State or no state?

[codyvo]

Many people like Karl Marx believed that after a revolution a state should be created but then slowly phased out. Many anarchists believ that their should be no state. And as has become more common in recent communism and socialism some believe that their should be at least some form of state that is maintained.

I want to know what the beliefs of a state are of the people on Che Lives. Should their be a state, no state or something in between ?

[Roses in the Hospital]

I'm sceptical about Stateless Socialism. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that I can't see it happening, not for a long time anyway. I think in the short term what we should be aiming for is making the State work for everyone, not just the rich. I think power should be decentralised and democracy made much more direct. Then we'd have a much fairer system...

[rice349]

While a post-revolutionary society would seem absolutely wonderful; whether it is obtainable is highly dubious. The power vacuum created after a successful revolution means there are going to be vying forces opting for this position; therefore, it is up to us communists who do believe in a transitional state to assume power and create a very strong, centralized, somewhat totalitarian state to thwart the remnants of capitalism, take over all aspects of society, and prepare the people for the first transition of capitalism to socialism; then from socialism to communism. The state is essential in balancing the forces between reactionaries and revolutionaries--by balancing i mean crushing all opposition into annihilation!

[NovelGentry]

State -- whew, that was easy.

[T_SP]

There is a need for a state! It would be run by many commitees which are made up of the working class, the small leadership that would exist would be instantly accountable and recallable (not really a word, I know) and yes, eventually, this state, as Marx claimed, would 'wither away' leaving Communisim a stateless society.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 25 2005, 09:21 AM
I'm sceptical about Stateless Socialism. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that I can't see it happening, not for a long time anyway. I think in the short term what we should be aiming for is making the State work for everyone, not just the rich. I think power should be decentralised and democracy made much more direct. Then we'd have a much fairer system...
1

NO STATE! -- My goodness, first of all, what has history has shown us? It has
shown us that the workers' CAN NOT take over the state structure because it
is a organ of Bourgeois class rule. You can not use something that was made
for the allowance a minority class to dominate over the majority of the oppressed.
All it would lead to would be the installation of a new rich upper class - which
would use the state as one big capitalist enterprise because the state would
own all major industries after your kind of revolution. Can you just not see?
We need to establish a stateless, classless society in which the power is in
the hands of the oppressed - via popular assemblies and workers' councils.
As someone once said here; "using the state to seize power is like using a
shotgun to perform surgery."

[NovelGentry]

There is a need for a state! It would be run by many commitees which are made up of the working class, the small leadership that would exist would be instantly accountable and recallable (not really a word, I know) and yes, eventually, this state, as Marx claimed, would 'wither away' leaving Communisim a stateless society.

You say there's no need for a state, and then directly talk about small leadership and committees -- the mechanisms for a state. An extremely decentralized state, but a state nonetheless. You even go so far as to say "this state" after saying "There is no need for a state!" to point out that even that form would wither away.

So now that you've covered all your basis, let me say that I think you're fooling yourself by not calling what you propose a state. And I think you're fooling yourself by assuming (if indeed you do) that these many committees will not be federated on a much larger level.

There are of course finer points to a deductable/visible state mechanism. Military for example. Sure you'll propose workers militia, organized within the bounds of the existing worker's committees etc, and used as a tool to protect from any "honest to god" threat that may exist to this new found revolutionary society.

In the end it will all boil down to a semantics game -- whether or not we consider it a military as it's not their "job." What I propose is a cross between the common existing state infastructure, and the very same decentralized workers democracy that you're so afraid to consider a state. And much the same with leaders held accountable to recall.

There a persistent anarchist thinking involved who those who can't realize a state in this form, and reserve the term state only for the likes of something far more centralized, or worse, in the same form as the bourgeois state. Your gripe is not with the state itself, it's with unacceptable forms of the state.


My goodness, first of all, what has history has shown us? It has
shown us that the workers' CAN NOT take over the state structure because it
is a organ of Bourgeois class rule.

And there is no need to take over the existing state structure, by all means smash it. I would only hope that we'd be smart enough to already have our own democratic infastructure to put in it's place at the point we do smash it. But because you've smashed the previous form of the state does not mean whatever new mechanism you provide is not a state. Out with the old, in with the new.


You can not use something that was made
for the allowance a minority class to dominate over the majority of the oppressed.

No, because you now have a majority class dominating over a minority class. So indeed, you change the form of the state. But the position of the state itself as a tool of class oppression remains, as regardless of where the minority/majority lie, you still seek to oppress the non-ruling class (which in our case happens to be the old ruling class).


All it would lead to would be the installation of a new rich upper class - which
would use the state as one big capitalist enterprise because the state would
own all major industries after your kind of revolution. Can you just not see?

No, and I've never heard a valid argument why EVERY form of a state leads to this. The closest thing that comes close is some of the principles of alienation put down in Marx's works, however, this alienation is directed towards the opposing class, not the new ruling class. We would indeed be alienated from the remnants of the bourgeoisie -- I would hope to hell we are, or else we have a lot bigger problems.

What MUST be avoided is placing the state above the working class -- you do this quite easily by constructing the state from the whole of the working class itself. I've proposed several key features on how this can be done, and I've yet to hear a single argument that directs any meaningful critique towards it's nature.


We need to establish a stateless, classless society in which the power is in
the hands of the oppressed

Well now you're running into a contradiction. If you're establishing a classless society, there should be no "oppressed" -- even as you refer to it here as the former oppressed (the proletariat), what of the former oppressor? You assume them all wiped off the map? You assume not reactionary thought what-so-ever remains in any element of society?

Indeed we must establish a classless society, but before we do that we must deal with the fact that we are not a classless society yet -- and in doing so, assert the new ruling class (the proletariat) with the tool of the state, to supress the old ruling class (the bourgeoisie).


As someone once said here; "using the state to seize power is like using a shotgun to perform surgery."

Agreed, but we seize power BEFORE we use the state. The state as itself is not the tool to seize power, that is the purpose of revolution. The state, however, remains a tool to facilitate the flexibility of that working class power over the bourgeoisie after that powr has been seized.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:57 PM

We need to establish a stateless, classless society in which the power is in
the hands of the oppressed

Well now you're running into a contradiction. If you're establishing a classless society, there should be no "oppressed" -- even as you refer to it here as the former oppressed (the proletariat), what of the former oppressor? You assume them all wiped off the map? You assume not reactionary thought what-so-ever remains in any element of society?

Indeed we must establish a classless society, but before we do that we must deal with the fact that we are not a classless society yet -- and in doing so, assert the new ruling class (the proletariat) with the tool of the state, to supress the old ruling class (the bourgeoisie).
2

When I mean "oppressed" - I am referring to the now liberated popluation
who were the oppressed working class under the system of Capitalism.
And when it comes to the former oppressor - the people who used to be
the rich upper class - in my opinion - they should be shot and hanged.
From what I remember - you advocate putting the former rich upper class
to work - or forcing them to work. Now that is very wierd - you are still
allowing them to exist - why should they be able to exist at all? the were
the oppressors of the former working class, right? They used every form
of manipulation, and supression to put down the working class. Why should
they have the right to live - they would support or possibly be apart of any
counter-insurgency. My only option - in my opinion - would be for the popluar
assemblies and workers' councils to excute the members of the former rich
upper class. I am fairly confident that the people in those workers' council
meetings and popluar assembly convergences would absolutely want those
idiots dead.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:57 PM

There is a need for a state! It would be run by many commitees which are made up of the working class, the small leadership that would exist would be instantly accountable and recallable (not really a word, I know) and yes, eventually, this state, as Marx claimed, would 'wither away' leaving Communisim a stateless society.

You say there's no need for a state, and then directly talk about small leadership and committees -- the mechanisms for a state. An extremely decentralized state, but a state nonetheless. You even go so far as to say "this state" after saying "There is no need for a state!" to point out that even that form would wither away.

So now that you've covered all your basis, let me say that I think you're fooling yourself by not calling what you propose a state. And I think you're fooling yourself by assuming (if indeed you do) that these many committees will not be federated on a much larger level.

There are of course finer points to a deductable/visible state mechanism. Military for example. Sure you'll propose workers militia, organized within the bounds of the existing worker's committees etc, and used as a tool to protect from any "honest to god" threat that may exist to this new found revolutionary society.

In the end it will all boil down to a semantics game -- whether or not we consider it a military as it's not their "job." What I propose is a cross between the common existing state infastructure, and the very same decentralized workers democracy that you're so afraid to consider a state. And much the same with leaders held accountable to recall.

There a persistent anarchist thinking involved who those who can't realize a state in this form, and reserve the term state only for the likes of something far more centralized, or worse, in the same form as the bourgeois state. Your gripe is not with the state itself, it's with unacceptable forms of the state.


Just read it again NG, a man of your intelligence should have read it more than once before making outlandish claims! The first sentence is "There is a need for a state, not as you assume 'there is not'.

I hear what you are saying but what I wrote was a very basic analysis in tune with the thread and it's context. I could write many pages on the subject but chose not to here as I felt an argument over the Vanguard ( and I'm tired as fuck of them) would enevitably ensue!

NB I have no problem with the word state or its connatations, as you insinuate, you really did just mis-read my first sentence

[T_SP]

(communist Firefox)
Now that is very wierd - you are still
allowing them to exist - why should they be able to exist at all? the were
the oppressors of the former working class, right? They used every form
of manipulation, and supression to put down the working class. Why should
they have the right to live - they would support or possibly be apart of any
counter-insurgency. My only option - in my opinion - would be for the popluar
assemblies and workers' councils to excute the members of the former rich
upper class. I am fairly confident that the people in those workers' council
meetings and popluar assembly convergences would absolutely want those
idiots dead.


And how far do you go? Do you kill the shopkeepers who paid there paperboys £3 a week? They oppressed them right? It's not about mercy letting people live but who the hell do you think you are saying all the oppressors should be killed? Stalin? These people would probably easily be integrated into the new society, why are you thinking of it as an economy rather than just a place we're living in. It is likely that when society changes so will peoples attitudes. Yes we need something in place to prevent an overthrow of the new state but I hardly think lining up thousands of buisness men and blowing there brains out is the way to do it!

[RedAnarchist]

You cannot have a state with Communism - it would be like a soldier with no gun, taking one off an enemy soldier who has, and shooting himself! Plus, retaining the state will make it easier for counter-revolutionaries.

[NovelGentry]

Just read it again NG, a man of your intelligence should have read it more than once before making outlandish claims! The first sentence is "There is a need for a state, not as you assume 'there is not'.

I hear what you are saying but what I wrote was a very basic analysis in tune with the thread and it's context. I could write many pages on the subject but chose not to here as I felt an argument over the Vanguard ( and I'm tired as fuck of them) would enevitably ensue!

I do apologize, my last sleep was nearly 30 houars ago... so my post quality and interpretation is going downhill steadily.

anyway, sorry bout that whole post... but I'm guessing in that sense we probably agree on a lot in terms of the form of the state too.

[NovelGentry]

you are still
allowing them to exist - why should they be able to exist at all? the were
the oppressors of the former working class, right?

Indeed, and for once the working class will live off the sweat on their backs. The point is to drive them into the class, to DESTROY class antagonisms. You kill them all and the minute you overstep your bounds you've gone to far... do you kill petty bourgeoisie? How bout even the smallest time petty bourgeoisie? How bout a person who's working class and now bourgeois? HOw bout vice versa? (there are holes). You gotta come up with a ruleset for the role each person played in the exploitation. And it's foolish.

No doubt some will be killed in the revolution, and even after in light of their crimes against humanity -- which is all that some of the extreme levels of exploitation seen in third world sweatshops can be called. But there are levels to the consciousness of exploitation. Some of these bourgeoisie don't even understand -- and that's even more valid of a case once you go into petty-bourgeoisie. But there can be a petty-bourgeoisie who really throws the towel in in terms of exploitation too.

Exploitation is exploitation, but there's a difference between being exploited and actually starving to death tied to a machine and being exploited but living a relatively comfy life.

Not to say that one is particularly more justified... but those who exploit in the harshest mannersisms are sure to be aware of what they are doing, while others can truly be the product of the current society's "brainwashing."


They used every form
of manipulation, and supression to put down the working class. Why should
they have the right to live - they would support or possibly be apart of any
counter-insurgency. My only option - in my opinion - would be for the popluar
assemblies and workers' councils to excute the members of the former rich
upper class.

Ahhh... the rich "upper class" -- you know how much I dislike when people use these foolish wealthclasses. And this is your problem, you'll differentiate the rich "upper class" and presume those to be the worst bourgeoisie of all time. I'd consider anyone worth over 20,000,000 uper class, but a well known actor can make that quite easily without actually exploiting a soul. So you HAVE to differentiate bourgeoisie... oh, but then you could have someone, small mom and pop (actual mom and pop) business owners who retire by opening a business and live their retirement off that... yeah, definitely worth a killing there.... give me a break.

There are obvious offenders... and by all means, do away with them. But strictly saying "upper class" kill thema ll, is not fair, and strictly saying "bourgeoisie" kill them all, is not fair.


I am fairly confident that the people in those workers' council
meetings and popluar assembly convergences would absolutely want those
idiots dead.

And this is of course how it should be done regardless of what you OR I think. The fact remains, at least for me, in order to hold true to the revolution I want to see, it's all worker's democracy.

Surely I have very specific ideas for socialist society, and how we should implement it, but above all if the worker's aren't supporting it, I don't want shit to do with it after actually overthrowing the old.


You cannot have a state with Communism

I was under the impression this thread was started about socialism and under the impression everyone here assumed it was about socialism. Or the "transitional period" in general.


Plus, retaining the state will make it easier for counter-revolutionaries.

This is the worst argument in the history of man. Why? It's like I said on the other thread, this kind of shit cracks me up. As if the state is a building you walk into and take over. It makes it no easier. If your people are revolutionary, and they are in control of the state, they will stomp out the opposition regardless of where it lies -- including if it comes internally from a power struggle within the "state."

The point is of course to decentralize it, put the state in the hands of the working class itself. The whole working class. It doesn't stop it from being a state -- but it sure as hell makes statements like this look pretty stupid.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:35 PM

Just read it again NG, a man of your intelligence should have read it more than once before making outlandish claims! The first sentence is "There is a need for a state, not as you assume 'there is not'.

I hear what you are saying but what I wrote was a very basic analysis in tune with the thread and it's context. I could write many pages on the subject but chose not to here as I felt an argument over the Vanguard ( and I'm tired as fuck of them) would enevitably ensue!

I do apologize, my last sleep was nearly 30 houars ago... so my post quality and interpretation is going downhill steadily.

anyway, sorry bout that whole post... but I'm guessing in that sense we probably agree on a lot in terms of the form of the state too.
You are very right there my friend!! No worries it was a genuine mistake!
Get some sleep mate!!!!!!!! :D

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:15 PM
There is a need for a state! It would be run by many commitees which are made up of the working class, the small leadership that would exist would be instantly accountable and recallable (not really a word, I know) and yes, eventually, this state, as Marx claimed, would 'wither away' leaving Communisim a stateless society.
I agree, wow that's a surprise :D

[The Grapes of Wrath]

State. I kinda like thinks such as (but are not limited to): roads; education; regulation of food (etc); safety standards; laws, courts and police (different from the capitalist kind preferably); environmental standards; universal standards of weights and measures and all that jazz; a standard currency; regulation of the economy ... etc etc. The state seems to kinda streamline* that stuff.

If most power and decision making (economic, etc) is based on a federal or confederal system, where the states or provinces hold this power, then so be it. But you can't discount the central government, it has a both positive and negative function, but a function all the same. At least in my opinion.


TGOW


*I know, you can make the argument it doesn't due to bureacracy, but the state would be easier than a bunch of small communes trying to agree on how big highway signs should be.

[redstar2000]

Perhaps instead of using the word "state" (with all its negative associations), we should substitute the phrase "political center of gravity".

By that, I mean the place where the really important stuff gets decided.

As well as the place that attracts really ambitious people who like the idea of personally "running things".

Then there are different kinds of considerations. Should such "centers of political gravity" be created? What should they be allowed to decide? Should there be "just one" or "a whole bunch"?

I think that would be a more fruitful discussion than endlessly rehashing "the role of the state" in post-capitalist society.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[rice349]

The transition from capitalism to socialism will prove to be excruciatingly difficult and will mandate the need for a strong totalitarian state in which the workers will comprise its ranks and help restructure society both economically and culturally in an effort to make all individuals enlightened communists.

The role of the state is imperative to the success of the transformation of society. It's apparent (with workers actually voting against their economic interests here in the United States) that even the poorest of the proletarian has been unfortunately brainwashed into cold-war style anti-communism and American nationalism in which he/she will more than likely fight against communism despite his/her level of exploitation. Unless we wait until things get so damn terrible that the vast majority of workers will want to overthrow capitalism due to personal enlightenment and education (which could take a seriously long time) it will be necessary if we are to take action into our own hands and instill at first a dictatorship which is prepared to take on education and progression of the individual workers who show hostility towards communism. It is possible to successfully over throw capitalism without majority support, in fact, in nations such as the United States this will ultimately have to be the case, and it will create the vacuum in whcih the necessity of a strong, centralized, totalitarian state will be necessary to deal with the coutner-revolutionary forces, as well as controlling and planning a strictly controlled economy. This cannot be done without the presence of a strong, centralized state run by the party of the workers. And without a state, the disorganization of the workers without majority support will ultimately lead to their downfall upon the reaction by capitalist forces.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rice349
Unless we wait until things get so damn terrible that the vast majority of workers will want to overthrow capitalism due to personal enlightenment and education (which could take a seriously long time) it will be necessary if we are to take action into our own hands and instill at first a dictatorship which is prepared to take on education and progression of the individual workers who show hostility towards communism.

I think you'd like these guys...

Maoist Internationalist Movement (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/)

Their "model" for "socialist transformation" of the United States is...East Germany under Russian occupation.

Enjoy. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[rice349]

lol thanks redstar but i actually don't like MIM

[wet blanket]

I'd prefer a revolutionary government to be extremely decentralized, with large public assemblies working on a local level. Same goes for industry, top-down central planning has shown itself to be a bureaucratic mess filled with special perks for those involved, I'd like to see economic decision-making done by means of workplace democracy and consensus. Of course there would need to be cooperation between industry and the IWW's ONE BIG UNION seems to be the best model for that.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 28 2005, 07:18 AM
I'd prefer a revolutionary government to be extremely decentralized, with large public assemblies working on a local level. Same goes for industry, top-down central planning has shown itself to be a bureaucratic mess filled with special perks for those involved, I'd like to see economic decision-making done by means of workplace democracy and consensus. Of course there would need to be cooperation between industry and the IWW's ONE BIG UNION seems to be the best model for that.
Take a look at http://www.socialistworld.net! Go to "in your region"and then click your country to see what our sections say about the question of democracy in a socialist world.

[Vincent]

i would like to see a revolutionary governent take power immediatly after the overthrow of the previous government in order to effecivly reform the social and economic policies as well as the political system. once these 'essential' steps were achieved the revolutionary government should have decentralised itself as part of the process.

[Jiang Qing]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:18 PM
Their "model" for "socialist transformation" of the United States is...East Germany under Russian occupation.
That's not really accurate. MIM cites the overthrow of imperialists in Germany during World War II as an example of revolution still being possible in imperialist countries despite the lack of a revolutionary majority. MIM does not say the exact circumstances in 1945 (inter-imperialist war) are a "model" for how the world proletariat should defeat imperialism.

MIM does not see the occupation itself as a model for socialist transformation (revolutionizing production relations), and in fact I don't think MIM uses those words in quotes.