The Centralization of Power

[Red Menace]

I know that in the Communist Manifesto that it says that there would be a centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly and that the means of communication and transport would be in the hands of the state.

I guess what I am wondering is what does this all mean, and Why? Is this all neccessary to achieve an egalitarian classless society? Can all of this centralization of power be dangerous?

[MrDoom]

Centralization of power into the hands of the state doesn't neccessarily mean the state itself is of a centralized nature.

[BreadBros]

When Marx was putting forward those 10 points he wasn't talking about them constituting communism. They were immediate political goals he thought Germans could fight for that would put them closer to socialism. So yes, its incompatible with communism, although moreso because of the remaining use of money than because of centralization.

[gilhyle]

The transition to a situation in which the extent and distribution of credit is in the hands of the State rather than being determined by the market is critical to the establishment of a Workers State - that doesnt mean it would automatically happen on day one, it would depend on where state power was seized and in what economic context.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:58 am
Centralization of power into the hands of the state doesn't neccessarily mean the state itself is of a centralized nature.
Er, what!?

[RedLenin]

I guess what I am wondering is what does this all mean, and Why?
It means just what it says. All power would be centralized into the hands of the 'workers' state. However, the structure of such a state is debated by Marxists.


Is this all neccessary to achieve an egalitarian classless society?
I don't think so, no. I would say that the state is a hinderance to the revolution. The state, by its very nature, is a centralized, hierarchical instrument of minority rule. A 'workers state' would be nothing but the rule by a minority who claim to represent the workers. By giving such a minority all power, you basically create state capitalism. If all power really is in the hands of the entire working class, through direct democracy, it is not a state at all.


Can all of this centralization of power be dangerous?
Yes, and it would create a new class society. That of the state rulers and the working masses. But again, it all comes down to your definiton of the state. If you for some reason think state means 'power into the hands of the workers themselves' then it would not be dangerous, it would be essential. However, i think that anyone who really takes a good look at the state will see that it has historically been, and is by its very nature, a centralized monopoly on force weilded by a privilaged minority.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 19, 2006 05:36 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 19, 2006 05:36 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 06:58 am
Centralization of power into the hands of the state doesn't neccessarily mean the state itself is of a centralized nature.
Er, what!? [/b]
HE means the state could hold a monopoly on power without itself being centralised. EG a network of associated powerful councils and local governments could control the power, not necessarily a single unitary organisation.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 12:55 am
I guess what I am wondering is what does this all mean, and Why?
Why? My guess is to empower a so called "workers," state, and the dictatorship of the rulers.


Is this all neccessary to achieve an egalitarian classless society?

No, because it won't lead to an egalitarian society, because only true egalitarianism will lead to an egalitarian classless society, how could something essentially vanguardist and burecratic lead to egalitarian? It can't.


Can all of this centralization of power be dangerous?

Yea,...it can.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 20, 2006 01:21 am



Can all of this centralization of power be dangerous?

Yea,...it can.
'Cookbooks of the future' - you worry too much