The Proletarian State

[Aurora]

"the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes" - Karl Marx

I understand this,marx is saying that you cannot use the bourgeois state,but must create a new state in which "the proletariat is organised as the ruling class" e.g Soviet Democracy

"It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie." - Vladimir Lenin

This is where im confused,Lenin says that the bourgeois state exists in communism(socialism)
But surely if it is socialism the bourgeois state apparatus must have been destroyed?

[RedLenin]

I think Lenin is simply saying that, in the lowest phaze of communism (socialism), a state must still exist because of the existence of class antagonisms. It will have some similarities to the old state, such as centralization and law, but will also have differences. So Lenin is stating that, even though the Bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the state machinery must still exist for a time, now controlled by the Proletariat.

[More Fire for the People]

“But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” means that the working class cannot take hold of the pre-existing, 'manafcatured / ready-made / fertige', state and set in motion its own aims.

That is if the working class wants its own aims addressed it cannot do so by taking over the existing state.

Lenin believe that in between capitalism and communism lied a period of a state-capitalism where the state took on the role of the bourgeoisie. I think people forget that the biggest influence on Lenin was Karl Kautsky and that Lenin while being thoroughly revolutionary was a Kautskyist and desired to follow through with a Kautsky programme in the new soviet state.

[KC]

First, let's put this quote into context (next time when you are inquiring about a quote you really should put it into context and link to the source so that those wishing to get involved in discussion can study the document and put it into complete context for themselves):


In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!

This may sound like a paradox or simply a dialectical conundrum of which Marxism is often accused by people who have not taken the slightest trouble to study its extraordinarily profound content.

But in fact, remnants of the old, surviving in the new, confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of “bourgeois” law into communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism.
-V.I. Lenin, Chapter 5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm), The State & Revolution

From looking at this quote in context we can better see what Lenin is saying. He is saying that "under communism" (here he means the lower phases, as he was discussing earlier, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat) there exists "not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!" Here he is basically stating that the proletarian state will have to function within the capitalist system until a time which it is unnecessary to do so.

Since the proletarian state is merely a speck of communism on the whole of bourgeois society, and since bourgeois society is a globally integrated one, the dictatorship of the proletariat must necessarily function within these conditions unless it will perish. Of course, the forms that these necessary interactions will take are a point of debate within the revolutionary left, but the essence behind this idea, i.e. that the dictatorship will have to function in bourgeois society, is undeniably true.

RedLenin was very close in his response, however he is incorrect when he states that "the [bourgeois] state machinery must still exist for a time, now controlled by the Proletariat." It isn't the bourgeois state machinery that still exists, but various interactions between the new proletarian state and bourgeois society that gives it this essence of which Lenin was referring.

[RedLenin]

Very good response Zampano. Though, I was not refering to the bourgeois state machinery. I was refering to a new proletarian state, i was merely saying that the proletariat will need some form of state machinery. I definitely agree that the bourgeois state must be utterly smashed.

[Aurora]

Thanks guys,it makes sense now :)

[Wanted Man]

Zampanò is right on. Lesson learned today: read the whole thing, not the list of quotes from Wikiquote. ;)

[Aurora]

Oi i did read it! i just didnt understand what lenin meant when he said the bourgeois state and now i know he didnt mean the state apparatus but the actual state relations to other capitalist nations.
"communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically"

[KC]

Though, I was not refering to the bourgeois state machinery. I was refering to a new proletarian state, i was merely saying that the proletariat will need some form of state machinery.

My mistake. I assumed that you meant when you said that "even though the Bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the state machinery must still exist for a time, now controlled by the Proletariat." that you meant that the proletariat would take control of the bourgeois state machinery.


Zampanò is right on. Lesson learned today: read the whole thing, not the list of quotes from Wikiquote.

Fuck off.