What is the Socialist State [Archive]

robbo203

30th December 2006, 21:38

Hi

It seems to me that the very notion of a "socialist state" is a contradiction in terms. In Marxist terminology socialism is a synonym for communism - the so called distinction was introduced by Lenin (yet another example of how far he departed from Marxism). Socialism/communism is understood to be a classless society. Ergo, the state which for Marx was a class-based institution, could not exist in a socialist/communist society. Socialist state is an oxymoron

Similarly this idea of a "workers state". No one has satisfactorily explained to me how the exploited class in society could have political power and yet countenance its own continued exploitation by the exploiting class. If there is no exploiting class, there can be no exploited class and hence no working class. Which means there cannot be such a thing as a workers state. If it exists on paper it is merely a smokesceen for yet another vanguardist elite to install its dictatorship OVER the proletariat

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

PRC-UTE

30th December 2006, 23:33

Marxism defines a state as basically an organ of class rule, a system of organised violence used by one class over another.

That could take a lot of different forms. I don't see why this is debated so much, to be honest. Isn't a workers' council or syndicalist revolution a form of a state, even if radically more decentralised than most?

Lamanov

30th December 2006, 23:47

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 30, 2006 11:33 pm
Isn't a workers' council ... a form of a state, even if radically more decentralised than most?

A workers' council is not really an institution, but a relationship. It remains flexible and makes its own rules, connects on its own terms, reshapes itself as people engaged in it wish.

But I get your point.

We must understand that state itslef, as an excercise of power of one class over another, is a very vague concept.

A federation of workers councils arming itself and acting against the bourgeois or a bueraucratic state is doing precisely that. That's why the context itself matters.

But here's the thing: in practice of workers who want to destroy hierarchy through council organization, direct democracy itself acts as an anti-statist practice. They act as a force only outside itself. Proletariat is interested only in supression of its class enemies. Within itself, proletariat is destroying the state per se, completely, as it is abolishing itself as a class. That's why it's wrong to speak of "workers' states". That's why Marx himself never did.

The Grey Blur

30th December 2006, 23:52

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 30, 2006 07:23 pm
As an anarchist, I am critical, but I have never seen a socialist provide a legitimate argument for why we need this socialist state. Transition, I agree is beneficial. A state is less desirable. A state, by its very nature, places more power in the hands of few individuals in order to maximize efficiency.

In order to prevent these individuals from exploiting their power and becoming corrupt, how can this state not collapse. It seems to me that Marx is pushing for one more try of the old liberal "balance of powers" idea. Basically, capitalism screwed up the creation of a balanced state before and we can do better next time. I don't buy that, personally.

So how does the state prevent corruption and power centralization, for my first question, and why is is necessary?
Have you read State & Revolution? I understand to an Anarchist that might sound distasteful but it's always good to know your enemy's arguements. ;)

Basically in S&R Lenin lays out a very basic illustration of a 'Socialist State' - a worker's government with electable and recallable officials, all working on an average worker's salary, as well as complete control by this State over the military, judicial, transport and educational systems etc and the inherent radicalisation of these institutions.

There was some other simple stuff but my brain's a bit 'not there' at the moment :lol:

Janus

30th December 2006, 23:54

A workers' council is not really an institution, but a relationship.
Not to get into a semantical debate but a worker's council (depending on the type) is an institution albeit a less formal one. Besides, institutions are built on relationships and interactions between the individuals.

That's why it's wrong to speak of "workers' states". That's why Marx himself never did.
Could you elaborate further on this; are you stating that the term itself is incorrect or that the whole concept is (Marx definitely spoke on the latter)? I would think that what you mentioned about the destruction of the proletariat state is simply the concept of the "withering of the state".

pannekoek

31st December 2006, 00:13

The state is replaced under socialism/communism (same thing) with the administration of things and not the administration of people treated as things.

dogwoodlover

31st December 2006, 06:38

The function of the State is to maintain the rule of one class over another. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat would be, as I interpret it, a government run by the workers. I think establishing workers' councils (run by direct democracy) as the foundational means of political rule would be an ideal way of achieving a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Lamanov

31st December 2006, 12:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 11:54 pm
Not to get into a semantical debate but a worker's council (depending on the type) is an institution albeit a less formal one. Besides, institutions are built on relationships and interactions between the individuals.

Less formal? What does that mean?

If you define institution like that than a family supper or a card game could be called an institution.

Institutions are based on specialized relationships, they serve certain limited purposes for society as such and recquire specialists to protect the intrests of that society.

In councils, there are no specialists, mediators or lawmakers. It's all out in the open and nothing is out of the range of its participants. The direct relationship itself is the foundation. Direct dialogue is replacing all institutional recquirements. When dialogue is lost, councils stop to be counclis, and reduce themselves to mere institutions.

It's more than semantics.

Could you elaborate further on this; are you stating that the term itself is incorrect or that the whole concept is?

Both. The whole concept belongs not to Marx but to "Orthodox Marxism".

(Marx definitely spoke on the latter)

No, he did not. He never advocated for "workers' state".

I would think that what you mentioned about the destruction of the proletariat state is simply the concept of the "withering of the state".

I did not mention a "proletarian state". I saind that proletariat takes on the role of the state through supression of the capitalist class. But that does not mean that there's such a thing as a "workers' state". So far, nothing of that sort has come up. We see that such a thing cannot exist, because it is contradictory to the whole project.

"Withering away" goes for all instruments of supression, and it's compatable with "abolishing itself as a class".

Leo

31st December 2006, 13:27

"Socialist state" can imply two different meanings:

1) Political Superstructure of a developing capitalist model and an agrarian revolution (proletarianization of the peasantry). (USSR after 1921 to, perhaps 1956 or sixties, Mao's China, Cuba, Vietnam and other national liberation movements etc. )

2) Temporary political Superstructure of a developed Keynesian capitalist model. (Later USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, China today, Scandinavian models and other Western "Democracies" at some point to some extent etc.)

As for the "workers state" debate, I would consider it as more a semantics issue. Technically, the political superstructure of the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a state, but it won't have anything in common with any state ever, so it really doesn't make much sense for me to call it a state. Perhaps something like proletarchy would work better than "workers state"?

Lamanov

31st December 2006, 16:36

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 31, 2006 01:27 pm
...so it really doesn't make much sense for me to call it a state. Perhaps something like proletarchy would work better than "workers state"?

It's probably for the best not to call it anything. :D

We've seen what happens to names and how they cause very difficult and stresfull missunderstandings.

DrFreeman09

2nd January 2007, 04:34

As a former anarchist myself, I used to believe that a "transition state" was completely unnecessary, but after looking into Marx, Engles, Lenin, and Trotsky much more thoroughly, I discovered that anarchy can only work after it has been achieved by socialism and eventually communism, since property is the source of all crime, as we all agree, but the thing that anarchists tend to disagree with is that the state exists because of the oppression. Marx said that the state exists to crush those who wanted to rid themselves of the oppression, whereas many anarchist writers believed that the state was the source of all of the oppression.

Therefore, the only major distinction that you can usually find between Marx and anarchists is that Marxists put economic equallity over individualism and freedom from the state, because both of those things (according to Marx) come from equality.

As for the necessity of the transition state, one of the biggest problems that may arise after a revolution is the existence of money. As long as there is any money, there is opportunity for bourgeois (who will still exist for as long as there is money) to regain control. And you can't simply end money in one day, so this is one of the biggest reasons why the state is necessary for some time.

Now, in Russia, and China, and Cuba, etc., there seemed to be no other way to abolish money than in a dictatorial fashion, which is certainly unfavorable in the eyes of those who have not "had a lobotomy or are not in denial," in the words of Ben Seattle. As for how preventing the bourgeois return without a dictatorship might be possible, you should read Ben Seattle's Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy at http://www.leninism.org

Tower of Bebel

2nd January 2007, 14:02

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 31, 2006 01:27 pm
"Socialist state" can imply two different meanings:

1) Political Superstructure of a developing capitalist model and an agrarian revolution (proletarianization of the peasantry). (USSR after 1921 to, perhaps 1956 or sixties, Mao's China, Cuba, Vietnam and other national liberation movements etc. )

2) Temporary political Superstructure of a developed Keynesian capitalist model. (Later USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, China today, Scandinavian models and other Western "Democracies" at some point to some extent etc.)

As for the "workers state" debate, I would consider it as more a semantics issue. Technically, the political superstructure of the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a state, but it won't have anything in common with any state ever, so it really doesn't make much sense for me to call it a state. Perhaps something like proletarchy would work better than "workers state"?
How would you call the institution of the develloping Soviet Union from 1917 to 1921 then?

robbo203

2nd January 2007, 22:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:38 am
The function of the State is to maintain the rule of one class over another. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat would be, as I interpret it, a government run by the workers. I think establishing workers' councils (run by direct democracy) as the foundational means of political rule would be an ideal way of achieving a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
[QUOTE]

Hi dogwoodlover

But this is the problem with the whole idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat". How can you have a government run by the workers? It just doesnt make sense. it is incoherent. And it was a regretable lapse of logic on Marx's part even to suggest the idea (even though his idea of a proletarian dictatorship was very different to the stalinist practice of a dictarship OVER the proletariat)

The point is a worker is defined by his or her relationship to the means of production i.e. as part of the non-owning exploited class. So how is it conceivable to have an exploited class in political power, in control of the state apparatus and so on, and yet unable to prevent its own exploitation at the hands of an exploiting minority who have been ejected from power. Its a crazy idea!! And it only goes to show that even profound thinkers like Marx do have their foibles

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

Janus

2nd January 2007, 22:50

Less formal? What does that mean?
Not as highly structured or perhaps not as ceremonious,etc.

If you define institution like that than a family supper or a card game could be called an institution.
I didn't mean it in that loose of a sense rather I simply said that institutions were simply built on relationships. Of course, this doesn't mean that every relationship is an institution. Since the activities you described are not exactly a fundamental part of a culture to be considered an institution such as the family unit itself.

Institutions are based on specialized relationships, they serve certain limited purposes for society as such and recquire specialists to protect the intrests of that society.

In councils, there are no specialists, mediators or lawmakers. It's all out in the open and nothing is out of the range of its participants. The direct relationship itself is the foundation. Direct dialogue is replacing all institutional recquirements. When dialogue is lost, councils stop to be counclis, and reduce themselves to mere institutions.
Well, that's what I meant by less formal.

No, he did not. He never advocated for "workers' state".
I don't think he ever used that term specifically but he did advocate worker's control through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But that does not mean that there's such a thing as a "workers' state". So far, nothing of that sort has come up. We see that such a thing cannot exist, because it is contradictory to the whole project.
Well, nothing like it has ever come up because very rarely has the proletariat itself taken and wielded power outside of the Paris Commune I suppose.

Janus

2nd January 2007, 22:53

How can you have a government run by the workers? It just doesnt make sense. it is incoherent.
How so? Isn't that what communism is all about? Placing control in the hands of the workers?

DrFreeman09

2nd January 2007, 22:53

Originally posted by robbo203+January 02, 2007 10:25 pm--> (robbo203 @ January 02, 2007 10:25 pm) [quote][email protected] 31, 2006 06:38 am
The function of the State is to maintain the rule of one class over another. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat would be, as I interpret it, a government run by the workers. I think establishing workers' councils (run by direct democracy) as the foundational means of political rule would be an ideal way of achieving a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Hi dogwoodlover

But this is the problem with the whole idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat". How can you have a government run by the workers? It just doesnt make sense. it is incoherent. And it was a regretable lapse of logic on Marx's part even to suggest the idea (even though his idea of a proletarian dictatorship was very different to the stalinist practice of a dictarship OVER the proletariat)

The point is a worker is defined by his or her relationship to the means of production i.e. as part of the non-owning exploited class. So how is it conceivable to have an exploited class in political power, in control of the state apparatus and so on, and yet unable to prevent its own exploitation at the hands of an exploiting minority who have been ejected from power. Its a crazy idea!! And it only goes to show that even profound thinkers like Marx do have their foibles

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/ [/b]
Perhaps Marx was wrong on a few occasions, but I don't think the dictatorship of the proletariat was one of them. And why wouldn't a system controlled by the workers be possible? It has existed before (in the Paris Commune and very earlier Soviet Russia), and it can exist again. The EZLN uses a system of delegates that could be called similar to the Soviets during the October 1917 Revolution, but with much less centralized democracy, and they have managed pretty well.

As for not being able to hold off the bourgeois minority from exploiting again, the key to that is to abolish money, and the key to that is the Self Organizing Moneyless Economy. A workers' state is simply a system where the majority (the proletariat) actually rules, in the case of the EZLN, through direct democracy, but possibly other ways may present themselves in the future.

Or perhaps I simply don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.

robbo203

2nd January 2007, 23:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:53 pm

[QUOTE=dogwoodlover,December 31, 2006 06:38 am] The function of the State is to maintain the rule of one class over another. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat would be, as I interpret it, a government run by the workers. I think establishing workers' councils (run by direct democracy) as the foundational means of political rule would be an ideal way of achieving a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Hi dogwoodlover

But this is the problem with the whole idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat". How can you have a government run by the workers? It just doesnt make sense. it is incoherent. And it was a regretable lapse of logic on Marx's part even to suggest the idea (even though his idea of a proletarian dictatorship was very different to the stalinist practice of a dictarship OVER the proletariat)

The point is a worker is defined by his or her relationship to the means of production i.e. as part of the non-owning exploited class. So how is it conceivable to have an exploited class in political power, in control of the state apparatus and so on, and yet unable to prevent its own exploitation at the hands of an exploiting minority who have been ejected from power. Its a crazy idea!! And it only goes to show that even profound thinkers like Marx do have their foibles

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/
Perhaps Marx was wrong on a few occasions, but I don't think the dictatorship of the proletariat was one of them. And why wouldn't a system controlled by the workers be possible? It has existed before (in the Paris Commune and very earlier Soviet Russia), and it can exist again. The EZLN uses a system of delegates that could be called similar to the Soviets during the October 1917 Revolution, but with much less centralized democracy, and they have managed pretty well.

As for not being able to hold off the bourgeois minority from exploiting again, the key to that is to abolish money, and the key to that is the Self Organizing Moneyless Economy. A workers' state is simply a system where the majority (the proletariat) actually rules, in the case of the EZLN, through direct democracy, but possibly other ways may present themselves in the future.

Or perhaps I simply don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.
[QUOTE]

Hi DrFreeman09

Let me try to explain the problem more clearly then. If the workers state is simply a system where the majority actually rules who are they ruling over? The capitalists or bourgeois , you would say. How do you define a capitalist? Someone who owns sufficient capital to invest and live off the surplus value produced by the workforce. i.e. by economically exploiting the latter.

Now my question is how does this constitute being "ruled over" by the working class, the same class which by definition a workers state permits you as a capitalist exploit. I say "y defintion"becau by definiion the working class is the exploited class in capitalism. If it was not an exploited class that was ruling in your workers state then this would not be a workers state; it would be something else

I dont accept that Russia 1917 was a workers state anyway even if you could have such a thing. It was an embryonic "state capitalist" state. You confuse form and function. Most politicians strictly speaking are not capitalists yet they function objectively as functionaries of capital whether they see themselves as this or not. It doesnt matter whether they are well intentioned come from a blue collar background and wear a cloth cap. The early labour Party in the UK was full of such well meaning earnest allegedly "socialist" types from so called working class background but the labour party itself was from the outset a thoroughgoing capitalist political party that first advocated state capitalism and then gradually moved to the right to the point where now even the Tories seem slightly more to the left of them.

It doesnt matter whether the workers state is governed by working class saints who practice direct democracy daily. It is the structural circumstances in which they find themselves that determines the ultimate reality of the society they live in

You mention abolishing money as a way of holding off the borgeois from exploiting again. Well, yes, if you have got rid of money one assume then that youve got rid of classes anyway so that the workers state in that case would not arise. since by definition a workers state presupposes a class-based society

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

Lamanov

3rd January 2007, 18:09

Originally posted by Janus+January 02, 2007 10:50 pm--> (Janus @ January 02, 2007 10:50 pm) I don't think he ever used that term specifically but he did advocate worker's control through the dictatorship of the proletariat. [/b]

Yes, but the DoP needs the state to be smashed. He, in time, "changed his mind" on this, based on real historical expirience.

In Communist Manifesto, yes, he advocates that proletariat should seize state power and use it for its own purposes. "Conquering democracy" he called it. But this was before any real experience of proletarian struggles.

But three years later (after the wave of 1848) he questions this perspective, and in 1872 changes his mind completely.

Here you go:

Originally posted by Address to the CL+ 1850--> (Address to the CL @ 1850)...From the first moment of victory, mistrust must be directed no longer against the conquered reactionary parties, but against the workers’ previous allies, against the party that wishes to exploit the common victory for itself alone... The workers must put themselves at the command not of the State authority but of the revolutionary community councils which the workers will have managed to get adopted...[/b]

Manifesto 1872 German Edition [email protected]
...for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.)

Janus
Well, nothing like it has ever come up because very rarely has the proletariat itself taken and wielded power outside of the Paris Commune I suppose.

What about Russia march 1917 - april 1918? Or Kronstadt? Spain 1936-37? Hungary for 13 days in 1956? What about the practice and theory of 1968?

DrFreeman09

3rd January 2007, 20:31

I believe what we are thinking of as a "workers' state" may be different for all of us here, but I'm not necessarily seeing the distinction between the workers' councils such as the early forms of the Soviets were and a workers' state. Lenin advocated that the dictatorship of the proletariat should expand true democracy, while the former capitalists should be somewhat repressed, or maybe a better word is regulated. They would be regulated democratically by the workers, but prevented from taking back power nonetheless.

However, the fundamental flaw in Bolshevism, I believe, was the ideal that the Party was to be the foundation of this new system. If your definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a beurocratic rule by a party, then yes, that ideal is flawed, for the purposes of the party should be merely revolutionary and not have anything to do with the workers' state.

And wouldn't a government governed by workers' councils still be considered a state? Would a workers council still have the ability and the need to regulate the former capitalist class? I believe it would, but it would NOT create a new "ruling class" to end all classes, because such things create what became of the USSR.

In short, if your definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a "ruling class" that is somehow supposed to suppress the bourgeois without suppressing the proletariat, then YES! The idea is fundamentally flawed. However, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat applied to modern times is the key. Remember that Lenin himself was an advocate of Helgelian logic, so undoubtedly, Lenin would have wanted his ideas of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be applied to modern times! At least the way I see it.

However, I do see what you are saying about the definition of a worker, etc. But perhaps the words used can be changed to serve the same argument. After a workers' revolution, I believe that the role of the worker changes from someone being exploited to simply the bare meaning of the word: a worker. And as a worker, you would have the right to be directly represented in a workers' council, or if you want to call it something else such as a workers' state or a dictatorship of the proletariat, that's fine. Part of the job of the workers' council is to make sure that the workers are not exploited, but by taking part in the government, the workers are ending their exploitation somewhat just by doing so. The workers will naturally do what is best for them, and since they are the majority, that would be "real" democracy. Also, what is best for them is NOT the exploitation by capitalists.

Secondly, as a worker under a workers' state, you are no longer working for one person or any other sort of capitalist system; you are working for everyone, and since you are working for the public, the capitalists have no right or power to exploit you. Therefore, the defninition of the capitalist and the worker changes when applied to a post-revolutionary situation. In fact, capitalists or bourgeoisie may not be appropriate terms for the "capitalists" because they would no longer control the means of production. But for our purposes we are calling them capitalists, as long as we can understand that distinction.

Now, since these former capitalists no longer control the means of production, then from that alone, we can say that they no longer have the power to exploit, and therefore, the formerly exploited can be truly represented by a workers' state. The workers' state's goal is not to keep a capitalist system and simply replace the people, or to start exploiting the former capitalists, but merely to represent the workers, so that true communism can take place.

I appologize for the long post, but it was necessary.

Lamanov

3rd January 2007, 20:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:31 pm
And wouldn't a government governed by workers' councils still be considered a state?

If you mean if the councils would take over everything and have the old state machinery smashed then:

No, because there are no specialists for communication and management. There's no state structure to fill the void, becuse there is no void. People do everything directly and they communicate without a medium. They do it through councils.

In fact, they are the councils.

Leo

3rd January 2007, 20:54

How would you call the institution of the develloping Soviet Union from 1917 to 1921 then?

I would call it a very loose situation. The revolution was initially proletarian, but the "red" bourgeoisie; middle cadres, bureaucrats, ex Tsarist army officers etc. were rapidly taking power back.

3rd January 2007, 21:30

As an anarchist, I am critical, but I have never seen a socialist provide a legitimate argument for why we need this socialist state. Transition, I agree is beneficial. A state is less desirable. A state, by its very nature, places more power in the hands of few individuals in order to maximize efficiency.

You don't know what a state is, apparently.

In order to prevent these individuals from exploiting their power and becoming corrupt, how can this state not collapse. It seems to me that Marx is pushing for one more try of the old liberal "balance of powers" idea. Basically, capitalism screwed up the creation of a balanced state before and we can do better next time. I don't buy that, personally.

Do you believe that the working class should rise to the power of ruling class and maintain the conditions of its rule through a monopoly on violence? If so then you believe that a state will be necessary, regardless of what form you think it will take.

It seems to me that the very notion of a "socialist state" is a contradiction in terms. In Marxist terminology socialism is a synonym for communism - the so called distinction was introduced by Lenin (yet another example of how far he departed from Marxism). Socialism/communism is understood to be a classless society. Ergo, the state which for Marx was a class-based institution, could not exist in a socialist/communist society. Socialist state is an oxymoron

Not exactly. Marx coined the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and discussed the fact that the proletariat will need a state in order to maintain its position as the ruling class.

But here's the thing: in practice of workers who want to destroy hierarchy through council organization, direct democracy itself acts as an anti-statist practice. They act as a force only outside itself. Proletariat is interested only in supression of its class enemies. Within itself, proletariat is destroying the state per se, completely, as it is abolishing itself as a class. That's why it's wrong to speak of "workers' states". That's why Marx himself never did.

This is why I think it's more accurate to describe it as a transitional state. That is why Engels, for example, referred to it more as a "community" and stated that it "isn't a state in the formal sense".

I saind that proletariat takes on the role of the state through supression of the capitalist class.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the proletariat "takes on the role of the state." The proletariat uses the state and administers through it, perhaps in the form of direct democracy. The state isn't a form; it is a tool. It is something used by a class to maintain the conditions of its rule. That is why I don't think it's right to say that the proletariat takes on the form of the state; that implies that the proletariat uses itself to maintain the conditions of its rule, which is incorrect.

...for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.)

I've seen you bring this up many times on this site. It is probably one of the most interesting passages in all of Marx's works (I think so, at least). It marks a considerable shift in his thinking.

The first part of this, regarding the end of Section II, is in regards to the list and nothing more. The second part, regarding the quote from The Civil War In France, Marx was talking about the bourgeois state and stating that the proletariat can't merely "lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes". In other words, the proletariat can't merely take control of the bourgeois state; they must destroy it and construct a state in its place which takes a specific form that is used for proletarian class rule.

If you mean if the councils would take over everything and have the old state machinery smashed then:

No, because there are no specialists for communication and management. There's no state structure to fill the void, becuse there is no void. People do everything directly and they communicate without a medium. They do it through councils.

In fact, they are the councils.

If these councils are used to maintain proletarian rule then yes, they are in fact a state, albeit in a different form (or, "not in the formal sense" if you would like me to quote Engels).

DrFreeman09

3rd January 2007, 22:15

Originally posted by DJ-TC+January 03, 2007 08:50 pm--> (DJ-TC @ January 03, 2007 08:50 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:31 pm
And wouldn't a government governed by workers' councils still be considered a state?

If you mean if the councils would take over everything and have the old state machinery smashed then:

No, because there are no specialists for communication and management. There's no state structure to fill the void, becuse there is no void. People do everything directly and they communicate without a medium. They do it through councils.

In fact, they are the councils. [/b]
Right, but I think our friend here was trying to assert that a workers' rule isn't possible. Workers' councils still govern society, and therefore I believe that they could still be considered at least a government of the workers if not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Perhaps we should get rid of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" altogether, but my general point was that a workers' council is still a system where the workers govern society, and that it can democratically prevent the bourgeoisie from ever emerging again.

And, it seems that to many, the state, the government, the country, etc. are all synonymous, so it's hard to distinguish what one means by a "state." So, by calling a workers' council a state, I have certainly misused one meaning of the word "state." However, a workers' council is still a government is it not? So perhaps proletarian democracy would be a better term to merge all of these shaded meanings.

However, instead of focusing on the confusion of word use, why not focus on the question that was actually stated and debate on the necessity (or lack thereof) of a transition government (if we don't want to put councils in the same league as "state")? Most words have at least a few different definitions, so when dealing with this argument in particular, I think it is important we know what each one of us is talking about. However, we should also keep in mind the question we are attempting to answer.

My point remains the same: a revolution coupled with the collective ownership of the means of production makes proletarian democracy possible in itself. The role of the capitalist and the worker changes from the oppressor and the oppressed to the non-existant (after a period of suppression) and the governors (and of course, they remain workers). After all of these statements, I'm not sure if we've agreed that a transition period of workers' rule is even necessary. I believe it is, but I don't think we ever came to a decise conclusion.

In other words, what is your opinion on the necessity of a workers' rule and is it possible?

Lamanov

3rd January 2007, 22:30

Originally posted by Zampanò+January 03, 2007 09:30 pm--> (Zampanò @ January 03, 2007 09:30 pm) It is something used by a class to maintain the conditions of its rule. [/b]

Proletariat cannot use something it just previously destroyed.

Proletariat cannot create a new state unless it brings out a new strata of specialists. When it does, it can't "use" it any more than it can "use" any other bolshevik state.

Originally posted by Zampanò+--> (Zampanò)That is why I don't think it's right to say that the proletariat takes on the form of the state; that implies that the proletariat uses itself to maintain the conditions of its rule, which is incorrect.[/b]

Incorrect? Okay. Why?

This claim, actually, hits the spot! "Proletariat uses itself." In other words, the working class is using its own creative abilities and decides its own fate without any "political", hierarchical and structural help.

[email protected]
Right, but I think our friend here was trying to assert that a workers' rule isn't possible.

That's not the case. If you can read what I wrote, read it: I'm saying that a workers' state isn't "possible".

Workers' rule, through councils - obviously - is something else.

Zampanò
In other words, the proletariat can't merely take control of the bourgeois state; they must destroy it and construct a state in its place which takes a specific form that is used for proletarian class rule.

Nice try, but he [Marx] didn't say that anywhere.

That's your twist.

Engels, however, did. But Engels, being Engels, used these hybrid terms such as "half-state" and "state but not really state". [Whatever that means, Fred.]

3rd January 2007, 22:53

Proletariat cannot use something it just previously destroyed.

You are correct. That is why they don't use the bourgeois state.

Proletariat cannot create a new state unless it brings out a new strata of specialists. When it does, it can't "use" it any more than it can "use" any other bolshevik state.

This sounds akin to saying "the state is inherently the rule of the minority over the majority" which shows a gross misunderstanding of Marxist theory.

Incorrect? Okay. Why?

This claim, actually, hits the spot! "Proletariat uses itself." In other words, the working class is using its own creative abilities and decides its own fate without any "political", hierarchical and structural help.

The proletariat can't implement the proletariat in maintaining its rule. The proletariat isn't using itself because it can't "use itself" any more than a carpenter uses itself to screw in a screw. The carpenter uses a screwdriver; he uses a tool. This is what the state is. The proletariat can't rule by implementing itself; that doesn't make any sense. If I asked you "how is the proletariat ruling?" your answer would be "Through the proletariat." It's just nonsensical. Rather, the proletariat is ruling through what you call workers councils. These workers councils might be comprised of proletarians but they're not "the proletariat"; they're a workers council! Do you see the difference? I'm having trouble explaining it because it's so obvious.

In your view the proletariat doesn't rule through itself; it rules through workers councils. That is my point.

Nice try, but he [Marx] didn't say that anywhere.

That's your twist.

We could, of course, cite the Manifesto, but you would probably claim that Marx later changed his mind on the subject and provide the same quote you did above, in which case I would point out that that was only for the end of Section II, to which you would probably just say that I'm wrong.

That aside, I could simply state that Marx recognized the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state in his Critique of the Gotha Programme:

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Engels, however, did. But Engels, being Engels, used these hybrid terms such as "half-state" and "state but not really state". [Whatever that means, Fred.]

Seems like you either never read the passage in question, or you grossly misunderstood it. I would suggest going back and rereading it.

Lamanov

3rd January 2007, 23:23

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 03, 2007 10:53 pm
This sounds akin to saying "the state is inherently the rule of the minority over the majority" which shows a gross misunderstanding of Marxist theory.

Ehhh. :rolleyes:

In your view the proletariat doesn't rule through itself; it rules through workers councils.* That is my point. [...] These workers councils might be comprised of proletarians but they're not "the proletariat"; they're a workers council! Do you see the difference?

I see what you mean, but here's the thing. This view carries one big danger:

If we start separating those that create councils and "councils themselves" we get into the "fetishism of councils".

Soon after that we loose from our perspective the fact that it is not the institution itself which has to be implemented, but the relationship (between us as workers/students, which is crucial).

That's is why I insist: workers' council is not merely an institution, a "tool", it is a relationship in which workers directly take over their "space-time" and articulate their wishes collectively.

You see what I'm getting at?

Menshevik or Bolshevik dominated councils (soviets) may still be councils, they may still represent workers' demands, but are they workers' councils as a workers' direct relationship? Of course not. That's why the workers created factory committees and chose to connect on a local basis through them. That's how they intended to preserve the direct relationship. (This is just one example.)

The proletariat can't rule by implementing itself; that doesn't make any sense.

That's, obviously, not what I've said, now isn't it? :lol:

It is implementing its will, by itself -- directly. Of course it can't implement "itself" -- what would that mean, anyway... :lol: It's [even] supposed to abolish itself as a class.

The proletariat can't implement the proletariat in maintaining its rule.* The proletariat isn't using itself because it can't "use itself"...

And that's because I've said that proletariat takes on the role of the state. He uses, not "itself", but its own creative abilities. Its own ranks, its own knowledge, etc.

That aside, I could simply state that Marx recognized the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state in his Critique of the Gotha Programme:

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

From what I remember this was an address to Lassale's notion of Volkstaat, a "peoples' state", by which Marx replies that "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." [my emphasis]

It helps neither my case nor yours.

DrFreeman09

4th January 2007, 01:59

That's not the case. If you can read what I wrote, read it: I'm saying that a workers' state isn't "possible".

Workers' rule, through councils - obviously - is something else.

I wasn't referring to you when I said that "our friend here was trying to assert that workers' rule isn't possible."

I was saying that the point I had been making was because robbo203 suggested that workers' rule was incoherent. That's what I was talking about. I was explaining that robbo suggested that the workers can't rule themselves in any way because by defninition they are oppressed by the capitalists, and that I was simply making a point to try to end that argument.

Now, I think almost everything you've said is correct here, but it is also true that for the workers to rule, they have to have some sort of "medium" to do it. It may be a direct democracy, but it still fits the definition of a "medium," since in a large society, not everyone can be physically involved in the government. Workers councils are not a "state," per se, but it is a "medium" that the workers use to implement rule, and therefore it could qualify as a "proletarian democracy" or "dictatorship of the proletariat," if you like.

The word "state" in the dictionary has 24 different definitions, so it is a very confusing word to use. How about we stop using it so we can get things done here...

Now! Why are we even arguing about petty details until we have lost our initial argument? Can we agree on nothing today? I understand that some of this argument is valid, but it seems to be going around in circles.

4th January 2007, 06:16

I see what you mean, but here's the thing. This view carries one big danger:

If we start separating those that create councils and "councils themselves" we get into the "fetishism of councils".

Soon after that we loose from our perspective the fact that it is not the institution itself which has to be implemented, but the relationship (between us as workers/students, which is crucial).

That's is why I insist: workers' council is not merely an institution, a "tool", it is a relationship in which workers directly take over their "space-time" and articulate their wishes collectively.

You see what I'm getting at?

Somewhat. However, you seem to think that these councils will stop being viewed as a tool and will be elevated to a higher level, perhaps institutions above the working class. You might have to make that distinction elsewhere, but I don't think that we need to worry about that in this debate. Nobody's done that here, and if they are then call them out on it.

It is implementing its will, by itself -- directly.

And it obviously needs a means of implementing its will. It might do it directly, but that doesn't answer the question of how it will be done.

"How will the proletariat implement its will?"
"By itself."
"No, no, no. Not who; how?"
"Through workers councils."

Hint: Workers councils are a state, regardless of whether or not you think it's an institution. It's a political body used to maintain proletarian rule. It's a state.

And that's because I've said that proletariat takes on the role of the state.

That doesn't make sense. Can a carpenter take on the role of a screwdriver?

:blink:

From what I remember this was an address to Lassale's notion of Volkstaat, a "peoples' state", by which Marx replies that "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." [my emphasis]

It helps neither my case nor yours.

It helps mine completely. He says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state. That was my entire point. It doesn't matter that he was responding to Lassale.

Lamanov

4th January 2007, 13:37

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 04, 2007 06:16 am
And it obviously needs a means of implementing its will. It might do it directly, but that doesn't answer the question of how it will be done.

By guns, collective decision making, direct action?

Yes, sure, by councils. But what are they?

Hint: Workers councils are a state, regardless of whether or not you think it's an institution. It's a political body used to maintain proletarian rule. It's a state.

How can workers' councils be a state? Where's the internal hierarchy?

That doesn't make sense. Can a carpenter take on the role of a screwdriver?

No, he will use the Carpenters' Union to screw the damn thing; obviously. :lol:

It helps mine completely. He says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state. That was my entire point. It doesn't matter that he was responding to Lassale.

Of course it does. The context matters. You pull something out of the context of given discourse and the time it was said, you make it into a dead quote.

You're creating an inversion. Notice how it does not "sound" the same in both ways.

4th January 2007, 14:46

By guns, collective decision making, direct action?

Yes, sure, by councils.

Okay, so now you are saying that the proletariat will rule by means of organized violence, or rather, a monopoly on that violence ("by guns") and will implement various tools in doing so ("by councils"). This is a state.

How can workers' councils be a state? Where's the internal hierarchy?

There is, of course, a class hierarchy that exists, whereby the proletariat maintains its rule against the bourgeoisie, and I'm sure you agree with this (as you've been talking about proletarian rule this entire time, I think it's safe to say that you do).

In that case, I'd assume that this question stems from a belief that the state is inherently controlled by a minority and serves the interest of a minority, and that it is inherently centralized, vertically structured, and hierarchical. Which would again lead me to say that you have a gross misunderstanding of Marxist theory with regards to the state, as any other anarchist does.

No, he will use the Carpenters' Union to screw the damn thing; obviously.

You still haven't explained how the proletariat can take on the "role" of the state.

Of course it does. The context matters. You pull something out of the context of given discourse and the time it was said, you make it into a dead quote.

You're creating an inversion. Notice how it does not "sound" the same in both ways.

In the quote Marx explicitly states that "the state can be nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat". I'm not taking that out of context, as that was his entire point in that quote. Marx states that this political transition period between capitalist and communist society has a state, and that that state is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Leo

4th January 2007, 15:06

Well okay - a very unnecessary semantics debate seems to have risen in my opinion. According to the Marxist terminology, the political superstructure of any class rule based on economical infrastructure is a state therefore the political superstructure of proletarian rule based on communist economical infrastructure (whether we call it workers councils, factory committees or even communist party in true Bordigist fashion) is technically a state but again, but a quite a state which is easy to identify as it will have nothing in common with the bourgeois state except its technical definition so it will be as far as one can imagine from the bourgeois state and it won't have anything to do with what most think when they hear the word 'state' so initially it is really not that important to call it a state, call it something else or not to call it anything at all. What actually matters is the "proletarian rule based on communist economical infrastructure" part. What the "political superstructure of proletarian rule" is called is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Lamanov

4th January 2007, 16:49

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 04, 2007 02:46 pm
In the quote Marx explicitly states that "the state can be nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat".* I'm not taking that out of context, as that was his entire point in that quote.* Marx states that this political transition period between capitalist and communist society has a state, and that that state is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You're "inversing" it:

Marx says that "the state can be nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat", and you say that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state". This is not necessarily a same thing.

In that case, I'd assume that this question stems from a belief that the state is inherently controlled by a minority and serves the interest of a minority, and that it is inherently centralized, vertically structured, and hierarchical.* Which would again lead me to say that you have a gross misunderstanding of Marxist theory with regards to the state, as any other anarchist does.

Oh please. I'm not an anarchist. I came from a Marxist school of thought, just like you. I know very well how state is defined in a "Marxist tradition". In this case, you assume wrong. There's one problem here. Just because it's in "tradition", it doesn't mean that it gives an answer to our every question, and that it can explain every practical expirience which rose after such traditional explanations were formulated.

This is still the question we need to absolve:

Okay, so now you are saying that the proletariat will rule by means of organized violence, or rather, a monopoly on that violence ("by guns") and will implement various tools in doing so ("by councils").* This is a state.

[...]

There is, of course, a class hierarchy that exists, whereby the proletariat maintains its rule against the bourgeoisie, and I'm sure you agree with this (as you've been talking about proletarian rule this entire time, I think it's safe to say that you do).

If the councils are a "state", and a state is just a means of domination of one class over the other, and when bourgeoisie is eliminated, when classes as such are eliminated and the state "withers away", do councils seize to exist?

Do you now see the danger of such identification?

You still haven't explained how the proletariat can take on the "role" of the state.

By councils, of course - you've said it yourself. But (as I've said) councils are not a state, they are the proletariat itself.

4th January 2007, 17:53

You're "inversing" it:

Marx says that "the state can be nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat", and you say that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state". This is not necessarily a same thing.

Not necessarily, but in this instance they are.

If the councils are a "state", and a state is just a means of domination of one class over the other, and when bourgeoisie is eliminated, when classes as such are eliminated and the state "withers away", do councils seize to exist?

No. They are just no longer a state. They cease to be political institutions used to maintain the conditions of proletarian rule. Their role is changed to the mere 'administration of things'.

Do you now see the danger of such identification?

Nope.

By councils, of course - you've said it yourself. But (as I've said) councils are not a state, they are the proletariat itself.

The proletariat doesn't take the role of the state "by councils"; the proletariat implements the state in the form of councils.

Councils are not the proletariat. Councils are not a class. They might be comprised of proletarians, and run by proletarians, but they aren't "the proletariat itself". That makes absolutely no sense. A council is an administrative body which is implemented and used by the proletariat. It can't be the proletariat for the very fact that it isn't a class. That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Lamanov

4th January 2007, 18:37

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 04, 2007 05:53 pm
No. They are just no longer a state. They cease to be political institutions used to maintain the conditions of proletarian rule. Their role is changed to the mere 'administration of things'.

Oh, "no longer a state". They administrate "things". OK. :rolleyes:

Councils are not the proletariat. Councils are not a class. They might be comprised of proletarians, and run by proletarians, but they aren't "the proletariat itself". That makes absolutely no sense. A council is an administrative body which is implemented and used by the proletariat. It can't be the proletariat for the very fact that it isn't a class. That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Again, the council is not just a "body", it is a relationship which integrates the whole class.

Again, a new inversion: "they" [councils] are not a "class", but the proletariat, which seizes to be a class as such, and reintegrates all social forces in itself through councils, totally.

They "are" the proletariat because it is precisely the social practice of proletariat as such that they embody. They are not separate from it in any case, and they do not have any formal power outside it.

4th January 2007, 19:30

Oh, "no longer a state". They administrate "things". OK.

They're two completely different things.

Again, the council is not just a "body", it is a relationship which integrates the whole class.

I don't care what you call it. It's administrative. It's an organization of individuals into an administrative body. The council has specific rules of functioning, votes are taken, and the results are implemented. Sounds more like a body to me than a "relation".

Again, a new inversion: "they" [councils] are not a "class", but the proletariat, which seizes to be a class as such, and reintegrates all social forces in itself through councils, totally.

The proletariat ceases to be a class when classless society is achieved, and not until that point. Since we aren't talking about classless society, what you said is irrelevant.

They "are" the proletariat because it is precisely the social practice of proletariat as such that they embody. They are not separate from it in any case, and they do not have any formal power outside it.

Look. A class can't be a council. That's just like saying that a class can be a state, which you said before was stupid.

The carpenter "is" the screwdriver because it is precisely the social practice of carpenter as such that it embodies. :rolleyes:

DrFreeman09

5th January 2007, 00:54

Regardless of what we call the workers' rule, I think we've established that it IS indeed necessary. I think we can all agree on that. The discussion here is merely what it is to be called, which in the long term, is infinitely less important that how it is actually run.

A state technically is anything pertaining to a centralized government, by its strictest difinition. If that's the meaning you want to use, then no, a council is not a state. On the other hand, as has been said, it is a medium that the working class uses to implement its rule, and therefore it could be considered a state.

But the bottom line is that the general idea of a workers' state, a workers rule, a dictatorship of the proletariat, a proletarian democracy, is ALL correct. The purpose of the workers' state or rule or whatever is to be REALLY a democracy that REALLY represents the workers, and to suppress the bourgeois to ensure classless society. WE ALL AGREE ON THIS, SO WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON!?

What needs to be discussed more is the actual theoretical basis behind the functioning of a workers' rule, if we are to call it that now, rather than an ultimately fruitless debate on what it is to be called.

robbo203

5th January 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:54 am

But the bottom line is that the general idea of a workers' state, a workers rule, a dictatorship of the proletariat, a proletarian democracy, is ALL correct. The purpose of the workers' state or rule or whatever is to be REALLY a democracy that REALLY represents the workers, and to suppress the bourgeois to ensure classless society. WE ALL AGREE ON THIS, SO WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON!?

[QUOTE]

Hi DrFreeman09

No Im afraid I dont agree. I am still waiting for a cogent explanation as to how the working class can meaningfully said to "rule" in a so called "workers state" when BY DEFINITION, the working class is the exploited class. This makes no sense to me at all. If workers are hypothetically in a position of political power are you seriously suggesting tey would then allows themselves to carry on being exploited? No. If the working class captures political power to install socialism/communism, it simultaneously abolishes itself as a class along with the bourgeoisie.

It is illogical to say the purpose of the workers state is to represent the workers and suppress the bourgeois to ensure a classless society. A classless society means there are no workers nor bourgeois. As Marx point out in "Wage Labour and Capital" workers presuppose capitalists and capitalists presuppose workers.

A classless society means you have no workers and therefore a "workers state" is simply not conceivable within such a society. Nor indeed is the institution of the state possible either in such a society becuase a state is essentially an instrument of class rule and as we have already established there cannot be class rule in a classless society - by definition!

Robin
www.worldincommon.org