A "two State" Revolution

[Janus]

So - I picture, during revolution - the existance of two states as it were.

The proletarian state made up of the proletariat themselves as a whole and its purpose is to supress the bourgeoisie.

And the bourgeoisie state - made up of confused proletarians fighting against the progressive forces.

So, really, and in control of different territories - are two opposing states representing the interests of the two classes.

It is a fight for state control.
Two actual nation states or two different groups? I don't think that two actual states could be created without one "state" obliterating the other. I mean in a civil war, there would be no two states until the end. I don't see why proles would still be fighting for the bourgeois unless they had been promised major things if they won (which would be quite doubtful).

[Connolly]

Now this whole idea could be due to my lack of understanding about a revolutionary scenario - but bear with me for one moment :P


Two actual nation states or two different groups?

Rather, two different groups each with their own territorial control. I mean, even today we have states fighting over political and ecomomic dominance over what they control.

The Columbian FARC for example, since they control their own territory and laws, taxes and apparatus -they are their own state. That state, supposedly representing the interests of the proletariat (whether it is or not is another matter) are fighting against the existing, and recognised bourgeois state. Although its not a revolutionary situation as we may come to know - it is a revolution of sorts.

The proletariat (again assuming it is representing thier interests) with their state, are fighting against another reactionary bourgeois state.

So there is in existance two states seeking to suppress and destroy one another.

I suppose, from what I remember - the spanish civil war could also be defined as two main states fighting - although the borders of each state control being very dynamic and changing.

I wouldnt call the FARC controlled area an independent nation as such - since it continues to fight for territorial control and the destruction of the actual recognised state of columbia.

But do you see what I mean? :(


I don't think that two actual states could be created without one "state" obliterating the other.

As I said above - they are fighting for the destruction of one another, and their borders are dynamic. Whether either one is obliterated or not depends on how much conquest either of the states are willing to look for. But I wouldnt see it as impossible for two to exist and make peace without one of them being destroyed.


I mean in a civil war, there would be no two states until the end.

Could we not say that the spanish civil war was two states - since both Franko and the Republic controlled their own internal (but dynamic) territory consisting of state apparatus (army, police force), laws, production relations, governance etc etc.

Maybe Im getting my definition of what a state is just completely wrong - but I see two states as of now.

When I say states, that would not necassarily mean a proletarian state as being lead by a vanguard or anything - but just its own individual scenario within.

So before now, iv seen it as just one state protecting the interests of a particular class versus a class. But now I am seeing it as two states fighting.

Since the purpose of the state is to protect the interests of a particular class, and therefore supress the other - would that not mean both the bourgeois have a state (to supress the proletariat) and the proletariat have a state (to suppress the bourgeois) - two states.

So socialism would entail, as far as I can see, two states in existance.

Since the bourgeois are not bourgeois unless they control and own the systems of production - they must have a state to control some territory in which this relation exists within socialism - since the socialist state exists to destroy the reminantts of the bourgeoisie.

Maybe this has been something obvious to everyone for a long time - but iv just seen it in the context of a two state war now. :rolleyes:

The idea of the proletariat fighting against the bourgeois state has been misleading to me.


I don't see why proles would still be fighting for the bourgeois unless they had been promised major things if they won (which would be quite doubtful).

Well - in this I consider the army proletarians - as they are.

So if the bourgeois dont have proletarians to fight for them, or even on their side, and therefore no army - in what way are they bourgeois? since they have no state to say "this is their property" and therefore justify them as bourgeois?

Under socialism - the bourgeois must have their own state - with army, their propert laws and proletarians to exploit - otherwise - they just arnt bourgeois - but become proletariat since nothing justifies or defends their property rights.

You see, to say proletarians will not fight for the bourgeois just dosnt seem to add up.

1) If it were so - the bourgeois wouldnt be much of a fighting force - it being a very small minority - and therefore - whatever ramifications them being general infantry might have on their bourgeois status.

2) If there are no proletarians on the bourgeois side - the bourgeois are no longer bourgeois - since they have no consumers or labour to exploit.

3) If there are no proletarians on the bourgeois side - what sort of a state does the bourgeois have? who enforces the law?


So I conclude that since the purpose of the socialist state is to suppress and destroy the remanents of the bourgeoisie, and the simple fact that the bourgeoisie are in existance, then during a revolution and socialist phase, both the bourgeois state and proletarian state are in existance and fighting one another.

It is a fight, not just between two classes - but between two states representing the interest of either class.

As I said - this could be obvious to everyone already, I just dont know. :wacko:

[Connolly]

I could almost conclude, infact, that if there are no proletarians fighting on the bourgeois side - a socialist state would not even be necessary - since without a proletariat - there is no bourgeois.

[Janus]

Now this whole idea could be due to my lack of understanding about a revolutionary scenario - but bear with me for one moment
Well, it's not like any of us have a crystal ball that allows us to peer in the future :P


Rather, two different groups each with their own territorial control. I mean, even today we have states fighting over political and ecomomic dominance over what they control.
Let's take the US for example. So you think that in the event of a revolution, it will split into two states: a prole one and a bourgeois one? I don't see how the lines would be drawn or how that would work. Generally in a civil war, one side wins or looses and it is civil strife rather than a battle between two nation states as we saw during the Cold War.


The Columbian FARC for example, since they control their own territory and laws, taxes and apparatus -they are their own state. That state, supposedly representing the interests of the proletariat (whether it is or not is another matter) are fighting against the existing, and recognised bourgeois state. Although its not a revolutionary situation as we may come to know - it is a revolution of sorts.
But their land is clearly defined and mainly in the jungle, besides much of the land was granted to them. In an actual proletarian revolution, how would the lines be drawn up if workers in the cities also revolted? If they established communes, these communes would then have to fight for survival immediately rather than take the time to actually form a state.


So there is in existance two states seeking to suppress and destroy one another.
I could only see that if only certain revolutions in certain nations actually succedded, leaving us with a socialist vs. bourgeois scenario like during the Cold War.


I suppose, from what I remember - the spanish civil war could also be defined as two main states fighting - although the borders of each state control being very dynamic and changing.
OK, so I guess we're arguing over definitions here. I tend to think of a civil war as generally one group against another. However, if you want to call them states or if they declare themselves to be states then that's fine. But generally for a state to be created, the territories need to be pretty definite; and I believe that was the case during the Spanish Civil War.


Could we not say that the spanish civil war was two states - since both Franko and the Republic controlled their own internal (but dynamic) territory consisting of state apparatus (army, police force), laws, production relations, governance etc etc.
Yes, but the general base never really changed did it? Changes in the border do not matter as long as a general, definite territory is still held.


So socialism would entail, as far as I can see, two states in existance.

Since the bourgeois are not bourgeois unless they control and own the systems of production - they must have a state to control some territory in which this relation exists within socialism - since the socialist state exists to destroy the reminantts of the bourgeoisie.
But the bourgeois state would require underlings to fight and manage things. I just don't see why a significant amount of proles would still be fighting for them especially if capitalism had collapsed by then.


So if the bourgeois dont have proletarians to fight for them, or even on their side, and therefore no army - in what way are they bourgeois? since they have no state to say "this is their property" and therefore justify them as bourgeois?
They are technically the bourgeois, because they still represent their interests.


1) If it were so - the bourgeois wouldnt be much of a fighting force - it being a very small minority - and therefore - whatever ramifications them being general infantry might have on their bourgeois status.

2) If there are no proletarians on the bourgeois side - the bourgeois are no longer bourgeois - since they have no consumers or labour to exploit.

3) If there are no proletarians on the bourgeois side - what sort of a state does the bourgeois have? who enforces the law?
That's what we're hoping for: a quick revolution because the bourgeois will be the minority. A mass action (requiring no formation of an actual state) against a severily weakened ruling class has great chances of success. However, if that doesn't work then a protracted war is probably inevitable and therefore result in two forces fighting each other.


It is a fight, not just between two classes - but between two states representing the interest of either class.
I agree that is a possible scenario.

[Janus]

that if there are no proletarians fighting on the bourgeois side - a socialist state would not even be necessary - since without a proletariat - there is no bourgeois.
That's what I'm thinking. A strong, mass movement would destroy the bourgeois and have no need to settle for a protracted war.

[Connolly]

Sorry to bother you again Janus :lol:


Let's take the US for example. So you think that in the event of a revolution, it will split into two states: a prole one and a bourgeois one?

Im sorry, I just used two states for convenience - I mean, even during the spanish civil war there was infighting toward the end amongst trots, anarchists and stalinists - who - no doubt, controlled particular areas - and managed them in certain ways independently from the Republican government itself. But I say two states to simplify.

.........In the US, it might split into various numbers of independent, worker controlled areas - coordinating with one another? - who knows? But, against one bourgeois state initially - as time goes on, and areas controlled by the workers develop and merge into a less fragmented socialist system and state - the bourgeois state will develop into what the proletarian state was initially - fragmented and scattered accross the land mass.

Maybe, as communication technology develops - the bourgeois states wouldnt be so fragmented and independently controlled as communication technology might sovle that.


I don't see how the lines would be drawn or how that would work.

Maybe its wrong to assume territorial boundries will exist under conditions of civil war - for now, and from what historical examples seem to suggest - they do exist as far as i can see.

Take the paris commune for example - it had defined boundries - those under the influence of proletarian production relations, and those under the control of bourgeois relations. Although - as documented by some - failed due to the lack of a coordinating state of some sort.

Take the Cuban revolution - over a period of time, borders could be drawn up as to who controls what territory - who's controlling the tax and judicial system etc.

The Chinese civil war contained many controling states too - each implementing, however different or alike - their own production relations.


The lines would be drawn based on what production relations are where. Those production relations are defended against the opposing class and its state forces.

Some cities might erupt with proletarian victory, establishing socialism - others may not - remaining under bourgeois state control. Thats not to say those cities wont erupt either somewhere down the line.


Generally in a civil war, one side wins or looses and it is civil strife rather than a battle between two nation states as we saw during the Cold War.

It could also end with the establishment of two, or more, new and independent states.

Civil strife, yes. But if its under socialism - and all it is is "strife" - then its not coming from the bourgeois - but fellow proletarians - since this strife dosnt have a state. Those fighting against the newly established socialism might be disposessed bourgeoisie - but that title no longer stands since they no longer own the systems of production.

If a socialist state is to exist to crush the remaining bourgeoisie - its actually fighting another state - not just an opposing class.


But their land is clearly defined and mainly in the jungle, besides much of the land was granted to them.

I dont actually know how they concieved such territory - but, I would imagine, in the begining - it was won and installed. It wouldnt be difficult to define the territory - no more difficult than it is to define the maoist controlled territory from the royal states territory during the Nepali civil war.


In an actual proletarian revolution, how would the lines be drawn up if workers in the cities also revolted?

It might be half a city under proletarian state control, half under bourgeois control, It might be an entire city controlled by either - or simply a small neighbourhood even controlled under proletarian production relations. Wherever the workers are victorious in combatting bourgeois state suppression - is where the line is drawn.

I mean - if a small neighbourhood is under proletarian control (with its own defences and production relations - free from any bourgeois control) - what do we call it other than a state?

It cant just be a vacuum - it becomes self controlled and therfore an independent state, unless in collaboration or merging with another.


If they established communes, these communes would then have to fight for survival immediately rather than take the time to actually form a state.

It could be my definition of a state is wrong, howandever.

But it is a state in itself - dedicated to the protection of the proletarian class - as I said before, it wouldnt have to be any centralised vanguard or anything to be a state. The exact nature of the proletarian state and democratic systems being unknown.


I could only see that if only certain revolutions in certain nations actually succedded, leaving us with a socialist vs. bourgeois scenario like during the Cold War.

Really im just confuesd about how a socialist state phase is needed unless a bourgeois state(s) is also is in existance along side to justify the existance of the bourgeoisie.


OK, so I guess we're arguing over definitions here. I tend to think of a civil war as generally one group against another. However, if you want to call them states or if they declare themselves to be states then that's fine. But generally for a state to be created, the territories need to be pretty definite; and I believe that was the case during the Spanish Civil War.

But what would you call an autonomus region under self control - free from other state interference without it just being a vacuum. I would define it as being a state.


But the bourgeois state would require underlings to fight and manage things. I just don't see why a significant amount of proles would still be fighting for them especially if capitalism had collapsed by then.

But if the bourgeois are in existance - then clearly capitalism wouldnt have collapsed, and still remains guarded by a state somewhere.

And, as to why proletarians would fight for the bourgeois - who knows how many might. What we do know, is that they have - in many civil wars - fought as forces of reaction - against their own interests.


They are technically the bourgeois, because they still represent their interests.

Again - this is the confusing thing.............

By definition - they wouldnt be bourgeois.

And if you were to call them bourgeois - wouldnt the infantry of todays armies be bourgeois too? since they also represent their interests.


That's what we're hoping for: a quick revolution because the bourgeois will be the minority. A mass action (requiring no formation of an actual state) against a severily weakened ruling class has great chances of success. However, if that doesn't work then a protracted war is probably inevitable and therefore result in two forces fighting each other.

I think I might have addressed these issues.

But...to summerise. If the bourgeois exist - they must have a state. If the proletarian production relations exist - it must also have a state (unless we are to call it a vacuum). So if socialism exists - there must be at least two opposing states.

[Connolly]

In fact Janus - dont even bother reading all that tripe - just this bit.

Really im just confuesd about how a socialist state phase is needed unless a bourgeois state(s) is also is in existance along side to justify the existance of the bourgeoisie.

QUOTE
OK, so I guess we're arguing over definitions here. I tend to think of a civil war as generally one group against another. However, if you want to call them states or if they declare themselves to be states then that's fine. But generally for a state to be created, the territories need to be pretty definite; and I believe that was the case during the Spanish Civil War.



But what would you call an autonomus region under self control - free from other state interference without it just being a vacuum. I would define it as being a state.

QUOTE
But the bourgeois state would require underlings to fight and manage things. I just don't see why a significant amount of proles would still be fighting for them especially if capitalism had collapsed by then.



But if the bourgeois are in existance - then clearly capitalism wouldnt have collapsed, and still remains guarded by a state somewhere.

And, as to why proletarians would fight for the bourgeois - who knows how many might. What we do know, is that they have - in many civil wars - fought as forces of reaction - against their own interests.

QUOTE
They are technically the bourgeois, because they still represent their interests.



Again - this is the confusing thing.............

By definition - they wouldnt be bourgeois.

And if you were to call them bourgeois - wouldnt the infantry of todays armies be bourgeois too? since they also represent their interests.

QUOTE
That's what we're hoping for: a quick revolution because the bourgeois will be the minority. A mass action (requiring no formation of an actual state) against a severily weakened ruling class has great chances of success. However, if that doesn't work then a protracted war is probably inevitable and therefore result in two forces fighting each other.



I think I might have addressed these issues.

But...to summerise. If the bourgeois exist - they must have a state. If the proletarian production relations exist - it must also have a state (unless we are to call it a vacuum). So if socialism exists - there must be at least two opposing states.

[Janus]

Take the Cuban revolution - over a period of time, borders could be drawn up as to who controls what territory - who's controlling the tax and judicial system etc.
But they did not formally establish an actual independent state even though they could've because they were fighting a true guerrilla war.


The Chinese civil war contained many controling states too - each implementing, however different or alike - their own production relations.
Whoah, hold on there. The Chinese Civil War covers a hude time period. The Communists had a central base of operations from the Jiangxi Soviet until the Long March and then gained a new base of operations. So it would technically be a state but they never actually declared their independence. So I see what you're saying.


In fact Janus - dont even bother reading all that tripe - just this bit.
OK, if you say so.


Really im just confuesd about how a socialist state phase is needed unless a bourgeois state(s) is also is in existance along side to justify the existance of the bourgeoisie.
That is something that I question as well. But I would think that a central state would be needed since there may still be a threat from the bourgeois in other nations.


I would define it as being a state.
Ok, it;s all right with me if you wanna call it that. It's just that whenyou stated a civil war between two states, I was thinking of something like the American Civil war when the states were divided along strict lines. This is something that would be difficult to do in a protracted war between the bourgeois and proletariat.


But if the bourgeois are in existance - then clearly capitalism wouldnt have collapsed, and still remains guarded by a state somewhere.

And, as to why proletarians would fight for the bourgeois - who knows how many might. What we do know, is that they have - in many civil wars - fought as forces of reaction - against their own interests.
Ok, so you're talking about a general revolt when the bourgeois are still holding on to some stuff. I was originally thinking that a mass revolt wouldn't occur unless capitalism itself collapsed.

In that case, the bourgeois may still retain control of certain areas through force and gain support which would cause a protracted war to occur.


By definition - they wouldnt be bourgeois.

And if you were to call them bourgeois - wouldnt the infantry of todays armies be bourgeois too? since they also represent their interests.
Ok, if you want to be so pedantic, let us call them the ex-bourgeois.


I think I might have addressed these issues.

But...to summerise. If the bourgeois exist - they must have a state. If the proletarian production relations exist - it must also have a state (unless we are to call it a vacuum). So if socialism exists - there must be at least two opposing states.
Basically, this arguement is very petty and began more or less over my confusion over some of your terms. However the revolution in which I envision would be a strong, overwhelming mass movement against the bourgeois by the proletariat.

[Connolly]

Basically, this arguement is very petty and began more or less over my confusion over some of your terms. However the revolution in which I envision would be a strong, overwhelming mass movement against the bourgeois by the proletariat.

Ok. ok.

It probably is petty, and most probably caused my my own ignorance. :lol:

I just dont see why its referred to as a socialist state being in existance to crush the bourgeoisie - unless either 1) the bourgeois still have control somewhere or 2) as you stated - the bourgeois dont exist and all it is is 'strife' caused by proletariat (by definition).

So yeah - it is petty. :lol: :P

Thanks Janus.

[Janus]

It probably is petty, and most probably caused my my own ignorance.
No, I was just somewhat confused over some of your definitions.


I just dont see why its referred to as a socialist state being in existance to crush the bourgeoisie - unless either 1) the bourgeois still have control somewhere or 2) as you stated - the bourgeois dont exist and all it is is 'strife' caused by proletariat (by definition).
I see what you're saying; that there is no need for a proletarian state or the DoP unless there is a bourgeois force/state to fight as well.

But that force does not need to be specific to a specific country. The state may need to help with the ec. transition or protect the people from foreign agression particularly if the revolution does not succedd worldwide.

But in the past, few revolutionaries have declared themselves to be an actual state, they mainly called their areas liberated areas, etc. but I suppose that the scenario which you describe could be possible.