Lenin: "the Bourgeois State Will Exist

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Can someone please explain the following quote from Lenin. This is from "State and Revolution"


Originally posted by Lenin
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie.”

If communism is a stateless society, how can any state, much less the bourgeois state, possibly still exist??

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Some writers, like Marx and Lenin, dont use the words communism and socialism as uniformly as we do today.

By communism i imagine he meant a post capitalist state with workers having most but not total power.

They are interchangeable to an extent.

As for the quote, he is most likely talking about the military and police, who still are around even when the workers have taken state power.

And, if you have just come out of a world war, (WW1), not having an army is a pretty stupid thing to do.

[BobKKKindle$]

If you are reading SAR, you know that Lenin described the state as a product of the 'Irreconcilability of the class antagonism'. After the revolution classes will still exist in so far as that there will be certain groups in whose interests it lies to see the return of an economic system based on private property. The state is the instrument for the workers to destroy these groups until classes seek to exist, at which point the state will no longer be necessary.

Naturally as an Anarchist you would be oppossed to this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:38 am
The state is the instrument for the workers to destroy these groups until classes seek to exist...
In reality however, it is the instrument in which the intelligentsia of the Communist Party maintain their rule in the "name of the working class". Fact.


...at which point the state will no longer be necessary.

There is a difference between what one deems to be necessary and the reality of a situation.

[BobKKKindle$]

TAT, the Scenario that you describe would only occur if the Revolutionary Party took the place of the proletariat as the force driving the revolution forward. We must ensure that this does not occur in the future; this does not negate the entire concept of the Revolutionary Party. The Revolutionary Party serves primarily as a mechanism for the development of the collective proletarian class consciousness. This role arises from that fact that the proletariat is not a homogenous group but contains differing levels of class consciousness; such that only a part of the proletariat will tend towards revolutionary ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:38 pm
TAT, the Scenario that you describe would only occur if the Revolutionary Party took the place of the proletariat as the force driving the revolution forward.
Which is what happens when you maintain a state strcuture.


We must ensure that this does not occur in the future

By decentralising control using a Federalist structure.


The Revolutionary Party serves primarily as a mechanism for the development of the collective proletarian class consciousness.

And as the leaders of the "workers state".


This role arises from that fact that the proletariat is not a homogenous group but contains differing levels of class consciousness

That is not a justification for hierarchy or centralisation of power.


such that only a part of the proletariat will tend towards revolutionary ideology.

In times of reaction, yes, but that does not justify a vanguard party.

[Guerrilla22]

By decentralising control using a Federalist structure.

But you want to abandon the state as an entity all together correct?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:12 pm

By decentralising control using a Federalist structure.

But you want to abandon the state as an entity all together correct?
I can see where that's going, so don't even try.

[Delirium]

Lenin as you should know, thought that the state should exist for a period of time to act as a repressive force against the bourgeois. Though he claims in State and Revolution, that the proletariat must dismantle the "ready made state machinery" instead of simply taking control of it. These include thing such as the police and military. As proletarian democracy flourishes, the state apparatus becomes unnecessary.

[RedLenin]

It follows that under communism
Here Lenin is refering to the "lowest phase of communism", the dictatorship of the proletariat.


but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie.
Meaning that the state will still exist, though in a different form. The state, meaning a violent apparatus for the suppression of one class by another, will continue to exist in the lowest phaze of communism. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


And as the leaders of the "workers state".
Hopefully, but that will be for the workers to decide. As Lenin lays out in State and Revolution, all officials are to be elected with the right of recall and are not to receive a wage higher than the average worker. Personally, I would want as many party members in the government as possible, considering the party is the most advanced and revolutionary element of the class. But the Party has it's dictatorship within the dictatorship of the class, not above it. If the class no longer agrees with the party, it can remove the party officials from government.


By decentralising control using a Federalist structure.
It is indeed desireable for power to be decentralized gradually. However, we cannot just jump to a complete direct democracy overnight. We also need an army, as a loose federation of militias will not keep out invading armies and suppress internal reaction. Direct democracy can exist at the local level, through local workers councils, but representative democracy will need to exist at the national level. I envision a congress of workers councils, composed of delegates from state/regional councils, being the main body of representative power in a socialist state. This tension between local direct democracy and national representative democracy can hopefully, over time, make way for complete direct democracy.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by AlwaysAnarchy+February 22, 2007 03:51 am--> (AlwaysAnarchy @ February 22, 2007 03:51 am) Can someone please explain the following quote from Lenin. This is from "State and Revolution"


Lenin
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie.”

If communism is a stateless society, how can any state, much less the bourgeois state, possibly still exist?? [/b]
Lenin is basically saying that, "look, we won the revolution but that doesn't mean that the bourgeois will just go away and cry and give us there means of produtions."

He is saying that class struggle will continue even in the socialist stage.