialist]

I think that this points to some of the inconsistency within a lot of Marxist/Marxian theorization of the state. It posits that the dictatorship of the proletariat - a peculiar sort of state - exists to "suppress" the bourgeoisie; to act as an organ through which one class abolishes another. The thing is, no state has ever functioned this way - "special bodies of armed men" exist to fix relations between classes. The bourgeois state as an organ of bourgeois rule doesn't cause the proletariat to disappear, but, on the contrary, solidifies a class relationship. So-called "proletarian" states have, unsurprisingly, done the same, acting as a form through which class relations are not overcome, but "managed" by the ordering of bodies.
That such an arrangement might "wither and die" by the playing out of its own logic is without precedent (and is essentially incoherent) - states collapse, or are smashed not in-and-of-themselves, but as part of a total social dynamic of which they are part when they are outpaced, out maneuvered, and overcome. It is always and everywhere a violent process - from the Aztecs to the Soviet Union.

No state has ever functioned as an organization for suppressing and exploiting a class of people? The slave state suppressed and exploited slaves; the feudal state serfs, and now the bourgeois state the working class. The DOP will suppress the capitalist classes, but not exploit them. Once the last exploiting classes are suppressed out of existence the "state" will no longer be necessary and it will wither away and die.

It is true that this is an unprecedented situation. All previous states have been destroyed by violence. What makes the collapse of the Soviet Union so unprecedented is that it collapsed without a military invasion, no war, no millions dead. A world superpower simply collapsed. Even the so-called coup attempt against Yeltsin was remarkable only for its pathetic incompetence.

The state is a machine for suppressing a class of people. Once there is no class to suppress, then the state collapses. The Soviet Union proves, however, that the socialist revolution can ultimately succeed only as a world revolution. Socialism in one country is possible, bit will only end in failure, unless the rest of the world joins in.

[ckaihatsu]

The world economy must be organised as a whole, must organised through a state-like entity, if you may. The only question is how.





Of course, by doing away with "the commune", "the common", forms of life, subjectivity, and all those processes which transcend the individual in favour of "state planning" you reinscribe the logic of the liberal individual and the liberal state - just with a red gloss. You posit a form of organization in which the (ideologically - in both senses) correct individuals, vested with state power will behave "optimally".


This localism-vs.-centralism schism is a recurring theme in revolutionary politics, unfortunately, but it's a valid one, similar to the U.S. bourgeois' federalism-vs.-anti-federalism friction that continues through today. (Or the EU vs. the nation-states of Europe, for that matter, for economic policy.)

Social self-determination necessarily has to be derived from the local level because that's where people / workers are, but centralization is unavoidable -- for economies of scale, to avoid wasted efforts over the whole.





I've gone over this issue in depth here at RevLeft and I've arrived at the conclusion that anarchist- / syndicalist-type local control is *not* incompatible with a global-scale centralized planning, as I've described here at post #2. So 'central planning' is *not* opposite to socialism.

There would have to be very good information flows, both upwards and downwards in scale, which -- again -- is certainly doable these days using the Internet and a discussion-board format like RevLeft.

The scale and extents of global-level central planning would be *limited* by the actual availability of on-the-ground willing participation, and most likely not *all* projects everywhere would have to be part of a global-scale planning initiative, or plan.

But for whatever *did* become both planned and participated-in *could* be centrally planned, and *would* be socialism.


(See my proposal at post #15.)

[Rafiq]

I think that this points to some of the inconsistency within a lot of Marxist/Marxian theorization of the state. It posits that the dictatorship of the proletariat - a peculiar sort of state - exists to "suppress" the bourgeoisie; to act as an organ through which one class abolishes another. The thing is, no state has ever functioned this way - "special bodies of armed men" exist to fix relations between classes.

Rather than this amounting to an inconsistency, it is a condition for its theoretical validity: No state in history could have ever functioned this way, because the historic possibility of Communism and the destruction of class society in a self-conscious manner has only been made possible by our capitalist epoch. The fact that the Aztecs are mentioned here gravely encapsulates this error: If one is going to look at history, look at the past for solutions for our present, which is supposed to be a meaningful substitute for the future, one is going to either intellectually run in circles, or bring about an even greater catastrophe if given even an iota of the space required to realize this "looking back". That is to say, the present opportunity for the historic abolition of classes is indeed unique to today: One thing that you don't seem to mention is the fact that the modern bourgeois state, as it exists, has never been seen anywhere before in history. The state of antiquity, and its complexity in approximation to mediating social differences, had never been seen before either. The point I am making isn't that the state isn't an organ of class rule, and that was born for this function, but that if we are to conceive this or that formation based on its conditions of inception, or even reproduction, Communism is an impossibility at every which way. One can attribute to the creation of electricity, to the ideas which allow us to demand freedom and so on - to class society. That does not mean class society is necessary to sustain them.

We 'Marxists' do not deny that the state exists, in the proletarian dictatorship, to fix relationships between classes. Following the proletarian dictatorship, a new relationship has been formed wherein the ruling class seeks to abolish itself, and the guardians of the old order seek to stand in its way. Special bodies of armed men do indeed seek to "fix" this new, historically unique relationship: By annihilating the class enemy. The point isn't to sound like a hardass, but to bare in mind the fact that the state only seeks to "fix" relationships insofar as the oppressed class serves a definite function to the oppressing. The function the old classes serve to the proletariat is their destruction. Though there is a grain of truth to what you say. The Soviet Union, and other such 'proletarian dictatorships' which followed it, did indeed take the function of political states. That is because, in effect, they were Jacobin states, bourgeois-romantic states which were incapable of aboliting themselves because they did not possess the global hegemony necessary to do so without revolutionary suicide. The task was then to survive, and surviving meant keeping up with your enemies, to make they don't devour you: To destroy the remnants of feudalism and rapidly modernize the economies respectively.

The question I have for you is a rather modest one: Was the Soviet Union, or any of the states similar to it which followed, ever in a position to abolish the state as such? If they did, what means of self-defense would they have at their disposal, in your mind? How would they firmly establish borders with neighboring hostile countries who might advance troops toward them, or seek to take advantage of their vulnerability and conquer areas with resources pivotal to the survival of the population? In addition to other peculiarities, even if you have an organic, majority base of support, what happens when just 30% of the population is rabidly hostile to your existence, on top of global hostile powers hellbent on your destruction?

[S. Caserio]

Who decides if the state should wither away? Probably not the powerful bureaucracy.
If soviets shouldn't have power over stateship until the governmental avantguard decides. Because it always has the main objective interest of the proletariat?

That's not how history work.

"Special bodies of armen men"

Communists don't question themselves.

State is necessar, but not in an authoritarian shape. Many anarchists want a state governed by (soviets?) directly.

[RedMaterialist]

Who decides if the state should wither away? Probably not the powerful bureaucracy.
If soviets shouldn't have power over stateship until the governmental avantguard decides. Because it always has the main objective interest of the proletariat?

That's not how history work.

"Special bodies of armen men"

Communists don't question themselves.

State is necessar, but not in an authoritarian shape. Many anarchists want a state governed by (soviets?) directly.

Who decides? No one. The state withers and dies when there exists no class to either suppress or be suppressed. Class suppression is the essential basis of the state, whether patriarchal, slave, feudal, bourgeoise, or proletariat. The DOP will suppress the last exploiting class, the bourgeoisie, out of existence, thus leaving no reason for the continued existence of the state.

[RedMaterialist]

The question I have for you is a rather modest one: Was the Soviet Union, or any of the states similar to it which followed, ever in a position to abolish the state as such? If they did, what means of self-defense would they have at their disposal, in your mind?

Not "as such" but it certainly abolished the German Third Reich, with relatively modest help from the West. It also assisted in abolishing the South Vietnamese and pre-1959 Cuban govts.


How would they firmly establish borders with neighboring hostile countries who might advance troops toward them, or seek to take advantage of their vulnerability and conquer areas with resources pivotal to the survival of the population?

By maintaining huge armies and arming themselves with nuclear weapons.


In addition to other peculiarities, even if you have an organic, majority base of support, what happens when just 30% of the population is rabidly hostile to your existence, on top of global hostile powers hellbent on your destruction?

Well, if 30% of the population wants to destroy the proletariat state then you do what all states do. And if you're Stalin you throw them into the gulag along with many thousands of your allies.

Nobody (except the bourgeois when referring to their own history) ever said that history was a bloodless picnic. It can be but only if the capitalist class goes peacefully, which they show no signs of doing.

[RedMaterialist]

fix[/I] relations between classes.

In general terms the slave state abolished the patriarchy, the feudal state abolished the slave state and the bourgeoise abolished the feudal state, or these states were destroyed by war or revolution. In each of those cases, however, a new suppressed, exploited class was created, slaves, serfs, workers. It would make no sense for the exploiting class to abolish the class it is exploiting. Why kill the goose laying the golden egg?

The DOP exists to suppress and abolish the capitalist state. It can do this by various means including the use of armed force. The DOP will not create a new exploited class, therefore, once the capitalist classes are destroyed (one hopes by peaceful means) the entire raison d'être of the state will disappear.

As Marx said, communism is the solution to the riddle of history.

[S. Caserio]

The proletariat isn't in control of the authoritarian 1 party state. Period

There will be a new ruling class.

The authoritarian Communist revolution need perfect material conditions, no such exist.

[Rafiq]

The proletariat isn't in control of the authoritarian 1 party state. Period

There will be a new ruling class.

The authoritarian Communist revolution need perfect material conditions, no such exist.


No, it WASN'T in control of the party state. These reasons don't amount to the existence of a state, but because it there, evidently either wasn't a living militant proletariat, or it was in the minority. As for a new ruling class, this stems from an infantile understanding of class itself wherein it simply means having a degree of control or power. The Soviet beaurocracy, even during its last years, never constituted a real social force. This is why intelligent "state-capitalist theorists" like bordiga understood this.

[ckaihatsu]

The proletariat isn't in control of the authoritarian 1 party state. Period

There will be a new ruling class.




The authoritarian Communist revolution need perfect material conditions, no such exist.


This is downright *fatalistic* since we all know that 'perfect' material conditions will *never* exist, by definition.

What's *really* needed is a tipping-of-the-balance, such as we saw for a moment, arguably, during the height of the Occupy movement, and with the Arab Spring. Given a certain mass political initiative the larger population then has an existing point of manifestation to reference, and these two elements can be self-reinforcing and keep strengthening each other, indefinitely.

[S. Caserio]

No, it WASN'T in control of the party state. These reasons don't amount to the existence of a state, but because it there, evidently either wasn't a living militant proletariat, or it was in the minority. As for a new ruling class, this stems from an infantile understanding of class itself wherein it simply means having a degree of control or power. The Soviet beaurocracy, even during its last years, never constituted a real social force. This is why intelligent "state-capitalist theorists" like bordiga understood this.

What do you mean by no militant proletariat? The bolsheviks didn't see too happy about the "reactionary" Kronstadts. What was the real social force?

Many leading politicians became oligarchs. These politicians came from the intelligentsia.

[Rafiq]

What do you mean by no militant proletariat? The bolsheviks didn't see too happy about the "reactionary" Kronstadts. What was the real social force?

The issue of krodstat is muddied, but to avoid a discussion about it that I've already had, let's contest it was genuine. This was already after the failure of the international revolution and the twists and turns which came through the civil war, the dissonance between various social antagonisms and so on. The industrial proletairan base which was the social force that sustained the Bolsheviks had largely died by this time, and were at best in the minority, forced to deal with the creation of the joint workers-peasant state, which would in effect grow out to have its basis in neither of these classes. The Bolsheviks assumed a trans-social, Jacobin role many years following this, for this precise reason.


Many leading politicians became oligarchs. These politicians came from the intelligentsia.


Now this is just ridiculous, none of them came from the intelligentsia. This is the late 1980's we're talking about, where the state apparatus was crawling with apolitical careerists with no real ideological loyalty to even the then-impotent "Marxism Leninism" of the Soviet state.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Now this is just ridiculous, none of them came from the intelligentsia. This is the late 1980's we're talking about, where the state apparatus was crawling with apolitical careerists with no real ideological loyalty to even the then-impotent "Marxism Leninism" of the Soviet state.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that these "apolitical careerists" (not to mention the ostensible Marxist-Leninists that preceded them, carrying out the same functions with better spin) constituted a "red bourgeoisie" whose de facto control of the means of production was only superficially different than ownership exercised through joint-stock companies, etc.

That is to say, the state was a means through which a class constituted itself and established a particular set of relations between itself as ruling class and the great mass of people with "nothing to lose but their chains" - ie, the proletariat, by definition excluded from state power.

[Rafiq]

I think there's a strong argument to be made that these "apolitical careerists" (not to mention the ostensible Marxist-Leninists that preceded them, carrying out the same functions with better spin) constituted a "red bourgeoisie" whose de facto control of the means of production was only superficially different than ownership exercised through joint-stock companies, etc.


The point isn't power in itself, as having an administrative position over production doesn't constitute a class relationship. The point is that, even formally (that is, excluding corruption) what was the function of this power? They may have "controlled" the means of production, but class relations aren't simply a manner of who gets to manage what - and this is precisely why the idea of market socialism and worker's cooperatives constituting a classless society is nonsense. The point is simple: To what end did they control production, and for whose benefit? For society in common, more specifically, the state in common. With regard to personal gain, it is easy to see that only under a liberalized economy can "tyranny" as such flourish. Corruption and self-aggrandizement in Stalinism is a very difficult thing, and even in the worst cases like Romania and Korea, there's always a dissonance between the great leader, and the actual leader himself.

Understanding the "nomenclatura" in class terms is not possible, because the Soviet Union was a classless society in a negative and antagonistic way - i.e. a classless society insofar as the predispositions and foundations for real classes were being built. That is to say that social antagonisms did exist, but they were within the crevices of productive relations waiting to be wrought out. The Soviet Union was above all a political project, which was incapable of affirmatively reproducing itself in the long run. All of the feats of the Soviet Union were done in spite of previous backward forms of production, and that is simply it. Take for example a moment of national crises in a given country wherein no one goes to work, and chaos rules - the "form" of a class society is still there, but in those moments society is technically "classless" in the negative sense, i.e. the class order is not being reproduced.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The point isn't power in itself, as having an administrative position over production doesn't constitute a class relationship. The point is that, even formally (that is, excluding corruption) what was the function of this power? They may have "controlled" the means of production, but class relations aren't simply a manner of who gets to manage what - and this is precisely why the idea of market socialism and worker's cooperatives constituting a classless society is nonsense. The point is simple: To what end did they control production, and for whose benefit? For society in common, more specifically, the state in common. With regard to personal gain, it is easy to see that only under a liberalized economy can "tyranny" as such flourish. Corruption and self-aggrandizement in Stalinism is a very difficult thing, and even in the worst cases like Romania and Korea, there's always a dissonance between the great leader, and the actual leader himself.

Understanding the "nomenclatura" in class terms is not possible, because the Soviet Union was a classless society in a negative and antagonistic way - i.e. a classless society insofar as the predispositions and foundations for real classes were being built. That is to say that social antagonisms did exist, but they were within the crevices of productive relations waiting to be wrought out. The Soviet Union was above all a political project, which was incapable of affirmatively reproducing itself in the long run. All of the feats of the Soviet Union were done in spite of previous backward forms of production, and that is simply it. Take for example a moment of national crises in a given country wherein no one goes to work, and chaos rules - the "form" of a class society is still there, but in those moments society is technically "classless" in the negative sense, i.e. the class order is not being reproduced.

On that theme, I'd love to see some figures concerning income disparity, etc. in the Soviet Union. I feel like I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that the state, being what it is can be managed "for society in common" in that the state itself is definitively* not a commons. Further, such ideological posturing is the calling card of the liberal state. That said, I'd be intrigued to take a peek at the numbers if anyone knows where they exist.


*as is in "by definition" ;)

[Rafiq]

There's no need, the 'nomenkaltura' did possess privileges and a status that most in the population did not. I am telling you that this doesn't qualify as a class difference. The state was managed not for individuals to live a luxurious life, but for the state itself, which does in fact constitute a commons in a society wherein private property did not exist. That does not mean it was affirmative in nature, or even post-capitalist, but transitional and negative.

[RedMaterialist]

On that theme, I'd love to see some figures concerning income disparity, etc. in the Soviet Union. I feel like I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that the state, being what it is can be managed "for society in common" in that the state itself is definitively* not a commons. Further, such ideological posturing is the calling card of the liberal state. That said, I'd be intrigued to take a peek at the numbers if anyone knows where they exist.


*as is in "by definition" ;)

Here's at least one chart ... http://http://akarlin.com/2012/06/ayn-stalin/

It shows income inequality gradually declined after WWII, but then in 1990 dramatically increased.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There's no need, the 'nomenkaltura' did possess privileges and a status that most in the population did not. I am telling you that this doesn't qualify as a class difference. The state was managed not for individuals to live a luxurious life, but for the state itself, which does in fact constitute a commons in a society wherein private property did not exist. That does not mean it was affirmative in nature, or even post-capitalist, but transitional and negative.

I mean, that's a bit like saying a CEO/shareholder isn't a capitalist because, well, the corporation isn't "theirs" in a strict legal sense.

[Rafiq]

Yet their existence is dependent upon the accumulation of profit, and their corporation itself isn't interchangeable with the means of production, but represents the intricacies of finance through the increased socialization of labor and centralization of capital. A corporation could be understood as a syndicate of various capitalists, cartels and so on, and it is irrevocably dependent on the existence of private property relations, even if it is composed of different owners.