reform or revolution.

[Monty Cantsin]

The fundamental problem with reform is that it doesn’t transcend the fundamental structures of societies because other wise it wouldn’t be a reforming force but a revolutionary one. But that’s semantics and doesn’t address what our underling method for revolution should be.

Working on the assumption that revolution in modern capitalist’s societies is in fact desirable how should we go about it. Some commentators have drawn the conclusion such as Christopher hitches that May 68 Paris doesn’t prove that revolutionary situations can happen within advanced capitalists countries but mark the end of an era(though he maintains that it would be a better world if the students had succeded).

The two models that keep coming up are the more Ultra-left political organisation that aren’t political in the sense of joining in capitalists political processes but outsiders who run propaganda campaigns and small actions sometimes coordinated with other groups to form multi-decentralised actions. The problem with this model is it doesn’t get much attention form the public and only has power through copy cat organisations.

The second model is the Leninists ‘democratic centralists’ “reform/revolutionary” party. Lenin though was a Russian politician and thus didn’t understand the nature of western models of democracy, because he didn’t have to deal with them. So how can we export his system elsewhere? We can’t it can’t deal with the corruptive nature of the political process in said democracies and historically has been quite reactionary and an effective break on weastern revolutions.

What’s most the effective form of revolutionary organisation?

PS. I do realise that people mix theses models and I’ve given a brief and simplistic outline.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think perhaps the best methods would involve a degree of "selling out."

Political reform is a non starter, and personally I see Violent revolution in a similar light. The problems we face are those set up to prevent anything from happening, anti-red sentiments are still reasonably strong, and thus revolution would not yet be in favor of the workers, who are likely to be those that counter-revolt.

If part of the intellectual act was dropped then left wing politics would be more accessible to less well educated people, as well as those who are dismissive outright.

Part of what needs to hapen s for the left to become "cool." This does't have to mean just among a few skaters and outspoken schoolkids, but across the board, like Coke or McDonalds. I am not saying we should set up franchises with a hypocritical name, just to get it out there. Rather what I am saying is that grassroots and decentralised action needs more cover, and this comes from being interesting.

A problem arises with getting plentiful, and favourable coverage when it is not in the interests of those covering you to do so. (Capitalism's failed freedom of market and speach) What must therefore be a revolutionary priority is a stronghold or two in the press, and not just newspapers but television and the internet.

Abolition of the current system may not be required, when the left becomes a more integral part to everday life than the right, the system will more or less dissolve. What remains is all that needs cleared up. If we can create something close to a cultural hegemony (not in th sense I am anti diversity) then the battle is nearly won.

[Iepilei]

It's my opinion that many leftists mis-interpret the concept of 'revolution' in the sense that it's always an armed uprising. Revolution isn't exactly marching in the streets, toting AK-47s, and anticipating people just "go with the flow" when you're threatening to take over the capital.

It doesn't work that way. Historically, revolutions have been works in the making; often stemmed over a century or two of political and social paradigm shifts. It is important to remember that reform is a part of the revolutionary process, as changes to our society and way of life are made every day.

So what is my suggestion? Both. You have to lead up to action with subtle change in mechanics and dynamics of the system itself. A lot of people on this forum are hellbent on causing a form of insurrection immediately; that sort of thinking will lead to complete and utter destruction. The political systems which back the capitalistic mindset are large and extremely powerful, who really thinks that a group of kids with home-made explosives will cause any damage to it, at all? Who really believes that society will openly embrace such a drastic change at this point in history?

Our social development is dependent on our ability to evolve both in the physical and mental senses. With the current pace of technology, we are seeing a drastic shift already to the breakdown of intellectual property right. This is a reform, but it's also revolutionary in the sense that production is changing. We are on a dawn of a new industrial revolution, one which will allow for our word to spread, our concepts to change, and our abilities to be heightened.

Revolutionary action is not advisable at this current state of affairs. However, with each day that passes we see a greater shift between the two polarities in this conflict. As it stands, presently, we have too much apathy on our hands to make any use of the masses.

This will change, though. I guarentee it.

:ph34r:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 AM
Some commentators have drawn the conclusion such as Christopher hitches that May 68 Paris doesn’t prove that revolutionary situations can happen within advanced capitalists countries
Paris 1968 was a revolutionary situation and France was an industrial nation. Does he not take the fact that it happened as proof that it actually can?


The two models that keep coming up are the more Ultra-left political organisation that aren’t political in the sense of joining in capitalists political processes but outsiders who run propaganda campaigns and small actions sometimes coordinated with other groups to form multi-decentralised actions. The problem with this model is it doesn’t get much attention form the public and only has power through copy cat organisations.

That depends on who the propaganda campaign is aimed at and what it actually entails.

Sometimes these actions are better left de-centralised because of security. Any copy cap organisation that emerges would do so because it agreed with the aims and principles of the original group; at least that's how it should be organised.


What’s most the effective form of revolutionary organisation?

Having a political organisation which is visible and that works on propagating a revolutionary idea within communities and at work.

But also to have groups, which take up direct action both in, closed affinity groups, or in open community groups, which challenge the state in a confrontational way but also that confronts the status quo. Using direct action in communities to build alternatives and to highlight the failures of local and national government and ultimately capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:33 PM
I think perhaps the best methods would involve a degree of "selling out."
Selling out to what?


personally I see Violent revolution in a similar light.

But unfortunately it's an inevitable fact.


The problems we face are those set up to prevent anything from happening, anti-red sentiments are still reasonably strong, and thus revolution would not yet be in favour of the workers, who are likely to be those that counter-revolt.

Those anti-red sentiments though are based on misunderstandings or outright ignorance. Challenging those misunderstandings and prejudices is how you develop class-consciousness.


If part of the intellectual act was dropped then left wing politics would be more accessible to less well educated people, as well as those who are dismissive outright.

I don't think any political organisation on the left, bar the Sparts probably, overtly promote intellectualism. I know the Anarchist movement certainly doesn't.


Part of what needs to hapen s for the left to become "cool."

Cool to whom though? Coolness is something different to everyone and some people simply don't care about being cool.

What does "being cool" actually mean? Why is it important?


Rather what I am saying is that grassroots and decentralised action needs more cover, and this comes from being interesting.

Critical mass is interesting? The clowns are interesting?

Gimmicks aren't what we need though. What we need is to build groups that can offer real support in people’s everyday lives. We don't want to try and blind people with some "spectacle" but show that we are an actual alternative, and that can only come through practice.


What must therefore be a revolutionary priority is a stronghold or two in the press, and not just newspapers but television and the internet.

Capitalists own the media. What can you do on television that won't be heavily regulated by the people we want to destroy?


Abolition of the current system may not be required, when the left becomes a more integral part to everday life than the right, the system will more or less dissolve.

And what about exploitation and alienation? Are these things to continue but in a more favourable form or are they to mysteriously "dissolve"?


If we can create something close to a cultural hegemony (not in th sense I am anti diversity) then the battle is nearly won.

But these things are happening. What about DIY culture, social centres, festivals and the promotion of different art and radical films? Books, zines and food.

There is a radical culture that people belong to. Granted it's very insular, but it exists nevertheless.

[slim]

"Coolness" is a phenomenon of people basically fitting in with social groupings in a rather tribal way. By looking a certain way you are in fact declaring that you belong to that group. A social grouping could be a national force like the so dubbed "chavs" in the UK. If you are seen as an outsider by these shallow people then you will not be listened to, no matter how accurate you are in your convictions.

To fit in acceptably to everyone is of upmost importance for the image of any public figure. That is one reason why politicians wear suits, to look professional for the electorate and for the fellow MPs.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 5 2005, 04:15 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 5 2005, 04:15 PM)
Monty [email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 AM
Some commentators have drawn the conclusion such as Christopher hitches that May 68 Paris doesn’t prove that revolutionary situations can happen within advanced capitalists countries

Paris 1968 was a revolutionary situation and France was an industrial nation. Does he not take the fact that it happened as proof that it actually can?
[/b]
Hitchens, the internationalist socialists (tony cliff splinter group) turned Neo-con see's May 68 as the last wave of socialist upheval and that it was really a death not a re-birth.

Personally I like it because it shock off the Leninist crap and allowed libertarian versions of Marxism to take more prevalence. I mean we had the Anti-Bolshevik communists, the Left-communists and council communists but they never really become the mainstream of Marxist thought and practice because Stalinist illusion was still there. We also have the situationist and the autonomist Marxist because the Leninists were completely discredited during those days.

I mean whatever the personal differences between Marx and Bakunin and their power struggles in the first international the commonalities between Marx’s communism and social anarchism are striking. The only real difference is Marx’s attacks on capitalist’s dominate consciousness or cultural hegemony as we might call it now and conception of history were much more systematic and comprehensive then any anarchist material I’ve read of the same period. So I feel that most disagreement is territorial and semantics rather then issue we can’t overcome to work together.


It's my opinion that many leftists mis-interpret the concept of 'revolution' in the sense that it's always an armed uprising. Revolution isn't exactly marching in the streets, toting AK-47s, and anticipating people just "go with the flow" when you're threatening to take over the capital.

A Revolution is just the radical restructuring of social relations within any given society. it doesn’t have to be violent but it will properly come to some violence because the capitalists class is not going without a fight, it doesn’t matter how unnecessary the current system of domination is it’s become about control and status rather then guarding yourself against becoming poor…we live in a world of surplus that destroys food that could go to the needy for the sake of keeping market forces in order.


That depends on who the propaganda campaign is aimed at and what it actually entails.

Sometimes these actions are better left de-centralised because of security. Any copy cap organisation that emerges would do so because it agreed with the aims and principles of the original group; at least that's how it should be organised.

i think we should use the ultra-left model because it's better for your own self-agancy rather then being domminated and talking orders from some centeral commitie the problem is how do we subvert the media which small organisational units as such?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:33 PM
I think perhaps the best methods would involve a degree of "selling out."
Selling out to what?

Well the notion that we must become some of pop culture rather than pop culture simply bcoming us.


But unfortunately it's an inevitable fact.

I disagree, I may not have all (or any) of the answers yet, but it is what I would like to work on.


Those anti-red sentiments though are based on misunderstandings or outright ignorance. Challenging those misunderstandings and prejudices is how you develop class-consciousness.

Reds challenging the fact reds are bad...and then trying to be good, why not simply become positive (media is a key here) then preconceptions can die away.


I don't think any political organisation on the left, bar the Sparts probably, overtly promote intellectualism. I know the Anarchist movement certainly doesn't.

Not a promotion of as such, but acceptance an usage. I try not to get caught up in semantics as much as I used to but I still do occasionally, I certainly don't advocate it. There is deffinately (at least a feel) of showiness and one up-manship in areas of the left.


Cool to whom though? Coolness is something different to everyone and some people simply don't care about being cool.

What does "being cool" actually mean? Why is it important?

I am using cool in the sense of being popular, (this is supposed to be a popularist uprising no?) It is important because at the moment we are far from it. Even giving a shit in any way has become slightly dull. This needs to be changed.


Critical mass is interesting? The clowns are interesting?

Gimmicks aren't what we need though. What we need is to build groups that can offer real support in people’s everyday lives. We don't want to try and blind people with some "spectacle" but show that we are an actual alternative, and that can only come through practice.

I agree with you to some extent, but a few gimmicks would be absolutely necessary, at least to act as a catalyst in increasing class consciousness. This is what I was reffering to in terms of "selling out."

Look at groups like reclaim the streets, they were popular because the concept was novel, and there was aparty to be had, not everyone there making it possible truly got what the oint was supposed to be, but they were there.


Capitalists own the media. What can you do on television that won't be heavily regulated by the people we want to destroy?

Capitalists also have the education system, security, armed forces, healthcare...these are all things that will hav to be reclaimed, media is simply a priority.


And what about exploitation and alienation? Are these things to continue but in a more favourable form or are they to mysteriously "dissolve"?

If you don't believe these things can go away, then you would have to believe in coercion in the society you want to live in, to keep this under check. I simply believe that the revolution isn't complete until every man woman and child sees no benifit from exploitation, the notion of having more than you need becomes irrelevant. Why bother with excess when there is no capital gain to be had?

I believe in the dissolution here, just as the idea of serfs living on a lord's land, and providing him with food died out in England.


But these things are happening. What about DIY culture, social centres, festivals and the promotion of different art and radical films? Books, zines and food.

There is a radical culture that people belong to. Granted it's very insular, but it exists nevertheless.

These are all aspects of a culture that I love and take part in, but because, as you said, it is so insular, not enough comes from it. The fact it is so is almost self serving, preservation of itslef in its niche as counter culture, and nearly abandonning the leap in some extent into mainstream.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anyone that thinks that:

1. Wage slavery can be abolished
2. Class divided society can be abolished
3. Imperialism can be defeated
4. The exploitation of the underdeveloped world can be stopped
5. Racism, Sexism, Patriarchy, etc. can be done away with

solely through "peaceful" reformist measures, are blatently disregarding the lessons of history, and frankly, are fooling themselves (and whoever they successfully preach their bourgeois idealism too).

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:42 AM
Anyone that thinks that:

1. Wage slavery can be abolished
2. Class divided society can be abolished
3. Imperialism can be defeated
4. The exploitation of the underdeveloped world can be stopped
5. Racism, Sexism, Patriarchy, etc. can be done away with

solely through "peaceful" reformist measures, are blatently disregarding the lessons of history, and frankly, are fooling themselves (and whoever they successfully preach their bourgeois idealism too).
agreed

no point trying to fix a fundamentally flawed system

there is too much institutionalised inequality... its so ingrained that people fool themselves into believing it doesnt exist, and so theres no problem to be fixed

[Black Dagger]

So I feel that most disagreement is territorial and semantics rather then issue we can’t overcome to work together.

Is 'the state issue' a territorial or semantic disagreement between anarchists and marxists?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What do you mean by 'territorial'?

Anarchists see the state as an independent actor in history. They think that the state is inheirently bad and must be abolished immediately.

Communists view the state as the machinery used by one class to rule over others. We have the same ultimate goal, a stateless, classless society (communism), but realize that because of contradictions born out of capitalism there must be a period of transition, and that that transition can only be done successfully in a socialist state -- a state where the working class controls the means of production and holds political power.

So while we can come together on some things (like opposition to capitalism), there are some fundamental things that are impossible to overcome (like state power).

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:07 PM

So while we can come together on some things (like opposition to capitalism), there are some fundamental things that are impossible to overcome (like state power).
Not necessarily, what we Marxists call state, Anarchists consider it ,"a period of experimentation".


As for cultural hegemony, it will change, it always does. The baby-boomers aren't going to be the active generation for much longer, with younger children playing in sports theres been more of a team-player attitude than a trying be number one.This is a step in the right direction.

Much work needs to be done in changes toward cultural hegemony, it definately calls for social intergration. African and Latino Americans are mostly bubbled in poor ghettos, where as the middle-class white people are bubbled in their deed-restricted communities,no one knows of any different way of living. If there was more focus on advancing educational instituions in poor areas, the bubble would get bigger or combine.However a cultural-revolution will be needed to secure equal rights.

The homosexual population is denied civil-unions and to be put on their spouses insurence,only because it keeps taxes at lower levels.This will change, our generation is more accepting and were next in line.

There are a few things that need to be reformed. I don't forsee them being reformed in the next ten years, this may have to wait when the next generation is in retirement homes. The most the American Socialists can hope for is a reform in healthcare, reforming schools in less-fourtunatye districts and labour unions.

The dangers with reform is that it doesn't secure changes,it works way too slow and it gets muddled-up in other agendas.Also, it does little in changing the mechanism.

Government reforms are a path towards revolution, because it organizes instutions which would be to hard to do if it were up to an uprising or a workers revolt. But, I don't veiw reforms as neccesary.

Ultimately, a revolution is needed, but that doesn't mean a guerilla insurection. It could mean, labour unions strengthening and taking action or people just ultimately deciding to live a different way without governmental consent.
Although, such revolution have historically lead to a violent revolution.

As for "cool" culture, different kinds of music are more accessable then they used to be, this is helping to diminsh racism and getting people more interested in cultures.

Socialist parties and movements individually need a plan of action and adminstration, but they shouldn't conglomerate, otherwize dogmatism becomes a nasty side-effect. All should practice democracy in their own movements.

As for media coverage on alternatives, well the internet is helping to play a role with blogs and independant media. The next best step is television, and I think if a country such as Venezuela or even labour unions could start an international news program, accessable to all nations, Socialism could be better understood.

[Black Dagger]

What do you mean by 'territorial'?

Ask Monty Cantsin, i was using his terms, talking to him.



Anarchists see the state as an independent actor in history.

Wrong. Anarchists see the state as a form of hierarchy, there is no such thing as 'the state' as an 'independant actor' floating through history, that's a 'straw man'.



They think that the state is inheirently bad and must be abolished immediately.

A very simplistic representation. I do not think that the state is 'bad', i think hierarchies, such as the state, are inherently authoritarian and opressive in their organisation/operations. I think that society (workers) can organise themselves, self-management, in an environment of mutual co-operation. The state is not necessary when this is possible, thus people advocating the construction of a 'new' state to replace the old, one which replicates some of the 'old regime' structures, and which undermines workers autonomy and control of their own lives and hands it to an elite section of 'educated'/'disciplined' workers [the vanguard], is uncessarily authoritarian, and anti-communist.



Not necessarily, what we Marxists call state, Anarchists consider it ,"a period of experimentation".

Anarchists are crazy like that! I once saw an anarchist riding a bike without a helmet! What a nutter!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not necessarily, what we Marxists call state, Anarchists consider it ,"a period of experimentation".

Well so far none have lasted long enough for them to really "call it" anything.


I think if a country such as Venezuela or even labour unions could start an international news program, accessable to all nations, Socialism could be better understood.

Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, and Uruguay are starting a whole network -- Telsur. http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/15878_Telesur.html

But keep in mind that Venezuela is not yet socialist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wrong. Anarchists see the state as a form of hierarchy, there is no such thing as 'the state' as an 'independant actor' floating through history, that's a 'straw man'.

Not wrong. What is the state? Is it or its it not the monopoly of violence by the ruling class, used to maintain their rule?


A very simplistic representation.

Yes it was simplistic. I was making a quick post.. a "run down".


I do not think that the state is 'bad', i think hierarchies, such as the state, are inherently authoritarian and opressive in their organisation/operations.

So then they're... bad?


I think that society (workers) can organise themselves, self-management, in an environment of mutual co-operation. The state is not necessary when this is possible,

You'll find no argument there.. the key is when this is possible. Certainly not the day after the revolution.


thus people advocating the construction of a 'new' state to replace the old, one which replicates some of the 'old regime' structures, and which undermines workers autonomy and control of their own lives and hands it to an elite section of 'educated'/'disciplined' workers [the vanguard], is uncessarily authoritarian, and anti-communist.

Who said anything about handing power to anyone? And a workers' state is far from unneccessary. Whether you like it [or think so] or not, the state will always exsist in a society divided between hostile classes, and class antagonisms don't disappear the day after a revolution.

But, let's not turn this into yet another anarchism vs. communism thread anymore than we already have, eh?

[Black Dagger]

Not wrong. What is the state? Is it or its it not the monopoly of violence by the ruling class, used to maintain their rule?

That is one description of how bourgeois states function, ok, how does that prove anarchist conceptualise 'the state' as an 'independant historical actor' floating through history? I don't understand.


Yes it was simplistic. I was making a quick post.. a "run down".

I know, but it just wasn't conducive to 'good' debate is all im saying :P


So then they're... bad?

I was trying hard not to sound like a 12 year old.

No the state is not 'bad', because i do not conceptualise 'things' as being 'good' or 'bad', i describe/analyse what something is. 'Bad' is a simplistic term that offers no explanation or context for a coherent criticism- which is probably how you perceive anarchist philosophy more generally no? Hence your insistence on me reducing the anarchist criticism of the state to 'bad'.

By stating that anarchists think that 'the state is bad', you were degrading the anarchist position on this issue, portraying their analysis as simplistic, child-like or otherwise lacking depth, to which i disagree. I then outlined what i thought about 'the state', if you want that to mean 'it's bad' then go for it, but 'it's bad' does not do anarchist critiques of the state any justice.


You'll find no argument there.. the key is when this is possible. Certainly not the day after the revolution.

Some kind of anarchist 'utopia' will not be created 'over-night' (please don't jump to any sectarian conclusions about my use of the word utopia, it was meant in jest!), but then again neither will the revolution. As revolution is a process, the changes that enable and create the conditions for the revolution to take place will also generate opportunities for anarchist-type organisations and structures to diffuse and be constructed within the decaying capitalist society. After all, it is very unlikely that there will be a 'day of the revolution', to which we can say we are in 'the day after', because any revolution in the west is gonna take some fighting! Whilst this is going on, people will be organising, workers will be on strike, seizing control of the means of production, organising their workplaces, associations etc. and steps towards anarchist forms of organisation can/will be already be taking place.


Who said anything about handing power to anyone?

The most popular interpretation of marxism (leninism) involves power, in terms of the power to 'organise society', to be placed in the hands of a 'communist party' that is however willed by its supporters, separate from the working class.



And a workers' state is far from unneccessary.

Of course, debateable.



Whether you like it [or think so] or not, the state will always exsist in a society divided between hostile classes, and class antagonisms don't disappear the day after a revolution.

So there can't be a society in which the working class have smashed the bourgeois state (our first priority), but there are still cappies running around trying to protect 'their' property? Capitalist still existing because our means of production have not been appropiated (fully). I'm not saying im advocating this type of society, im merely demonstrating there could be period of transition where there is no bourgeois state, but there is still a capitalist class.


and class antagonisms don't disappear the day after a revolution.

Well if we abolish capitalism... that would help a lot :P Armed struggle will also help 'remove' class antagonisms.


But, let's not turn this into yet another anarchism vs. communism thread anymore than we already have, eh?

Sweet, because i loathe this topic, and thus dread discussing! The sectarian shit (not referring to anything you've said in this thread) is tiresome and always unproductive.

[Guest1]

BlackDagger, the problem here is that Marxists consider "organized bodies of armed people" used by one class to oppress another, a state. The armed struggle you speak of, to smash the bourgeoisie, is therefore a state to Marxists.

So the line between genuine class-war Marxists (including some people who consider the selves "Leninists") and genuine class-war Anarchists is actually not as divisive.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Here we go with semantics again.

I forgot to mention Left-Communists suchs as myself consider the workers-state the same thing as what Anarchists consider a period of experimentation.As for the Lenninsts and Stalinists, I am uncertian what they mean by state.

IMO, I think its utterly rediculous to label yourself Trotskyit,Stalinist,Lenninst,Maoist and so on, because these are just trends of Marxism, labeling yourself from some dead person can't fully relate with todays state of things. Although, calling yourself a Marxist is different, since it was Marx who coined the idea of scientific-socialism.

Anyways back to the topic.

[Black Dagger]

BlackDagger, the problem here is that Marxists consider "organized bodies of armed people" used by one class to oppress another, a state.

Hmmm, you say this but yet i am not convinced. If this is true Marxists should make a new term for this process/period. The term state is a loaded term (hence the reaction of anarchists), with distinct links to the old regime (the bourgeois state), one our very targets. To continue to use the term i think is intellectually sloppy, and uncessarily complicates things between marxists and anarchists.



The armed struggle you speak of, to smash the bourgeoisie, is therefore a state to Marxists.

When you say marxists are you saying this specifically to not be 'Marxist-Leninists'. ie. are you distinguishing yourself from them? If that is a state to marxists, then we can agree, but i cannot agree that Marxist-Leninists (and so on) conceive of the state in the way i do and thus also in the way you are saying you do.



So the line between genuine class-war Marxists (including some people who consider the selves "Leninists") and genuine class-war Anarchists is actually not as divisive.

If you are being honest about your conceptions of the state, then no, there is little to divide us - comrade.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That is one description of how bourgeois states function, ok, how does that prove anarchist conceptualise 'the state' as an 'independant historical actor' floating through history? I don't understand.

If you agree that the state is organized force used by one class to suppress others, than you have to accept that it can also by used by the working class to suppress the capitalists.

Anarchists tend not to see the state in its historic context, how it came to be, what it's used for.

It's seen as a seperate entity, almost as undesirably as capitalism itself, that me be opposed no matter what form it takes.


I was trying hard not to sound like a 12 year old.

No the state is not 'bad', because i do not conceptualise 'things' as being 'good' or 'bad', i describe/analyse what something is. 'Bad' is a simplistic term that offers no explanation or context for a coherent criticism- which is probably how you perceive anarchist philosophy more generally no? Hence your insistence on me reducing the anarchist criticism of the state to 'bad'.

By stating that anarchists think that 'the state is bad', you were degrading the anarchist position on this issue, portraying their analysis as simplistic, child-like or otherwise lacking depth, to which i disagree. I then outlined what i thought about 'the state', if you want that to mean 'it's bad' then go for it, but 'it's bad' does not do anarchist critiques of the state any justice.

Obviously "bad" was over simplistic. I used it for expediency. And my "insistance" is based on countering your refutation of my original statement. By "bad," in this case, I meant something that needs to be abolished, that can never be used by the workers in a progressive way.


Some kind of anarchist 'utopia' will not be created 'over-night' (please don't jump to any sectarian conclusions about my use of the word utopia, it was meant in jest!), but then again neither will the revolution. As revolution is a process, the changes that enable and create the conditions for the revolution to take place will also generate opportunities for anarchist-type organisations and structures to diffuse and be constructed within the decaying capitalist society.

Are you talking about a revolution in the first world here (based on the eventual collapse of capitalism)?


After all, it is very unlikely that there will be a 'day of the revolution', to which we can say we are in 'the day after', because any revolution in the west is gonna take some fighting! Whilst this is going on, people will be organising, workers will be on strike, seizing control of the means of production, organising their workplaces, associations etc. and steps towards anarchist forms of organisation can/will be already be taking place.

History seems to show that those forms of organization will be a workers state or capitalism will be restored. And by "the day after," I was again being simplistic for the sake of expediency.


The most popular interpretation of marxism (leninism) involves power, in terms of the power to 'organise society', to be placed in the hands of a 'communist party' that is however willed by its supporters, separate from the working class.

I don't think any communists advocate the working class not having power.


So there can't be a society in which the working class have smashed the bourgeois state (our first priority), but there are still cappies running around trying to protect 'their' property? Capitalist still existing because our means of production have not been appropiated (fully). I'm not saying im advocating this type of society, im merely demonstrating there could be period of transition where there is no bourgeois state, but there is still a capitalist class.

There no only could be, there will be. A state will always exist while society is divided between hostile classes in one way or another. The class struggle continues even after the revolution. The question is, are we, the working class, going to control state power, or just pretend that it doesn't exist thus allowing the capitalists to return to power.


Well if we abolish capitalism... that would help a lot tongue.gif Armed struggle will also help 'remove' class antagonisms.

What do you mean by abolish capitalism? Do you mean it to it's fullest extent, ie. the capitalist class, and classes all together, have been abolished? Do you think capitalism was abolished in Spain?

[bombeverything]

If you agree that the state is organized force used by one class to suppress others, than you have to accept that it can also by used by the working class to suppress the capitalists.

No it can't.

We believe that the state arose alongside economic inequality. Thus, the state can only ever serve the purpose of protecting an elite minority. The only way to truly abolish economic inequality is to abolish the state.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So the state is used for the suppression of classes by another class, but only if that class is the capitalist class?

[bombeverything]

So the state is used for the suppression of classes by another class, but only if that class is the capitalist class?

Now you’re confusing me. No, the state isn't used by the capitalist class, it is the capitalist class.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2005, 01:06 AM
BlackDagger, the problem here is that Marxists consider "organized bodies of armed people" used by one class to oppress another, a state. The armed struggle you speak of, to smash the bourgeoisie, is therefore a state to Marxists.

So the line between genuine class-war Marxists (including some people who consider the selves "Leninists") and genuine class-war Anarchists is actually not as divisive.
In a libertarian Marxists sense, but not at all in a Leninist sense. Leninists want to maintain the bourgeois state but have the "intellectual" vanguard controlling it on their behalf.

We could in a really vulgar way describe "organized bodies of armed people used by one class to oppress another" as a state, but that isn't what a state is and this deviation seriously needs to be addressed if the actual state is going to be challanged in any significant way.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's wrong and you know it. No communists (including Leninists) want to maintain the bourgeois state.

We want to replace it with the workers state, to "prevent the capitalists from restoring capitalism and to create the conditions for a genuinely free association of producers."

“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.” - Marx

Emphasis mine.


We could in a really vulgar way describe "organized bodies of armed people used by one class to oppress another" as a state, but that isn't what a state is and this deviation seriously needs to be addressed if the actual state is going to be challanged in any significant way.

The state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Sep 8 2005, 03:09 PM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Sep 8 2005, 03:09 PM) That's wrong and you know it. No communists (including Leninists) want to maintain the bourgeois state. [/b]
I suppose Lenin wasn't a Leninist then.


State and Revolution
And so, in the first phase of communist society "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part...Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state

If these "bourgeois laws" still exist, surely the state, which he conceeds is necessargy, is to maintain those laws.


The state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

The anarchist critique of the state is far more complex than that of the Marxist critique, and this is the major downfall of any post-Marx organisations that have adopted such an analysis.

The state, simply put, is a collection of tools used by a ruling class, not simply to suppress but more importantly to control and manage society and the human beings within it. It also, [the state] is specifically designed to protect and maintain the power and economic structures of a ruling class.

In a capitalist society the power and economic structures in which the state is designed to protect are obvious. But it's not just these material "things" which the state maintains, it is also the ideological hegemony of a nation, region or world.

So what we have is a collection of tools used to protect, manage, control and maintain the power/political, economic and ideological structures in society.

Now in Marx's analysis he only dealt with two of these things. Mainly the economic structures and vaguely the political structures but he did not take into consideration the state in the context of power and ideology.

You cannot simply say: A state is the "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule." because that ignores every other aspect of a state.

When Lenin talked of a state he did so in the context of it being institutionalised tools of management and control. In order for the state to work like that it needs a structure of hierarchy. Therefore power structures are formed and over a period of time are institutionalised.

The ideology that the state maintains then becomes that of this state hierarchy, which develops again, over a period of time into nothing but self-serving propaganda used to justify the existence of the state. This is precisely what happened in Russia!

Even in economic terms the state, which becomes the regulator, must take on more and more in order to "progress" the revolution. Let's take for example labour. The idea of a "socialist" state is to regulate production to balance out equality. The state now controls where and what labour is done in order to deal with this task. What happens then is we have Committee's to deal with the overal labour, then we have sub-committee's to deal with wages, rationing, production, distribution, logistics etc etc. In order for this task to be done efficiently, the state requires hierarchy.

Now the bureaucracy of this task becomes so complex that the bureaucracy becomes ever greater. In this instance, the state begins the process of consolidation. What I mean is, the "progress" or "task" becomes institutionalised. Once this process become necessary, which is what happens when it becomes insitutionalised (you can't get out of it - self-perpetuating); how does it whither away?

The state is designed to perpetuate itself, and that is what happens. The economic structures, power and ideology that a state has to use in order to survive is self-perpetuating. Over a period of time the state becomes the status quo. What I mean is, it simply becomes what it is. Tools of control and management. It becomes the "organiser" of life. It becomes insitutionalised and in this instance can only be destroyed through another revolution. It cannot simply "whither away."

The only alternative is to smash the state from the very beginning!

[YKTMX]

I suppose Lenin wasn't a Leninist then.

There wasn't even a proper, developed bourgeois state in Russia, so to say Lenin failed to smash the bourgeois state is just fallacious in the first instance.


The idea of a "socialist" state is to regulate production to balance out equality. The state now controls where and what labour is done in order to deal with this task. What happens then is we have Committee's to deal with the overal labour, then we have sub-committee's to deal with wages, rationing, production, distribution, logistics etc etc. In order for this task to be done efficiently, the state requires hierarchy.

I think what you're describing is bureaucratic state capitalism.

The socialist state does not manage production in the mechanistic fashion you've described. We can't be sure, because we've never had a socialist society but, from the limited ideas we do have, the "state" will merely be another organ of the working class - like trade unions, or soviets, or community groups or whatever. Just like these institutions, which elect leaders and representatives, the state will have certain elected officials whose job is to administer (not control or prescript) the "big picture", economically. These officials, probably highly class conscious revolutionary socialists, will be immediately recallable and so on. This is, in fact, a highly democratic form of organisation. Much more democratic than the Anarchists idea of militarized communities, each with their little own "federation", led by the black hand of implanted anarchists.

The problem I have with the anarchist conception of the state is - and TAT's posts are a good example of it - is the way they objectify 'the state', and turn it into some historical bogey man - here and there popping up at the worst moments to thwart emancipatory, or not, political projects. Into this story, they throw other decontextualised words like hierarchy and bureaucracy, as if 'hiearchy' always has the same uses and outcomes everywhere. 'The State' is not an unchanging thing. The fuedalist 'state' is diffirent from the bourgeois one, the Nazi state from the American state etc.

'The state' is a human creation, it can be made one way (the existing way), and it can also be remade in our interests. It is, after all, just a type, a way, of organising human beings - or, preferrably, of human beings organising themselves.

It is, in the last instance, not the best way, or the desired way. But it exists, it has a historical purpose - to serve the interests of a dominant class. If Marx was right, and the working class are the last oppressed class, and to be the last dominant class before all class distinctions are ended, 'the state', as a historically specific instution will come to an end.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There wasn't even a proper, developed bourgeois state in Russia, so to say Lenin failed to smash the bourgeois state is just fallacious in the first instance.

Right, and I think TAT knows this.


The socialist state does not manage production in the mechanistic fashion you've described.

For sure. And it seems the level of practicality is also being ignored here. How practical is the idea that the working class of a society fresh through a revolution is not only ready to coordinate entire economies on a super-decentralized, consensus basis, but also to sustain that coordination!


We can't be sure, because we've never had a socialist society but, from the limited ideas we do have, the "state" will merely be another organ of the working class - like trade unions, or soviets, or community groups or whatever.

I beg to disagree with you here. We have had socialist societies, and one remains until this day.


Just like these institutions, which elect leaders and representatives, the state will have certain elected officials whose job is to administer (not control or prescript) the "big picture", economically. These officials, probably highly class conscious revolutionary socialists, will be immediately recallable and so on. This is, in fact, a highly democratic form of organisation. Much more democratic than the Anarchists idea of militarized communities, each with their little own "federation", led by the black hand of implanted anarchists.

Indeed. But you must remember that anarchists (and some "communists") have a tendency to divorce democracy from class society. They view it in the same way as the state -- in the abstract.


The problem I have with the anarchist conception of the state is - and TAT's posts are a good example of it - is the way they objectify 'the state', and turn it into some historical bogey man - here and there popping up at the worst moments to thwart emancipatory, or not, political projects. Into this story, they throw other decontextualised words like hierarchy and bureaucracy, as if 'hiearchy' always has the same uses and outcomes everywhere. 'The State' is not an unchanging thing. The fuedalist 'state' is diffirent from the bourgeois one, the Nazi state from the American state etc.

Right, that's what I was trying to say. They don't see different states in the historical circumstances that gave rise to them. They divorce the state from material reality.


'The state' is a human creation, it can be made one way (the existing way), and it can also be remade in our interests. It is, after all, just a type, a way, of organising human beings - or, preferrably, of human beings organising themselves.

Right again. The anarchists are so worried about the capitalists taking power back through the structures of hierarchy on the one hand, but on the other, they ignore the fact that as long as we live in a class society there will in one way or another be a state, and if we don't take control of state power the capitalists will be happy to.


It is, in the last instance, not the best way, or the desired way. But it exists, it has a historical purpose - to serve the interests of a dominant class. If Marx was right, and the working class are the last oppressed class, and to be the last dominant class before all class distinctions are ended, 'the state', as a historically specific instution will come to an end.

Exactly. What the anarchists prescribe can't end class distinctions.

[YKTMX]

I beg to disagree with you here. We have had socialist societies, and one remains until this day.

Great news, I'm so happy! Where, do tell?!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
But, let's not turn this into yet another anarchism vs. communism thread anymore than we already have, eh?

Short-term memory loss, eh? ;)

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:04 PM
Cuba.
Why are we having all this discussion then?

Surely we should just let Dr. Fidel and the companeros control production after the revolution? :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Or we do what Cuba actually does and let the workers do it.

[YKTMX]

Oh right.

Question: How do the Cuban workers decide which women sell themselves to European tourists in Havana? I mean, does the division of labour still apply to prostitutes?

I'd also imagine that the Cuban workers, whilst they're making all these decisions about production, must also control wages? When did they come up with the genuis idea of paying the waiters and receptionists in the hotels more than their doctors? I know European tourists are high maintenance, but jeez!

The idea that the working class are in control of their own destiny, under that bearded ratbag, is just rubbish.

I

[Decolonize The Left]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX:
Let's first take into account that Cuba is suffering, and has been, from an American Embargo. This intensly affects their economy everyday.
Now let's also take into account that after Cuba's revolution they were reliant on the Soviet Union for a market to sell sugar cane (their main export). So when the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba suffered greatly. And yet, despite all of this, there they are still surviving. Castro has given the people the power of their own future. Yes there are power shortages and other such conditions of a poor country, but let's not forget the US embargo (which is totally unnecessary and has been condemned by the UN and other international bodies).
So to answer your questions:

How do the Cuban workers decide which women sell themselves to European tourists in Havana? I mean, does the division of labour still apply to prostitutes?

It doesn't. Prostitution is illegal, but as many women in all countries find, men will pay handsomely for prostitues and this works in all countries not just Cuba. You just have to walk through any major city in any country to see this in action. It doesn't decide which women do what, as the prettier women will naturally tend to receive more customers and so will make more money. It's pretty simple when you think about it.


I'd also imagine that the Cuban workers, whilst they're making all these decisions about production, must also control wages? When did they come up with the genuis idea of paying the waiters and receptionists in the hotels more than their doctors?

I don't know if they do pay waiters more than doctors, but if this is the case I'm sure there is a reason for it. I mean you really have no grounds to sit there and yell about how it is ridiculous that waiters are paid more than doctors when it is the very waiters and doctors that decide that pay. Perhaps to you it seems ridiculous, but you are not in Cuba and you are not a waiter. So your comments are simple-minded and don't have much merit at all.


The idea that the working class are in control of their own destiny, under that bearded ratbag, is just rubbish.

Your past comments make this statement totally ridiculous. If you are a worker, and you contol the production of your good, and your wages, how are you not in control?

-- August

[YKTMX]

Let's first take into account that Cuba is suffering, and has been, from an American Embargo. This intensly affects their economy everyday.

Fine.


Prostitution is illegal, but as many women in all countries find, men will pay handsomely for prostitues and this works in all countries not just Cuba.

But surely, if Cuba is socialist, that is, a society based on ideas such as respect for your other human beings, then prostitution wouldn't exist?

Also, why are there woman in Cuba who are so desperate that they need to sell their bodies? Because of the embargo, I'd imagine?


It doesn't decide which women do what, as the prettier women will naturally tend to receive more customers and so will make more money. It's pretty simple when you think about it.


It might be pretty simple when YOU think about it. As far as I'm concerned, it's just sexual exploitation. I'll ignore your comment about supply and demand in the sex industry.


I don't know if they do pay waiters more than doctors, but if this is the case I'm sure there is a reason for it.

Well, of course.


I mean you really have no grounds to sit there and yell about how it is ridiculous that waiters are paid more than doctors when it is the very waiters and doctors that decide that pay.

Maybe my last post didn't really get my point across. My last post was ironic. I was talking about worker control in Cuba because it doesn't exist. Of course the doctors and waiters don't decide their pay. It's decided by some faceless, probably unelected, Bureaucrat.

[Decolonize The Left]

But surely, if Cuba is socialist, that is, a society based on ideas such as respect for your other human beings, then prostitution wouldn't exist?


There is indeed this idea in a socialist society such as Cuba, which is why prostitution is illegal and frowned upon.
Yet when a woman is too poor to feed her children, she will resort to otherwise unlikely activity to feed her family.

Also this is not a matter of socialism being some all-incredible system where illegal activities don't take place. There will always been illegal activites (drugs, prostitution, etc..) as long as there are inequalities and people without enough to provide the basic necessities of life. Cuba is no exception to these factors, but at least it is doing something to eliminate them not making them worse.


Also, why are there woman in Cuba who are so desperate that they need to sell their bodies? Because of the embargo, I'd imagine?

See above. And yes the embargo plays a role, be it a minor one, by inhibiting the economy to develop and thereby making the country poorer and forcing people to delve into other forms of making money.


As far as I'm concerned, it's just sexual exploitation.

I think I have just proved that while it may be sexual exploitation, so is pornography, be definition that is. So why is porn legal in the US?


Of course the doctors and waiters don't decide their pay. It's decided by some faceless, probably unelected, Bureaucrat.


Perhaps, but at least the workers have control of the industries.

-- August

[YKTMX]

There is indeed this idea in a socialist society such as Cuba, which is why prostitution is illegal and frowned upon.


Excuse me, did I just wake up yesterday or isn't prostitution 'illegal' and 'frowned upon' in most countries?


Yet when a woman is too poor to feed her children, she will resort to otherwise unlikely activity to feed her family.


Yes, I'm not criticising the women, I'm criticising the system that put her in that position.


. There will always been illegal activites (drugs, prostitution, etc..) as long as there are inequalities and people without enough to provide the basic necessities of life.

Ah, so there is inequality in Cuba? Another useful indicator of whether a country is socialist or capitalist, would you not say?


Perhaps, but at least the workers have control of the industries.


I'm afraid they don't. They're controlled by yet more faceless, unelected bureaucrats.

It's amazing how ideas don't move on.

The Soviet Union has collapsed, a country Cuba modelled itself so closely on. Yet, some people still cling to ALL the same excuses and assumptions about Cuba that they used to hold about Russia.

Quite sad, really.

[Decolonize The Left]

Excuse me, did I just wake up yesterday or isn't prostitution 'illegal' and 'frowned upon' in most countries?

Lol. Yes it is, which is why directly underneath my words you quoted I wrote:

Also this is not a matter of socialism being some all-incredible system where illegal activities don't take place. There will always been illegal activites (drugs, prostitution, etc..) as long as there are inequalities and people without enough to provide the basic necessities of life. Cuba is no exception to these factors, but at least it is doing something to eliminate them not making them worse.


I'm criticising the system that put her in that position.

Well then you are looking in the wrong place. I'd bet that the percentage of women who resort to prostitution in Cuba is extremely lower than in the US, or in any other developed country. So you are looking at a world-wide phenomenon and yelling about how Cuba should be help responsable for it. This isn't really an argument.


Ah, so there is inequality in Cuba? Another useful indicator of whether a country is socialist or capitalist, would you not say?


Yes there is. No I wouldn't say so. I would say that Cuba is trying to make it's transition to communism through socialist/capitalist democracy. This is a transition stage, as it's development is being hindered greatly by a US-embargo.

You are attempting to say that when a country undergoes a revolution it should become communist immediately and therefore everything will be perfect. A very naive point of view indeed.



The Soviet Union has collapsed, a country Cuba modelled itself so closely on. Yet, some people still cling to ALL the same excuses and assumptions about Cuba that they used to hold about Russia.

The Soviet Union was not communist. It was full of rampant corruption and misallocation of resources, if allocation of resources at all. Lenin's party abused what power it had and doomed thousands to starvation. It is not the fault of Cuba that Lenin and Stalin didn't know how to put communism into place, as there shouldn't be anyone 'putting communism into palce' at all, the workers should do this.

Don't blame Cuba for Lenin's problems. He fucked a bunch of shit up and it's not Castro's fault that he had to rely on Lenin for aid because the US refused.

-- August

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How would you have a small, third world country whos main industry is tourism [from much wealthier nations], and that cant trade with major companies and other countries because of the longest standing economic emargo in the world by the world's richest country, stamp out prostitution?

What you first world people don't seem to realize is that Cuba is a shinning beacon to the rest of the underdevloped world. It has reached -- or even surpassed - first world levels in health, education, equality, employment, etc.

What you're saying is the same tired old anti-communist bullshit that's been kicked around for years.

You ignore the fact that democracy is alive and well in Cuba, that Fidel is the elected leader, etc. etc.

It's so much easier to take up the old conservative/ultra-leftist propaganda call "Fidel is a dictator who decides everything that happens on the island." Get real.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Sep 8 2005, 08:10 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Sep 8 2005, 08:10 PM)
I suppose Lenin wasn't a Leninist then.

There wasn't even a proper, developed bourgeois state in Russia, so to say Lenin failed to smash the bourgeois state is just fallacious in the first instance. [/b]
I never talked about him smashing it, I'm talking about him arguing that it was necessary for the progression of the revolution to maintain it. That quote is real.



The idea of a "socialist" state is to regulate production to balance out equality. The state now controls where and what labor is done in order to deal with this task. What happens then is we have Committee's to deal with the overall labor, then we have sub-committee's to deal with wages, rationing, production, distribution, logistics etc etc. In order for this task to be done efficiently, the state requires hierarchy.

I think what you're describing is bureaucratic state capitalism.

Which is the invariability of Leninism.


the "state" will merely be another organ of the working class - like trade unions, or soviets, or community groups or whatever. Just like these institutions, which elect leaders and representatives, the state will have certain elected officials whose job is to administer (not control or prescript) the "big picture", economically.

All well and good, but this is besides the point. This is about how the rhetoric is transferred into the material world? Sure, the "official" "administers" but it is how that process actually takes form. In the Leninist sense these positions become institutionalised and they are mandated with power.

I don't see how this description refutes the idea that a state is self-perpetuating. A socialist state does not destroy the mechanisms of control or state tools, it consolidates them into the hands of the "enlightened".

What you describe here is just vague. How is this state actually structured? Does it take a distinct bourgeois form or does it become federated assemblies?


These officials, probably highly class conscious revolutionary socialists, will be immediately recallable and so on.

Recalled by who? The central government or someone else?


Much more democratic than the Anarchists idea of militarized communities, each with their little own "federation", led by the black hand of implanted anarchists.

That's a rather ignorant definition of anarchist organisation. A description is thus:


National working groups co-ordinate and organise certain things. In this instance regional assemblies would be called, but would not be a permanent thing. The national working groups would feed information into the regional assemblies made up of community delegates who would then feed back into their communities.

National working groups would be accountable to regional assemblies and important decisions would be made at a national level with community spokes persons being represented at a national assembly where information could be fed back to communities or to regions.

Autonomous workers militias would defend communities and collectives and would be accountable to the communities they were defending.

In the case of dealing with specific counter-revolutionary activity, it could be that national or regional working groups were formed which were accountable to and only acted on the consensus of regional assemblies.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The problem I have with the anarchist conception of the state is - and TAT's posts are a good example of it - is the way they objectify 'the state',

The state is a very real structure which has specific definitive elements to it.


and turn it into some historical bogey man - here and there popping up at the worst moments to thwart emancipatory,

That's precisely what it does.


Into this story, they throw other decontextualised words like hierarchy and bureaucracy, as if 'hiearchy' always has the same uses and outcomes everywhere.

Well yes it does. It creates power structures and authority over people. Surely you agree that these things are antithetical to communism?


'The State' is not an unchanging thing. The fuedalist 'state' is diffirent from the bourgeois one, the Nazi state from the American state etc.

But they all serve the same purpose and are structured in a similar way. A socialist or Leninist state is in essence, no different to a bourgeois state, in fact it has more similarities to a Nazi state. A one party state who use security forces to defend its power, ideology and regulatory control over every aspect of society.

If this is not what Lenin wanted, why did he create it so? if this is not what you want, then be specific to the process in which you see this "state" functioning and to take into consideration how the working class deconstruct [successfully] it's many different elements.


'The state' is a human creation, it can be made one way (the existing way), and it can also be remade in our interests. It is, after all, just a type, a way, of organising human beings - or, preferrably, of human beings organising themselves.

Now again we come down to semantics because you're being vague. I'm taking Lenin's model of a state, which has been the prevailing model used in after Marxist "socialist" revolutions or "socialist" national liberation fights.


But it [the state] exists,

This is the same argument reformists use to defend the maintenance of capitalism.


If Marx was right, and the working class are the last oppressed class, and to be the last dominant class before all class distinctions are ended, 'the state', as a historically specific institution will come to an end.

But he wasn't right.