Dictatorship of the Proletariat [Archive]

Morpheus

13th October 2005, 02:29

Originally posted by RASH [email protected] 13 2005, 12:13 AM
For instance, in the Ukraine, where Makhno leads a war against the state. The proletariat desired the state
The majority of the workers & peasants in the Ukraine did not desire a "proletarian state." If they had, it would have been very easy for the Bolsheviks to defeat the insurgents as they would have refused to give insurgents aid, turned insurgents over to the Bolsheviks, etc. The guerilla tactics used required support of the local populace, without it they would have been easily routed. Instead the Bolsheviks had to impose a reign of terror on the Ukraine and violently suppress any kind of dissent in a manner reminiscent of US counter-insurgency operations in Vietnam.

anarchists will say "the state can never be a proletarian institution". But what they're really saying with that is "we anarchists know what is best for the proletariat, you should just follow us", oddly enough, that's what they accuse Marxists of.

No we aren't. If the majority believe in a state of any type - nationalist, fascist, bourgeois, Marxist, feudal or any other - then an anarchist revolution cannot be sucessfull. Anarchy is premised on self-liberation, and if the majority don't come to favor anarchy at some point in the revolution (and they don't necessarily have to call it anarchy) then the revolution will be defeated.

Yeah and bourgeois democracy is a dictatorship of the bourgeois. If you are a proletarian then you are doing the dictating, and the only ones being supressed are counter-revolutionaries.

Just because you say this is the case doesn't mean it is the case. All previous attempts to do that have resulted in exactly what anarchist predicted it would result in: a new ruling class dominating the proletariat & peasantry. That's inherent in the nature of the state. The state is an organization with a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. It is a centralized rule-making body that stands "above" society and uses various armed bodies of people and coercive institutions (courts, prisons, etc.) to force people to obey it. It is an organ of class rule that cannot be used to abolish classes. How are the workers supposed to maintain control of an organization standing "above" society with it's own specialized armed forces and maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? It's not possible - the state is the one with a monopoly on violence and could use that monopoly to ignore what the proletariat want and order them around - effectively forming a new ruling class over the proletariat. If a group has a monopoly of force it can easily establish itself as ruler over the rest of the proletariat, even if that organization is initially made up proletarians. The hierarchical nature of the state insures that this will be the rule of a small elite. No organization should have a monopoly or near-monopoly on force. The state maintains armed bodies of people with a top down authoritarian chain of command that control the population and coerce it into obeying the orders of those on the top of the chain of command. This is always a form of minority rule because it is that minority on the top of the chain of command who makes the decisions and thus controls the rest of the population.

Halfway up this thread your side was asked to explain in practical terms how exactly this "proletarian dictatorship" is supposed to function. You still haven't given an answer. It's one thing to through out lots of vague talk about proletarians doing the dictating, quite another thing to explain how you actually intend to do this.

bombeverything

13th October 2005, 03:52

This is a very basic point that, no offense intended, Anarchists don't seem to understand.

Don’t confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.

A dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship over the proletariat. It is the mode through which the working class maintains control of the means of production in the period after capitalism but before the disappearance of the bourgeousie.

Why waste time? You seem to be suggesting that the working class are incapable of winning the class war and eliminating capitalism [without creating another ruling class to "suppress" the bourgeoisie].

It is a device through which the proletariat are empowered and begin to take control of society, if they don't do so then how will they prevent the bourgeousie from retaking power?

By organising and fighting the bourgeoisie themselves. Such a dictatorship would clearly be a device where a minority would be “empowered” to take control of society, at the expense of the workers as a collective. Empowerment refers to power over one’s own life, the opposite of which is being told what to do.

I believe that Lenin explained such aspects rather well in his
The State and Revolution

Well yay for Lenin. And how did that turn out?

An example would be TAT's reply, he knows what it is supposed to mean but is just nitpicking. That is the whole basis of the anarchist's arguement.

Excuse me? Could someone please answer the question?

Who will presumably organize the post-revolutionary society? Who will deal with counter-revolution without proper organization?

Anarchists believe in organization. We make a distinction between authority and organisation. Is hierarchy what you would define as "proper" organization? What I am asking is what is it that you believe constitutes proper organization?

ComradeOm

13th October 2005, 10:45

Yikes. Move over commie/capi debates, we have a new winner in the "most unlikely to produce a convert" argument :rolleyes:

I am surprised though that so many anarchists do lack an understanding of that simple phrase. Its usually the first accusation that any capi will fire out in a discussion and the easiest one to counter. The dictatorship of the proletariat - think about it. What is the proletariat? The masses of workers of course. It is in short the ruler of the people as opposed to the current rule of the bourgeoisie. I'm sure others have explained it on these forums far better than I have but its not a difficult concept to grasp. If you don't agree with Marxism then that's fine, but at least try to understand the terms.

I also fail to see where Lenin comes into the equation. The phrase was first coined by Marx to explain the transitional period of socialism. Whatever happened in the USSR has little do with the issue.

bombeverything

13th October 2005, 12:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:26 AM
Yikes. Move over commie/capi debates, we have a new winner in the "most unlikely to produce a convert" argument :rolleyes:

I am surprised though that so many anarchists do lack an understanding of that simple phrase. Its usually the first accusation that any capi will fire out in a discussion and the easiest one to counter. The dictatorship of the proletariat - think about it. What is the proletariat? The masses of workers of course. It is in short the ruler of the people as opposed to the current rule of the bourgeoisie. I'm sure others have explained it on these forums far better than I have but its not a difficult concept to grasp. If you don't agree with Marxism then that's fine, but at least try to understand the terms.

I also fail to see where Lenin comes into the equation. The phrase was first coined by Marx to explain the transitional period of socialism. Whatever happened in the USSR has little do with the issue.

Yes it is very simple, that is the point. I understand the theory, as you have pointed out --- it is not that hard to understand. You are making little sense. On one hand you are saying "understand the concept". On the other you are saying "but if you don't agree with marxism atleast try to understand the terms". It still seems like you are telling me to agree with you. I don't. Get over it.

Someone else mentioned Lenin. I was simply replying to that post. Though I do apologise if I offended anyone. There is no need to get all worked up.

Hiero

13th October 2005, 13:30

Neither does Marxism, or any other economical sociological methodology

How so?

the revolution should not be a matter of 'payback' - you opressed and exploited us for such and such length of time, so now we're going to do the same to you! hwa!

Oppression and expliotation are not a thing that is a product of individuals or emotion. Well the oppression and expliotation of class is not. This is how MArxist understand it. Oppression and expliotation are a result of class structer, the position of class in relation to the means of production.

So the dictatorship of the proleteriat is not an idea of revenge. It is the idea that the proleteriat will take control of the state, and have a dictatorship over all classes. They will be the only class to dictate the rules of society. The proleteriat will suppress the bourgieos not out of revenge, but because of there new position in society, that being the owners and controlers of the means of production.

if you truly believe in communism, that is as you pointed out before a classless and stateless society, than there will be no classes [shock horro]. there will be no proletariat because it cannot exist without an 'other'. and there will be no other because everything will have been dismantled during the revolution.

For that to truely happen you would need a mass killing, to destroy all things bouegieos.

ut afterwards, when actually setting up a new society, i don't advocate oppressing them, but integrating them into the new society

Well in the early stages of the USSR, the NEP allowed the petite bourgeois to be involved in the setting up of the society. Then Stalin's Collectivisation came in they were expelled from power.

The revisionist Krushchev and Deng allowed bourgeois to come in power, they only wanted to have more capitalist system, and eventually reverted to capitalism.

If you allow classes other then the proletariat to have power in the new society, they will try to revert it. Classes have a class motive, the bourgeois having come out of Capitalism are strong in what they want, so they will always push for capitalism.

gradually breaking down these notions of class we hold at the moment.

Classes are objective things, they are the product of the material conditions. We need to build notions of class and what they need, our theory is one based on class theory and their needs.

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2005, 13:42

Originally posted by Axel1917+Oct 12 2005, 06:56 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Oct 12 2005, 06:56 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:51 PM
Yes, it's because anarchists don't, "understand"...

Tell me, how, in practical terms, does this dictatorhip of the proletariat function?
Have you even read up on it? Reading up on it should clarify things. [/b]
Thank you for the advice.

I've read the theory, and that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking how, in practical or should I say material terms, does this dictatorship function?

Axel1917

13th October 2005, 15:16

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12 2005, 06:22 PM

the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship over the proletariat

I know that, anarchists know that... well we know that that's what Marx intended. Unfortunately, a lot of people who 'follow' Marx, notably Marxist-Leninists/Marxist-ad infintum, tend to- in practice, get the two mixed up.

This is a very basic point that, no offense intended, Anarchists don't seem to understand.

Anarchists are capable of reading and comprehension. I've read Marx, as a proportion of the years of my existance on this planet, i have been a marxist for longer than i have been an anarchist (and i was at one stage a marxist-leninist), i understand perfectly the intention of Marx, but vanguardism (which is a tenet held by most marxists) in my opinion, and in the opinion of most anarchists, changes that intention.

I believe that Lenin explained such aspects rather well in his
The State and Revolution

Did Lenin mention anything about the 70 year 'communist' party dictatorship that ocurred in what was formerly known as the U.S.S.R? [/b]
Regarding Lenin, he was not alive to carry out his last struggle against bureaucratic parasites growing due to the revolution's isolation in a backward nation. This brings about a good point: The Anarchists believe the [i]same nonsensical capitalistic propaganda about Lenin!.

As a busy college student, I unfortunately do not have time to go into depth in posting, and therefore, I am forced to rely largely on citations and works. Ted Grant's Russia, From Revolution To Counterrevolution (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp) completely shatters the anti-Lenin propaganda.

From the Anarchist Tension:

Thank you for the advice.

I've read the theory, and that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking how, in practical or should I say material terms, does this dictatorship function?

Then why are you asking these nonsensical questions? You must not have very good reading comprehension if you say that you read the theory, while your posts indicate no understanding of it whatsoever. Do you even know the functions of a state?

And seriously, read from Russia, From Revolution to Counterrevolution before any of you start using anymore of your anti-Lenin propaganda (notice how your anti-Leninism is practically the mirror image of capitalistic anti-Leninism!!!!).

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2005, 15:21

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 12 2005, 07:13 PM
No offence to any anarchists, but seriously taking words literally isn't going to get you anywhere, i mean just take your title for instance.
What does that actually mean?

I have read into anarchism but i find that most of Bakunin's ideas border on romanticism, Kropotkin wishes to retreat to a simpler time etc.

What's the basis of that assertion?

The whole concept of a direct junp into proletarian society without any organization nor preparedness and negating any concept of a transitional phase is a little simplistic in my view and borders on political infantilism.

Oh that old chestnut.

Anarchism does not negate organisation or "preparedness" and has never said that a transitional phase was not necessary.

On the contrary. Anarchism is specifically about organisation and preparation. I suggest you read 'What is anarchist communism?' by Alexander Berkman, 'Anarchy' by Errico Malatesta and 'Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice' by Rudolf Rocker.

As for the transitional phase, no classical anarchist or class struggle anarchist has ever argued that we can "jump" from capitalism to communism. Of course a transitional period will be necessary, but in regards to maintaining a state which is the Marxist paradigm, anarchists see this as one of the main obstacles, not only to creating communism in general but specifically to a process of transition.

An example would be TAT's reply, he knows what it is supposed to mean but is just nitpicking. That is the whole basis of the anarchist's arguement.

I don't think you understand my question. I know what the dictatorship of the "proletariat" is supposed to be. I've read the theory...I use to be a paid member of a vanguardist party. What I want to know is, how specifically, does the theory apply itself into practice. How does it function in the material world?

Anarchism has absolutely no scientific basis for achieving a classless staeless society

What do you mean by "scientific"? That we have an equation? A process?

I think it's safe to assume now that Marx's dialectical materialism was a failure in some fundamental area's. Namely that his theory didn't achieve its material conclusion.

When asked this question before my reply was: The consolidation of working class power cannot be transferred into mechanised tools of control which are inherently hierarchical while a process of creating a stateless society is maintained. By inherent I mean that they can only function based on such a hierarchy.

This process of maintaining a state and controlling society through it creates material conditions that make it impossible for society to continue into a stateless one. You cannot create a stateless society by maintaining a state. The material conditions, which the consolidation of state control creates, cannot be advanced to communism.

If there is something you do not understand, please be specific.

Vanguards are groups of the most militant and class-concious workers.

This is where part of the confusion begins. When you say vanguard, in a Leninist sense, you're talking about the Party and when anarchists refer to a vanguard usually they refer to it's positions of control i.e. the Central committee, because although the party is defined as the vanguard in a Leninist sense, the party is subordinate to the will of the central committee, which renders that definition inaccurate because presumably a vanguard is a tool in which political organisation and direction within the working class is determined and although the party does that work, the work is dictated by the central committee.

The vanguard in this instance is rarely ever working class. The central committee is made up of intellectuals from middle class families whose relationship to the means of production is that they seek to control it. They are the prototype to a bureaucratic/ruling class.

Without organizing, without major propaganda, do you intend to copy the situation in Bolivia? Will all the workers have chips in their heads so they know at what particular date all of them will revolt?

Of course, not organising or using propaganda will achieve very little when the time comes. Any one who suggest otherwise is mistaken. I'm not sure how that relates to anarchism though. Can you clarify?

Who will presumably organize the post-revolutionary society?

The workers.

Who will deal with counter-revolution without proper organization?

Interesting use of words.

First of all you cannot deal with counter-revolution without organisation. What is "proper" organisation is obviously a matter of contention however.

How do you intend to take a straight jump into communist society, without any transitional phase from capitalism whatsoever?

Well, we don't...?

The Feral Underclass

13th October 2005, 15:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:57 PM
From the Anarchist Tension:

Thank you for the advice.

I've read the theory, and that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking how, in practical or should I say material terms, does this dictatorship function?

Then why are you asking these nonsensical questions? You must not have very good reading comprehension if you say that you read the theory, while your posts indicate no understanding of it whatsoever.
I'll be more comprehensive then...

The dictatorship of the proletariat in the Leninist sense is the workers control of a state, right?

First of all a state can never be a proletarian institution. Class is defined based on your relationship to the means of production. A "Workers" state is controlled by bureaucrats whose relationship to the means of production is: They control it. Which, in Marxist terms, makes them a ruling class.

Proletarians are people who work within the means of production to make it function. The idea of anarchism is to remove the division of those who work and those who control and consolidate the two, so that those who work within something, also have control over it. That means removing hierarchy, and in turn the state as the state cannot function without hierarchy.

In order for the state to dissolve, there needs to be a process? What would that process be? Marxists say that when class division doesn't exist anymore, the state will cease to function? How does it cease to function?

Furthermore, the state creates a new class. The bureaucratic class, proven by every attempt at this transitional phase. Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

How is the state to create a stateless society?

Do you even know the functions of a state?

Yes, do you?

And seriously, read from Russia, From Revolution to Counterrevolution before any of you start using anymore of your anti-Lenin propaganda (notice how your anti-Leninism is practically the mirror image of capitalistic anti-Leninism!!!!).

Is this how you talk to workers?

Red Flag

13th October 2005, 15:40

Is still a dictatorship.

You're right. All class-divided society consists of the dictatorship of one (or more) classes over other classes. How do you anarchists intend to diverge from this aspect of all hither-to such societies?

I've read the theory, and that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking how, in practical or should I say material terms, does this dictatorship function?

The working class organizes itself as the ruling class (in whatever form that takes) and organizes the means of production as a part of a coordinated, planned economy, that operates in the interest of meeting human need as opposed to creating profit.

A main feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat currently (in it's only existing form - Cuba) is to keep the bourgeoisie and imperialists from overthrowing the workers state, while at the same time practicing proletarian internationalism, doing everything possible to promote the revolution around the world.

The less the dictatorship of the proletariat has to function as the organized defense of workers' control, the more it becomes just a means of administration (coordinating the economy) and eventually leads to the "withering away of the state." To think that the workers state (workers control over the means of production, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat) can be disolved, or its creation avoided all together post revolution, while imperialism still looms as an immense threat is complete idealism. Material reality has a funny way of overcoming that.

It would be great if we could have communism tommorow, but realistically, we can't, no matter how much we 'want it.' We will not, and cannot, have communism before the defeat of imperialism. Period.

Axel1917

13th October 2005, 16:57

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 03:13 PM

I'll be more comprehensive then...

The dictatorship of the proletariat in the Leninist sense is the workers control of a state, right?

First of all a state can never be a proletarian institution. Class is defined based on your relationship to the means of production. A "Workers" state is controlled by bureaucrats whose relationship to the means of production is: They control it. Which, in Marxist terms, makes them a ruling class.

Proletarians are people who work within the means of production to make it function. The idea of anarchism is to remove the division of those who work and those who control and consolidate the two, so that those who work within something, also have control over it. That means removing hierarchy, and in turn the state as the state cannot function without hierarchy.

In order for the state to dissolve, there needs to be a process? What would that process be? Marxists say that when class division doesn't exist anymore, the state will cease to function? How does it cease to function?

Furthermore, the state creates a new class. The bureaucratic class, proven by every attempt at this transitional phase. Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

How is the state to create a stateless society?

Do you even know the functions of a state?

Yes, do you?

And seriously, read from Russia, From Revolution to Counterrevolution before any of you start using anymore of your anti-Lenin propaganda (notice how your anti-Leninism is practically the mirror image of capitalistic anti-Leninism!!!!).

Is this how you talk to workers?
I am a little annoyed; I accidentally hit some button in the middle of my post, an Firefox just closed on me, and I lost everthing!! This is not going to be as long as I wanted it to be, due to my lack of spare time.

The workers' state is the workers' control of the state. All representatives are democratically elected, and they can be recalled at any time.

The state can and will be a Proletarian institution! A state is an organization of a particular class made to protect itself. It is, in short, a class monopoly on political power, of which is used to protect that class's ownership of the means of production. The Proletarian state is a workers' democracy that must exist in order to protect the masses against Bourgeois resistance. The nations of the world will not all revolt at the same time, and therefore, the remnants of the Bourgeois will not just retire, and they will hope that the international Borugeois pressure will be able to change the situation and restore their despotic rule. The dicatorship of the Proletariat must exist to protect the masses from Bourgeois counterrevolution. We all know that powerful imperialist nations will try to stop revolutionary progress (over 20 foreign capitalistic nations invaded the early USSR). There must be a force to protect the people from that possibility as well.

The state naturally dies away, as class antagonisms are gradually done away with every day. The Bourgeois elements will be forced to become wokers after their means of production and the millions and billions they don't need are expropriated. It naturally withers away as class antagonims wither away.

The state does not create a new class. I don't understand how you come up with this. The Proletariat comes to power, ends up abolishing class antagonisms, and therfore abolishes itself as Proletariat.

The deformed states you speak of were the products of the isolation of the revolution in a backward nation, the class forces changing to allow Stalin to come to power, spread his vile propaganda for others to base their revolutions off of, etc. There were material causes for that, of which the betrayal of the revolution by the Social-Democrats was largely responsible for. These deformed workers' states are not some innate attibute of Marxism.

Also, that is not how I talk to workers, but everyone does recommend such works to start things off after talking to them for awhile. Again, at this site, I am forced to rely on works and citations to back my points up, as I am too busy with college and work, and I hope that others will be able to cover the points I would make if I actually had the spare time.

I find it unrealistic to abolish the state in the process of the revolution unless imperialism somehow just ceased to exist in capitalism, and that is utopian nonsense, as Lenin had proven that imperialism is a natural stage of capitalism. How would you stop Bourgeois resistance, imperialism, etc. without an organized force and such?

codyvo

13th October 2005, 18:40

I don't believe that a dictatorship over the reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries is the right way to go. Suppressing dissent is a mechanism of the corporate oligarchy, we should not take on their role.

Also, what would happen if the proletariat as the dictator, decided that capitalism is the right way to go, as would be the case in the united states?

violencia.Proletariat

13th October 2005, 20:13

whats wrong with supressing the bourgeoisie? they want to destroy the revolution, they must be supressed.

13th October 2005, 20:50

I don't believe that a dictatorship over the reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries is the right way to go. Suppressing dissent is a mechanism of the corporate oligarchy, we should not take on their role.

1. Dictatorship isn't inherently a bad thing.
2. Suppressing dissent is a mechanism of the ruling class. We must suppress dissent! What are you going to do; let the capitalists run around spouting their counterrevolutionary practices? Do you have no plan on how to fight the counterrevolution?

Also, what would happen if the proletariat as the dictator, decided that capitalism is the right way to go, as would be the case in the united states?

Why would they do that? The proletariat has a communist revolution in the first place because of how capitalism is so exploitative of them. Why would they go back to being exploited voluntarily?

novemba

13th October 2005, 22:40

a couple thoughts:

you leninists have tested you theory out plenty of times, and its never worked.

why demolish one state and create another?

why can't we just go straight into direct democracy after the revolution? i can't think of a single reason why jot.

gilhyle

13th October 2005, 23:29

Funny how the anarchist says:

we can't depend on dictatorship, we need to rely on direct democracy

and the 'leninist' (sic) says

we can depend on dictatorship because direct (workers) democracy will keep it safe

'Direct democracy' is no panacea.

The truth is there is a journey to be undertaken, a long complex journey of revolution and you can neither wish away the journey by dreaming of being at the destination or wish away the pain of the journey by imagining a perfect mode of transport. Seizing state power is just a moment in the revolutionary process. The phrase 'when the revolution is over....' simply hides the multitude that is reality.

I don't have an anwer to this terrible problem of dictatorship. I am clear on this much. Immediate direct democracy is a fantasy which just tells me how little its supporters know of the reality of the world. The use of oppression opens the path for the manipulation of the class dictatorship by bureaucratic cliques and faith in direct democracy is no answer to that. Yet without the oppression of counter-revolution, the revolution dies and the sacrifices made for it are wasted. Thus oppresion of the counter-revolution is the duty of the revolutionary, the duty, once fulfilled, that will probably destroy what s/he has fought for.

Thanks for the understanding Victor Serge.

RASH chris

13th October 2005, 23:30

you leninists have tested you theory out plenty of times, and its never worked.

You anarchists have tested your theory out plenty of times. How did that work out? Ohhhhh yeah...it didn't

why demolish one state and create another?

I know somebody who could answer that, hmmmm, who was it? Oh yeah, Marx.

why can't we just go straight into direct democracy after the revolution? i can't think of a single reason why jot.

Because that allows reactionaries to regain power. Do you think racists, fascists, nazis, religious nuts, capitalists, etc are just gonna disappear after the revolution?

novemba

13th October 2005, 23:39

You anarchists have tested your theory out plenty of times. How did that work out? Ohhhhh yeah...it didn't

coughcoughspanishcivilwarcoughcough OR coughcoughukrainecoughcough

I know somebody who could answer that, hmmmm, who was it? Oh yeah, Marx.

All praise be to Marx! The merciful the all, powerfull! <_<

Not everything Marx said was fuckin slated in stone and it's definately not all valid.

Because that allows reactionaries to regain power. Do you think racists, fascists, nazis, religious nuts, capitalists, etc are just gonna disappear after the revolution?

If the revolution happens, that means the people have made the choice to liberate and enlightened themselves, therefore they don't support the fascists, nazis, religous nuts, capitalists, etc because they would have already realized that they were opressive ideologies.

RASH chris

13th October 2005, 23:49

spanish civil war OR ukraine

Ah yes, those succeeded. Oh wait...no they didn't

Not everything Marx said was fuckin slated in stone and it's definately not all valid

But everything said by Bakunin or Prodhoun or Malatesta or Goldman or Berkman or whoever your favorite anarchist is, is always valid and true? Come on anarchist theorists are no more valid than marxist theorists.

If the revolution happens, that means the people have made the choice to liberate and enlightened themselves, therefore they don't support the fascists, nazis, religous nuts, capitalists, etc because they would have already realized that they were opressive ideologies.

That doesn't mean they can't mount movements which will threaten the revolution. And we've also got to take other capitalist nations into account. Remember, the white army wasn't just Russians, there were soldiers from other countries. Even US marines.

If the reactionaries are capable of convincing workers of the benefits or reactionary ideology for this long, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to adapt and change to get the workers to follow them again? They are intensely experienced in tricking the proletariat.

13th October 2005, 23:58

you leninists have tested you theory out plenty of times, and its never worked.

why demolish one state and create another?

why can't we just go straight into direct democracy after the revolution? i can't think of a single reason why jot.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a marxist theory. There can be both direct democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat at the same time. That is what dictatorship of the proletariat is.

Organic Revolution

14th October 2005, 00:21

then why bother with your dictatorship?

14th October 2005, 00:32

It is not a dictatorship of the type that you think it is. It is a dictatorship because the proletariat as a class take control of society. They have ultimate and complete control over society. It can be directly democratic because the proletariat make up the majority of the people on the planet. Hence, dictatorship fo the proletariat.

The Feral Underclass

14th October 2005, 00:47

Can the leninists in this thread, or those supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat please answer my posts instead of repeating themselves.

codyvo

14th October 2005, 02:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:31 PM

2. Suppressing dissent is a mechanism of the ruling class. We must suppress dissent!
You sound to me like you envy Stalin. Without listening to the opposition you lose track of your focus, look at Cuba, had Castro not suppressed dissent it may well be a better place today.

14th October 2005, 02:16

You sound to me like you envy Stalin. Without listening to the opposition you lose track of your focus, look at Cuba, had Castro not suppressed dissent it may well be a better place today.

I'm sorry, the opposition are capitalists. Do you not realize this? If you "listen to the opposition" you will be returning to capitalism. Had Castro not suppressed dissent it would definitely be a much worse place.

Zingu

14th October 2005, 02:24

Vladimir Lenin's State and Revolution gives a very good idea why the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will arise no matter what "platform" the revolution is guided on, even an "Anarchist" one:

Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says:

"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)

This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.

On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, "correct" Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of "order", which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors.

For instance, when, in the revolution of 1917, the question of the significance and role of the state arose in all its magnitude as a practical question demanding immediate action, and, moreover, action on a mass scale, all the Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks descended at once to the petty-bourgeois theory that the "state" "reconciles" classes. Innumerable resolutions and articles by politicians of both these parties are thoroughly saturated with this petty-bourgeois and philistine "reconciliation" theory. That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand. Their attitude to the state is one of the most striking manifestations of the fact that our Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not socialists at all (a point that we Bolsheviks have always maintained), but petty-bourgeois democrats using near-socialist phraseology.

On the other hand, the "Kautskyite" distortion of Marxism is far more subtle. "Theoretically", it is not denied that the state is an organ of class rule, or that class antagonisms are irreconcilable. But what is overlooked or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and "alienating itself more and more from it", it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this "alienation". As we shall see later, Marx very explicitly drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion on the strength of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution. And — as we shall show in detail further on — it is this conclusion which Kautsky has "forgotten" and distorted.

novemba

14th October 2005, 04:41

Anarchists and Leninists have a different definition of state, so basically all of that is rendered invalid.

Also, the capitalists have the right to have their opinions in the same way we have the right to have ours. No one should be denied basic freedoms, no one should be oppressed, even the bourgeosie.

14th October 2005, 05:32

Also, the capitalists have the right to have their opinions in the same way we have the right to have ours. No one should be denied basic freedoms, no one should be oppressed, even the bourgeosie.

Of course they should be!

kurt

14th October 2005, 11:20

This isn't exactly on topic, but I'd like to know what the anarchists here think about the Paris Commune?

Red Flag

14th October 2005, 11:37

Interesting to see that no one has responded to my original post.

Also, the capitalists have the right to have their opinions in the same way we have the right to have ours. No one should be denied basic freedoms, no one should be oppressed, even the bourgeosie.

Is that so? So you don't want the working class to have power? What is it exactly that you want?

Sounds like you support the system already in place to me.

Zingu

14th October 2005, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:22 AM
Anarchists and Leninists have a different definition of state, so basically all of that is rendered invalid.

Also, the capitalists have the right to have their opinions in the same way we have the right to have ours. No one should be denied basic freedoms, no one should be oppressed, even the bourgeosie.

Ah, but our "opinion" (which is a theory) is the correct one, which is the subject of this topic.

As for opinions, I think you're right, we'll just shoot them before they have a chance to voice their opinion. Its class warfare; remember what happened in the Commune when the workers were too soft? 40,000 men, women and children massacured as the burgeoisie laughed looking on at the side, its a kill or be killed struggle when class antagonisms break out into full blown revolution. If we don't suppress them and the reactionaries; they'll suppress us.
Revolutionary terror is nessecary, mass arrests, summary executions and suppressing any right the burgeoisie have.

I'm a Marxist really, not a Leninist.

Hiero

14th October 2005, 15:59

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2005, 11:28 AM
Can the leninists in this thread, or those supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat please answer my posts instead of repeating themselves.

Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

How is the state to create a stateless society?

Is this the question?

Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

How is the state to create a stateless society?

Well it's a stupid question as it was enver state that the state would disolve quickly after revolution. Some quoted the answer to this by Lenin's work.

Just take this quote.

The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

So if it is a product of class antagonisms, it will disolve when class no longer exist. Class exist in nations long after socialism is first estbalished, they exist most because of imperialists. Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all knew this and did not say other wise.

So can you stop asking this pointless question.

novemba

14th October 2005, 16:14

I still don't understand why this is neccesary. Can't we just integrate any willing bourgeousie into society if they're willing to? People are gonna polarize after the revolution, and a civil war will most likely happen, but I think actually outlawing free speech would do more damage than the capitalists trying to 'convert' people...

Axel1917

14th October 2005, 16:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:20 PM

coughcoughspanishcivilwarcoughcough OR coughcoughukrainecoughcough

Spanish Civil War. Yes, didn't Fanco end up coming to power? So much for the elimination of the state. :rolleyes: I also don't see any lack of government in Ukraine either.

I know somebody who could answer that, hmmmm, who was it? Oh yeah, Marx.

All praise be to Marx! The merciful the all, powerfull! <_<

Not everything Marx said was fuckin slated in stone and it's definately not all valid.

Not everything Marx said was etched in stone, but a good deal of what he stated, including the dicatorship of the Proletariat, is valid to this very day.

If the revolution happens, that means the people have made the choice to liberate and enlightened themselves, therefore they don't support the fascists, nazis, religous nuts, capitalists, etc because they would have already realized that they were opressive ideologies.

They don't support them, but not supporting someone does not mean that the particular reactionary, hated group will not just sit by and do nothing. Most people hate Bush, yet just look at how many people the US continues to kill. Minorities will try to use coups and such to try to regain power, and they can also kill people with terroristic activities.

YKTMX

14th October 2005, 17:07

What a fun thread this is!

Anyway, let's get started. First, the man known as Black Dagger says:

Did Lenin mention anything about the 70 year 'communist' party dictatorship that ocurred in what was formerly known as the U.S.S.R?

Indirectly, yes. He was quite clear what would happen in Soviet Russia if, as it did, become isolated. He spent the last few months of his life fighting the growth of the bureaucracy also.

Wet Blanet (ironic?) adds:

The whole concept of hoping that a bureaucratic vanguard state consisting of an enlightened intellectual elite will make everything in society all better and then dissolve itself after it has ushered in a glorious new communist society is pretty loony.

Agreed, which is why no one advocates it. What you're describing is something closer to Blanquism, which Lenin polemicised against for decades.

Explain, in PRACTICAL TERMS(none of the vague marxist rhetoric we've all read thousands of times)

That's the problem, it's never existed "practical" terms, so the only thing we can do is use "vague rhetoric". The forms of the society we wish to create will come out of the revolution - organically. Just like the Soviets became the basis of the Russian revolution.

I'm sure you lot would be the first to bleat if "we" created some sort of monolithic set of Rules for everybody, everywhere to follow.

You're not going to convince an anarchist to listen to what you say if you just tell them to read a book whenever they question anything

I'll say :lol:

Now, to rioters block:

just don't understand how you can say there will be no classes, and then say that there'll be a dictatorship of the proletariat

It's means to that end.

You can't just say, "And Marx said there will be a classless society and it was done."

That's not how it works. Building a new society means creative struggle, problems, and complexities we can't even imagine of.

It's not enough to simply have the "perfect" idea of a classless society and then try to "will" it into place using free love and fresh air. Sadly.

i don't advocate oppressing them, but integrating them into the new society, and gradually breaking down these notions of class we hold at the moment

At's that how it will be done. When we say "oppress the bourgeoisie", it doesn't mean we get some thugs to go around harassing people with top hats. What it means is a practical, creative struggle conducted by everyone against the old dominant ideas and methods. Now, what does that mean?

Think about racism. Even after the revolution, the old "bourgeois" idea that "races" are "naturally diffirent" and that Black people are less intelligent etc will persist in some people. The remnants of the old society (by this I mean, the de-propertied bosses, army generals, media people) will try to propogate these ideas for their own benefit.

What this FACT requires is that new society get together to collectivelly struggle against these ideas. Now, does that always mean arresting people and closing newspapers? No. It does mean that we oppress those ideas whenever we encounter them, so that working class ideas (solidarity, equality, democracy) can be "dictated". So that our ideas can be dominant. And that is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

OR, we could do none of those things and abolish the state. Choose.

Instead the Bolsheviks had to impose a reign of terror on the Ukraine and violently suppress any kind of dissent in a manner reminiscent of US counter-insurgency operations in Vietnam.

Vietnam doesn't border America - the comparison is silly.

That's all for now.

gilhyle

14th October 2005, 17:56

It doesnt surprise me that Anarchists just repeat arguments they have recycled for years about the Ukraine, Spanish Civil War and don't forget Kronstadt. It doesnt surprise me that they boast a lot less about the anarchist record in Mexico during its revolution or in Korea. It doesn't surprise me that - most critically of all - they ignore the role of anarchism in Spain in the period before the civil war and its role in facilitating the Stalinist takeover of that revolution.

But what always surprises me is the complete lack of realistic thinking on this point by so-called Leninists. Is that all you can do, refer to Lenins last months and the fight for workers inspections. Is that it after almost a century thinking about it ?

After the disaster of the Paris Commune, the Second International swore immediately to learn the lessons and learnt many, swearing never to forget lessons made available at a cost of thousands of lives.

After the much worse disaster of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, after the fiasco of Communist China, the so-called peoples democracies, Cambodia and tens of millions of deaths, what do the pragmatic 'leninists' do ..... refer back to Lenin.

Great man and all that, but not one who thought for a moment he had solved the problems of the future.

The shame of leninists (so-called) is that for fear of revisionism, they never write seriously about this issue. I have to go back to Kautskys The Social Revolution (1902) for an alternative to Lenin's view that has anything really constructive to say (even then, I don't agree with him).

Because for them revolution is just an imagined magical moment in which all fundamental problems just disappear, anarchists are not really revolutionaries at all. No more than kids playing football in the school yard are actually first division footballers. But any leninist who just regurgitates 'direct workers democracy' and 'Lenin tackled this' is no better. People with that glib attitude don't deserve to lead anyone anywhere.

The Feral Underclass

14th October 2005, 18:53

Originally posted by Hiero+Oct 14 2005, 04:40 PM--> (Hiero @ Oct 14 2005, 04:40 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2005, 11:28 AM
Can the leninists in this thread, or those supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat please answer my posts instead of repeating themselves.

Look what has happened in Cuba and China to name but two. The state has maintained itself over a large period of time and has now consolidated the bureaucrat’s control. How can it now dissolve?

How is the state to create a stateless society?

Is this the question? [/b]
It was a question, yes.

Well it's a stupid question as it was enver state that the state would disolve quickly after revolution. Some quoted the answer to this by Lenin's work.

That proves my point even more. It's going to be impossible to "disolve" the state after years of its consolidation, i.e. Cuba.

And how does this process being? When does it begin? Can you answer these questions?

Lenin
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

The state isn't a magical entity, it's a human made mechinism which serves people a specific purpose and will perpetuate class antagonisms by its very nature. This quote means nothing to this debate. Lenin has simply stated part of a fact, he did not witness two thirds of the last century when his theory was applied into practice.

The perpetuation of a state requires requires the hierarchical control of individuals, and as Bakunin predicted, those individuals emerge as a bureaucratic class. New class antagonisms are created and the cycle begins again.

So if it is a product of class antagonisms, it will disolve when class no longer exist.

But class divisions will always exist while the state does. The state needs a ruling class to control its existence, that's how states work. They are hierarchical insitutions of control where by a ruling class administrates society. As long as the state exists so will those who "run" it and while they "run" it new classes emerge.

Class exist in nations long after socialism is first estbalished, they exist most because of imperialists. Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all knew this and did not say other wise.

Largely because the state is maintained. I can agree that class antagonisms exist, but class cannot stop existing while such a hierarchical insitution like the state exists.

So can you stop asking this pointless question.

When you've answered I will.

Red Flag

14th October 2005, 19:23

That proves my point even more. It's going to be impossible to "disolve" the state after years of its consolidation, i.e. Cuba.

Why is it impossible? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you really expect the state to disolve before the material conditions for its dissolution are met (an end to imperialist aggression and imperialist supported counter-revolution, sufficient production to meet human need)?

And how does this process being? When does it begin? Can you answer these questions?

See my original post:

"A main feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat currently (in it's only existing form - Cuba) is to keep the bourgeoisie and imperialists from overthrowing the workers state, while at the same time practicing proletarian internationalism, doing everything possible to promote the revolution around the world.

The less the dictatorship of the proletariat has to function as the organized defense of workers' control, the more it becomes just a means of administration (coordinating the economy) and eventually leads to the "withering away of the state." To think that the workers state (workers control over the means of production, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat) can be disolved, or its creation avoided all together post revolution, while imperialism still looms as an immense threat is complete idealism. Material reality has a funny way of overcoming that.

It would be great if we could have communism tommorow, but realistically, we can't, no matter how much we 'want it.' We will not, and cannot, have communism before the defeat of imperialism. Period."

NovelGentry

15th October 2005, 02:24

That proves my point even more. It's going to be impossible to "disolve" the state after years of its consolidation, i.e. Cuba.

So let's not consolidate it.

And how does this process being? When does it begin? Can you answer these questions?

The process may never begin there. I would argue that the process of the whithering away of the state, as theorized by Karl Marx, happens nearly immediately, by transforming the state into a body where power is not consolidated and cannot be consolidated. It begins with a change in the form of the state, which would go from the modern day republic to a direct democratic organization, probably a confederation of a number of local communes, side by side with an association of laborers for dealing directly with economic issues.

The state isn't a magical entity, it's a human made mechinism which serves people a specific purpose

True.

and will perpetuate class antagonisms by its very nature.

False. The state is a reflection of class antagonisms, not their creator.

The perpetuation of a state requires requires the hierarchical control of individuals

Quite possibly, and this is why it is completely valid for communists to say that anarchists don't understand. We do not seek a perpetuation of the state, we seek a whithering away of the state.

The state will exist, so long as class antagonisms exist; that is something the communists believe to be true always. Our goal is, thus, never to destroy the state, but to destroy class antagonisms. Since our goal is never to perpetuate the state, the state can take on a form which is inherently non-hierarchical. In which case, if you are right, it will die out immediately -- if we are right, it will last only so long as class antagonisms do. In both cases, it need not be hierarchical except in one sense, that the proletariat is above the bourgeoisie, in and of itself, no proletarian should be higher than another.

But class divisions will always exist while the state does.

So class divisions are a product of the state? or is the state a product of class divisions?

But yes, I agree, class divisions will always exist while the state does, because the state is the manifestation of those class antagonisms, as such, it will always exist while classes do, in one form or another.

I can agree that class antagonisms exist, but class cannot stop existing while such a hierarchical insitution like the state exists.

Well no, it can, here's why. Again, the only hierarchical division of our state is the state over society as a whole, namely, the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. If you are to look at society as a whole, it will be divided into those two classes. So it is right to say that the proletariat will rule over society as a whole, it is however completely wrong to say the state must be hierarchical within itself.

I will completely agree that the state is hierarchical by nature, that is to say, the state itself rules over society and there is always a portion of that society which can find no resolution in the state, it is currently the proletariat. How could a proletarian find resolution in the state? Well the answer is obvious, to become a member of the bourgeoisie (as if it were that simple), then they could buy their resolutions in the state -- more, the state would naturally protect their interests overall. So how then can we presume classes will be abolished under a state? Well we must see the members of the bourgeoisie become proletarian, then they too will find resolution in the state, and what happens then? Your hierarchy is gone. The state no longer rules over the whole of society, a portion separate from itself, because it now is the whole of society and thus becomes nothing more than proletarian organization.

They are hierarchical insitutions of control where by a ruling class administrates society.

Hierarchical externally, not necessarily internally. This is of course the entire base of your argument. You have to have people believe that a state can never offer equality from within to its members. If that happens your argument falls to shreads. It is still a state, because externally there is still a portion of society who has no political equality, and only in this sense must it be viewed as hierarchical. From within, the state can take (and has taken) a number of forms ranging from "less democratic" and thus more consolidated to "more democratic."

As long as the state exists so will those who "run" it and while they "run" it new classes emerge.

But what if those who run it is the proletariat? Yes, as a whole. And what if over time the old members of the bourgeoisie die off, lose will to fight for capitalism, or are folded into the proletariat from an economic perspective? I fail to see how the proletariat running the state, could create the emergence of a new class. What class would it be? How can they do so? Afterall, they've socialized the means of production, and probably have a good portion of socialized distribution too. Exactly how do they go about creating new class antagonisms under such conditions?

novemba

15th October 2005, 04:49

The perpetuation of a state requires requires the hierarchical control of individuals, and as Bakunin predicted, those individuals emerge as a bureaucratic class. New class antagonisms are created and the cycle begins again.

exactly.

coda

15th October 2005, 07:16

Nooo, not this argument AGAIN!!!

<< or are folded into the proletariat from an economic perspective?>>

yes, that's the most likely scenario,--and are the conditional economic precursors that is needed, ---if the capitalists are not folded into the proletariat economically, as economic conditions will need to dictate that for successful revolution, then revolution is bound to be a huge & repressive failure all the way around for everyone, especially to those who are gonna get purged, which is what you'll have to do if you think you are going to hold 1/2 a population or more than 1/2 a population at the barrel of a gun. When the capitalists are folded into the proletariat because economically there is no where else to go-- then there is no need for dictator of the proletariat.

NovelGentry

15th October 2005, 07:28

which is what you'll have to do if you think you are going to hold 1/2 a population or more than 1/2 a population at the barrel of a gun.

1/2? You propose that the bourgeoisie is 50% of our population? :lol: :lol: :lol: If that's the case, the revolution is failed no matter how you cut it.

When the capitalists are folded into the proletariat because economically there is no where else to go-- then there is no need for dictator of the proletariat.

Well we have different ideas from what that means to be folded in. I'm not merely talking about the necessary condition of working -- they need to build a worker's consciousness. You can't just say, "OK, you have to work now" and think all the sudden they understand what it's all about and will gladly keep the productive forces socialized.

I don't pretend to define when and when there is not a need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I've said in other threads (possibly on other boards) that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not merely about maintaining order and control, it, like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a product of something far more determinable.

coda

15th October 2005, 07:54

Well, my post was in agreement with yours, Novel Gentry. Anyway...

What I'm trying to say here is that economic conditions have to prevail for a successful revolution. The majority of people have to be economically oppressed for it to conclude, otherwise you will be doing it at the barrel of a gun and will in no way succeed.

<1/2? You propose that the bourgeoisie is 50% of our population? If that's the case, the revolution is failed no matter how you cut it. >>

sure it is.. the property-class ---anybody that holds deeds to lands and the houses built on them. That's A Lot of people. they will be reluctant to give those up. They will have to be in the process of losing them in the first place.. which is gonna be happening here in the US atleast, after Oct 17th. with the new stringent bankruptcy laws go into effect here. People won't be able to file bankruptcy as easy and they will drown in their debt to the poverty class.

<<Well we have different ideas from what that means to be folded in. I'm not merely talking about the necessary condition of working -- they need to build a worker's consciousness. You can't just say, "OK, you have to work now" and think all the sudden they understand what it's all about and will gladly keep the productive forces socialized.>>

I'm referring to economic conditions-- the flaw of capitalism that is now going to brilliantly show itself. The economic conditions will by no choice dictate consciousness. The economic conditions right now are on a drastic downswing and unlikely to recover too soon. More people will be falling into poverty and it should be an easy transition after that. After economic devastation.. They, the former capitalists and bourgeois will have to keep up the productive forces if they want to survive and keep society going. The ones that don't commit suicide, that is. Remember, Capitalism relies on the working people's ability to sustain it and a solid abundant economy. Capitalism falls apart when people don't have money.

<<I don't pretend to define when and when there is not a need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I've said in other threads (possibly on other boards) that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not merely about maintaining order and control, it, like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a product of something far more determinable.>>

Well, all I can say is that when the conditions of revolution are ready to assure success and properly carried out there won't be a need for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Red Flag

15th October 2005, 08:08

:huh: You think home owners are bourgeois?

Interesting to note that still, no one has addressed my points.

coda

15th October 2005, 08:40

No, not bourgeoisie in the sense that they are exploiters over the non-property class, or that they own the means of production, but bourgeoisie in the sense that they are middle-class to some extent and proponents of the status quo and have different interests to protect than those who own no property. They will indeed be reluctant to give the property up, if they are expected to do so. That is probably around 50% of the population, atleast in the U.S. Republicans alone are about 50% of the population in the U.S.

Actually according to this article, 69% of US citizens own homes.

http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/2004-04-06.cfm

My assumption is that the vast majority of the population is going to have to be down with revolution for it to succeed.. it will not be brought about by holding people at gunpoint. and they will get on the side of revolution when economic conditions assign them there. Thus, no need for the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

YKTMX

15th October 2005, 10:01

The actual number who own homes is much lower than 69% - which includes the number who have mortgages. Having a mortgage doesn't mean you own a home. If you default on the payments, the bank will take it from you, so how can you possibly "own" it.

coda

15th October 2005, 11:00

It might be less in the UK. Technically, you "own" it as long as you have the title, which is transferred at the property closing, before the mortgage is paid in full. This grants the right to also sell it before the mortgage is paid in full or take out a second mortgage using the house as collateral. With the current real estate market, the little house you "bought" 10 years ago for $100,000-$150,000 is now worth any where from $350,000-$450,000. You could resell it now, pay off the mortgage and drop that money right back into another house which you could probably pay in full or damn near close to it. Real Estate is always a bourgeois-esqe investment! and a crucial line dividing class disparities.

Red Flag

15th October 2005, 11:41

Owning a home does not make one bourgeois. Are you fucking kidding me?

Also, the elimination of private property refers to the means of production and distribution, not personal possessions such as a house (unless of course you own more than one home, etc., in this case your property would be redistributed as was done in Cuba).

gilhyle

15th October 2005, 12:20

QUOTE=Indigo,Oct 15 2005, 07:35 AM: "What I'm trying to say here is that economic conditions have to prevail for a successful revolution. The majority of people have to be economically oppressed for it to conclude, otherwise you will be doing it at the barrel of a gun and will in no way succeed."

Read Kautsky. He is all about this. Of course the point about Lenin is he rejected the idea that the majority of the people in the country in which the Marxists seize state power have to be proletarians. He accepted that it was justified to seize state power without having majority support in the country in which power was being seized, without economic conditions being ready for the transition to socialism in that country. Indeed the Third International argued that it was necessary, because the 'chain' had to be broken at the weakest link.

Granted the Third International also accepted that in the world economy taken as a whole economic conditions had to have reached a point where, on a world historical scale, the transition to socialism was economically feasible.

But Leninism did partially revert the Marxist insight that political programmes must accord with economic conditions, by saying that while true for the world economy, it was not true for each state that economic conditions needed to have matured.

Lenin might have been correct, in the sense that an international revolution has to start somewhere. But this approach massively amplifies the problem of bureaucracy since it is a feature of societies based on small scale agriculture, that the State is particularly susceptible to seizure by bureaucratic cliques.

A history of such seizures, in which bureaucracy repeatedly seizes the workers state feeds the anarchist prejudice that class struggle is a product of the existence of hierarchical power.

coda

15th October 2005, 13:10

I am for everyone having a house and land.

but, those are Hypotheticals and missing the point anyway..

there are incremental class divides in the world -- not just divided into Bourgeoise and Proletariat. How simple that would be. There is a huge class difference between those proletarians who can qualify for and get home loans and car loan and credit cards and the proletarians who are supplemented with government food stamps and welfare checks. And then there are those who fall in-between who qualify for neither. the group I were referring to as "1/2 the population" are the proletarians who are opponents of communism and the class struggle -- middle-class workers who sell their labor and are vehement supporters of Capitalism who have a life-long invested interest in capital and protecting their stocks, bonds, real estate and non-corporate small businesses with employees working under them. not neccesarily the "bourgeoise" -- that's what Novel Gentry gathered from what I said. Some of those Capitalist proletarians I am referring to are right in the OI forum-- those people there don't hold the means of production, but aggressively support those who do. Call them whatever you want-- proletarians, counterrevolutionaries whatever.. but there are a lot of them. Half the population of the US.. you think the fucking republicans and democrats are going to be fighting or going along with a communist system? So, What are you going to do with those people? Do you really think you can have a successful revolution before and without the economic conditions for communism inclusive of all those people? Be for real. Capitalism is collapsing.. it has overarched itself.. and it will take awhile, but when it's finished taking it;s last breath, the transition of capitalism to communism will be complete and there will be no need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

coda

15th October 2005, 13:34

<<Read Kautsky. He is all about this. Of course the point about Lenin is he rejected the idea that the majority of the people in the country in which the Marxists seize state power have to be proletarians.>>

Yeah, it could be done that way with a minority-- but it would be very difficult.

the economic conditions are very unstable and people are falling into poverty all the time--I think you have to hit when its right to have a people's revolution and a successful one at that. Russia was prime for revolution and so was Cuba and Venezuela.

gilhyle

15th October 2005, 13:49

My point is: Russia wasn't ready, economically. Sure people were seriously oppressed. But they were not oppressed as proletarians, i.e. people (homeowners or not, who can only seriously expect to earn their living by earning the market rate for the kind of work they can do). That meant that the vast peasantry, the traders etc. wanted things a proeletarian revolution could not give them.

The only justification for the Russian Revolution was that Europe was ready for revolution, politically and economically.

When that ceased to be the case (circa 1923), the USSR was doomed, like a city under seige. As in any such city, the alternatives were oppresion and rationing or chaos and surrender. The only differences between Trotsky and Stalin was that Trotsky was willing to burn up what was left of the USSR to facilitate a renewed European crisis after a second World War while Stalin preferred to kill and destroy in his own time.

The other alternative (Bukharin's) of a socialist agricultural society based on small scale capitalist agriculture and State monopoly of large industry was not a long term option. It ignored the whole point of socialist revolution - the rule of labourer.

China, Cuba etc. don't even come close to being justified, economically. So no wonder they degenerated into oppression at the service of bureaucratic cliques..

Social Greenman

15th October 2005, 14:05

Whoa there fella...I finally own my own home and that does not make me bourgeois in any shape or form. It took a long time to get this old house and you would not believe the hoops I had to jump through for the bourgeoisie and the petite-bougeoisie. When the final closing came I had to sign many papers which were enough to make a book. The bank holds the deed, I hold copies of how I am going to pay it off. Real estate is a scam of the capitalist class. It is easier to get a loan for a car.

The reason I bought a house is because I can no longer afford to pay the rising cost of rent due to health issues in my family. My monthly payments are 1/2 of what I use to pay in rent. I have taken steps to reduce energy consumption since the utilities cost are going up. We all know it is for profit demand. I do not have or want a credit card nor is any monies I have tied into capitalist investments.

indigo wrote:

The group I were referring to as "1/2 the population" are the proletarians who are opponents of communism and the class struggle -- middle-class workers who sell their labor and are vehement supporters of Capitalism who have a life-long invested interest in capital and protecting their stocks, bonds, real estate and non-corporate small businesses with employees working under them. not neccesarily the "bourgeoise."

Yes, there are "Middle Class" people who vehement supporters of capitalism and I met quite a few "Lower Class" people who are just as vehement. The "Middle Class" do have some investments in stocks and bonds but only enough to secure a better retirement but even that is now questionable due to cuts in Medicare. When it comes to real estate these people have to sign their deeds over to their children because when old age hits the government wants compensation for Medicare services ie nursing home care even though they have paid for it their entire lives.

Those of the lower classes support capitalist causes and very willing to sell their "labor power." Capitalist propaganda is what I think has gotten to these folks. Otherwise they would see that the overthrow of the capitalist system would be in their best interest.

John

Red Flag

15th October 2005, 14:51

There's no such thing as a "middle class" proletariat. This is a part of the rulling class (especially in America) purposely trying to blur class lines.

Because of this, I don't think you understand class relations clearly. You're not alone, in most surveys people consider themselfs "middle class" if they own a home and a car, but when given the option to choose working class they do.

Your class is determined by your relation to the means of production, not your economic standing. Most workers struggle financially, but struggling financially doesn't make you a worker. Most of the petit-bourgeoisie is fairly well off, but being fairly well off doesn't make you petit-bourgeois.

I think the Manifesto of the Free People's Movement sums it up:

Since the rise of slave-states in ancient times humans have been divided into classes. Society has developed throughout history through the struggle of these classes due to their opposing interests (from the slave-state to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism).

There are two main opposing classes under capitalism. The capitalists, also known as the bourgeoisie, own businesses and employ workers. The capitalists are the minority, but control the means of production (the tools used for the manufacture of goods, i.e. factories, transport systems, oil fields, mines, etc), and thus are the ruling class. The governments of the world represent the interests of the capitalists, and the police and military serve to protect their positions of power.

The working class, also known as the proletariat, is made up of those who have no way to earn a living other than working for the capitalists – that is, selling their labor-power (this includes the unemployed). The working class has allies, including poor peasants, who also have interests that are also diametrically opposed to that of the capitalists. The vast majority of people on earth are a either a part of the working class or its allies.

The Petit-bourgeois, made up of those who own small businesses or serve as managers or administrators for the capitalists, have no natural allies and in fact may have interests in common with either of the main opposing classes, though they are more likely to side with the capitalists than with the working class.

www.freepeoplesmovement.org/manifesto.html

bombeverything

15th October 2005, 22:53

Why is it impossible? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you really expect the state to disolve before the material conditions for its dissolution are met (an end to imperialist aggression and imperialist supported counter-revolution, sufficient production to meet human need)?

Not at all, however we simply argue that this process must be carried out by the working class themselves. That is, the state must be abolished in order for these material conditions to be met. Imperialist aggression necessitates the existence of a centralised state with an internalised hierarchical structure sustained by a strong nationalist sentiment. With these structures still in existence, it is impossible to create the material conditions you are referring to.

The less the dictatorship of the proletariat has to function as the organized defense of workers' control, the more it becomes just a means of administration (coordinating the economy) and eventually leads to the "withering away of the state." To think that the workers state (workers control over the means of production, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat) can be disolved, or its creation avoided all together post revolution, while imperialism still looms as an immense threat is complete idealism. Material reality has a funny way of overcoming that.

Please explain the transition between the state as a means of administration and the "withering away of the state". You seem to be suggesting that somewhere down the track those who presently hold power will simply “give it up”. This sounds like idealism to me, it has never happened and it never will happen.

It would be great if we could have communism tommorow, but realistically, we can't, no matter how much we 'want it.' We will not, and cannot, have communism before the defeat of imperialism. Period."

The workers must defeat imperialism themselves, this is not only possible --- it is necessary.

Red Flag

16th October 2005, 05:44

Not at all, however we simply argue that this process must be carried out by the working class themselves.

And communists don't?

That is, the state must be abolished in order for these material conditions to be met.

That makes no sense. How would Cuba create the material conditions described (an end to imperialist aggression, counter revolution) if the state were dissolved there? :huh:

Imperialist aggression necessitates the existence of a centralised state with an internalised hierarchical structure sustained by a strong nationalist sentiment. With these structures still in existence, it is impossible to create the material conditions you are referring to.

I think I understand you. You're saying imperialism will exist until the bourgeoisie is overthrown in the imperialist nations, and you're right of course, who would say otherwise? But until then, when revolutions happen, what are the countries to do? If they don't organize as a state the counter revolution will succeed, it has full support of the imperialists behind it.

Please explain the transition between the state as a means of administration and the "withering away of the state". You seem to be suggesting that somewhere down the track those who presently hold power will simply “give it up”.

They won't have to "give it up," as they will be rendered useless. Marx, and especially Engels have written on this. When there is no more imperialism to defend from, and counter revolution to suppress, the state is rendered just an administrative mechanism, and therefor is no longer a state in the actuall sense of the word. There's a reason why we say "withers away" .. I think some people expect the government in a workers' republic to just dissolve instantly one day, like handing over the keys to a car, and that's incorrect.

This sounds like idealism to me, it has never happened and it never will happen.

You can read the future now? Cool! Tell me how this all works out :rolleyes:

As I've said, the state can't dissolve while imperialist aggression and imperialist supported counter-revolution continue and before sufficient production to meet human need is acheived. Since there's never been an end to imperialist aggression and imperialist supported counter-revolution, and since sufficient production to meet human need has been reached, of course there a state has never withered away.

I remind you that a successful anarchist revolution has never happened, so by your logic, it never will.

The workers must defeat imperialism themselves, this is not only possible --- it is necessary.

Oh yeah?! The sky is blue and water is wet! :D

The Garbage Disposal Unit

16th October 2005, 07:51

The problem arises, fundamentally, I think, in the differences between Anarchist and Marxist conseptions of and uses of "state". In reality both realize is the necessity of a sort of dual power situation of struggle, where the old power continues to exist even as history overtakes it; Marxists, refering to their political/practical class-organization of this period, refer to "Dictatorship of The Proletariat". All but the most niave anarchists envision something roughly similar, but don't concieve of it as statist, because of the specific emphasis on authentic democracy. In reality, many contemporary Marxists envision a similar organization, based on the evolution of circumstances and evolution of productivkraft, rather than in ideological (anarchist) terms.

That's not to say, of course, that many Marxists don't have simplistic, backward, economistic understandings of the state . . . alas . . .

Hiero

16th October 2005, 08:08

and will perpetuate class antagonisms by its very nature.

On Virgin Molotov Cocktail note, this is the most simplistic view of the state. Where can we go from this idealist position? It jsut totaly cuts of the importance of who controls of the economy. If we believe the state is the cause of class antagonisms then we don't have to to worry about class warfare, just destroy the state.

ComradeOm

16th October 2005, 09:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:49 AM

and will perpetuate class antagonisms by its very nature.

On Virgin Molotov Cocktail note, this is the most simplistic view of the state. Where can we go from this idealist position? It jsut totaly cuts of the importance of who controls of the economy. If we believe the state is the cause of class antagonisms then we don't have to to worry about class warfare, just destroy the state.
And that’s the very reason why so many misconceptions about anarchism abound today. You get some idiot with a rifle or bomb setting out to “destroy the state” without giving a second thought to either what the state is or what the next step will be.

Social Greenman

16th October 2005, 12:13

Red Flag Wrote:

There's no such thing as a "middle class" proletariat. This is a part of the rulling class (especially in America) purposely trying to blur class lines.

Because of this, I don't think you understand class relations clearly. You're not alone, in most surveys people consider themselfs "middle class" if they own a home and a car, but when given the option to choose working class they do.

Your class is determined by your relation to the means of production, not your economic standing. Most workers struggle financially, but struggling financially doesn't make you a worker. Most of the petit-bourgeoisie is fairly well off, but being fairly well off doesn't make you petit-bourgeois.

You are correct and I have been told that the ruling class has effectively blurred class lines among the many here in the U.S. It is clear that the bourgeoisie own the means of production. There are a few petit-bourgeois that own small businesses for themselves but I am becoming aware that they have taken on the role of managers and such in every occupation. However, the role of where workers stand economically is blurry. It is easy to spot who is poor and who is rich but workers do not understand their relation when it comes to their economic social standing.

It is safe for me to say that many workers favor their capitalist bosses. The reason I believe that we are tolerated is because the ruling class has effective propaganda. So effective that they just monitored us. We are pretty much free to say or write what we please. If we become a threat they will censor and oppress us. In essence, we live under the "dictatorship of the bougeoisie." Most people don't realise it; perhaps most don't care. Government maintains the interest of the capitalist class.

Now I can understand the concerns of the Anarchist concerning government as being oppressive and intrusive. I also understand that there would be those who would mount agression against communes or any socialist forms of production. There would be a need for political action to protect workers interest, "dictatorship of the proletariet", without the worry of it being oppressive and intrusive at the same time towards workers.

As long as we remain divided the "dictatorship of the bougeoisie" will continue to exist. The capitalist class will always need the state to carry out it's interest. It will never end. Even the capitalist Libertarians know that they need a state to carry out their market games, to enforce contracts, to exploit the workforce, to bring back slavery, to legalise prostitution for their own gain (the same can be said for drugs), and use the police--and the military-- to protect what they consider "their" private property (means of production). Most of us see the state, "dictatorship of the prolateriet" as temporary and to whither away into communism. I hope that most of us knows what works and what does not work. Perhaps, one day, we can all agree to a purpose and plan that will catch the interest of workers worldwide.

John

coda

16th October 2005, 23:34

<<There's no such thing as a "middle class" proletariat. This is a part of the rulling class (especially in America) purposely trying to blur class lines.>>

There is no such thing as a middle class?

oh contrare, --- the middle classes maintain the rich, enable them to get richer. Without the middle-class economy, the wealthy's fortunes would freeze.

The middle-class sustains the economy which the Rich reap immense profits from. most every consumer product is manufactured with the middle-class in mind. Malls were designed for the middle-class to shop there. The suburbs were designed for the middle-class to live there. SUV's were designed for "soccer moms" to drive their families around in. Electronics, and cars, appliances and entertainment, credit cards and loans -- all designed with the intention that the middle-class, particularly the mid-to high middle class, those who have money to burn, will buy and use. It's not fixed and it fluctuates, but it truly exists.

Indeed they are part of the proletariat and may not be the class enemy, but they have entitlements which the working poor and poor do not have and they have little interaction among that subset of society.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th October 2005, 11:27

Read the whole sentance that you quoted:

"There's no such thing as a "middle class" proletariat. This is a part of the rulling class (especially in America) purposely trying to blur class lines."

Working class = proletariat
The middle class = petit-bourgeoisie
Capitalist class = bourgeoisie

bombeverything

17th October 2005, 12:55

And communists don't?

Not authoritarian "communists".

That makes no sense. How would Cuba create the material conditions described (an end to imperialist aggression, counter revolution) if the state were dissolved there? :huh:

Well to begin with the workers in Cuba would actually have to overthrow Castro's regime. Once state socialism has been instituted another revolution is needed before real communism can be achieved, hence our opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The centralisation of authority creates a power that exists above society, e.g. through regulated and permanent bureaucratic structures of institutionalised control that can only dominate and oppress the working class.

Answer this question. When will Cuban society "progress" to communism, i.e. when will the state dissolve :huh:

I am waiting.

But until then, when revolutions happen, what are the countries to do? If they don't organize as a state the counter revolution will succeed, it has full support of the imperialists behind it.

As Molotov mentioned this is our main difference here, the issue of authority and the state. First of all this issue would depend on the strength of the revolution. Do you think that we do not believe in self-defence? This is what I meant when I claimed that you do not believe that the workers are able to liberate themselves without creating another ruling class.

Our unions and syndicates would obviously have to be on guard against counterrevolutionary attack. Please note that anarchism is not the same thing as chaos or disorganisation. In contrast, it is very ordered. For instance in extreme situations the military defence of the revolution may demand a temporary command, coordination of activities, discipline, and even obedience to orders. But these will be voluntary and temporary.

They won't have to "give it up," as they will be rendered useless. Marx, and especially Engels have written on this. When there is no more imperialism to defend from, and counter revolution to suppress, the state is rendered just an administrative mechanism, and therefor is no longer a state in the actuall sense of the word. There's a reason why we say "withers away" .. I think some people expect the government in a workers' republic to just dissolve instantly one day, like handing over the keys to a car, and that's incorrect.

This sounds a bit vague. We disagree that the state is needed to achieve communism. This is a task for the working class themselves, organised through their own local, regional, and federal organizations from the bottom up. Instead, we argue that the state is counterproductive for the reasons stated above (and many others).

Red Flag

17th October 2005, 13:17

Not authoritarian "communists".

Once again, as the subtitle of the thread suggests, an anarchist retreats into "buzz words" and semantics. Communists advocate the authority of the working class -- and where they exist in significant numbers -- poor peasants.

Well to begin with the workers in Cuba would actually have to overthrow Castro's regime. Once state socialism has been instituted another revolution is needed before real communism can be achieved, hence our opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The centralisation of authority creates a power that exists above society, e.g. through regulated and permanent bureaucratic structures of institutionalised control that can only dominate and oppress the working class.

Answer this question. When will Cuban society "progress" to communism, i.e. when will the state dissolve

I am waiting.

Did you actually read the post you're arguing against?

The state cannot and will not dissolve until there is an end to imperialist aggression & imperialist supported counter-revolution; and until human need can be met fully. Once those material conditions are met, the state no longer opperates as a state *proper,* rather as an administrative organization, which will become more and more organic.

As Molotov mentioned this is our main difference here, the issue of authority and the state. First of all this issue would depend on the strength of the revolution. Do you think that we do not believe in self-defence? This is what I meant when I claimed that you do not believe that the workers are able to liberate themselves without creating another ruling class.

Our unions and syndicates would obviously have to be on guard against counterrevolutionary attack. Please note that anarchism is not the same thing as chaos or disorganisation. In contrast, it is very ordered. For instance in extreme situations the military defence of the revolution may demand a temporary command, coordination of activities, discipline, and even obedience to orders. But these will be voluntary and temporary.

What if, like the case of Cuba, you're bombarded by the most powerful country in history for 47 years? What do you do?

Your ideas sound nice, but so far they are just that, ideas. Whenever they've been put into practice, those utilizing them weren't able to defend their revolutions. I've yet to see the argument put forward by anyone (even "famous" anarchists) that would make me think for a second that a modern anarchist revolution would last any significant amount of time.

This sounds a bit vague. We disagree that the state is needed to achieve communism. This is a task for the working class themselves, organised through their own local, regional, and federal organizations from the bottom up. Instead, we argue that the state is counterproductive for the reasons stated above (and many others).

You don't argue it very well.

And history is even less kind to your theories.

bombeverything

17th October 2005, 13:53

Once again, as the subtitle of the thread suggests, an anarchist retreats into "buzz words" and semantics. Communists advocate the authority of the working class -- and where they exist in significant numbers -- poor peasants.

No anarchists oppose all external authority, even the so called "authority" of the working class.

Did you actually read the post you're arguing against?

The state cannot and will not dissolve until there is an end to imperialist aggression & imperialist supported counter-revolution; and until human need can be met fully. Once those material conditions are met, the state no longer opperates as a state *proper,* rather as an administrative organization, which will become more and more organic.

Explain how we are to eliminate all class divisions while the state still exists. That is, how can we create material conditions that simply don't exist?

What if, like the case of Cuba, you're bombarded by the most powerful country in history for 47 years? What do you do?

What are they doing about this now? How is Castro going to "save" Cuba? The theory failed, move on.

Your ideas sound nice, but so far they are just that, ideas. Whenever they've been put into practice, those utilizing them weren't able to defend their revolutions. I've yet to see the argument put forward by anyone (even "famous" anarchists) that would make me think for a second that a modern anarchist revolution would last any significant amount of time.

Create a socialist country that is actually a genuine threat to the United States and then see what happens.

Your argument could be used against socialists as much as it could be used against anarchists. What is your point?

coda

17th October 2005, 17:35

<The middle class = petit-bourgeoisie>

The middle-class workers are not necessarily small business owners or artisans, either.

anyhow, the whole point of the wage system is that it's assurred that most all the money paid out to workers eventually makes it's way back into the hands of ruling class.

But, This whole line of thought is way off topic to the DOP.

workersunity

18th October 2005, 00:25

yes most anarchists either dont understand this point, and like you said are way too fed up with the word usage, or that they dont understand the difference between party dictatorship and dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialism we fight for will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that marx used the term "dictatorship" to reference any kind of state, capitalism is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and Stalin's rule in russia was dictatorship of the party yet, it is better classified as Bonapartism, concentration on military,police, and state bureaucracy.

Red Flag

18th October 2005, 02:10

No anarchists oppose all external authority, even the so called "authority" of the working class.

Wow. Quite a revealing statment. More into semantics than ever!

Explain how we are to eliminate all class divisions while the state still exists. That is, how can we create material conditions that simply don't exist?

You're not going to entirely eliminate the divisions while imperialism looms, which is why the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in neccessary; to consolidate the power of the working class to organize the economy and defend the revolution. After the social base for the existance of the bourgoisie is gone, so will they be with it.

What are they doing about this now? How is Castro going to "save" Cuba? The theory failed, move on.

I'm not going to go in circles with you. Try reading my posts. They are defending their revolution as they have done, while being proletarian internationalists, doing all the can to further the world revolution.

Castro isn't going to "save" anyone, and I don't know a single person would speak in such idealistic terminology.

:lol: Let me get this straight, communist theory failed but anarchist theory has been a huge success?

Also, thanks for not answering the actual question. It reveals alot.

Create a socialist country that is actually a genuine threat to the United States and then see what happens.

You're going to create a stateless society that's a threat to the greatest superpower the world has ever known? Right.

Your argument could be used against socialists as much as it could be used against anarchists. What is your point?

What is a socialist? I guess you're refering to communists, in which case, the same argument couldn't be used at all. I'm arguing that anarchist "organization" doesn't allow for defense of a revolution and never has. On the other hand, socialist Cuba has been defending its revolution for 47 years.

bombeverything

18th October 2005, 11:08

Ok I agree that we need to stop going around in circles. I would also like to admit that sometimes I am lazy when replying to posts. If I have done this in your case then I apologise. Anyway this is what you are getting at so I will tackle it first.

I'm arguing that anarchist "organization" doesn't allow for defense of a revolution and never has.

First of all, I question the point of this argument. When has there ever been a purely anarchist revolution? What I mean is that the historical validly of anarchist organisation must be seen within the context of the united struggle against counterrevolution. There are, however clear examples of anarchism working in practice. This is not your question, however I feel that it would be a more valid one. The problem I have with the above argument is that although it takes into account the social forces that influenced the nature of our participation and organisation in various revolutionary situations, you seem to be suggesting that these are inevitable and unchangeable. We did what we could in the circumstances. I am not denying that we haven’t made any mistakes, or that all of these issues are black and white. Yet we are ready to accept this and move forward.

Second, this argument seems to be suggesting that anarchism is inherently flawed because they refuse to “take power” by controlling the state apparatus. I don’t see why they should. For instance in Russia, as you know, we worked with the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution. Anarchists were arguing for workers and peasants to expropriate the ruling class, abolish the state and re-organise society from the bottom up through the soviets, the factory committees, co-operatives, etc. However this ended once the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party seized power. Why should anarchists collaborate with those who wish to limit the power of the workers and the peasants by placing themselves in positions of authority over them? Our opposition to the Bolsheviks was not petty, it was justified and necessary.

You're going to create a stateless society that's a threat to the greatest superpower the world has ever known? Right.

This is not what I meant at all. I was noting that Cuba as it is today is not a threat to the United States, and that this is the reason it still exists, rather than it being the result of an almighty state.

Wow. Quite a revealing statment. More into semantics than ever!

Would you care to elaborate?

You're not going to entirely eliminate the divisions while imperialism looms, which is why the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in neccessary; to consolidate the power of the working class to organize the economy and defend the revolution. After the social base for the existance of the bourgoisie is gone, so will they be with it.

When did I say we could? As I have stated many times before, we are not opposed to society and organisation! We just believe that the workers can fight the ruling class and organize the economy without resorting to the creation of institutionalised and permanent structures of domination and exploitation.

The idea of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is mainly problematic because it views the seizing of state power as our first priority, whilst leaving the expropriation until later. We will often argue that the separation is these events present a danger the revolution because the economic power of the capitalists would still remain. Without economic power, the working class will have reduced political power.

I'm not going to go in circles with you. Try reading my posts. They are defending their revolution as they have done, while being proletarian internationalists, doing all the can to further the world revolution.

Castro isn't going to "save" anyone, and I don't know a single person would speak in such idealistic terminology.

:lol: Let me get this straight, communist theory failed but anarchist theory has been a huge success?

Also, thanks for not answering the actual question. It reveals alot.

I am also glad that you were able to analyse me from a few posts. Well done.

:lol: Once again you misunderstood my post. When did I say Castro would “save” anyone?

Axel1917

18th October 2005, 16:26

Originally posted by gilhyle+Oct 15 2005, 12:04 PM--> (gilhyle @ Oct 15 2005, 12:04 PM) QUOTE=Indigo,Oct 15 2005, 07:35 AM: "What I'm trying to say here is that economic conditions have to prevail for a successful revolution. The majority of people have to be economically oppressed for it to conclude, otherwise you will be doing it at the barrel of a gun and will in no way succeed."

Read Kautsky. He is all about this. Of course the point about Lenin is he rejected the idea that the majority of the people in the country in which the Marxists seize state power have to be proletarians. He accepted that it was justified to seize state power without having majority support in the country in which power was being seized, without economic conditions being ready for the transition to socialism in that country. Indeed the Third International argued that it was necessary, because the 'chain' had to be broken at the weakest link.

Granted the Third International also accepted that in the world economy taken as a whole economic conditions had to have reached a point where, on a world historical scale, the transition to socialism was economically feasible.

But Leninism did partially revert the Marxist insight that political programmes must accord with economic conditions, by saying that while true for the world economy, it was not true for each state that economic conditions needed to have matured.

Lenin might have been correct, in the sense that an international revolution has to start somewhere. But this approach massively amplifies the problem of bureaucracy since it is a feature of societies based on small scale agriculture, that the State is particularly susceptible to seizure by bureaucratic cliques.

A history of such seizures, in which bureaucracy repeatedly seizes the workers state feeds the anarchist prejudice that class struggle is a product of the existence of hierarchical power. [/b]
I don't have time for this right now, but seriously people, read up on Lenin and how a lot of the things said about him are nonsense (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp) before making so many judgments about him being an "evil dictator" and a "leader of a revolution by the minority."

"workersunity
yes most anarchists either dont understand this point, and like you said are way too fed up with the word usage, or that they dont understand the difference between party dictatorship and dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialism we fight for will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that marx used the term "dictatorship" to reference any kind of state, capitalism is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and Stalin's rule in russia was dictatorship of the party yet, it is better classified as Bonapartism, concentration on military,police, and state bureaucracy.

A good point, comrade.

gilhyle

18th October 2005, 19:20

I never thought or said that Lenin was an evil dictator. Quite the opposite - I will defend just about all of Lenin's record. That is not my point. My point is people who hide behind his name today. He didn't hide behind Marx, he made up his own tactics. He answered the questions of the day. Leninists today need to do the same. So I say to Leninists (as a Leninist myself, if I must adopt a label), you believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat do you, so how do you prevent bureaucracy taking over, while resisting counter revolution, (and don't just say 'direct democracy', that means nothing without detail) ?

Anarchists on this board should also remember the many anarchists who did not break with bolshevism, but who actually joined the Bolshevik party and stayed in it. Those anarchists get written out of history.

Anarchists chose their tradition and it is noticeable that they ignore those of their predecessors who made choices they don't like.

It is also noticeable that in relation to Russia, anarchists CHOOSE to treat as their predecessorst the anarchist trends that either fought the revolution or ended up with the formula that the price of resisting counter-revolution was too high. So it isn't a matter of anarchists THEN having made mistakes, its a matter of anarchists TODAY selecting for praise those among their predecessors who advocated submission to counter-revolution. With that choice made, its hard to believe such an anarchist who says s/he is willing to fight counter-revolution.

The Feral Underclass

18th October 2005, 19:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:08 AM
So let's not consolidate it [the State]
Impossible.

The process may never begin there. I would argue that the process of the whithering away of the state, as theorized by Karl Marx, happens nearly immediately, by transforming the state into a body where power is not consolidated and cannot be consolidated.

You cannot achieve that within a hierarchical structure like a state.

It begins with a change in the form of the state, which would go from the modern day republic to a direct democratic organization,

Then it no longer becomes a state.

probably a confederation of a number of local communes, side by side with an association of laborers for dealing directly with economic issues.

That's not the definition of a state.

and will perpetuate class antagonisms by its very nature.

False. The state is a reflection of class antagonisms, not their creator.

Perpetuate I said.

The perpetuation of a state requires requires the hierarchical control of individuals

Quite possibly, and this is why it is completely valid for communists to say that anarchists don't understand. We do not seek a perpetuation of the state, we seek a whithering away of the state.

I understand the intention. That has nothing to do with it. The material realities of the Leninist paradigm are very different.

Our goal is, thus, never to destroy the state, but to destroy class antagonisms. Since our goal is never to perpetuate the state, the state can take on a form which is inherently non-hierarchical. In which case, if you are right, it will die out immediately -- if we are right, it will last only so long as class antagonisms do. In both cases, it need not be hierarchical except in one sense, that the proletariat is above the bourgeoisie, in and of itself, no proletarian should be higher than another.

Your definition of a state is confused though, so I don't know how to respond. I'm not arguing against Council Communist semantics, I'm arguing against the Leninists paradigm.

But class divisions will always exist while the state does.

So class divisions are a product of the state? or is the state a product of class divisions?

Class divisions are a product of the state, which serves to perpetuate them.

But yes, I agree, class divisions will always exist while the state does, because the state is the manifestation of those class antagonisms, as such, it will always exist while classes do, in one form or another.

And the Leninist paradigm concludes the emergence of a new class.

I can agree that class antagonisms exist, but class cannot stop existing while such a hierarchical insitution like the state exists.

Well no, it can, here's why.

But you said that the state should be non-hierarchical? Hierarchy is a fundamental part of class and as the "workers" state requires bureaucrats to control it and followers to obey, class remains. Albeit in a different form, it exists. You have simply shifted the relationships to the means of production around slightly, but not destroyed them.

Again, the only hierarchical division of our state is the state over society as a whole, namely, the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

But the proletariat's relationship to the means of production has not altered in a Socialist state. The political party hierarchy now controls the means of production and have emerged as a bureaucratic class who direct production and distribution, administration and protection on the behalf of the proletariat. This is Leninism.

If you're telling me that the means of production are going to be controlled by democratically elected council's or assemblies which federate on a local, regional and national level and are accountable to their communities or localities then fine. This isn't a state though, but you can call it what you like.

Hierarchical externally, not necessarily internally. This is of course the entire base of your argument. You have to have people believe that a state can never offer equality from within to its members. If that happens your argument falls to shreads. It is still a state, because externally there is still a portion of society who has no political equality, and only in this sense must it be viewed as hierarchical.

A state is not defined by whether or not a section of society happens to have no political equality. That's a patently absurd argument.

I don't think we necessarily disagree here though. If you make a vague statement "a portion of society has no political equality" in the context of a revolutionary situation then I wouldn't disagree with you. You then go onto say that it is this that is a state, which is wrong.

A state is the specific tools in which this inequality is maintained, not just politically, but socially, morally, economically and ideologically. That is the anarchist position on a state and that these tools cannot function without hierarchy.

From within, the state can take (and has taken) a number of forms ranging from "less democratic" and thus more consolidated to "more democratic."

That depends what you mean by democratic? Democratic in what sense?

As long as the state exists so will those who "run" it and while they "run" it new classes emerge.

But what if those who run it is the proletariat? Yes, as a whole.

Again semantics. Would you define de-centralised consensus based federated temporary assemblies and workers militias which are directly accountable to their communities as a state? That's the only way you can realistically include the consensus or participation of people within communities all over the country.

That's not a state.

And what if over time the old members of the bourgeoisie die off, lose will to fight for capitalism, or are folded into the proletariat from an economic perspective? I fail to see how the proletariat running the state, could create the emergence of a new class. What class would it be? How can they do so? Afterall, they've socialized the means of production, and probably have a good portion of socialized distribution too. Exactly how do they go about creating new class antagonisms under such conditions?

I can't answer that because you have only given me a vague definition of state.

The Feral Underclass

18th October 2005, 20:03

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2005, 08:07 PM

That proves my point even more. It's going to be impossible to "disolve" the state after years of its consolidation, i.e. Cuba.

Why is it impossible?
It's impossible because the mechanism of control in which a state maintains itself is now consolidated to such a point that it is engraved in daily life. The state controls every aspect of society right down to moral, ideological and social positions.

Cuba being a prime example of this. The state has consolidated to a point where these mechanisms of control have become institutionalised positions of power. Take cancer for example. If you find out about it quickly, you can remove it, but once it spreads and takes over organs in your body and roots itself firmly into them, you cannot simply cut it out. The cancer is apart of your body. In order to remove it, you need to remove the organs. Cancer doesn't just dissolve when you don't want it anymore.

A state works exactly the same way. It grows and expands and consolidates its control. It becomes rooted into society. It is the basis of it, and it cannot simply dissolve anymore than cancer can.

violencia.Proletariat

18th October 2005, 20:07

red flag, what is castro doing to industrialize cuba? is this not a step in the path towards communism? if he isnt, then there is absolutely no purpose for his state.

Social Greenman

19th October 2005, 01:17

It's impossible because the mechanism of control in which a state maintains itself is now consolidated to such a point that it is engraved in daily life. The state controls every aspect of society right down to moral, ideological and social positions.

Cuba being a prime example of this. The state has consolidated to a point where these mechanisms of control have become institutionalised positions of power. Take cancer for example. If you find out about it quickly, you can remove it, but once it spreads and takes over organs in your body and roots itself firmly into them, you cannot simply cut it out. The cancer is apart of your body. In order to remove it, you need to remove the organs. Cancer doesn't just dissolve when you don't want it anymore.

A state works exactly the same way. It grows and expands and consolidates its control. It becomes rooted into society. It is the basis of it, and it cannot simply dissolve anymore than cancer can.

I can understand the reasoning presented here. Even under the present system many aspects of our lives are controlled by the state through beauraucracy. When the Marxist-Leninist come in power in a country they are totalitarian politically and highly beauracratic.

NovelGentry

19th October 2005, 02:38

Impossible.

Why?

You cannot achieve that within a hierarchical structure like a state.

But the state is not necessarily hierarchical within itself, you've failed to address that point completely. It only necessitiates hierarchical form external of itself that is within society as a whole. The state rises above society, this is true and always true... where do you get the idea that it necessarily must have people within it who rise above the others within it?

Then it no longer becomes a state.

According to who's definition?

That's not the definition of a state.

You're right, the definition is much more vague. Falling along the lines of "a form of government."

I'm sorry, did Proudhon write a dictionary where he redefined the term "state" for the rest of humanity?

Perpetuate I said.

Perpetuate existing class antagonisms, or form new ones? I've only seen arguments that say they form new class antagonisms and thus perpetuate class antagonisms in general, not specifically the existing class antagonisms.

But it is impossible to say it will perpetuate existing class antagonisms because the ruling class changes and in order for the proletariat to make any change in the existing class antagonisms. Their first step has to be to socialize the means of production. But then again, I think you said, or at the very least, implied that they perpetuate class antagonisms in general by creating new class antagonisms -- under which case you're saying it creates new classes. My original statement stays.

I understand the intention. That has nothing to do with it. The material realities of the Leninist paradigm are very different.

I don't ever recall speaking of the Leninist paradigm. The Leninist paradigm fails because it is applicable only to generally underdeveloped nations and thus only exists there, but it does not fail specifically because of it's design but because, quite simply, those nations could not achieve socialism under any paradigm, they simply don't have the means to. It too becomes impossible to say the Leninist paradigm would succeed in an advanced capitalist nation namely because in an advanced capitalist nation it is not so easy to seize the state with limited popular support and the primary force behind it being that of a small vanguard -- it is simply impossible for a small revolutionary force such as that to escape the modern bourgeois state without being stomped out before revolution even occurs.

Your definition of a state is confused though

No, it is quite alright.

I'm not arguing against Council Communist semantics, I'm arguing against the Leninists paradigm.

You're arguing against the state, period. If it is merely our definitions that differ, then we should argue that.

Class divisions are a product of the state

To keep my answers as concise as yours have been, NO!

And the Leninist paradigm concludes the emergence of a new class.

The economic/material conditions of nations/regions where the Leninist paradigm is applicable concludes the emergence of a new class, historically and always of a bourgeois nature.

But you said that the state should be non-hierarchical?

The state within itself should be non-hierarchical.

Hierarchy is a fundamental part of class

Yes, the hierarchy of one class above another. There need not exist any hierarchy within one of those classes amongst itself.

and as the "workers" state requires bureaucrats to control it and followers to obey, class remains.

I never put workers in quotes, there's no need to. I support a workers state, not a "workers" state (whatever that is, although apparently it requires bureaucrats... is this "workers" state in Proudhon's dictionary as well?)

You have simply shifted the relationships to the means of production around slightly, but not destroyed them.

You can never destroy a relationship to the means of production. To destroy a relationship to such would be to destroy one's connection to such, man can never severe himself from his productive forces without wiping himself off the planet.

I think what you meant to say is that we have simply shifted the ownership of the means of production. And yes, I believe we will have to shift it's ownership before destroying ownership. Like the bourgeoisie did with feudal ownership we will have to expand ownership from the previous form of society. The difference is, the expansion of it in the hands of the proletariat expands it to a vast majority of the population. But that's not enough, certainly not... we must examine the fact that not only is ownership expanded to the vast majority of the population, but that their new relationship is now of a completely new form where for the first time in history those who own the means of production are those who work with them.

That is how the proletariat resolves class antagonisms -- knowingly or unknowingly, they cannot escape that historical role.

But the proletariat's relationship to the means of production has not altered in a Socialist state.

Of course it is. Their relationship is now all encompassing the become owner, master, user, and creator.

The political party hierarchy now controls the means of production and have emerged as a bureaucratic class who direct production and distribution, administration and protection on the behalf of the proletariat. This is Leninism.

Well which are we talking about Leninism or socialism? Socialism is a state of man/society. Leninism is an ideology. Can Leninism achieve socialism? I doubt it very much, see my arguments from earlier in this post.

I fail to see how you equate the two with such ease and disregard.

This isn't a state though, but you can call it what you like.

You're right, it's not a state, a state is also a politik. But politics is really an abstraction of issues created by class, which are of course determined by economic organization/structure. The point is thus that the workers state maintains itself as both a politik and an economic organization, until class antagonisms have disappeared and it has lost its political character. After that point, we are certainly in agreement, it is no longer a state.

A state is not defined by whether or not a section of society happens to have no political equality. That's a patently absurd argument.

Why? Because you say it is, read my previous response.

I don't think we necessarily disagree here though.

I'm quite certain we do.

If you make a vague statement "a portion of society has no political equality" in the context of a revolutionary situation then I wouldn't disagree with you. You then go onto say that it is this that is a state, which is wrong.

A state is always political organization, never strictly economical. On this point I think we do certainly agree, which is why you're so capable of proclaiming with all assuredness that you do not want a state.

A state is also always characterized by hierarchy, which you would like to have us all believe is necessarily internal, while it's only necessary hierarchy is external. That is to say, it is characterized by political inequality.

You have yet to posit precisely what a state it. You have done little more than to say that it is hierarchical, giving no description of what the nature of that hierarchy is, internal or external; giving no description of its subject, political, economic, strictly social; and giving no explaination as to where you derive any of the things you've given no explaination of from.

Some people understand quite aptly what the state is, and have expressed it here to you before. Unfortunately they were not able to articulate it so well, which is rather laughable since they need only reference Marx for the precise understanding.

They have worded it to say that it becomes an "administrative power only" and what they mean is quite simply that it becomes a strictly economic power, losing it's political power (as I have noted above). The big question is, what does this mean has really happened? A state does not just throw off it's political power, where does the need for political power and thus the construct of politics come from? You would have us believe it comes simply from the state... but that makes no sense, because the state demands political nature. You seem to want us to believe that the state creates politics in man as opposed to politics in man creating the state.

From what does the state arise from if not class antagonisms? But is it enough to say it arises merely out of class antagonisms at it's raw economic level... no, because at the raw economic level no such antagonisms exist, it is only political-economy which distinguishes such, and it is precisely that political part which determines the state's existence.

Raw economic examination, that is looking at purely economic constructs does not give us even a glimpse of classes. The fact that the bourgeoisie stands as a ruling class over the proletariat has nothing to do with economics alone, it has to do with political-economics.

If you cannot distinguish between the two then I must seriously question your understanding of these things in general.

A state is the specific tools in which this inequality is maintained, not just politically, but socially, morally, economically and ideologically. That is the anarchist position on a state and that these tools cannot function without hierarchy.

But outside of economically, socially, and politically what have you done but break these things into a number of its facets. Ideological can be idiological in any sense, it can be political ideology, economic ideology, or social ideology. What is morality if not a social and political issue?

What you have really done is said that the state is a specific tool in which political, economic, and social inequality is maintained. Fair enough, but this is arguable.

What is economics without politics? It is merely the production, distribution, and consumption of goods, it carries no particular structure, it doesn't even mandate that class exists. A single individual, the only one on a planet, has economic function. His economic function, just like that of a societies can be examined and explained in the same terms as any social economic system. Which tells us, quite bluntly, that the state is not fundamentally tied to economics or the issues thereof.

What is sociality without politics? It is merely institution and organization without government. Again, it carries no particular structure, and it too does not mandate that class exists. Their social functions, just like that of a larger society can be examined and explained in the same terms as any larger social system... so it's in the same boat as economics.

Only in politics do we find class to be a mandatory conception. Politics is that which deals directly with government, in the form of a state or not, but there is always in the government to which politics refers those who are governed and those who are not. There is the political-economy, socio-politic, etc... the combination of this aspect with the raw and fundamental concepts of others.

Community is a strictly social concept, a governed community is a socio-political concept. Community alone deems not that anyone follow the rules of another, but merely that at some level there is something shared which brings them together. The means of production is strictly a social concept, relationship to means of production or governing over the means of production (aka: ownership) is a political-economic concept.

Maybe you presume you have known all this already or maybe you just think I'm "wrong" -- but these words are not just play things that you tie into whatever you like and redefine at your whim, they have meaning which is direct and logical.

The communist on a state is that it is necessarily a political body or as one direct definition words it, "a body politik." It is hierarchical only in the sense that the state is that which does the governing while those outside the state are those who are governed. Communists uphold that the state should be comprised entirely of the proletariat and thus, they are the government, and with reference to themselves as a class, self-governing, while the bourgeoisie, yet to take on character and consciousness of the proletariat is the governed.

That depends what you mean by democratic? Democratic in what sense?

No one is going to claim it is total democracy, but there are degrees in which all systems previous and the current can be characterized with democracy. Modern bourgeois democracy is more democratic than the complete lack of democracy seen under feudal aristocracies, even if it resolves to something just as meaningless.

Would you define de-centralised consensus based federated temporary assemblies and workers militias which are directly accountable to their communities as a state?

There's no justification for me to do so, as those are not the terms I used.

I can't answer that because you have only given me a vague definition of state.

You have given no definition.

Hiero

19th October 2005, 02:50

You cannot achieve that within a hierarchical structure like a state.

When class and imperialism is defeated then the State becomes obsolete. So any hierachy becomes obsolete as well. Things will become redudent and lost power as society will function in a Communist way. So positions in government begin to lose their power.

How can a minister for trade have any real power, when people begin to trade naturaly? He doesn't. The State withering away goes through a process much like kids playing government, since they have positions of authority, but they actually have no real power in society as they are not needed.

Red Powers

19th October 2005, 03:04

First off I think it's worth keeping in mind the possibility that Marx puts more than a hint of irony in his use of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." He' comparing it to the dictorship of the bourgeoisie, which of course is a dictatorship of a minority over a majority, exactly like every other form of class rule except one. The class rule of the proletariat is a "dictatorship" of the majority over the minority. It is unique in the annals of class society.

I find it helpful in understanding the DoP to contrast it with the bourgeoisie's dictatorship. What form does this dictatorship take? Well, the bourgeoisie can exercise its dictatorship in a multitude of forms -- constitutional monarchy, liberal democratic republic, parliament or presidential system, an authoritarian military junta, a fascist or corporatist dictatorship, a theocracy, a one party "communist" state -- take your pick. How is it that the bourgeoisie can exercise dictatorship in all these various forms? It is able to do this because its dictatorship is actually rooted not in the political system but in the relations of production, that is wage labor and capital, which are actually two sides of the same social relation. Each time a capitalist hires a proletarian they are able to exercise dictatorship over that prole. As a class the bourgeoisie exercises dictatorship over the whole proletariat and it can do this without benefit of the state if it needs to.

In fact, bourgeois dictatorship exists before there is a bourgeois state and as long as the capital/wage labor relation exists there is a danger of capitalist restoration even if there state has been smashed to little bits. The bourgeois state does not create their dictatorship it merely functions to enforce it. And the main task in enforcing their dictatorship is to keep the proletariat down, keep them from organizing as a class overthrowing the bourg. and abolishing wage labor/capital.

Proletarian dictatorship is completely different than this. In fact it is a totally unique social formation. It is, in the first place a dictatorship of a majority and here is where the irony comes in. The proletariat when organized as the ruling class creates something new in human history. For the first time an exploited majority is in control of society. The proletariat has some awesome tasks at this point. It cannot free itself without liberating all of society. And in order to do that it must immediately move to limit and then abolish wage labor. We've seen that any kind of long "transition" stage will inevitably lead back to capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely the proletariat (the majority) organized as the ruling class to accomplish these goals. Specifically, I would think that it would consist of councils or soviets like in the Paris Commune or the early Soviet Republic. And at first there would have to be a well organized military force to prevent counter-revolution. But this "state," which should be unlike any other state will have as its main task the provision of more and more goods and services outside the money economy. You know first free housing, free health care, free clothing, free groceries etc. so that you are eventually getting rid of money.

I don't really know what all the details would be but as a communist who is not a leninist, I would insist on freedom of expression for all except counter-revolutionaries. And I also would hope that there are loads of anarchists around because I think their insistence on statelessness will keep the DoP moving in the right direction. But I don't see how the capitalists can be overthrown and kept from reestablishing themselves without organs of proletarian class rule.

bombeverything

19th October 2005, 06:54

But the state is not necessarily hierarchical within itself, you've failed to address that point completely. It only necessitiates hierarchical form external of itself that is within society as a whole. The state rises above society, this is true and always true... where do you get the idea that it necessarily must have people within it who rise above the others within it?

Yes it is because the state is a professional system of social coercion, rather than simply a system of social administration. All states necessitate a systematic and organised form of social control as otherwise they would cease to exist. This means that within such a structure, that is, to enforce social control necessitates that certain people are in positions of authority.

It is not the people in power who are the problem, but the system itself. That is, the existence of any conditions that allows certain people to rule whilst others are condemned to obey can only be damaging to society as a whole. These conditions are inevitable in any state apparatus. When we say it rises above the people we usually mean that it creates an externalised and permanent system of power, institutionalised violence and rule that is above the people in the sense that they perceive it as something alien to them, resulting in a blind acceptance of authority.

The Feral Underclass

19th October 2005, 07:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:22 AM

Impossible.

Why?

I explained that two posts above your last one. You are clearly not reading what I am writing.

I can't answer that because you have only given me a vague definition of state.

You have given no definition.
I'm not going to respond to your post in full because I'm just going to be repeating myself.

This however, I thought was absurd. You obviously haven't been reading my posts, choosing simply to respond to it instead.

I have consistently defined a state throughout this thread, including the other threads in which I have debated this issue, with you, or with someone else.

Pay attention next time.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

19th October 2005, 07:12

I think it is telling that TAT and Novel Gentry are not arguing over a particular course of action, but whether or not the particular "game-plan", as it were, constitutes a state.

Drawn along the lines described by Novel Gentry, you could call it an "elephant" for all I care. Point is, I find nothing counter to libertarian ideal in the "state" outlined by Novel Gentry. Hell, it parallels closely the post-revolutionary vision of most anarchists this side of "punk rock neo-luddite green-moron".

The Feral Underclass

19th October 2005, 07:16

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 19 2005, 07:56 AM
I think it is telling that TAT and Novel Gentry are not arguing over a particular course of action, but whether or not the particular "game-plan" as it were constitutes a state.

Drawn along the lines described by Novel Gentry, you could call it an "elephant" for all I care. Point is, I find nothing counter to libertarian ideal in the "state" outlined by Novel Gentry. Hell, it parallels closely the post-revolutionary vision of most anarchists this side of "punk rock neo-luddite green-moron".
Which was partly my point.

NovelGentry

19th October 2005, 13:27

I think it is telling that TAT and Novel Gentry are not arguing over a particular course of action, but whether or not the particular "game-plan", as it were, constitutes a state.

Telling of what?

Drawn along the lines described by Novel Gentry, you could call it an "elephant" for all I care. Point is, I find nothing counter to libertarian ideal in the "state" outlined by Novel Gentry. Hell, it parallels closely the post-revolutionary vision of most anarchists this side of "punk rock neo-luddite green-moron".

I doubt that very much. The post-revolutionary vision of most anarchists seems to be rather vague, mine is quite specific. But then again, I can't expect anyone who thinks that classes arise from the state (rather than vice versa) to have any understanding on how to destroy classes other than saying "abolish the state."

Equating my argument to that one is a fallacy and quite unfair to me.

My post revolutionary vision has an entire economic system, specific, with formuli and all tied to it. I've never seen such detail at all expressed by anarchist post revolutionary visions.

As I said in my previous post, however, "You're arguing against the state, period. If it is merely our definitions that differ, then we should argue that."

Why should we argue that? Because it is there in that lies our differences. Because for me to say that a state is a body politik, and you to say you wish to abolish that (even if your definition differs) is to say to me that you want to abolish the political character of all human organization and institutions immediately. Is this what you want to do? Do you conceive this is possible? From anarchist arguments it seems to be exactly what you want to do -- you speak nothing of political organization, never have, only economic organization.

gilhyle

19th October 2005, 20:51

To avoid endless repetition on whether the State creates classes or class struggle creates the State, take it down to the critical ideas Leninism has engaged with as to the organisation of a Workers State:

- the capitalist state is inefficient and creates a wide range of tasks that a workers state can dispense with;

- democracy should not be universal initially, certain people should be excluded from the vote as a response to their historic class position;

- professional bureaucracy can be controlled by taking workers out of economic activity and placing them in the State to do the job for short periods/alternatvely that workers inspections of bureacracy creates a structure of accountability that will control administrators;

- democracy should be representative (not direct), but representatives should be re-callable by assemblies of direct voters

Leninism has never claimed that immediately after a seizure of state power, in either advanced or backward countries, it is possible to dispense with all bureaucrats, move to direct democracy or that the working class can rule directly.

Leninism (correctly) retains the idea that Government is carried out by parties (not classes), that professional administrators must be retained - at least initially - and that decisions are to be taken by representatives, not directly.

I have left out one critical point in the above. Leninism has attempted to end the 'division of powers' articulated as an idea by Montequieu and others in the Enlightenment and used by the Capitalist class to control its political representatives. Leninism has argued that the Courts should not be strictly separated from the Executive or the Executive separated from an authoritative parliament. It has, however, supported a new division of powers between the trade unions and the State.

But Leninism has never had the opportunity to build a state that reflected its nascent thinking on the organisation of the State. Therefore, its defenders are forced to feed on the weakness of its opponents. Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat remains an item on a menu of the future, for which the cookbook remains unwritten - but with a horrifying 20th century record that suggests that when the time comes to work out the recipe, failure is a serious option. That is why anarchism remains an attractive bolt-hole.

bombeverything

19th October 2005, 21:33

Because for me to say that a state is a body politik, and you to say you wish to abolish that (even if your definition differs) is to say to me that you want to abolish the political character of all human organization and institutions immediately. Is this what you want to do? Do you conceive this is possible? From anarchist arguments it seems to be exactly what you want to do -- you speak nothing of political organization, never have, only economic organization.

We want a political, economic and social revolution. If by "political organization" you are referring to hierarchies then I guess you are right. However as I have mentioned nunerous times, we do not equate political “organization” with political “authority”. Anarchism would be very ordered. We simply reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement.

Our definitions of the state are different. A state is marked by hierarchical power and the exclusion of the majority of the population from the decision making process. The reason that we wish to eliminate both political and economic power is because economic power translates into political power. You should know this more than anyone else. Through an anarchist definition, the state cannot be used to bring about communism because it isn’t designed that way.

NovelGentry

20th October 2005, 03:47

We want a political, economic and social revolution. If by "political organization" you are referring to hierarchies then I guess you are right. However as I have mentioned nunerous times, we do not equate political “organization” with political “authority”.

What is the point of political organization if no political authority exists? You do understand the issue of politics yes? What political questions will you be solving? All are going to be in agreement on these issues?

We simply reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement.

Then you claim you are capable of doing away with politics from the start. You claim that post-revolutionary society will already have political character done away with... and you become far mor idealistic than even I thought you were.

A state is marked by hierarchical power and the exclusion of the majority of the population from the decision making process.

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS DEFINITION? Where the hell has a state every been defined as something that excludes a majority. Seriously, I don't know where the hell you guys pull this stuff out of... but since it sounds like shit, it's gotta come out of your ass.

The reason that we wish to eliminate both political and economic power is because economic power translates into political power.

You wish to eliminate economic power? AKA: the power to produce? How will you live and survive? What you mean to say is that you wish to eliminate political power and political-economic power.

If we are to adhere to the same definitions, just for a moment, then you still maintain the same goal as the communists. To create a society where it loses all political character, from all facets. The problem is still that you want to eliminate it immediately, before society has actually lost it's political character, or rather, before society has lost those conditions which formulate it's political character.

Summarized so ellegantly by Engels: "But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed."

The reason that we wish to eliminate both political and economic power is because economic power translates into political power.

But what you really mean is political-economic power. Economic power alone is devoid of political character, it is thus merely "economic" (production, distribution, consumption) power. It is the power to actually produce, distribute, and consume. For example, the US is the worlds #1 economic power -- this could be true regardless of the form our society takes.

the state cannot be used to bring about communism because it isn’t designed that way.

Designed that way? Here I was thinking the anarchists believed the state to be born out of thin air... the rest of your arguments certainly pretend it is. If it is designed, who is it's architect?

wet blanket

20th October 2005, 10:05

My post revolutionary vision has an entire economic system, specific, with formuli and all tied to it. I've never seen such detail at all expressed by anarchist post revolutionary visions.

:lol: Perhaps it's because anarchists don't believe in some glorious new tomorrow waiting for us on the other side of the revolutionary rainbow.
You've got this whole 'system' cooked up in your head, a roadmap to communism if you will, yet you have the gall to criticize anarchists by calling them idealists?

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2005, 11:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:31 AM
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS DEFINITION? Where the hell has a state every been defined as something that excludes a majority.
The material realities/experiences of history. The Marxian defintion of dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong, especially applid with the Leninist paradigm. If you want to attempt to reconcile the failure of the theory, do so. Don't repeat 19th century mantra's.

Seriously, I don't know where the hell you guys pull this stuff out of... but since it sounds like shit, it's gotta come out of your ass.

You're about as a close as you're going to get to a warning point, so keep it civil or don't post.

the state cannot be used to bring about communism because it isn’t designed that way.

Designed that way? Here I was thinking the anarchists believed the state to be born out of thin air... the rest of your arguments certainly pretend it is. If it is designed, who is it's architect?

The state is a natural/material process which came out of the need to maintain control. It was "designed" by those seeking to maintain power and has developed into something that exists right now.

Those who control the state alter it, depending on the times and needs, but it fundamentally and essentially remains the same. It's structures have always been the same, except technology has allowed it to become more sophisticated in its control.

No matter what state you have, be it a National Socialist, neo-Liberal, Islamic or Socialist state, the essence of them are exactly the same. the veneer maybe different, even the intentions, but the realities and material conditions in which it is and which it creates are invariable. Thus is the nature of the state.

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2005, 11:35

Wet Blanket

Completely off topic, but I realised your avatar is the same as the front page [my copy] of 'Society of the Spectacle'.

Is that a coincidence or did you know that?

NovelGentry

20th October 2005, 12:08

The material realities/experiences of history. The Marxian defintion of dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong, especially applid with the Leninist paradigm. If you want to attempt to reconcile the failure of the theory, do so. Don't repeat 19th century mantra's.

The Leninist paradigm is completely out of sync with Marxist theory, so it expresses no failure of it. And the Marxist concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat preceeds the Leninist paradigm. When these things occur it is not the meaning of the word that changes, it merely means those things aren't it.

As far as the definition of state coming from the material realities/experiences of history... that's fine, what is not fine is giving me that last line and then presuming it can never equate to something else. If you're going to take the Marxist concept/definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat and warp it strictly to the Leninist paradigm, a future movement from when the term was first conceived, then you cannot maintain the same cannot be done with state.

See, my definition of the word state comes from a dictionary, people create words to express various concepts, what you're doing is failing horribly at using induction to try and modify the word. There is a basic definition, generally agreed upon in the English language, to which you have applied certain characteristics based on generalizations you've made from observing history. It is as if you were to read of a dog, to which you could then easily identify, then walk down the street only to find black dogs and based on your whim and fancy state boldly, and with much stupidity I might add, that dogs are black.

You're about as a close as you're going to get to a warning point, so keep it civil or don't post.

It wouldn't matter so much if the administration here could get over the fact that the R.A forums exists.

The state is a natural/material process which came out of the need to maintain control.

Would you say that it is born of irreconcilable class antagonisms?

It was "designed" by those seeking to maintain power and has developed into something that exists right now.

Developed into what? A being? A God? You certainly treat it like one. The state is designed by man, man creates it's characteristics, not the other way around. For all this talk of the state corrupting, the state creating classes, the state doing this, the state doing that... no one has ever told me how the state, an inanimate concept materialized only in the organization of men, does any of that.

Those who control the state alter it, depending on the times and needs, but it fundamentally and essentially remains the same.

I agree that it fundamentally and essentially remains the same. What I don't agree on is that hierarchy within the state is fundamental to it, just like I don't think the shape of a bike is fundamental in the fact that it's a bike.

No matter what state you have, be it a National Socialist, neo-Liberal, Islamic or Socialist state, they essence of them are exactly the same.

Agreed, it is the ruling class organized politically to oppress all other classes.

the veneer maybe different, even the intentions, but the realities and material conditions in which it is and which it creates are invariable.

But the state doesn't create material conditions, it cannot, as it is not material in itself outside of men. And in retrospect, the people of the state generally create far less material conditions than that of the men the state governs.

What I find more interesting than that, however, is that you just stated that the realities and material conditions in which it is, presumably, in which the state exists, are invariable. Are you saying that the realities and material conditions of feudal society are the same as those of today? We have a state in both... certainly that is what you're saying if one merely reads your words.

The state reflects the realities and material conditions in which it is, this is precisely why it does change, but it does so on the condition that the realities and material conditions determine the nature of classes and class antagonisms. This is true of all history from ancient greece to Nazi Germany, it does not take a genius to see that the material conditions for both these societies differed, and that the class antagonisms in these societies differed, and thus the states in these societies differed.

Thus is the nature of the state.

The nature of the state is far more simple, political organization of the ruling class.

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2005, 14:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:52 PM

The material realities/experiences of history. The Marxian defintion of dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong, especially applid with the Leninist paradigm. If you want to attempt to reconcile the failure of the theory, do so. Don't repeat 19th century mantra's.

The Leninist paradigm is completely out of sync with Marxist theory, so it expresses no failure of it.
Possibly, possibly not. Marx's theory had to be applied in one way, although Marx never specifically spoke about a vanguard his actions and the his aim at organisation was a proto-vanguard.

Also, the vast majority of the communist movement pervade to the idea that Leninism was in fact a continuation of Marx. Whether that is true or not is another debate.

And the Marxist concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat preceeds the Leninist paradigm. When these things occur it is not the meaning of the word that changes, it merely means those things aren't it.

I can perfectly accept that.

If you're going to take the Marxist concept/definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat and warp it strictly to the Leninist paradigm, a future movement from when the term was first conceived, then you cannot maintain the same cannot be done with state.

I haven't. I have been very specific in my attack on the state.

See, my definition of the word state comes from a dictionary, people create words to express various concepts, what you're doing is failing horribly at using induction to try and modify the word.

Yes, because dictionaries are always right... :rolleyes:

There is a basic definition, generally agreed upon in the English language, to which you have applied certain characteristics based on generalizations you've made from observing history. It is as if you were to read of a dog, to which you could then easily identify, then walk down the street only to find black dogs and based on your whim and fancy state boldly, and with much stupidity I might add, that dogs are black.

Is this how you speak to the working class? Oh wait, you don't do you.

You defintion of a state is the "political authority of one class above another." I don't disagree with that defintion. It's just one part of it.

You're about as a close as you're going to get to a warning point, so keep it civil or don't post.

It wouldn't matter so much if the administration here could get over the fact that the R.A forums exists.

That makes no sense to me at all... :wacko:

The state is a natural/material process which came out of the need to maintain control.

Would you say that it is born of irreconcilable class antagonisms?

Yes.

It was "designed" by those seeking to maintain power and has developed into something that exists right now.

Developed into what? A being? A God?

No, it has developed in the kind of states we have now. Stop reading so much into what I write.

The state has now become a technologically sophisticated jaugernaut that can do pretty much anything in order to maitain control. It has developed from the small city states or warriors and a king, into pan-states of missiles and complex institutions of authority.

The state is designed by man, man creates it's characteristics, not the other way around.

Sure, human beings can very easily destroy the state, but you cannot harness it as a means to create a stateless society.

For all this talk of the state corrupting, the state creating classes, the state doing this, the state doing that... no one has ever told me how the state, an inanimate concept materialized only in the organization of men, does any of that.

It could be argued that the state is inherently corrupt. The hierarchy which it needs in order to perpetuate creates positions of power which have negative effects on human beings and society. Authority of this nature is detrimental to a society based on equality.

I never said the state creates class, I said it perpetuates it and it does this using mechinisms of control, i.e. courts, police, army, government, legislation, exploitation, consumerism etc.

Those who control the state alter it, depending on the times and needs, but it fundamentally and essentially remains the same.

I agree that it fundamentally and essentially remains the same. What I don't agree on is that hierarchy within the state is fundamental to it, just like I don't think the shape of a bike is fundamental in the fact that it's a bike.

The mechnisms of a state are centralised and hierarchical in order for the control to be limited.

Even if you call it a workers state and had the courts, police, army run on a democratic level you would still have hierarchy as these institutions would need authority vested in them to function.

Are you saying that the realities and material conditions of feudal society are the same as those of today?

No. I'm saying that the feudal state and the neo-liberal state fundamentally and essentially are the same. In any instance in which a state existed, it would exist for the same purpose invariably.

Thus is the nature of the state.

The nature of the state is far more simple, political organization of the ruling class.

Evidently, we disagree.

Hiero

20th October 2005, 15:33

You're about as a close as you're going to get to a warning point, so keep it civil or don't post.
LOL

NovelGentry

20th October 2005, 19:43

Possibly, possibly not. Marx's theory had to be applied in one way, although Marx never specifically spoke about a vanguard his actions and the his aim at organisation was a proto-vanguard.

This is complete nonsense, the entire structure of the international and all affiliate parties refutes this claim entirely.

Also, the vast majority of the communist movement pervade to the idea that Leninism was in fact a continuation of Marx.

Well good for them. The vast majority of people believe God is real too.

I haven't. I have been very specific in my attack on the state.

But you have. You take your readily available definition of the state, which if we assume is accurate, you wholely admit can be a concept redefined/reformed by some future movment i.e. communist revolution.

Or is this only capable of occuring for Marxist terminology, anarchist concepts and definitions are carved in stone then, yeah?

Yes, because dictionaries are always right...

No, because dictionaries are far more widely accepted than a single definition put fourth by a minority group such as anarchists. The Marxist definition of a state is interesting for philosophical reasons, but unlike that of the anarchists it does not directly contradict the fundamental nature of it's original definition. "A body politik" can quite accurately be seen always to be the organization of a ruling class, because of the nature of what it means to be political -- the same cannot be said when you posit that it necessarily has to be a minority over a majority.

Is this how you speak to the working class? Oh wait, you don't do you.

No, I don't talk to the working class. To be honest I haven't found a big enough megaphone yet to reach the entire class. I talk to workers -- sometimes individual, sometimes in groups.

You defintion of a state is the "political authority of one class above another." I don't disagree with that defintion. It's just one part of it.

The other part is conveniently whatever fits your philosophy.

That makes no sense to me at all...

Well you see, I could not care less about receiving a warning point, the only reason it makes any serious difference is because I'm already at 80%... apparently because I'm some sort of threat to the precious stability of this board. Or do you not remember this conversation: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40080

The state has now become a technologically sophisticated jaugernaut that can do pretty much anything in order to maitain control. It has developed from the small city states or warriors and a king, into pan-states of missiles and complex institutions of authority.

But this is not the state. It is merely the tools of the state, and even then it is not the state as some agent outside of man that utilizes it, the state is men, and thus it is men who use them, and it is men who decide the purpose. The purpose of the state is thus defined by the men/women who compose it, and what if their purpose is to socialized production and distribution, what if their purpose is to destroy class antagonisms? This is what the anarchists seem to be wholely incapable of being able to address... the only response I've ever heard is that "the state will corrupt them." What this boils down to, because the state is not some separate entity, but comprised of men is that man corrupts man -- under which case, state or no state, it would not seem resolvable unless you were to destroy man.

Sure, human beings can very easily destroy the state, but you cannot harness it as a means to create a stateless society.

No one intends to say that it is the means to create stateless society. I completely agree with this, the state does not create, nor can it ever create, stateless society. It is pure contradiction to say such. The point of harnessing the power of the state is not to destroy it, why would you ever harness it if that was your intention. The point is to maintain that the necessary actions occur to create classless society, when classless society is created the state fails to be a state any longer.

It is not that it is destroyed, it merely becomes a tool of organization, specifically economic organization, or as some have said, it becomes purely administrative. The organization and body itself never disappears, it merely loses it's political character.

It could be argued that the state is inherently corrupt.

No, it cannot be. To argue such is to argue that men are inherently corrupt. STOP PRETENDING THE STATE IS A BEING. The state is not teleological by any condition of it's own, it is only teleological on the condition that men are teleological.

The hierarchy which it needs in order to perpetuate creates positions of power which have negative effects on human beings and society.

And again, what if your goal is not to perpetuate it? And again, the hierarchy you speak of is externally necessary for it's existence, not internally so.

Authority of this nature is detrimental to a society based on equality.

There is no such thing as a class society with equality.

But this is the difference, is it not? From where do class antagonisms arise and hence, from where does class arise. If we are to believe that they can be destroyed so simply as destroying all those constructs which reflect their existence, then they hold no more character than in words and conceptions, they are in essence not real. Marxists hold that they are created from economic/material conditions and that they are more than conceptual things which can be destroyed merely by whimsical restructuring of society, but instead can only be destroyed through economic and material change.

I never said the state creates class, I said it perpetuates it and it does this using mechinisms of control, i.e. courts, police, army, government, legislation, exploitation, consumerism etc.

I've already addressed this point.

The mechnisms of a state are centralised and hierarchical in order for the control to be limited.

Indeed, centralized in the hands of the class who has organized the state. Hierarchical with respect to the fact that there is a lower class who has no access to those mechanisms. No where does this mean that those with whom the power is centralized have to be a minority.

Even if you call it a workers state and had the courts, police, army run on a democratic level you would still have hierarchy as these institutions would need authority vested in them to function.

But what is their purpose? Courts judge guilt/innocence on the basis of law, police enforce the law, the army defends the state. If you have a worker's state, you have worker's law i.e. that which oppresses the bourgeoisie, much like bourgeois law oppresses the proletariat. If you have a worker's state, worker's law is what is enforced... if you have a worker's state, the workers are what is defended.

In any instance in which a state existed, it would exist for the same purpose invariably.

Indeed, to meet the purpose of the class which controls it. But with every difference in the class, that purpose becomes extremely variable.

Evidently, we disagree.

I wouldn't have imagined.

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2005, 23:08

I'm not going to reply again, because you keep forcing me to repeat myself. If you want the discussion to move on, stop repeating the same arguments which I then have to reply to, again and again and again. It's boring.

bombeverything

21st October 2005, 00:38

What is the point of political organization if no political authority exists? You do understand the issue of politics yes? What political questions will you be solving? All are going to be in agreement on these issues?

We wish to decentralise political authority so that ultimately is does cease to exist. When I said political organisation I was referring to the fact that people are able to make decisions collectively through consensus and direct democracy (i.e. participatory “politics”).

Also when have I, or any other anarchist here ever claimed that everyone will agree? We wish to promote, not suppress diversity -- and this will often mean disagreement and open discussion. This is the only way we can reflect and move forward as an organised movement. Conflict is not to be viewed as an inherently “bad” thing that must be controlled, but rather as a necessary part of human progression.

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS DEFINITION? Where the hell has a state every been defined as something that excludes a majority. Seriously, I don't know where the hell you guys pull this stuff out of... but since it sounds like shit, it's gotta come out of your ass.

As TAT said, it is obvious through a study of history. I could ask you the same question, i.e. why you would see the state as anything other than what we have described.

You wish to eliminate economic power? AKA: the power to produce? How will you live and survive? What you mean to say is that you wish to eliminate political power and political-economic power.

No, I was referring to capitalism. Capitalism will still exist as long as the state does.

The problem is still that you want to eliminate it immediately, before society has actually lost it's political character, or rather, before society has lost those conditions which formulate it's political character.

But we see the state as a tool for maintaining this political character, and unlike the authoritarian Marxists we do not believe that it will simply disappear by declaring socialism, and leaving the structures of power and hierarchy intact and consequently "up for grabs". If power exists, people will desire it.

Summarized so ellegantly by Engels: "But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed."

Why waste time? This still seems to suggest that anarchists do not believe in defending the revolution, but when have any of us actually implied this? We have a different understanding of the state than Marxists do. Why would we be so stupid to let hierarchies and classes re-emerge after putting in all the effort to destroy them?

That is, we cannot see how a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is necessary to defend a revolution, end capitalism and build socialism. Instead, we believe that the working class can and must do this on their own, thus it is necessary that the state be abolished right away. We also argue that the state will not simply “wither away” as all states exclude the participation of the majority of the population, and subsequently creates a new class division between those in power, and those who are subject to it. Although I believe have already mentioned this numerous times.

But what you really mean is political-economic power. Economic power alone is devoid of political character, it is thus merely "economic" (production, distribution, consumption) power. It is the power to actually produce, distribute, and consume. For example, the US is the worlds #1 economic power -- this could be true regardless of the form our society takes.

But the state protects the interests and property of the ruling, capitalist class through the use of institutional violence. You cannot simply factor out the state in economic issues.

Designed that way? Here I was thinking the anarchists believed the state to be born out of thin air... the rest of your arguments certainly pretend it is. If it is designed, who is it's architect?

Those who wanted to control others, maybe through their own fears of a loss of power caused them to team up with others in the same situation, creating a system of domination, authority and coercion that eventually became what we refer to today as the modern state. All states are thus marked by rigid hierarchies of domination and control. Name one that wasn’t.

NovelGentry

21st October 2005, 01:52

But we see the state as a tool for maintaining this political character, and unlike the authoritarian Marxists we do not believe that it will simply disappear by declaring socialism, and leaving the structures of power and hierarchy intact and consequently "up for grabs". If power exists, people will desire it.

But I am not an "authoritarian" Marxist, and yet you seem to believe unlike me as well.

we believe that the working class can and must do this on their own

And we believe the state is the working class, with all the political authority necessary to "defend a revolution, end capitalism and build socialism."

We also argue that the state will not simply “wither away” as all states exclude the participation of the majority of the population, and subsequently creates a new class division between those in power, and those who are subject to it. Although I believe have already mentioned this numerous times.

With no grounds to defend the idea that all states exclude participation of the majority. Again, this is a generalization made from induction -- not a strong argument in any neck of the woods.

But the state protects the interests and property of the ruling, capitalist class through the use of institutional violence. You cannot simply factor out the state in economic issues.

I'm not, I'm saying that the state is a political-economic issue, not strictly an economic one. Indeed the state does protect the interests of the ruling class -- we intend to make that ruling class the working class.

Those who wanted to control others, maybe through their own fears of a loss of power caused them to team up with others in the same situation, creating a system of domination, authority and coercion that eventually became what we refer to today as the modern state.

And what of the "necessarily excluded majority," why did they fall to the whim of the state? Why did they accept it's rule?

All states are thus marked by rigid hierarchies of domination and control. Name one that wasn’t.

All states thus far have protected the interests of non-majority classes. Even the bourgeoisie never maintained a majority, simply a larger portion of society than the aristocracy. Again, the state is a reflection of class antagonisms, not it's creator.

But this argument again is a generalized argument based on induction. It is indefensible -- just because all until now fit certain characteristics above and beyond their fundamental characteristics, does not mean that all will.

Hiero

21st October 2005, 02:08

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm not going to reply again, because you keep forcing me to repeat myself. If you want the discussion to move on, stop repeating the same arguments which I then have to reply to, again and again and again. It's boring.
It's hard to argue with you if you do not understand were classes comes from, which you believe is the state.

wet blanket

21st October 2005, 02:36

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:19 AM
Wet Blanket

Completely off topic, but I realised your avatar is the same as the front page [my copy] of 'Society of the Spectacle'.

Is that a coincidence or did you know that?
It's no coincidence.

bombeverything

21st October 2005, 04:00

But I am not an "authoritarian" Marxist, and yet you seem to believe unlike me as well.

Huh?

And we believe the state is the working class, with all the political authority necessary to "defend a revolution, end capitalism and build socialism."

We are going around in circles again. -_-

It is not possible for the state to be the working class, unless you think of the working class as a small number of people. The state always acts in the interests of a privileged minority. In order to work towards communism, we need to practice direct democracy now, not later, in order to ensure the working class can maintain real control of their society. This is not possible in a state, which by it’s very nature opposes self-government. This can only stifle independence and growth, making people dependent on authority.

Also, in any state, those in power will no longer form part of the working class. They will be ex-workers with the power to define and make decisions on behalf of the working class without actually consulting them. This would mark the end, not the beginning, of the revolution.

With no grounds to defend the idea that all states exclude participation of the majority. Again, this is a generalization made from induction -- not a strong argument in any neck of the woods.

Why?

I'm not, I'm saying that the state is a political-economic issue, not strictly an economic one. Indeed the state does protect the interests of the ruling class -- we intend to make that ruling class the working class.

Unless every worker is part of the government (which is impossible), this new ruling class is merely another form of domination over the rest of the working class (those with little decision making power).

And what of the "necessarily excluded majority," why did they fall to the whim of the state? Why did they accept it's rule?

Because they felt powerless to fight it. Why do the majority of people fail to oppose capitalism?

All states thus far have protected the interests of non-majority classes. Even the bourgeoisie never maintained a majority, simply a larger portion of society than the aristocracy. Again, the state is a reflection of class antagonisms, not it's creator.

I agree with the first part. The state protects the interests of the ruling class. However I do not share your optimism that we can create a communist society through the mechanism of the state.

But this argument again is a generalized argument based on induction. It is indefensible -- just because all until now fit certain characteristics above and beyond their fundamental characteristics, does not mean that all will.

We argue that the state by its very nature would create a new bureaucratic class. This is based on a logical interpretation and analysis of past events.

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2005, 15:28

Originally posted by Hiero+Oct 21 2005, 02:52 AM--> (Hiero @ Oct 21 2005, 02:52 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm not going to reply again, because you keep forcing me to repeat myself. If you want the discussion to move on, stop repeating the same arguments which I then have to reply to, again and again and again. It's boring.
It's hard to argue with you if you do not understand were classes comes from, which you believe is the state. [/b]
No I don't. I've quite clearly said that I don't think that, if you'd take the time to read my posts and understand them you'd see that.

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2005, 15:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:36 AM
And we believe the state is the working class, with all the political authority necessary to "defend a revolution, end capitalism and build socialism."
And it is how that political authority is organised which is the fundamental basis of this argument.

gilhyle

21st October 2005, 17:23

A three-fold distinction between

Class
State and
Government

allows most of what anyone would want to say about this to be said.

Government's come and go and may seek to defend or attack dominant relations, but States stand upon and defend class relations notwithstanding Government postures.

The methodological problem you are getting caught up on is the abstract and (virtually) structuralist character of the concept of the state.

Poulantzas wrestled ineffectively with the difficulty of this - and then killed himself.

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2005, 18:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:07 PM
A three-fold distinction between

Class
State and
Government

allows most of what anyone would want to say about this to be said.

Government's come and go and may seek to defend or attack dominant relations, but States stand upon and defend class relations notwithstanding Government postures.

The methodological problem you are getting caught up on is the abstract and (virtually) structuralist character of the concept of the state.

Poulantzas wrestled ineffectively with the difficulty of this - and then killed himself.
Wow, I've never ever heard of this guy. Thanks for that. I have just ordered 'State, Power, Socialism' from amazon.

21st October 2005, 18:13

It is not possible for the state to be the working class, unless you think of the working class as a small number of people. The state always acts in the interests of a privileged minority.

The state always acts in the interests of the ruling class. Historically, however, the ruling class has been a minority.

NovelGentry

21st October 2005, 19:03

And it is how that political authority is organised which is the fundamental basis of this argument.

It's difficult to say how exactly it will be organized, but I would argue, if I could, that it should be a process of direct democracy amongst those in the workplace.

NovelGentry

21st October 2005, 19:12

we need to practice direct democracy now, not later, in order to ensure the working class can maintain real control of their society. This is not possible in a state, which by it’s very nature opposes self-government. This can only stifle independence and growth, making people dependent on authority.

Direct democracy is not self-government, it is government by the majority, and it can be just as authoritarian as a dictatorship if the majority opinion is always enforced.

Also, in any state, those in power will no longer form part of the working class. They will be ex-workers with the power to define and make decisions on behalf of the working class without actually consulting them. This would mark the end, not the beginning, of the revolution.

Unless those in power are the workers.

Why?

What do you mean why? Do you know what induction is?

Unless every worker is part of the government (which is impossible)

Why is that impossible?

Why do the majority of people fail to oppose capitalism?

The vast majority of them right now are not conscious of exploitation and they are not class conscious.

We argue that the state by its very nature would create a new bureaucratic class. This is based on a logical interpretation and analysis of past events.

But no state that you've examined has ever been a worker's state. This is the problem, all your examples from the past were dealing with minority classes. Again, the problem of induction.

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2005, 19:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:47 PM

And it is how that political authority is organised which is the fundamental basis of this argument.

It's difficult to say how exactly it will be organized, but I would argue, if I could, that it should be a process of direct democracy amongst those in the workplace.
I prefer the idea of consensus and community based decision making as well as workplace.

bombeverything

21st October 2005, 22:18

Direct democracy is not self-government, it is government by the majority, and it can be just as authoritarian as a dictatorship if the majority opinion is always enforced.

I never said it was. I was simply noting the fact that the state goes against the very notion of self-government, and I merely mentioned consensus and direct democracy as preferable alternatives to representative democracy. There is no need to over-analyse my posts.

Unless those in power are the workers.

Explain in detail how this new state would work. How would decisions be made?

What do you mean why? Do you know what induction is?

I meant why as in I do not see any problem with the argument. I meant that we need to make the future, not predict it. This is why means are important. We must act now in an attempt to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.

Why is that impossible?

Because that would mean that every worker would have the power to make decisions, and thus the state would cease to exist. Answer my second question.

The vast majority of them right now are not conscious of exploitation and they are not class conscious.

And they also seem to believe that people cannot live without being governed. This works well for the exploiters.

It's difficult to say how exactly it will be organized, but I would argue, if I could, that it should be a process of direct democracy amongst those in the workplace.

Why did you emphasise should?

NovelGentry

21st October 2005, 22:48

I never said it was. I was simply noting the fact that the state goes against the very notion of self-government

Yes, the state implies there is no self-government. But you talked of direct democracy and then said "this is not possible... opposes self-government." Implying that direct democracy is self-government. The state implies no self-government, and direct democracy is not self-government, thus the two are not mutually exclusive.

Explain in detail how this new state would work. How would decisions be made?

In detail? I enjoy posting on forums, but not that much. I'm not sure how much more detail you need aside from saying that it would be direct democracy founded in the workplace, probably localized around economic regions. So you may have an area roughly the size of a small town with it's various workplaces and industries, and those workers meet to decide the development and direction (politically and generally economically) of that area. You could then also have, at the very same "meetings" deciding on larger issues across the board, all the way up to a federal level.

At the top of the federal level you would have an administrative. This could be comprised of a mix of individuals from various industries/political spheres, elected directly, recallable, etc. Mind you, these people are not elected to then vote on new things, the legislative task is 100% within the hands of the people. These people are merely an executive power.

I meant why as in I do not see any problem with the argument.

You don't see a problem with using induction as an argument? So if I was to say that every car that I've ever been aware of has been gasoline powered, I can then say, and have a strong argument, that every car from this point on will be gasoline powered?

You are essentially saying the same thing. Every state of which you are aware of, that you know of from the past, has been run by a minority... you now claim it's a good argument to then say that every state from this point forward will be a minority.

Because that would mean that every worker would have the power to make decisions, and thus the state would cease to exist.

Assuming that everyone is a worker, and even of those of the bourgeoisie who are forced to become workers, they still lack the political equality. I have a right to vote in modern bourgeois society... I've yet to see where I have any political equality. Even if this country was directly democratic, I wouldn't have any political equality, it would still be dominated by the rich who can secure the vote with money, media indoctrination, etc, etc.

Answer my second question.

What second question?

And they also seem to believe that people cannot live without being governed.

Just another aspect of lack of consciousness.

Why did you emphasise should?

To emphasize that I'm speaking of what should happen, as opposed to what will, can, or can't. I realize what should happen is not always what can happen, and it's certainly not always what will happen.

bombeverything

22nd October 2005, 08:23

Yes, the state implies there is no self-government. But you talked of direct democracy and then said "this is not possible... opposes self-government." Implying that direct democracy is self-government. The state implies no self-government, and direct democracy is not self-government, thus the two are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, fair enough. If I didn't explain myself properly I apologise.

In detail? I enjoy posting on forums, but not that much. I'm not sure how much more detail you need aside from saying that it would be direct democracy founded in the workplace, probably localized around economic regions. So you may have an area roughly the size of a small town with it's various workplaces and industries, and those workers meet to decide the development and direction (politically and generally economically) of that area. You could then also have, at the very same "meetings" deciding on larger issues across the board, all the way up to a federal level.

At the top of the federal level you would have an administrative. This could be comprised of a mix of individuals from various industries/political spheres, elected directly, recallable, etc. Mind you, these people are not elected to then vote on new things, the legislative task is 100% within the hands of the people. These people are merely an executive power.

No that was good enough. I would not consider this a state, however.

You don't see a problem with using induction as an argument? So if I was to say that every car that I've ever been aware of has been gasoline powered, I can then say, and have a strong argument, that every car from this point on will be gasoline powered?

That would obviously be absurd, as we all know that technology "progresses". I don't see how this really applies to my argument though, as there isn’t really anything inevitable about the realisation of a communist society. These are two different things.

Anyway your idea of the state is clearly different than mine. You seem to view the state in a neutral light. When I talk about the state I am referring to a structure of hierarchy, control, and centralised authority. A system that can only by its very nature benefit the ruling class in any society.

gilhyle

22nd October 2005, 15:17

Finally getting to the point:

"legislative task is 100% within the hands of the people"

That won't do for this reason - the distinction between legislation and administration is a conventional fiction of the parliamentary representative system designed by and for capitalism. It is not coherent to transpose it to a different kind of state system.

Lenin's work implies a rejection of the doctrine of 'separation of powers' of which this distinction is a part.

Briefly as to why its not coherent - In your layered 'direct' democratic system, which, let us note, has an awful lot of representatives for a system that is meant to be 'direct' rather than representative democracy, the critical issue is who deals with what issues at which level. The most critical promlem is the relationship between revenue raising for the state and decision making. How do you prevent the federal representatives taking disproportionate power and how do you prevent the administration taking disproportionate power from the elected 'representatives' while at the same time facilitating the efficiencies necessary to combat counter-revolution ?

NovelGentry

22nd October 2005, 16:10

Lenin's work implies a rejection of the doctrine of 'separation of powers' of which this distinction is a part.

Congratulations Lenin.

In your layered 'direct' democratic system, which, let us note, has an awful lot of representatives for a system that is meant to be 'direct' rather than representative democracy, the critical issue is who deals with what issues at which level.

It doesn't have any representatives.

How do you prevent the federal representatives taking disproportionate power and how do you prevent the administration taking disproportionate power from the elected 'representatives' while at the same time facilitating the efficiencies necessary to combat counter-revolution ?

For starters, you seem to think there are multiple groups going on here. The "federal represenatives" if that's what you wish to call them are "the administration" and "the administration" is the "elected representatives." There is no need to stop them from taking disproportionate power from one another because they are the same group.

There's only two groups, the people as a whole, who comprise the legislative organ, and the people they elect to the administrative, who comprise the executive power.

NovelGentry

22nd October 2005, 16:15

You seem to view the state in a neutral light.

Of course, why should I view it in any other light? It's not a being with evil tendancies... it's not a being at all. Do you look at rocks in a non-neutral light? Well maybe, if someone throws it through your window maybe you stand there and curse the rock. Maybe if it entertains you by letting you throw it at a bottle you stand there and praise the rock.

But even that example is not good, because the state is not a physical thing, but merely a concept -- even stranger to look at it in any other light than a neutral one.

A system that can only by its very nature benefit the ruling class in any society.

Let's hope so, the proletariat needs all the help it can get when it becomes the ruling class.

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd October 2005, 21:04

Anarchism has absolutely no scientific basis for achieving a classless staeless society.

I'd be careful with the word "scientific".

Somehow, some of you self-proclaimed marxists tend to think that "if we just put the label scientific on it, everything will be fine". It's like muslims trying to portray Islam as scientific. It sounds silly. never mind it being true or not.

How is marxism "scientific"?

wet blanket

22nd October 2005, 22:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:48 PM
How is marxism "scientific"?
:blush: Engels said so.

Ownthink

23rd October 2005, 02:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:48 PM

Anarchism has absolutely no scientific basis for achieving a classless staeless society.

I'd be careful with the word "scientific".

Somehow, some of you self-proclaimed marxists tend to think that "if we just put the label scientific on it, everything will be fine". It's like muslims trying to portray Islam as scientific. It sounds silly. never mind it being true or not.

How is marxism "scientific"?
See:

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

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

:hammer:

gilhyle

23rd October 2005, 16:23

[QUOTE]

For starters, you seem to think there are multiple groups going on here. The "federal represenatives" if that's what you wish to call them are "the administration" and "the administration" is the "elected representatives." There is no need to stop them from taking disproportionate power from one another because they are the same group.

There's only two groups, the people as a whole, who comprise the legislative organ, and the people they elect to the administrative, who comprise the executive power.

Don't understand novel gentry:

You've got local assemblies, federal assemblies and an administration and they are all part of 'the people' in your dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why does it make it O.K. if there are just two groups - people involved in the State and people not involved inthe State ?

Why don't you think you have set up multiple groups with their own interests distinct from the people as a whole when you have established all these institutions of the state ?

Its obvous that you have, I would have thought. And those are the groups that anarchists fear.

And that is without even mentioning the 'Party'. I remember Maoists used always deny that there was anything but the people as a whole, but that was just a rhetorical technique to hide the very definite power structures they built up. (if there are any Maoists left, they probably still do it.)

I'm NOT saying the anarchist argument is correct. But the dictatorship of the proletariat implies the continued existence of significant conflicts of interest between the class and its Governments (whether at local, federal or administrative level). You can't have a functioning revolutionary state without creating these kinds of difference of interest within the 'people'....you can't protect a revolution without this functioning dictatotrship. That is the nub of the issue.

NovelGentry

23rd October 2005, 22:20

Why don't you think you have set up multiple groups with their own interests distinct from the people as a whole when you have established all these institutions of the state ?

Why do you assume there is an "interest of the people as a whole" -- the bourgeoisie's interests are not the same as the proletariat's interests, so long as there are classes, the interests of "the people" are not united, they are always class interests.

'm NOT saying the anarchist argument is correct. But the dictatorship of the proletariat implies the continued existence of significant conflicts of interest between the class and its Governments (whether at local, federal or administrative level). You can't have a functioning revolutionary state without creating these kinds of difference of interest within the 'people'....you can't protect a revolution without this functioning dictatotrship. That is the nub of the issue.

You seem to be confusing the groups here. There is one group that maintains political power, the proletariat, and another which does not, the bourgeoisie.

bombeverything

24th October 2005, 11:22

Of course, why should I view it in any other light? It's not a being with evil tendancies... it's not a being at all. Do you look at rocks in a non-neutral light? Well maybe, if someone throws it through your window maybe you stand there and curse the rock. Maybe if it entertains you by letting you throw it at a bottle you stand there and praise the rock.

But even that example is not good.

:lol:

I agree. There is an obvious dissimilarity between a rock and human societies. From its very inception, the state creates material structures that promote destructive social tendencies through the use of violence. I would not consider what you were talking about before to be a state.

... the state is not a physical thing, but merely a concept -- even stranger to look at it in any other light than a neutral one.

It is more than a concept, once created it exists as a very real thing. Besides, no one can actually do this.

Let's hope so, the proletariat needs all the help it can get when it becomes the ruling class.

Help from where? Here you seem to be admitting that the creation of the “proletarian state” depends on a structure that exists above the majority of the population. This is my point. Structures of authority can only end up controlling the people by preventing their independent development (which is necessary in a truly communist society). Any state is counterproductive. Either way it is many things, but nothing like you have described.

NovelGentry

24th October 2005, 12:02

From its very inception, the state creates material structures that promote destructive social tendencies through the use of violence.

It does? How does it do this? How do you know it doesn't create material structures that promote productive social tendancies through the use of legitimatized authority? How does the state create anything separate from man? That is, how is it that the state creates these things, while man without a state does not? You certainly must think the state is a being with evil tendancies.

It is more than a concept, once created it exists as a very real thing.

I don't recall saying it wasn't a "real thing," but that it was not physical/material. Could you show me a picture of the state? Maybe you can offer it for me to touch? Can I walk into the state like I can walk into a wall?

Besides, no one can actually do this.

No one can actually do what? Look at it neutrally?

Help from where?

Arguably from political organization.

Here you seem to be admitting that the creation of the “proletarian state” depends on a structure that exists above the majority of the population.

But I've never claimed the state is above the majority of the population, that's from your screwy definition from Proudhon's dictionary or whatever. The state is little different than a screw driver wielded by classes, and like a screw driver, is a product of man. The state is no more above any member of the population than the screw driver is anyone in the workshop -- some certainly are not allowed to touch it though, or rather, they're not allowed to work on certain projects which would have them touch it.

This is my point.

That you see the state as being more powerful than it's creators?

Structures of authority can only end up controlling the people by preventing their independent development (which is necessary in a truly communist society).

It certainly may be true that some structures of authority prevent independent development, it may also be true that some promote it. I've never really claimed to be looking for independent development, but social development. As far as this being a "truly communist society," it's not, if by that you mean it's not communism. I never claimed such.

Any state is counterproductive.

Any apple is red.

Either way it is many things, but nothing like you have described.

And if it was something like I described? Maybe it is exactly as I've described and you just don't care to clear away the excess wording from Proudhon's dictionary.

From something I wrote long before this thread ever existed:

With this type of thinking, we cannot say that we must be free of class oppression before we can say we are free of the state; even if the mentality of every man, woman, and child were to change, we cannot be free until we are free of the state. But what is the state if not a form of class oppression? What if not a tool of class oppression? If those who call the state into existence, if those who are members of the state, if those who are representative of the state change... does the state not too change? NO, say the anarchists!

The state, in all its past and future forms, represents the existing ruling class. The anarchists have seemingly extracted from this, and wrongfully so, that to destroy it is the very same as destroying the class itself and all class antagonisms that go with it. In doing this they are left with the most difficult transitional stage, one where the expropriation of the means of production by the proletariat becomes effectively nulled, if indeed they do not wish to step on their own toes. That is to say, by what means do they seize the factories and by what means do they ensure they keep them? With force no doubt... but is it just any force? Is it not a hierarchical force, one which places proletarian above bourgeoisie? Is there not a top and a bottom? Do they not organize with exclusive democracy?

The anarchists primarily overcome this seemingly glaring contradiction by redefining the state. The state becomes necessarily a ruling minority for them. It becomes necessarily a hierarchy amongst itself, as it is amongst society. In the end, what they oppose is not the state itself, but, just as the communists do, the bourgeois state, the feudal state, etc. Instead of making proper distinctions, their forumalation leads them to a most confusing position, one where they are forced to come to grips with what the communists have proposed all along and, in order that they may uphold their superstition, redefine words.

bombeverything

24th October 2005, 13:27

It does? How does it do this? How do you know it doesn't create material structures that promote productive social tendancies through the use of legitimatized authority? How does the state create anything separate from man? That is, how is it that the state creates these things, while man without a state does not? You certainly must think the state is a being with evil tendancies.

I didn't mean they were separate. Sometimes our creations end up controlling us. Is this the same as arguing that the state "is a being with evil tendencies"?

I don't recall saying it wasn't a "real thing," but that it was not physical/material

Then what was the point? You seemed to be suggesting that the state does not exist.

No one can actually do what? Look at it neutrally?

Yes.

But I've never claimed the state is above the majority of the population, that's from your screwy definition from Proudhon's dictionary or whatever. The state is little different than a screw driver wielded by classes, and like a screw driver, is a product of man. The state is no more above any member of the population than the screw driver is anyone in the workshop -- some certainly are not allowed to touch it though, or rather, they're not allowed to work on certain projects which would have them touch it.

It can when someone owns or controls the "screw driver", as you rightly pointed out.

That you see the state as being more powerful than it's creators?

Yes, I guess so. In the sense that its very existence depends on concentrated power and inequality.

And if it was something like I described? Maybe it is exactly as I've described and you just don't care to clear away the excess wording from Proudhon's dictionary.

If this were true than why don’t you stop using the word? For the record, I haven’t actually read much Proudhon.

With this type of thinking, we cannot say that we must be free of class oppression before we can say we are free of the state

Both must happen simultaneously.

What if not a tool of class oppression? If those who call the state into existence, if those who are members of the state, if those who are representative of the state change... does the state not too change?

Not if the state structure remains intact. People are largely shaped by their environments, right?

The anarchists have seemingly extracted from this, and wrongfully so, that to destroy it is the very same as destroying the class itself and all class antagonisms that go with it.

Not really. We just see it as a hindrance to the revolution. The state is merely an offshoot of capitalism that must also be destroyed.

In doing this they are left with the most difficult transitional stage, one where the expropriation of the means of production by the proletariat becomes effectively nulled, if indeed they do not wish to step on their own toes. That is to say, by what means do they seize the factories and by what means do they ensure they keep them? With force no doubt... but is it just any force? Is it not a hierarchical force, one which places proletarian above bourgeoisie? Is there not a top and a bottom? Do they not organize with exclusive democracy?

Saying we must replace it is assuming that it was something worthwhile that needs replacing. Yet this is not the issue. Anarchists are very clear in describing what it is that they want to replace the state with: free and voluntary associations between workers. Atleast we are honest!

Instead of making proper distinctions, their forumalation leads them to a most confusing position, one where they are forced to come to grips with what the communists have proposed all along and, in order that they may uphold their superstition, redefine words

Yeah that’s it. Deep down I knew that Lenin has always been right. I didn't know how to cope, so I became an anarchist.

:rolleyes:

NovelGentry

24th October 2005, 18:22

I didn't mean they were separate. Sometimes our creations end up controlling us. Is this the same as arguing that the state "is a being with evil tendencies"?

The only reasons our creations could control us would be if we were too unconscious to recognize them as our creations. You posit the state is always this way, not that it can be freed of such a role even if people gain the necessary consciousness to create socialism/communism, as such you attribute always a controlling role to it, you might as well have said it is another being.

Then what was the point? You seemed to be suggesting that the state does not exist.

I never suggested that, I have suggested the state does not need to exist under the excessive descriptors you've said it must.

Yes.

Of course one can. What one cannot do is look at the bourgeois state neutrally, or the feudal state, or even the socialist state, that says nothing about the concept of a state in general, which has no particular political alignment.

It can when someone owns or controls the "screw driver", as you rightly pointed out.

But not if the owner/controller is the majority.

If this were true than why don’t you stop using the word?

Stop using it? Or stop using it because our definition differs. I have no reason to stop using the word because I am very much referring to what the word refers to.

Both must happen simultaneously.

Why? They were not created simultaneously, one existed prior to the other... does that not imply that one can exist without the other?

Not if the state structure remains intact.

Not if the current state structure remains in tact.

People are largely shaped by their environments, right?

I would argue that they are totally shaped by their environments. The state is not the total of their environment.

The state is merely an offshoot of capitalism that must also be destroyed.

So the state is unique to capitalism? The state is an offshoot of class antagonisms, but that does not equate it to class antagonisms.

Yet this is not the issue. Anarchists are very clear in describing what it is that they want to replace the state with: free and voluntary associations between workers. Atleast we are honest!

What you propose is all well and good, but if these associations are oganized with political character, they become a state.

Deep down I knew that Lenin has always been right.

Who said anything about Lenin?

I didn't know how to cope, so I became an anarchist.

That's not what I said or implied at all. The idea is never what you did or didn't know, or what you did or didn't cope with... it's a question of how the world works. If the state is formulated as the communists propose (which I obviously believe it is) and it is true that such is the way the state is formulated, then the anarchists have to at some point face the reality of the state. It's like when Marx examine's Proudhon's economic work and states "Does society desire to "eliminate all the inconveniences" which trouble it, it has only to eliminate all the ill sounding terms. Let it change the language, and for that it has only to address itself to the Academy and ask it for a new edition of it's dictionary."