Anarchism vs The State

[The Grey Blur]

Why do Anarchists hate "the State" so much?

[bcbm]

'Cause its a motherfucker.

[KurtFF8]

Well they "hate" it in the same sense that Marxists "hate" it. They believe that it is a force of corrosion and an instrument of the ruling class.

This is actually what Marx writes when he talks about the state also.

[KC]

Well they "hate" it in the same sense that Marxists "hate" it. They believe that it is a force of corrosion and an instrument of the ruling class.

This is actually what Marx writes when he talks about the state also.

Marx never wrote about "hating" the state or how it's a "force of corrosion". He never wrote negatively about the state in general because he recognized the fact that the state takes on different forms depending on who is implementing it.

[Jazzratt]

Anarchists don't hate the state as such they just recognise that it will not simply "wither away" during some mythical "transnational period".

[KurtFF8]

Are you kidding? He opposed the state and wrote about it quite often actually.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:41 pm
Anarchists don't hate the state as such they just recognise that it will not simply "wither away" during some mythical "transnational period".
Depends. I think many anarchists view the state, or rather all authority (of which state and capital are apart) as fundamentally opposed to a free society of equals and thus oppose them.

[KC]

Anarchists don't hate the state as such they just recognise that it will not simply "wither away" during some mythical "transnational period".

That's based on a different definition of the state, though. I've found that most anarchists confine their definition of the state to the bourgeois state.


Are you kidding? He opposed the state and wrote about it quite often actually.

This is where you provide some quotes to substantiate your claim. ;)


Depends. I think many anarchists view the state, or rather all authority (of which state and capital are apart) as fundamentally opposed to a free society of equals and thus oppose them.

The problem with this sentence is that in class society a "free society of equals" can't exist.

[bcbm]

The problem with this sentence is that in class society a "free society of equals" can't exist.

Which is why anarchists oppose class society. Come on, you're smarter than that. :rolleyes:

No authority (no capital, no state, etc) = no class society!

Wowza!

Furthermore, if I'm talking about a free society of equals, obviously as you say it cannot exist with a class society, from which you can infer that anarchists oppose class society. Seriously...

[KurtFF8]

Originally posted by Zampanò+--> (Zampanò)This is where you provide some quotes to substantiate your claim. [/b]

Will Do.

From On the Jewish Question


Marx
The perfected political state is by its nature the species-life of man in opposition to his material life. All the presuppositions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as proper to civil society. When the political state has achieved its true completion, man leads a double life, a heavenly one and an earthly one, not only in thought and consciousness but in reality, in life.

This is him showing how the state (and the concept of a citizen of a state) alienates the man from his life and how there is a conflict between the two.

This notion is important when he starts talking about alienated labor as well as how the state alienates as well.

[Cult of Reason]

I've found that most anarchists confine their definition of the state to the bourgeois state.

Marx seems to me to have taken perverse pleasure in creating his ow terminology, and so confusing everyone else.

[KurtFF8]

Marx seems to me to have taken perverse pleasure in creating his ow terminology, and so confusing everyone else.

Yes, he seems to do this quite often which is one of the things that makes him so difficult.

[KC]

First, that's a questionable source since it was written in 1844, right when Marx started getting into economics and developing his politics. I would also assume that in this quote he is discussing the bourgeois state and not the state in general, since he is talking about the Jewish question.

I'm sure you're familiar with the following quote:


"Between capitalist and communist society 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."

In this quote Marx defines the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" as "the state". So whenever Marx speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian political rule, etc... we now know that he is talking about a state.

Take the following quote from the Manifest:


The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

We now know that, from above, when he says "conquest of political power by the proletariat" he is talking about the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which he defined above as a state.

There are, of course, countless other examples. But I got lazy and just picked the first two others that I found. Here you go:


When the more important functions of the state are reduced to such accounting and control by the workers themselves, it will cease to be a "political state" and "public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions"

or this quote by Engels:


the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist

The fact that you are trying to portray Marx as an anarchist who is opposed to the state and not bourgeois rule is a vulgarization of Marxist theory and an (easily refutable) slandering of Marx himself, who was vehemently opposed to anarchists.


This notion is important when he starts talking about alienated labor as well as how the state alienates as well.

And of course he is talking about alienation in bourgeois society, i.e. alienation under capitalism. It is fairly obvious that he is talking about a bourgeois state here, and not just the state in general.


Marx seems to me to have taken perverse pleasure in creating his ow terminology, and so confusing everyone else.

Well, the problem with confining one's definition to bourgeois state is that the state has existed in many different forms, not only within bourgeois society, but with in past societies as well. Feudal society had a state, as well as slave society. In order to define the essence of the state - i.e. the underlying factor behind every state that makes it a state - one has to study all of these different states and discover what they all have in common. Only in this way can one define what a state in general is, and from there one can analyze the different forms in which the state is manifested.

[Cult of Reason]

Well, the problem with confining one's definition to bourgeois state is that the state has existed in many different forms, not only within bourgeois society, but with in past societies as well. Feudal society had a state, as well as slave society. In order to define the essence of the state - i.e. the underlying factor behind every state that makes it a state - one has to study all of these different states and discover what they all have in common. Only in this way can one define what a state in general is, and from there one can analyze the different forms in which the state is manifested.

Marx'sdefinition is somethig like "a class organised to opress all others"? From the states of all previous societies, couldn't one also get "a class organised to oppress and exploit all others"?

[Q]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 24, 2007 07:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 24, 2007 07:41 pm) Anarchists don't hate the state as such they just recognise that it will not simply "wither away" during some mythical "transnational period". [/b]
You don't understand. The "state" is already radically transformed in socialism from the top-down model of the bourgeois state to the bottom-up model of the workers state (soviet democracy). The function of the state (surpressing the bourgeoisie from regaining power) will wither away once the bourgeoisie no longer exists, but the structure of a federation of soviets remains to exist.


Haraldur
Marx'sdefinition is somethig like "a class organised to opress all others"? From the states of all previous societies, couldn't one also get "a class organised to oppress and exploit all others"?
Yes, but if the bourgeois ceases to exist as a class, what is there to exploit?

Also, hello Haraldur :)

[RedLenin]

Having been an anarchist, I can understand that point of view. I just think it is wrong.

In order to make any kind of sense out of the anarchist rejection of the state, it is necessary to understand the philosophical differences between Marxism and Anarchism. Marxists see history through the lense of materialist dialectics; historical materialism. As such, we hold a developmental view of history based on the advance of the productive forces and the corresponding relations of production. Some anarchists hold this same view, but most do not. Most anarchists, like Bakunin, tend to see human history as fundamentally constructed by the conscious will of humans, not so much material factors. Hence, they see society not as something that is moving in definite directions and under definite material conditions, but as something that humans have consciously created. The consequence of this kind of thinking is the idea that humans can remake society in any way they want under any conditions they want. Hence, we can abolish classes and the state at one swift stroke and build communism.

Marxists view it differently. Society is at a certain stage of development, decadent capitalism, with a corresponding set of productive relations, classes; the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. We are faced with social circumstances independent of our will, and we can consciously change things only within the limit of these circumstances. As the Proletariat fights for its emancipation, and with it the ultimate emancipation of all of humanity, it is forced by unwilled material circumstances to erect an apparatus of force to secure it's power. Such an appartus is a state, and arises due to the unwilled material circumstances humanity faces; the existence of classes and irreconcilable antagonisms between them. It is for this reason, the existence of strong unwilled material factors, that the transition from capitalism to communism will be a long and rocky road. The state will whither away as classes cease to exist. The other classes will be integrated into the proletariat. The proletarian apparatus will cease to be a proletarian apparatus at all; it will become a human apparatus of self-management. It's role will no longer be the suppression of persons, but the simply administation of things and affairs. This uncompromising materialism marks the seperation between anarchism and marxism on the question of the state.

The big dividing line between Marxism and Anarchism is consistent materialism. Marxism is materialist, and sees that humans can only shape things in conformity to the material factors that exist outside of their will. Anarchism, though most of the time unconsciously, is idealist and takes the position that humans can build society anew in any form they like. This fundamental philosophical difference between marxism and anarchism is the basis of all the disagreements on specific points.

The following article goes deeper into these philosophical differences.
Marxism and Anarchism (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-anarchism-marx-bakunin-conflict090606-2.htm)
Marxism and Anarchism Part 2 (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-anarchism-marx-bakunin-conflict130606-2.htm)

[KC]

Marx'sdefinition is somethig like "a class organised to opress all others"? From the states of all previous societies, couldn't one also get "a class organised to oppress and exploit all others"?

First, the state isn't a class. The state is the institution of organized violence used to maintain the conditions of rule of the ruling class. It is a tool used by the ruling class.

Second, the state doesn't exploit anyone. The state is a tool used by the ruling class to enforce exploitation (i.e. the extraction of surplus labour); however, the state itself is not exploiting.

[Janus]

It depends on one's defintion of a state as this old conflict certainly contains many semantical arguements. Anarchists oppose a centralized/institutionalized state as they believe that it necessitates hierarchy which inevitably leads to elite rule and oppression.

[The Grey Blur]

Anarchists oppose a centralized/institutionalized state
So they don't oppose all states then?

[norwegian commie]

"As long as there is a state there will be no freedom, as long as there is freedom there will be no state."

This is a quote from a rather famus Marxist, called Vladmir Lenin. The state is a part of the oppression system of the bourgeise, and we must abolish it. Me as a marxist-leinist of course wants to wait till we have the ability to abolish it. We cant abolish it when people arent ready for it, like now. We now posess the mentality of capitalism, that is opposed to the idea of "no state"

No state will only be possible after socialism has done its work and we "evolve" to communism. Then we must abolish all the old opression tools of the capitalisgt state, like military, police ect..

But in that sence marxist "hates" the state, even the socialist one. As it is not the final ansver.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25, 2007 11:28 am

Anarchists oppose a centralized/institutionalized state
So they don't oppose all states then?
You could say that part of the definition of what the Anarchists see as "the state" is for it to be centralised and institutionalised.

[KC]

This is a quote from a rather famus Marxist, called Vladmir Lenin. The state is a part of the oppression system of the bourgeise, and we must abolish it. Me as a marxist-leinist of course wants to wait till we have the ability to abolish it. We cant abolish it when people arent ready for it, like now. We now posess the mentality of capitalism, that is opposed to the idea of "no state"

No state will only be possible after socialism has done its work and we "evolve" to communism. Then we must abolish all the old opression tools of the capitalisgt state, like military, police ect..

The proletarian state isn't "abolished". It withers away.

Also, the capitalist state is destroyed by proletarian revolution, and in its place a proletarian state is created.

[Q]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 25, 2007 11:46 am
"As long as there is a state there will be no freedom, as long as there is freedom there will be no state."

This is a quote from a rather famus Marxist, called Vladmir Lenin. The state is a part of the oppression system of the bourgeise, and we must abolish it. Me as a marxist-leinist of course wants to wait till we have the ability to abolish it. We cant abolish it when people arent ready for it, like now. We now posess the mentality of capitalism, that is opposed to the idea of "no state"

No state will only be possible after socialism has done its work and we "evolve" to communism. Then we must abolish all the old opression tools of the capitalisgt state, like military, police ect..

But in that sence marxist "hates" the state, even the socialist one. As it is not the final ansver.
You, as so many others, are mixing up the structure and apparatus of the state with that of the historic role of one. Do we, as marxists, have to smash the capitalist state apparatus? Yes, ofcourse! But we also have to replace it with a workers state, meaning a direct democracy via a federation of soviets, working together on regional, national or international level as needed or deemed logical. This is called a workers state because of the historic role it still plays in surpressing the bourgeoisie as class to regain power. As the bourgeoisie as class withers away, the state, in its historic task, also withers away.

Have a read in State and Revolution where Lenin explains this in detail.

[RedLenin]

meaning a direct democracy via a federation of soviets
No, that is the anarchist idea. Marxists are centralists, not federalists. A centralized soviet state would still mean a state based on workers councils, liked up on the local, regional, and national level. This apparatus takes power over an area and is run on the basis of democratic centralism; an elected core of leadership and democratic vote and discussion on all issues.

As Lenin said in State and Revolution:


Marx was a centralist. Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?

The proletarian state is defined both by its role and, to a lesser degree, by its structure. We cannot immediately get rid of representative institutions, we cannot immediately get rid of the army, and we cannot immediately get rid of specialists. These things will exist for a time, but will be gradually replaced by the direct control of the masses themselves.

[Enragé]

the state implies the rule of the few over the many, thus the theory of a leninist state as Q outlines it is not a state.

but yes, this is semantics
dont semantics suck?
yes they do
why the fuck are we arguing semantics then?
fuck if i know

edit: the leninist state as RedLenin outlines it, is a state, and as such should be opposed.

edit2: Redlenin, the lenin quote you provide does not say anything about the structure of the political system, just that the means of production should be centralised into the control of a whole class, i.e the proletariate, how that class then organises itself is a completely different matter

[The Grey Blur]

is a state, and as such should be opposed.
Why?


You could say that part of the definition of what the Anarchists see as "the state" is for it to be centralised and institutionalised.
What is wrong with either of these things? Why do Anarchists oppose them?

[RedLenin]

the lenin quote you provide does not say anything about the structure of the political system
It does say that the proletarian state must be organized on a national level. Hence, the appatus is actually a national power, and takes all power into its hands. That is centralism. We can have local councils, which send delegates to regional councils. Regional councils send delegates to a national congress. The national congress elects a central committee; the highest governing body. All officials are subject to term limits and the right of recall at any time. This apparatus, ie state, hold power over a territory; a nation. This is democratic centralism: election of the higher layers from the lower with accountability of the top to the bottom, and the discussion and voting on all issues, within the framework of a central power.


the leninist state as RedLenin outlines it, is a state, and as such should be opposed.
Why should it be opposed? Any revolution is going to begin nationally. The workers will organize themselves into soviets. If we want to complete the revolution, the soviets must take power. This means taking national power, which in turn entails a state, as outlined above. The revolution will continue internationally, until the proletariat is victorious all over the world, and a world federation of soviet states is brought into being. But to get to this stage, we have to tackle the first; taking national power. The problem with anarchism is that it is ideologically opposed to this taking of power. Hence, any anarchist-led revolution will not get beyond the stage of dual-power.

[Enragé]

Why?

Basicly what RedLenin is proposing is simply having a representative democracy, as we have now, in something that he would call "socialism" (i wouldnt).
He talks of workers councils, as if they are not the product of the people, as if not every single person has a seat in the local council, thus participating, understanding, having a real living connection with the system (in fact the people = the system), but that they are like local governments today (on the city level, the provincial and national level), i.e that they rule over the people, that they are a select group (doesnt matter if they are elected) that hold all the power.
Thats what i meant with the existence of a state means the few rule over the many.
That in and of itself is the reason to oppose any sort of state, since it is anti-thetical to socialism/communism, where the people rule themselves, control the means of production and not some group in their name, above them.

The state, furthermore, severs the link between proletarian everyday life and revolution, the proletarian no longer lives the revolution, i.e he does not feel it empowers him every day simply because it doesnt, he does not participate in ruling society, he and the rest of society do not actually control society, the state does.
In this situation, revolutionary consciousness plummets, as new leaders come to be in the form of the state apparatus, the worker returns to his old role as servant, he does not control his life, he does not control what happens to him, that is the job of that "elected core of leadership".

The goal of socialism is to pave the way for communism, to basicly change people from their capitalist servant-like mindset to an empowered, conscious human being... the existence of a state is completely anti-thetical to that.
"When the bourgeoisie is defeated" the state does not "wither away", because the conditions simply arent there, the raised level of consciousness amongst the workers created through the struggle leading up to and of the revolution itself has dissipated through years of living under the new state, and a new group of people has been in power and that also has an affect on the mindset of people, it creates a ruler-mentality, a new class arises.

Therefore, the state should be opposed, destroyed, replaced by workers' self-management in a federation of worker-councils in which each rules, therefore nobody rules. The end of hierarchy, the end of the servant-mentality, the dawn of communism.

[Enragé]

It does say that the proletarian state must be organized on a national level. Hence, the appatus is actually a national power, and takes all power into its hands. That is centralism. We can have local councils, which send delegates to regional councils. Regional councils send delegates to a national congress. The national congress elects a central committee; the highest governing body. All officials are subject to term limits and the right of recall at any time. This apparatus, ie state, hold power over a territory; a nation. This is democratic centralism: election of the higher layers from the lower with accountability of the top to the bottom, and the discussion and voting on all issues, within the framework of a central power.


It depends on the amount of power in the hands of the highest council, if it is limited and merely exists as means of co-ordination coming forth out of the desire of the lower council to work together effectively, it is not centralised, if it has the power to do anything, thereby stripping the people of their own initiative and reintroducing the servant-mentality, it is centralised.


The problem with anarchism is that it is ideologically opposed to this taking of power. Hence, any anarchist-led revolution will not get beyond the stage of dual-power.

Nonsense. We do "take power", but we dont concentrate it in the hands of a select group (which is ultimately what centralisation does), but in the hands of all, and not just nominally but practically.
And i dont see why it wouldnt get past the stage of dual-power, we'll simply crush the state apparatus, byebye second power, no more dual-power. Quite simple really.

[KC]

the state implies the rule of the few over the many

How does it imply this? For what reason can't a state be the rule of the majority over the minority? Why does the size of the ruling class even matter? Let's say there's 10,000 people. You're telling me that it makes that much of a difference if 4,999 people are members of the ruling class as opposed to 5,001?

This emphasis on numbers is missing the entire essence of the state. The state is a tool used by one class to maintain the conditions of its rule. Whether or not the ruling class has a majority is irrelevant, as the specific forms the state takes and the specific institutions that the state is composed of are what matters in a concrete analysis of real material conditions.

However, if we want to extract the essence of the state, then we must do away with differences in form and find out what is common in all states. The size of the ruling class is an analysis of a concrete material condition and is based on form and not essence, so it shouldn't be taken into consideration when constructing a valid definition of state.


edit2: Redlenin, the lenin quote you provide does not say anything about the structure of the political system, just that the means of production should be centralised into the control of a whole class, i.e the proletariate, how that class then organises itself is a completely different matter

Yes, of course it is. But the fact we can agree on here is that power is centralized into the hands of the proletariat. I don't think any revolutionary leftist would deny that fact.

As for the specific form that the state should take, it's completely unmarxist to discuss such an issue without consideration of material conditions and a Marxist analysis of those conditions. It seems that you are attempting to abstract the issue of the state from material conditions in order to argue your point on a basis of principle. This method is utopian and will never have any place in reality. Marxists realize that the form that the state takes is dependant upon the material conditions in which it comes into being, and to remove it from that context is to turn it into something it is not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 25, 2007 09:08 pm
But the fact we can agree on here is that power is centralized into the hands of the proletariat.
That is only true in essence, not in reality. The whole notion of the proletariat having control over centralised political authority is nothing more than propaganda.

It's simply not possible for the 'proletariat' to be in control of centralised political authority. It's materially impossible.

What you are suggesting is either naive or quite frankly, untrue

(Bare in mind that I'm not sober)

[syndicat]

RedLenin:
The problem with anarchism is that it is ideologically opposed to this taking of power. Hence, any anarchist-led revolution will not get beyond the stage of dual-power.

That is not the real difference with the Leininists. The difference is over how to understand the taking of power. For the working class to liberate itself, it must create mass democratic institutions it controls -- workplace and neighborhood assemblies and committees elected by these, congresses of delegates from the base assemblies across cities, regions, throughout the nation, etc.

A state, as Engels pointed out, is an apparatus separated from popular control. It must be in order to serve its basic function of defending the power and interests of a dominating class. The modern state has internal hierarchies, departments run by professionals and managers, workers are subordinated, just as in the corporations. A similar hierarchy runs through the armed bodies of the state. This internal class differentation reflects the class character of the state.

But a new governance system for a society can be constructed by the working class without it being a state in this sense. The various industries are self-managed by the workers, not subject to a managerial hierarchy. The ultimate armed force is the people in arms, via a militia that is accountable to the popular congresses and assemblies. A society-wide form of coordination is not inconsistent with the anarchist proposal that this be rooted in, and based on, the participatory democracy of the base assemblies. But this does represent a "taking of power" by the working class. It's just that we do not interpret that in terms of a party leadership running a state, and implementing its program topdown thru a state hierarchy.

[norwegian commie]

Have a read in State and Revolution where Lenin explains this in detail.

I already have. You just misunderstand me
In socialism, yes. The state is necesary.

[The Feral Underclass]

All that State and Revolution does is reinforce the fact that Lenin was an authoriatarian to the point of the paradox.

[Q]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2007 08:29 pm
All that State and Revolution does is reinforce the fact that Lenin was an authoriatarian to the point of the paradox.
Please explain.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Q-collective+April 25, 2007 09:36 pm--> (Q-collective @ April 25, 2007 09:36 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2007 08:29 pm
All that State and Revolution does is reinforce the fact that Lenin was an authoriatarian to the point of the paradox.
Please explain. [/b]
I'm too drunk to talk about it now, but I will respond in the next day.

Needless to say, Lenin was wrong.

[Q]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 25, 2007 08:45 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 25, 2007 08:45 pm)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 09:36 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2007 08:29 pm
All that State and Revolution does is reinforce the fact that Lenin was an authoriatarian to the point of the paradox.
Please explain.
I'm too drunk to talk about it now, but I will respond in the next day.

Needless to say, Lenin was wrong. [/b]
You completely convinced me...
I'll await your argumentation.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:13 pm

meaning a direct democracy via a federation of soviets
No, that is the anarchist idea. Marxists are centralists, not federalists. A centralized soviet state would still mean a state based on workers councils, liked up on the local, regional, and national level. This apparatus takes power over an area and is run on the basis of democratic centralism; an elected core of leadership and democratic vote and discussion on all issues.
You're putting it as if they were mutually exclusive. Yes, Marxists are centralistic, but to a point. As you said yourself a socialist society is run by democratic centralism, for a society this concept means that local soviets have a large degree of homerule, but as you can't obviously run everything locally and need help on stuff, you work together with other soviets regionally, nationally or internationally. This is the federative part. But centrally there are also tasks, like coordination on the planned economy for example, coordination on large infrastructural projects or in times of war or when a catasprophe happened direct leadership. This is the centralistic part.
However, as the representatives are always recallable by the people that elected him and because he represents the decisions that were made on local level, I would say the federation character is dominant.


As Lenin said in State and Revolution:


Marx was a centralist. Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?
NKOS already responded to this, but I would like to add that I'm not saying something different then Marx or Lenin did.


The proletarian state is defined both by its role and, to a lesser degree, by its structure. We cannot immediately get rid of representative institutions, we cannot immediately get rid of the army, and we cannot immediately get rid of specialists. These things will exist for a time, but will be gradually replaced by the direct control of the masses themselves.
This is partly true. While we can certainly democratise the army (abolishing ranks, setting up militia's) and democratise society (all power to the soviets, abolishing parliament), we would have a need for specialists (engineers, doctors, teachers, etc). However, this would not be for a limited amount of time, we would always need specialists on specific areas. So I'm puzzled by what you exactly mean. If you are referring to bureaucrats then I guess NKOS is right and you're actually saying that we just take over the state apparatus. If that is the case, then you haven't understood Marx post-Paris Commune or Lenin in State and Revolution, since both repeatedly put forward the demand that the capitalist state must be destroyed and replaced by a completely different one.

[YSR]

Originally posted by KurtFF8+April 24, 2007 01:54 pm--> (KurtFF8 @ April 24, 2007 01:54 pm) From On the Jewish Question


Marx
The perfected political state is by its nature the species-life of man in opposition to his material life. All the presuppositions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as proper to civil society. When the political state has achieved its true completion, man leads a double life, a heavenly one and an earthly one, not only in thought and consciousness but in reality, in life. [/b]
This is why I love the early Marx.

[RedLenin]

So I'm puzzled by what you exactly mean.
I was just saying that certain things, like the standing army and representative structures, will not be able to be abolished from day one. When it comes to specialists, I had in mind more-or-less the experience of Russia. In Russian society, a very backward society, the masses had little education or experience. For reasons of inefficiency and necessity, Trotsky brought the czarist officers (military specialists) into the Red Army. One-man management of industry was also brought into being; an example of specialists taking the place of workers.

Now-a-days the workers are significantly more advanced and will be able, for the most part, to run things for themselves. Specialists will be under the control of the workers. My point though was more or less an illustration of the difference between our ultimate goal and how society will emerge immediately after the revolution. Certain specialists, that yesterday served the Bourgeoisie, will need to serve the workers. The main problem a workers state faces is keeping power firmly in the hands of the workers and not letting it slip into the hands of specialists as opposed to workers. So really I was just saying that certain scars of capitalist society will still exist in the earliest stages of socialism; the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Enragé]

[/quote]How does it imply this? For what reason can't a state be the rule of the majority over the minority? Why does the size of the ruling class even matter? Let's say there's 10,000 people. You're telling me that it makes that much of a difference if 4,999 people are members of the ruling class as opposed to 5,001?[/quote]

Because a state, that is a centralised ruling organ, means that you have a small group of people who are in control of that state (the surpreme council or whatever), at the top of the hierarchy of centralised society, who make up that state. Obviously, you cannot make everyone part of the state, then it wouldnt be centralised.


This emphasis on numbers is missing the entire essence of the state. The state is a tool used by one class to maintain the conditions of its rule. Whether or not the ruling class has a majority is irrelevant, as the specific forms the state takes and the specific institutions that the state is composed of are what matters in a concrete analysis of real material conditions.

In bourgeois society the bourgeois control the means of production through force. An element of this is the state, but methods of control exist outside of that (like, work! or you get fired, the media etc). This basicly means that you have a number of centralised ruling organs (i.e companies.. which is a reason why anarchocapitalism wont work), depending on their size how much influence they have (some have more influence than the actual thing that is called the state, some dont), you have a number of what in a socialist society with a state would be the surpreme soviet or whatever. This means that in capitalism, multiple small groups of bourgeois fight for surpreme power, i.e monopolism (which we can see everyday).
In socialist society this is not the case, in a socialist society where there is a state there is just one small group, i.e the leaders of the state, those at the top of the centralised hierarchy, whether elected or not, whether theoretically subject to recall or not, who have all power, who have their monopoly.


Yes, of course it is. But the fact we can agree on here is that power is centralized into the hands of the proletariat. I don't think any revolutionary leftist would deny that fact.

sure, and the proletariate can have that power in a federalised manner.

[Janus]

So they don't oppose all states then?
Once again, this is a semantical debate on what a state really is. Some people would consider a federation of worker's councils or communes to be a state but anarchists do not.

[The Grey Blur]

I don't think it's semantics at all, it's extremely clear cut - the state is the mode of organisation of the ruling class of society. In capitalist society the state is bourgeois, with Socialism the state is run by and for the workers. Yet anarchists oppose both equally, yeah?

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I dig what Permanent Revolution says.

[syndicat]

with Socialism the state is run by and for the workers.

But this is a contradiction in terms. The state, as Engels pointed out, is a bureaucratic apparatus separated from the effective control of the mass of the people. This needs to be so for it to perform the function of defending the interests of a dominating class. Look at the professional/managerial class hiearchies in the state, and the subordination of the workers, just as in the corporations. This is an institution that presupposes the subordination of the working class.

For the workers to run the society, they need a different type of governance structure, built on the participatory democracy of the assemblies and delegate congresses, a militia that isn't a conventional top-down hierarchical army but under the control of the mass of the people.

If there is a separate group of managers of society running a state, an army, planning the economy from above, they will not ever be willing to give up their power voluntarily -- no ruling class ever does. You'll have the perpetuation of the class system, as happened in all the "Communist" countries.

[KC]

That is only true in essence, not in reality. The whole notion of the proletariat having control over centralised political authority is nothing more than propaganda.

It's simply not possible for the 'proletariat' to be in control of centralised political authority. It's materially impossible.

What you are suggesting is either naive or quite frankly, untrue

(Bare in mind that I'm not sober)

I'll assume the fact that you misinterpreted what I wrote is because you're drunk and give you another chance. I'm generous. :D


This is why I love the early Marx.

Because he criticizes the bourgeois state?


Because a state, that is a centralised ruling organ, means that you have a small group of people who are in control of that state (the surpreme council or whatever), at the top of the hierarchy of centralised society, who make up that state. Obviously, you cannot make everyone part of the state, then it wouldnt be centralised.

You're assuming the state takes on a particular form, and because of this your above response is fallacious.


In socialist society this is not the case, in a socialist society where there is a state there is just one small group, i.e the leaders of the state, those at the top of the centralised hierarchy, whether elected or not, whether theoretically subject to recall or not, who have all power, who have their monopoly.

Again you're making the assumption that a state necessarily takes on a particular form - i.e. that of centralized minority rule. I already discussed why this assumption is incorrect.


sure, and the proletariate can have that power in a federalised manner.

Sure they could. Of course, a "federalised manner" is simply a particular form of the state.

I feel like you haven't sufficiently addressed my previous post. Could you go back and respond to the rest of the post please?


The state, as Engels pointed out, is a bureaucratic apparatus separated from the effective control of the mass of the people.

Could you provide a direct quote, please? It seems like you're asserting that Marx and Engels disagreed on this subject, as Marx clearly defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state. Could you please provide some quotes which substantiates your aforementioned claim and the fact that Marx and Engels had such glaringly different opinions on the subject?


For the workers to run the society, they need a different type of governance structure, built on the participatory democracy of the assemblies and delegate congresses, a militia that isn't a conventional top-down hierarchical army but under the control of the mass of the people.

This is a form of state.

Syndicat, I would also like to invite you to respond to my previous posts, as I think in that post I got to the central issue of essence of the state as compared to the various forms in which it can manifest itself.

[syndicat]

The quote is from "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". I'm not interested in whether Marx and Engles disagreed. From my point of view, that is only of pedantic, academic or historical interest. The point is that the characterization I gave is true of all modern states.

a key thing about a state is its hierarchical structures, dominated over the past century by the coordinator or professional/managerial class. This is clearly different than what i described:


For the workers to run the society, they need a different type of governance structure, built on the participatory democracy of the assemblies and delegate congresses, a militia that isn't a conventional top-down hierarchical army but under the control of the mass of the people.

This is not a state, as I (and many anarchists) understand the term. The key thing is that this is opposed to the idea of a party capturing a state, in the sense I've defined it, and then implementing its program topdown thru that hierarchy. That is inconsistent with the working class running things.

this means that for the working class to have power, the workers must possess the management power in all the industries, no subordination to any professional/managerial hierarchy. and the governace bodies must be accountable to the assemblies at the base.

[KC]

I'm not interested in whether Marx and Engles disagreed. From my point of view, that is only of pedantic, academic or historical interest.

Well, it's of interest because if Marx and Engels agreed on the issue then we can represent Engel's conception using Marx's theories.


The point is that the characterization I gave is true of all modern states.

a key thing about a state is its hierarchical structures, dominated over the past century by the coordinator or professional/managerial class. This is clearly different than what i described:

This is what I discussed earlier. You are defining the state to be the bourgeois state, when the fact of the matter is that confining the definition of the state to the bourgeois state is incorrect as states have manifested themselves differently throughout history. By your definition a feudal or slave state wasn't a state, and because of this your definition of state is fallacious.


This is not a state, as I (and many anarchists) understand the term.

But it is considered by Marxists to be a state. Again, the central issue here is what the essence of the state is, as opposed to the particular forms in which it arises. I would like to again invite you to respond to the first post on this page that I made wherein I discuss this concept.


The key thing is that this is opposed to the idea of a party capturing a state, in the sense I've defined it, and then implementing its program topdown thru that hierarchy. That is inconsistent with the working class running things.

this means that for the working class to have power, the workers must possess the management power in all the industries, no subordination to any professional/managerial hierarchy. and the governace bodies must be accountable to the assemblies at the base.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion of what a state is.

[syndicat]

By your definition a feudal or slave state wasn't a state, and because of this your definition of state is fallacious.

I said that a state involves a separation between the apparatus of the state, and its armed bodies, and the mass of the people, particularly the immediate producers. This covers the feudal and slave state.

But the governance structure where the working class holds power through assemblies and congresses, and no hierarchical apparatus, is not a state in this sense.

Moreover, the modern state, controlled by the hierarchies of the professional/managerial class, is not just the bourgeois state. The state in the USSR and the other "Communist" countries were not bourgeois states, because capitalism didn't exist there. But they were systems of class domination nonetheless. in those societies it wasn't the capitalists who were the dominant class, but the coordinator or professional/managerial class.

[Enragé]

You're assuming the state takes on a particular form, and because of this your above response is fallacious

Tell me, in what other way can you have a centralised ruling organ? You cannot.
Now if you dont think it should or has to be centralised, well then we are arguing semantics. If a federation of worker-councils is a state, then i am pro-state. Then i am just against the centralised state for the reasons i said.


Again you're making the assumption that a state necessarily takes on a particular form - i.e. that of centralized minority rule. I already discussed why this assumption is incorrect.


If you say a state can be a confederation of communes, then we are arguing semantics. Nothing wrong with a confederation of communes, in fact thats what should happen.


Sure they could. Of course, a "federalised manner" is simply a particular form of the state.

If we use that meaning of the state, then all i oppose is the centralised state.

Now then, didnt i say semantics were a *****? :P

[Tower of Bebel]

I like it how this discussion is going.

I see lot of opinions here. The only ones who agree most with each other are the anarchists. But that would be because of there opposition against the state.
The marxists who try to use the state to surpress the bourgeoisie seems to have some disagreements on how it should be used.

[KC]

Tell me, in what other way can you have a centralised ruling organ?

Again, you're assuming a particular form. The state doesn't have to be centralized.


Now if you dont think it should or has to be centralised, well then we are arguing semantics. If a federation of worker-councils is a state, then i am pro-state. Then i am just against the centralised state for the reasons i said.

Good.

[syndicat]

What makes a governance structure or polity a state isn't that it is "centralized" but its separation from effective control by the mass of the people. In modern times this is through the internal hierarchies, with cadres of professionals and managers over subordinated workers, just like in the corporations. And a similar hierarchical structure over its armed bodies. There can be a governance structure fo society that isn't a state, and that is what we'd need to eliminate the class system. The basic function of a state is to protect and further the interests of a dominating class, which dominates and exploits the immediate producers.

After the October 1917 revolution in Russia, aspects of a state were created through things like the setting up a central planning institution, the Supreme Council of National Economy, appointed from above, and the Cheka (party political police), and in 1918 the beginnings of appointing one-man managers over workers, and the hiring of thousands of czarist officers to run a conventional top-down army, accountable only to the political party leaders at the top of the state. This was not a structure controlled by the working class.

But Bolshevik power wasn't entirely centralized as there were many centers of Bolshevik state control in the various cities around Russia.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:34 pm
What makes a governance structure or polity a state isn't that it is "centralized" but its separation from effective control by the mass of the people. In modern times this is through the internal hierarchies, with cadres of professionals and managers over subordinated workers, just like in the corporations. And a similar hierarchical structure over its armed bodies. There can be a governance structure fo society that isn't a state, and that is what we'd need to eliminate the class system. The basic function of a state is to protect and further the interests of a dominating class, which dominates and exploits the immediate producers.

After the October 1917 revolution in Russia, aspects of a state were created through things like the setting up a central planning institution, the Supreme Council of National Economy, appointed from above, and the Cheka (party political police), and in 1918 the beginnings of appointing one-man managers over workers, and the hiring of thousands of czarist officers to run a conventional top-down army, accountable only to the political party leaders at the top of the state. This was not a structure controlled by the working class.

But Bolshevik power wasn't entirely centralized as there were many centers of Bolshevik state control in the various cities around Russia.
Yes, Bolshevik power was not perfect. But given the conditions of an extremely backward society, they were doing a damn well job I don't think we could do differently today if we were in the same conditions.

The only thing that could have saved the Russian revolution was a revolution in Europe, which failed. Therefor the revolution in Russia degenerated quite fast, because of that backwardness.

[syndicat]

There are many areas where things could have been done differently in the Russian revolution:

(1) Instead of setting up soviets with power concentrated in the executive, and allowing professional class people to be elected to represent factory workers, they could have followed the example of the Kronstadt soviet where the plenary sessions made the real decisions, and only people who work in workplaces were allowed to be elected as delegates.

(2) Instead of recreating a top-down army run by czarist officers, they could have continued the workers militia, the Red Guard, as the means to defend the revolution.

(3) Instead of setting up the central planning council, Vesenkha, and then appointing one-man managers from above to preside over workers, they could have followed the strategy proposed by the St. Petersburg Regional Soviet of Factory Committees, which proposed expropriation of industries by the workers and regional and national congresses of the factory committees to plan the economy.

(4) Instead of setting up a party-controlled political police, Cheka, to suppress their opponents on the left, in violation of the soviet principle, order in towns could have been left up to local militia police controlled by the local soviets.

(5) Instead of using the Red Army to invade non-Russian areas of the old Russian Empire that wanted autonomy or independence, such as the Islamic areas, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, they could have allowed them to have autonomy. Instead of invading and crushing the revolutionary region of eastern Ukraine, and banning its People's Congresses, they could have helped that region to expand to all of Ukraine.

(6) Instead of setting up a statist grain monopoly in May 1918 and sowing divisions among the peasantry to impose rule from outside, they could have appealed to the solidarity of the peasantry and proposed to provide them things that would entrench collective thinking like collective ownership of tractors or local rural electrication systems, in exchange for their farm produce.

(7) Instead of crushing the Kronstadt soviet in 1921, they could have neogiated, and even agreed to new elections to the soviets.

[Tower of Bebel]

(2) Instead of recreating a top-down army run by czarist officers, they could have continued the workers militia, the Red Guard, as the means to defend the revolution.

Do you mean guerilla? Even if you do not mean guerilla I think it was impossible for a worker's militia to defend the soviets because the "White armies" were just too strong. Without a proper army the Soviets wuld have lost the civil war.

http://www.johndclare.net/images/Russ_w2.gif[/TMB][]Map (http://[TMB)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 26, 2007 04:49 pm
The state doesn't have to be centralized.
Then it isn't a state.

[syndicat]

the feudal state was decentralized but it was still a state. the Swiss federation republic is comparatively decentralized but it's still a state. the key thing in a state is that there is a professional apparatus that sets up a means of control apart from the people, an apparatus that can be controlled by dominating classes. it could involve a relatively loose federation between different local ruling groups, but it would still be a state.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:58 pm

(2) Instead of recreating a top-down army run by czarist officers, they could have continued the workers militia, the Red Guard, as the means to defend the revolution.

Do you mean guerilla? Even if you do not mean guerilla I think it was impossible for a worker's militia to defend the soviets because the "White armies" were just too strong. Without a proper army the Soviets wuld have lost the civil war.

http://www.johndclare.net/images/Russ_w2.gif[/TMB][]Map (http://[TMB)
a militia-system doesnt mean guerilla warfare, just that the army is comprised of militias.

[KC]

the key thing in a state is that there is a professional apparatus that sets up a means of control apart from the people, an apparatus that can be controlled by dominating classes. it could involve a relatively loose federation between different local ruling groups, but it would still be a state.

The thing is that you keep saying that the state is an institution that rules apart from the people, when this is basically the same thing as saying that the ruling class uses the state to rule over the ruled class and maintain the conditions of its rule. It's like the same thing. Because of that, I'm completely unsure of how you're reaching a different conclusion.

[syndicat]

The thing is that you keep saying that the state is an institution that rules apart from the people, when this is basically the same thing as saying that the ruling class uses the state to rule over the ruled class and maintain the conditions of its rule. It's like the same thing. Because of that, I'm completely unsure of how you're reaching a different conclusion.

Different than what? If the working class gains control of the society in a revolutionary process, and dismantles the state, it needs to replace it with a new governance structure that it controls. This would mean it is rooted in the participatory democracy of the assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods, and congresses of delegates from these. the workers needs to take over all of the management authority in the industries where they work, and take away not only the ownership by the capitialists, but also replace the hierarchies in the corporations and the state controlled by the managers and top professionals, and begin a process of the workers themselves taking over these responsibilities through a redesign of the jobs so as to eliminate the old hierarchies.

now, this means the new governance structures that are set up are not separate from the mass of the immediate producers, the mass of the people, there isn't a basis of power for a dominating class at all. A dominating class is a minority class apart from the mass of immediate producers who control the immediate producers and exploit them.

So the new governance structure is not a state because it isn't a hierarchical institution to defend the power of a minority class that dominates the class of immediate producers, that is, the working class. The working class in such a situation are not a "ruling class" because there is not a division between a minority class that dominates and the majority who are dominated and thus exploited.

To call the working class a "ruling class" in this situation would be misleading. It's actually a situation where the institutional power of the elite classes (owning class and the managerial class, in capitalism) is being dismantled and replaced with structures of working class collective power. This is a situation in which the class system itself is being dismantled.

A state, on the other hand, is a structure for sustaining the power of a class over the mass of immediate producers. It's not possibly a structure in which the working class can control the society.

[Rawthentic]

It's not possibly a structure in which the working class can control the society.
Your being misleading because you are confusing the bourgeois state with the proletarian one.

[syndicat]

Your being misleading because you are confusing the bourgeois state with the proletarian one.

You're begging the question when you assume that "proletarian state" is not self-contradictory. The state structures that have existed historically are, as Engels pointed out, separate from the mass of the oeople, and thus enable the state to defend the interests of elite classes, which dominate the immedaite producers.

A governance structure that would enable the working class to hold political and economic power in society, and dismantle the economic and political power of elite classes, is a very different type of governance structure than a state. It is misleading to call it a "state". It tends to lead to the idea that certain features of existing states, such as hierarchical armies, and professional/managerial class hierarchies, are consistent with the empowerment of the working class, which is in fact not the case.

[Rawthentic]

Regardless, Engels understood that the working class would dismantle the bourgeois state and create its own for practical purposes like oh....defending the revolution at all costs and eliminating class antagonisms.

[KC]

Regardless, Engels understood that the working class would dismantle the bourgeois state and create its own for practical purposes like oh....defending the revolution at all costs and eliminating class antagonisms.

The state doesn't eliminate class antagonisms; it maintains the conditions of rule of the ruling class during a time in which class antagonisms are irreconcilable. Class antagonisms will disappear with the withering of the bourgeois class.

[Rawthentic]

The state doesn't eliminate class antagonisms; it maintains the conditions of rule of the ruling class during a time in which class antagonisms are irreconcilable. Class antagonisms will disappear with the withering of the bourgeois class.
One of the first actions of the working class post-revolution is to destroy the capitalist state. This does not "wither away" class antagonisms. The proletarians organized as ruling class and making sure that the old capitalists are either completely repressed or integrated into society as workers will. Thats my take.

[syndicat]

if new structures of control, such as managerial hierarchies over workers in production, state hierarchies, etc. are maintained, this tells us that the class system has not been eliminated, that there is still a group that holds power over the working class. It doesn't matter if these people hold "socialist" ideas. No ruling class has ever given up its power voluntarily and none will. What will happen is that the "socialists" will just reinterpret their "socialism" to justify concentrating power in the hands of the new ruling elite....as happened in the USSR.

To liberate itself, the working class must immediately create new structures in industry where it takes over complete management authority, through the workplace assemblies, and the working class must set up a new governance structure that it controls itself, en masse, through the assemblies and congresses of delegates from the assemblies, and a militia controlled by the working class.

[KC]

No ruling class has ever given up its power voluntarily and none will...

...To liberate itself, the working class must immediately create new structures in industry where it takes over complete management authority, through the workplace assemblies, and the working class must set up a new governance structure that it controls itself, en masse, through the assemblies and congresses of delegates from the assemblies, and a militia controlled by the working class.

?

I don't think you can use the "no ruling class has ever given up its power voluntarily" when you yourself are suggesting that the proletariat take political power and become a ruling class.

[syndicat]

No, i'm not suggesting that "the working class become a ruling class". That is very misleading, at best. A ruling class is a minority class that dominates the class of immediate producers, exploiting them.

The working class, in dismantling the corporate hierarchies and the state hierarchies, and creating its own management of industry, and of public affairs, through the assemblies and congresses, is dismantling the class system. One class dominating and exploiting another is being done away with. The working class does not dominate another class as exploiting classes dominate the immediate producers. That is a very confused and confusing way of talking.

What happens is that the coordinator class (managers and top professionals) have their power taken away through the dismantling of the corporate and state hierarchies that are the basis of their power, and workers begin the process of taking ove their job tasks and democratizing production and embarking on training of the working class to acquire the needed skills. The old managers and professionals thus acquire the same status as workers, tho there may be some period of transition where some of the old managers and professionals continue as technical advisors, subject to the democracy of the assemblies and the worker committees.

And of course the property of the owning class, the capitalists, is expropriated by the workers. Capitalists who were entrepreneurs and knowledgeable might be useful as technical advisors during a period of transition. This is what happened in both the Russian and Spanish revolutions.

The more protracted process of change is in the change in education and the learning needed for the working class to acquire the know-how for all aspects of managing production themselves. But this doesn't mean some management hierarchy over them is preserved -- that would simply become self-perpetuating -- but that the new worker assmebly based industrial self-management system embark upon a systematic education and training program, and as i said, technical advisors amd trainers from the old professional/managerial hierarchy are likely to be used for some time. The working class already possesses a great deal of the knowledge it needs to manage production for the simple reason that workers already do the work. There is thus no problem with the workers taking over collective management power in industry.

By basing the control over governance initially on only the workplace based organizations, which have kicked out the old management and owners, the old elite classes are excluded from immediate participation, tho this changes over time as the differences between them and the working class are dissolved. But it's not a question of those old elite classes being exploited, like capitalists exploit workers now. It's a question of removing their power. This is part of the process of dismantling the class system.

The problem with the imagery of a "workers state" or "the workers as a ruling class" is that this seems to become a kind of propagandistic rationalization for new elite groups running a state, allegedly "in the name of" the working class. But if some new managerial cadre scheme is set up, they will work to perpetuate their power as any dominating class does.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:02 pm
the feudal state was decentralized but it was still a state. the Swiss federation republic is comparatively decentralized but it's still a state.
Central political control still exists within those 'states'. Power still funnels to a centralised body of authority. They're not examples of decentralised political authority. They're states.


The key thing in a state is that there is a professional apparatus that sets up a means of control apart from the people, an apparatus that can be controlled by dominating classes.

And it does this by centralising political authority.


it could involve a relatively loose federation between different local ruling groups, but it would still be a state.

The concept of 'ruling' is bourgeois in nature. There would be no people who 'rule' in a communist society there would simply be organisational bodies, without legislative power, to administrate needs.

That's not a state.

[syndicat]

Are you using "central political control" to refer to a top-down hierarchy? I think your use of "centralizing" is not entirely clear. If a community has an assembly and makes rules for that community...nobody carrying guns on the streets, say...that decision was "centered" in that assembly rather than a do-your-own thing decentralism of each individual being completely autonomous. Yet it doesn't presuppose a state.


The concept of 'ruling' is bourgeois in nature. There would be no people who 'rule' in a communist society there would simply be organisational bodies, without legislative power, to administrate needs. That's not a state.

And it's also not possible. There would be no separate top-down hierarchy in a self-managed society without class division, that's true. But there would need to be legislative power because no society can exist without basic rules. For example, wage labor is not allowed. That is "legislated" -- made to be an enforeable rule -- for the whole society. This is not an edict of a state, but it is decided presumably through such things as a congress of delegates from the assemblies throughout the revolutionary region. We can even assume that on important issues, proposals of the congresses have to be sent back to the base assemblies for ratification. The congress and base assemblies would have legislative power, but this doesn't make this a state.

[Rawthentic]

One of the first actions of the working class post-revolution is to destroy the capitalist state. This does not "wither away" class antagonisms. The proletarians organized as ruling class and making sure that the old capitalists are either completely repressed or integrated into society as workers will. Thats my take
Quoted for truth. ;)

[syndicat]

yes, that's what you said. But what does it mean for proletarians to be "organized as a ruling class"? Class presupposes a structure of subordination of producers to those who control and exploit them. If the working class seizes the means of production and dismantles the corporate and state hierarchies, and sets up its own structures for running the society, and a new governance structure based on mass democratic participation of the working class, isn't it rather than class is being dismantled, not that the "proletarians are organizing themselves as a ruling class"?