A newbie question

[Subversive Pessimist]

I just started a few months ago as a communist. I have a lot of questions, and I am currently reading The State And The Revolution.

Lenin says, in The State and The Revolution, that the state would die out itself.

Then I have a few questions. People fight against each other, because they disagree, fighting over their boy/girlfriend etc. SO YOU WOULD STILL NEED POLICE. But is the point that you will still have police, even though the state is gone? If that is so, what are the consequenses?


Also, I do remember Lenin said something like:
"The workers will deliver what they produce to the state, and so there will be no explotation."





Later he says something in this effect:
"The state is a tool of opression, and will die out itself."

Then I ask, if Lenin thought that, with the state, you could create a classless society, but then again, he says that the state will die out.

I don't know if you understood my questions, and it is almost as I don't understand it myself, but I am confused.

[monkeydust]

Firstly, if you haven't already I recommend reading Marx's Communist Manifesto, before any other Communist literature. It's by far the most accesible book in this area. Also, bear in mind that Lenin wasn't a srict Marxist per se, and his ideas regarding the state, and the 'arty vanguard' in many ways are at odds with Marx's ideals (or so some would say).

Anyway.....



Lenin says, in The State and The Revolution, that the state would die out itself. Then I have a few questions. People fight against each other, because they disagree, fighting over their boy/girlfriend etc. SO YOU WOULD STILL NEED POLICE. But is the point that you will still have police, even though the state is gone? If that is so, what are the consequenses?


So you're asking how law and order can be enforced in a society with no real state, right?

Firstly, it's the opinion of many that crime in a classless, stateless society, will be far less common than it is today.

Many crimes are the result of class antagonisms, thievery for example, is invariably the result of one man wanting (or needing) the possesions of another, who has far more.

Moreover, the kind of deprivation underwhich crime develops will no longer exist.

Having said this, it's undeniable that some 'crime' will still persist, even in such a classless, stateless society.

To deal with such crime, I would assume that either:

-Some people will devote time to enforce 'law' an occupation, though not as an implement of state aparatus.
-Civilians may keep general order, as an orderly situation is generally beneficial.




Then I ask, if Lenin thought that, with the state, you could create a classless society, but then again, he says that the state will die out

Lenin thought that, to an extent, a 'workers' state could be an end to amost all exploitation. He did however recognise, that a truly classless society cannot be achieved in the presence of a state, if only because a state involves a 'ruling class' (though Lenin would argue this class worked in the interests of the proletariat).

Lenin saw the state as means of transition from a capitlaist (or in his case almost feudal) society, into a stateless society, communism. He didn't intend the state to be a permanent structure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:28 PM
I just started a few months ago as a communist. I have a lot of questions, and I am currently reading The State And The Revolution.
'State and Revolution' discuss theory to a reader who already has a general understanding of Marxism. If you are just starting out, I suggest finding 'Marxism for Beginners' book. I know its not so glamouras, but it certanly helps you understand the basics. Then move onto books 'like the communist manifesto.' That's my opinion. I am not sure where you are from, but waterstones usually has cheap books. If you cant afford to buy, take in a pad and paper and sit there in the shop and read it. Most of them are not long at all, maybe 50 pages, and they are very easy to read. You can take notes and refer to them when reading other books. Alternativly you can try a library.


Lenin says, in The State and The Revolution, that the state would die out itself.

Lenin was wrong.


People fight against each other, because they disagree, fighting over their boy/girlfriend etc. SO YOU WOULD STILL NEED POLICE.

Ultimatly the police are not there to solve domestic disputes, and are not needed for purpose anyway. The police exist as a tool of the state used by the ruling class to keep their property, wealth and power protected.

In order for society to reach a point where the state no longer existed, a whole shift in consciousness would have to have happened. People would have to become what Marx called 'class conscious.' What that means is that the workers would have to realise what society was, how it functioned and then ultiamtly how to change it. Those understandings will bring other understrandings. Understandings of unity, respect.

There will be no state, private property or powerful people and therefore the police will not longer exist to protect it. Also, domestic situations should not be dealt with by an instituation such as the police, but by the community as a whole. If people are arguing and it gets nasty, it is the communities resposnability to deal with the problem and find a solution. Communism is about unity, working together, friendship and community. When it is achieved the world will be a different place.


But is the point that you will still have police, even though the state is gone? If that is so, what are the consequenses?

If will not exist because it will not be needed.


"The workers will deliver what they produce to the state, and so there will be no explotation."

What I think he means by this is that the state, being controlled by the workers, acts as a unifying entity, and thus, when you work for the state, you are working for the whole of society, rather than an individual who is using you to make money. Therefore your exploiation no longer exists.


"The state is a tool of opression, and will die out itself."

Its an idealistic fantasy. The state is a tool of oppression and can not be used for any other purpose. Lenin believed that you can tame the state and manipulate it for your own puprose. That purpose ultimatly was to keep the vangaurd, or Lenin and his comades, in power. The state, in order to exist has to take control of certain aspects of society and control them. In order for Lenin to remain in control he has to become the police, army and economy. He has to increase the role of the state in many cases in order for it to exist. How can it then wither away? It can not. That is why the state must be smashed to begin with.


Then I ask, if Lenin thought that, with the state, you could create a classless society, but then again, he says that the state will die out.

What he means is that you can use the state to achieve a classless society and then when it is no longer needed it will die away. The theory is that the state has to exist to destroy the remainders of the ruling class and to organize society. The reason for this is because Lenin argued that the entire working class can not become class conscious under capitalism, and therefore those who did, must organize a group to lead people against the ruling class nand the use the state to educate everyone else and slowly move towards achieving communism, a classless society.


don't know if you understood my questions, and it is almost as I don't understand it myself, but I am confused.

I understood the questions, I just hope the answers were not too complicated. It is difficult discussing indepth theory in layman terms. Or at least it is for me. It is good that you have come here to ask questions. Continue to ask questions, and I assure you that you will not be confused for ever. It takes time to learn everything, but if you are willing to learn then you will do it fast.

I hope we have been of help to you.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Hello again. Your answers have been a great help.




Ultimatly the police are not there to solve domestic disputes, and are not needed for purpose anyway. The police exist as a tool of the state used by the ruling class to keep their property, wealth and power protected.

It is human nature to get angry and violent, no matter how good you are. If you combine human nature with drugs (alcohol, ecstacy) etc. the result could be violence.

Even so, firefighters are needed. Will these still work, just as under the state?
What if there are some people, that are screwing up the system?
Like say, you have free food and water. Then they go into the store, and get stuff that they don't need. Some people could exploit this society. Would you need regulations on, lets say, how much you can buy? If so, then you will go over, I believe, to a society with money, IE capitalist state.

How is a Communist state going to know that, you can trust every induvidual, to do the job?

I am sure SOME people, would sit on their asses all day, while exploiting the society.

I do not doubt that humans, are in fact good in general, but doing nothing and getting everything is also tempting. I can say this, even though I consider myself a very good, disiplined, and open person, I get tempted (doing things that are not good (for the society).

[Misodoctakleidist]

Human nature is a myth, there are several threads about it if you do a search.

Firefighters will continue to fight fires.


What if there are some people, that are screwing up the system?
Like say, you have free food and water. Then they go into the store, and get stuff that they don't need. Some people could exploit this society. Would you need regulations on, lets say, how much you can buy? If so, then you will go over, I believe, to a society with money, IE capitalist state.

You've got to ask yourself why people would take more bread and water than they need, it would be of no use to them. They couldn't sell it because there wouldn't be a market.


How is a Communist state going to know that, you can trust every individual, to do the job?
There is no state but i think you already know that. It's not a matter of trust, if someone isn't pulling their weight they don't receive the benefits of society.


I am sure SOME people, would sit on their asses all day, while exploiting the society.
They could if they wanted, it wouldn't effect anyone else. If they wanted some food however they would have to do something.


I do not doubt that humans, are in fact good in general, but doing nothing and getting everything is also tempting. I can say this, even though I consider myself a very good, disciplined, and open person, I get tempted (doing things that are not good (for the society)
In a communist society what is good for you is good for society and vice versa.

[Subversive Pessimist]

QUOTE
You've got to ask yourself why people would take more bread and water than they need, it would be of no use to them. They couldn't sell it because there wouldn't be a market.

Very true.

QUOTE
It's not a matter of trust, if someone isn't pulling their weight they don't receive the benefits of society.

If person A sit on his ass all day, doing nothing, he would get punished by not be able to get the food and drinking water? If so, how are you going to control that this happends?




QUOTE
They could if they wanted, it wouldn't effect anyone else. If they wanted some food however they would have to do something.

=> Well, so what you are saying is that money is needed in a Communist society?


QUOTE
In a communist society what is good for you is good for society and vice versa.


So if person A decide to rape person B, which feels good for person A, this is good for the society?

[DaCuBaN]

So if person A decide to rape person B, which feels good for person A, this is good for the society?

Interesting argument...
Unless they're severely screwed up I fail to see how any being could justify raping someone as good for the rapist - in most normal people this would tear them apart.

It's perhaps more relevant to whether we would need some kind of 'police' or not, which is just as difficult a question.

Again, wish I had an answer... all i've got is rhetoric :rolleyes:

[Subversive Pessimist]

My point with this argument was that, what is good for one person, does not have to be good for the society.


Also, why should houses be owned by... the state?


When the state dissapears, then... Would the houses become private property?

[redstar2000]

One of the problems that arises when we try to talk about communist society is that, if we are not very careful, the present-day ideas of capitalist society "sneak in" to our discussion without us really being conscious of that happening.

It's a mistake I've made myself...more than once.


It's not a matter of trust, if someone isn't pulling their weight they don't receive the benefits of society.

This is a good example. In class society, we're so used to thinking in terms of "work = food", that the notion is carried forward into classless society.

It's wrong on several levels.

1. People don't like to sit on their asses doing nothing...it gets boring.

2. But the alternative, in class society, is working according to someone else's instructions in order to enrich that someone else.

3. In classless society, people will gravitate towards the work that they themselves find rewarding; it is "human nature" to engage in purposeful activity. Only those with severe psychological problems can "sit on their asses" indefinitely.

4. The basics of a dignified human life will be available to all for the asking...without regard to their work. Work that others regard as "important to the welfare of society" will be rewarded with prestige. Demonstrated competence in such work will be rewarded with status.

5. Those unfortunates who take "more than they need or can use" from the social product will likely be regarded as "obsessive-compulsives" -- they act from some deep-rooted insecurity that made sense (of a kind) in class society but is no longer "appropriate behavior" in communist society. A pattern of such behavior would likely result in some restrictions being imposed on what they can take...and the strong suggestion that they should seek professional help.

Some of these same points can be made about the other questions raised here.

There is unlikely to be much need for a professional police force in communist society; though it's possible that very specialized "police work" might exist...homicide, sex crimes, forensics, etc. These functions would be exercised by people who both wanted to do this kind of work and were "good at it".

Neither the state (which wouldn't exist) nor individuals would "own" houses...ownership is a concept belonging to class society. You would be the user (occupant) of a housing unit until you decided that you no longer needed it...and then someone else would be the new "user". It wouldn't "belong" to anyone.

Whenever we speak of communist society, it's really important to try as best we can not to let the old ideas of class society "sneak in" while we're looking the other way.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

I'm sure you have alot of questions. I would tell you not to worry too much about it. You will figure out what different types of socialists believe, and what you believe, with time. This is a good place to start, you can learn alot just by watching some of the interaction here.

Why did you decide to become a communist? What won you over?

[Subversive Pessimist]

It's a difficult question really. I have always been left, in my heart. I believe it is about who you are on the inside, will always, always reflect on where you will be on the ideological side.
I learned that, in this society, you will have to sacrifice your life for the king, president, prime minister etc.
I was disgusted by even the thought of it, and I didn't understand why this person, only a human, should be more worth then other people. I discovered that some people were working all day long, only enough to surivive, where other people, just across the street, were building a new house, had a shiny, new, polished car, a new boat, and a nice, big garden. Some people, in this society, will never have the ability to live a healthy life, because of class.

I also saw that people who were conservative, were basically sick and cruel people, at least when it came to politics. So I tried to distance myself as much as possible to those people, while I found people on the left, nice and friendly people .

People began to call me communist, because of my ideas, and I began slowly to study communism and socialism.

I do not in any way doubt for one second that I am a communist, it is just that, I do not have very much experience with the theory, especially when it comes to more complicated subjects of the society. That is why I am asking these questions.. By the way, thanks for helping me out. :)

[El Che]

Its good, you have faith now you just need to rationalize that faith. :) We can help you there.

Welcome aboard comrade.

[Shredder]

Human nature is a myth,

Of course I agree with this usually, but the nature Justice was talking about isn't the same as the one that capitalists throw at us. He merely pointed out that humans have a biological contingency for violence. If you honestly think that the 'fight or flight' mechanism will disappear along with social classes, I disagree.

Justice, if you have any more questions about Lenin, make sure you don't ask them here, because most of the posters here have a strong dislike for Lenin, and make strong, well thought-out arguments against Leninism, as exemplified by the following quote reproduced in its entirety:


Lenin was wrong.

There you have it! How could anyone even think to read Lenin after reading this elegant dismissal!?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Why do people oppose Lenin? Even 70 percent of the Russians think of Lenin as a good guy.

[Shredder]

It's trendy.

[ComradeRed]

Lenin's basic philosophy was that the special elite would lead the revolution; however, leninism replaces the bourgeoisie with the special elite.
For more stuff here is a url to my critique http://www.nrg.to/crr/lenin.html
just cur/paste
:P

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:55 AM
Why do people oppose Lenin?
Because we've have read 'State and Revolution.'

There are several threads about Leninism in theory, most of them about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[redstar2000]

There you have it! How could anyone even think to read Lenin after reading this elegant dismissal!?

Here is the most recent thread on the subject...one that has been (and will be) discussed in incredible detail on this board.

Marx vs. Lenin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23151)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Rasta Sapian]

yes, we would still need police, especially in the beginning, to help maintain order and supress further uprisings and internal tribal conflicts and labour relations and segrigations. the USSR had a large police force ie.KGB etc.

the police are still members of the proletariot, equal in terms of class with the same goal of utopia.........we would later find the police force mostley dissolved or re-assigned into society, social services and men to uphold the new law!

p.s. I think that this may help you further understand what lenin meant with the state dissolving, Lenin was a genius who could see the potential of communism or the evolution of the communist state to a Utopian world