The State and State Power

[People's Councillor]

Okay, this is my first contribution to the "theory" section, and, as such, it is probably not as in depth as you are used to. To those who think this, I reply "give me a fucking break."

Basically, it is my contention that it is possible for a group of some sort to hold and exercise State Power without actually being a State. I need not submit to your scrutiny the arguments that have divided the proletarian movement over the years. In fact, you can click the other links in this very section and find out about them. But they have mostly revolved around the proper place of the State, and what is meant by State Power.

Now, being a Marxist, I do define the State as being the organ by which one class legally represses another, and which enforces class oppression through law, statute, and injunction. In other words the State utilizes State Power. Hence, it would seem to me that State Power is merely the ability to oppress another class, where as the State itself merely is the entity which normally utilizes State Power. I say "normally" because of the situation I am about to detail.

Imagine, if you will, a revolution. Insurrection, massive strikes, some bombings, all that jazz, in whatever proportion you wish. The bourgeoisie has been disposessed of its property, which has been expropriated by the proletariat. Now, what exactly has happened? The proletariat has deprived the bourgeoisie of its "rights" that it claimed under the old capitalist order. The proletariat has, by virtue solely of rising and taking what belongs to it, excersized State Power outside the State machinery. It did this on its own, voluntarily, with no coercive or outside force, merely as an expression of its own interests.

Why, therefore, should it cease to act like this? It would seem to me that the "transitional period" of socialism is simply the amount of time it takes to disposess to the bourgeoisie the world over. The proletariat, after all, only needs State Power, that is, coercive and oppressive power by one class over another, to dispossess the bourgeoisie. After that, it has no use for the power. Who should it exploit using the State Power, utilized through a new State? Itself?

Any attempt to utilize the "transitional period" for anything other than overthrowing the capitalist order where it still exists is therefore counter-revolutionary. The workers have shown their consciousness by rising and taking what is theirs. They have the competency to use their new common property, to manage it democratically. "Building class consciousness" is not a valid reason for maintaining the "transitional period" any longer than it needs to be maintained, especially as the expression of class consciousness led to the "transitional period" in the first place.

It is one of my aims in life to help solve the anarchist-communist schism, which is the third worst misfortune ever to befall the proletarian movement (the worst is the Second International, the second worst was the Soviet Union). Look in my signature for confirmation. Comment on this polemic of mine if you will. I will do my best to answer criticisms, and welcome the oportunity to refine this synthesis.

[luxemburg89]

It did this on its own, voluntarily, with no coercive or outside force, merely as an expression of its own interests.


Good thread.

It is often, in fact always the case, that a proletarian revolution has been led by a small revolutionary party or group. Power is, therefore, in the hands of this group that represent the proletariat rather than the proletariat itself. I think another question should be is revolution possible without a small group organising the revolution? And is it right that such a group should have the power to organise and direct the revolution?

Firstly this is by no means a criticism of Lenin. After reading Robert Service's biography of Lenin in which he makes it clear Lenin conducted himself for the benefit of the working-class and always acted with their best interests in heart - and not his own. Service also points out Lenin was in near constant discussion with workers and peasants when he was in the Kremlin. I do believe that Lenin, for all his faults, did represent the interests of the working-class.

However the result of this revolutionary party, as Trotsky predicted in 1904, was the rise of a dictator - in this case Stalin. This led to the USSR, as a 'socialist' state, to become something of a deformity with regard to the Marxist (and even Leninist) views that they claimed to stand for. The worker's power was minimal, and Stalin's power was rediculous.

The state became, as a result, the product of Stalin's Party revolution rather than the worker's class revolution. It could be seen, if looked at in a different light, that there become, not two classes as such, but a distinction. That is between the working class, and the party itself - as detailed in 1984.

Given that the working class can be very apolitical and apathetic towards politics would it be possible, however, without this initial group leading the way, to have a successful revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why would you read "Great Men of History" accounts from an anti-communist and pro-establishment historian?

[Even when I have to read and quote bourgeois works, I focus only on those that employ structural analysis over fads (including macroeconomic ones) and personalities.]


Okay, this is my first contribution to the "theory" section, and, as such, it is probably not as in depth as you are used to. To those who think this, I reply "give me a fucking break."

Many starting posts in this forum are as short or shorter than yours, anyway. :D ;)

My contention with your premise on the state is primarily economic. There is actually more than one "transitional period" to communism (waits for the calls of "REVISIONIST" to come at my direction <_< ). Socialism as a transitional period must be separated from the protracted DOTP, in which certain capitalist relations remain.

On the political front, there will actually be an aggravation of the class struggle under the DOTP (though NOT under proper socialism). Dispossession through revolution alone is insufficient to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a class.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:46 pm

It did this on its own, voluntarily, with no coercive or outside force, merely as an expression of its own interests.


Good thread.

It is often, in fact always the case, that a proletarian revolution has been led by a small revolutionary party or group. Power is, therefore, in the hands of this group that represent the proletariat rather than the proletariat itself. I think another question should be is revolution possible without a small group organising the revolution? And is it right that such a group should have the power to organise and direct the revolution?

Given that the working class can be very apolitical and apathetic towards politics would it be possible, however, without this initial group leading the way, to have a successful revolution?
Okay, my response to that would be to say that the working class become apolitical and apathetic due to the focus on organizing one or more competing vanguards.

The problem with a vanguard party is twofold. First, those who organize such parties often have major disagreements about theory or tactics, which leads to a split. This split leads to a greater emphasis on defeating one&#39;s "opponents" on the Left, rather than uniting against the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, however, has absolutely no interest in these party struggles, and so gets turned off politics. The second problem is that by organizing a vanguard, the organizers are publically proclaiming that they have no confidence in the proletariat. That turns the proletariat away.

The proper role of a revolutionary party, as I see it, would to be educational. Rather than competing for parliamentary power or striving to do so in a coup, the party would have as its main function educating the proletariat as to its own interests. Such a party would not be a "vanguard," since that term implies leadership. Rather, it would be more like a quartermaster, supplying needed materials, but doing little of the actual fighting.

An additional advantage to this sort of party would be that, though extensive, it could never set up a new State. It wouldn&#39;t have the means, or the legitimacy to do so.

[Hammer]My contention with your premise on the state is primarily economic. There is actually more than one "transitional period" to communism (waits for the calls of "REVISIONIST" to come at my direction). Socialism as a transitional period must be separated from the protracted DOTP, in which certain capitalist relations remain.[/quote]

Why? Why must certain capitalist relations remain? Certainly the proletariat, having experienced capitalism and thrown off its shackles, wouldn&#39;t want to reinstate it? Would you, upon being released from a prison, buy some new, albeit better-fitting shackles for your own pleasure? I think not.

It would seem to me that Socialism and the DOTP can be far shorter than you expect, in fact, since "socialism" is merely defined as the time between capitalism and communism, and that the "DOTP" is only the amount of time it takes before the bourgeoisie is entirely overthrown, that the time periods would be defined by world events, and not by theory.


On the political front, there will actually be an aggravation of the class struggle under the DOTP (though NOT under proper socialism). Dispossession through revolution alone is insufficient to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a class.
Yes, but the class struggle wouldn&#39;t be aggrivated within proletarian society. It would be aggrivated between areas of proletarian and bourgeois rule, but that is easily solved. After all, the areas of bourgeois rule are of necessity areas with a proletarian or peasant majority, and it would be rather easy to convince them to revolt. Look how easy it was for the USSR, and they didn&#39;t even provide a working model of socialism&#33;

Now, explain to me why dispossession is not enough to liquidate the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is defined as the class that has a monopoly on the ownership of capital and the means of production. Take away the capital and the means of production, and you have no more bourgeoisie. That is why members of the bourgeoisie who are unsuccessful in business fall into the ranks of the proletariat.

To be fair, dispossession alone wouldn&#39;t make proletarians out of the bourgeoisie. What it would do is create a large number of de-classed and disaffected people. These people would either become refugees, take up arms against the proletariat, or assimilate into proletarian society. The third option is impractical without re-education, the second would not be very worrisome, as the proletariat had defeated the bourgeoisie before, when they had the State behind them. The first seems most likely. Look at Vietnam. However, that isn&#39;t a problem either, as, since the proletarian revolution should be worldwide, they will end up with no where to hide.

When that happens, they have two options. Be killed, or become proletarian. Now, there is no answer in theory for what they will choose, because the moment is so far off, but either alternative won&#39;t present much trouble.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by People&#39;s [email protected] 10, 2007 02:00 pm
Okay, my response to that would be to say that the working class become apolitical and apathetic due to the focus on organizing one or more competing vanguards.

The problem with a vanguard party is twofold. First, those who organize such parties often have major disagreements about theory or tactics, which leads to a split. This split leads to a greater emphasis on defeating one&#39;s "opponents" on the Left, rather than uniting against the bourgeoisie.
[I needed to bold that part of your post in my quote.]

That&#39;s not inherent in the vanguard party concept, though. The inherent problem in regards to splits and sectarianism lies at the ideological foot of Maoism, Stalinism, and especially Trotskyism (basically any so-called "successor" ideology to genuine "Leninism," or just plain revolutionary Marxism).

To Lenin&#39;s credit, there weren&#39;t any splits in the Bolshevik party. As for the split of the RSDLP, it revolved around the question of the vanguard vs. the mass party, not around two different concepts of the vanguard party.

However, all that being said, you should consider this thread on the national sectarianism so blatant amongst almost every self-described communist parties. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)


The proletariat, however, has absolutely no interest in these party struggles, and so gets turned off politics.

I do agree with you that sectarianism is a major obstacle. In fact, one of the first links that I quoted was this:

There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism any more, there is revolutionary Marxism and reformism (http://english.communist.ru/2006/04/05/there-is-no-stalinism-or-trotskyism-any-more-there-is-revolutionary-marxism-and-reformism.htm)

[And thanks for making me consider posting this as an article in the Articles forum&#33; :cool: ]


The second problem is that by organizing a vanguard, the organizers are publically proclaiming that they have no confidence in the proletariat. That turns the proletariat away.

The proper role of a revolutionary party, as I see it, would to be educational. Rather than competing for parliamentary power or striving to do so in a coup

Sorry, but I think you&#39;re parroting anarchist stuff here (bringing up accusations of neo-Blanquist organization). :( There&#39;s more to the vanguard party than meets the eye.

Oh, and I think you&#39;ve read too much liberal bourgeois accounts on the October "coup."


the party would have as its main function educating the proletariat as to its own interests. Such a party would not be a "vanguard," since that term implies leadership. Rather, it would be more like a quartermaster, supplying needed materials, but doing little of the actual fighting.

Here&#39;s my opinion on the situation: the party should shift away from parliamentary and union politics ALTOGETHER (and here I think that Lenin&#39;s position on participating in the Duma at the dawn of the 20th century is obsolete) and go global like corporations, NGOs, and now labour unions (albeit trying to save themselves) (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292301726).

There are also other options besides education: what about social functions performed by mass organizations created by but separate from the party itself (sports clubs like what the old Communist Party of Germany once had, for example)?

Why are the terrorist groups (whose terror we denounce, of course) like Hamas and Hezbollah having their fun and gaining popularity? Because of these options which they employ&#33; :(


An additional advantage to this sort of party would be that, though extensive, it could never set up a new State. It wouldn&#39;t have the means, or the legitimacy to do so.

Certain left-communists here disagree with your notion. The historical fact is that the vanguard party is absolutely needed for revolution, which CANNOT be absolutely spontaneous (Luxemburg&#39;s dialectic being a much more justifiable basis for the vanguard party rather than Lenin&#39;s peculiar "consciousness" polemic, in spite of her opposition to such concept).

As for running state affairs, while I have disagreements with them, that is moot right now until that time comes.


Why? Why must certain capitalist relations remain? Certainly the proletariat, having experienced capitalism and thrown off its shackles, wouldn&#39;t want to reinstate it? Would you, upon being released from a prison, buy some new, albeit better-fitting shackles for your own pleasure? I think not.

Ever heard of workers&#39; control over the state ownership of the means of production?


To be fair, dispossession alone wouldn&#39;t make proletarians out of the bourgeoisie. What it would do is create a large number of de-classed and disaffected people. These people would either become refugees, take up arms against the proletariat, or assimilate into proletarian society. The third option is impractical without re-education, the second would not be very worrisome, as the proletariat had defeated the bourgeoisie before, when they had the State behind them.

Actually, history has proven the second to be the most realistic case. While the class struggle wouldn&#39;t be aggravated within proletarian society, you ignore one other reactionary class at the disposal of the bourgeoisie: the lumpenproletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat) (including beggars and drug dealers).

Even the petit-bourgeoisie (perhaps myself included, depending on certain POVs on this board) would have a much easier time fitting in than even these folks.

[luxemburg89]

The proper role of a revolutionary party, as I see it, would to be educational. Rather than competing for parliamentary power or striving to do so in a coup, the party would have as its main function educating the proletariat as to its own interests.

Yeah, I&#39;d agree with that.

[Rawthentic]

Hammer, I very much liked the article, "There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore, there is revolutionary Marxism and reformism."

Great stuff.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Some corrective notes:

1) Victor Shapinov is a "Marxist-Leninist." I&#39;ve asked CriticizeEverythingAlways to translate the link at the bottom of that site from Russian to English more properly than Google can. There, he reveals his "Marxist-Leninist" views on Stalin.

2) I sharply disagree with his ill-informed views on Colombia&#39;s FARC, which he deems "revolutionary."



That being said, these significant details aren&#39;t significant enough to de-bunk the whole premise of his article, which deserves full credit where it is due. :)

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Originally posted by Hammer+June 10, 2007 04:49 pm--> (Hammer @ June 10, 2007 04:49 pm)



[/b]

Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)
Originally posted by People&#39;s [email protected] 10, 2007 02:00 pm
Okay, my response to that would be to say that the working class become apolitical and apathetic due to the focus on organizing one or more competing vanguards.

The problem with a vanguard party is twofold. First, those who organize such parties often have major disagreements about theory or tactics, which leads to a split. This split leads to a greater emphasis on defeating one&#39;s "opponents" on the Left, rather than uniting against the bourgeoisie.


That&#39;s not inherent in the vanguard party concept, though. The inherent problem in regards to splits and sectarianism lies at the ideological foot of Maoism, Stalinism, and especially Trotskyism (basically any so-called "successor" ideology to genuine "Leninism," or just plain revolutionary Marxism).

To Lenin&#39;s credit, there weren&#39;t any splits in the Bolshevik party. As for the split of the RSDLP, it revolved around the question of the vanguard vs. the mass party, not around two different concepts of the vanguard party.[/b]
Splits may not be inherant in the [i]concept of the Vanguard, but you cannot deny, and you indeed confirm, that they are a major problem in practice. However, the concept of the vanguard does contain one very major flaw. By maintaining a vanguard as necessary, one demonstrates lack of confidence in the revolutionary capacity of the proletariat. Why should not the proletariat be able to make revolution without the "leadership" of a vanguard?

Basically, apathy on the part of the proletariat does not make the vanguard necessary. In fact, the emphasis on organizing the perfect vanguard, with the absolutely correct line, attracting the best "leadership" is what creates the apathy in the first place. Workers are not stupid, they know what they want and need. What they might not know is how to get it, and that is where a revolutionary party comes in.


Originally posted by Hammer

The second problem is that by organizing a vanguard, the organizers are publically proclaiming that they have no confidence in the proletariat. That turns the proletariat away.

The proper role of a revolutionary party, as I see it, would to be educational. Rather than competing for parliamentary power or striving to do so in a coup

Sorry, but I think you&#39;re parroting anarchist stuff here (bringing up accusations of neo-Blanquist organization). :( There&#39;s more to the vanguard party than meets the eye.
And what exactly is wrong with anarchism? As I said at the very bottom of my post, my goal is to create a synthesis that the entire Left can feel comfortable embracing, not to prove that my own particular sect has the one true and correct line.


Originally posted by Hammer
Oh, and I think you&#39;ve read too much liberal bourgeois accounts on the October "coup."
And you infer that from what exactly? The word "coup" refers to a takeover of the State machinery by some party. That was the essence of the Bolshevik revolution, and indeed just about every "revolution" carried out by a vanguard; to take control of the State machinery rather than just the State power.


Originally posted by Hammer
There are also other options besides education: what about social functions performed by mass organizations created by but separate from the party itself (sports clubs like what the old Communist Party of Germany once had, for example)?
Do I have to define "education" now? Alright. "Education" is the process of uniting the working class and making clear the best way to achive their goals. Thus, an "educational" activity might be one that simply promotes solidarity, like the sports clubs you mention. It might also be classes in revolutionary theory or history. It might be tutorials on how best to load and fire a kalashnikov. It&#39;s a very broad term.


Originally posted by Hammer
Why are the terrorist groups (whose terror we denounce, of course) like Hamas and Hezbollah having their fun and gaining popularity? Because of these options which they employ&#33; :(
Actually, they&#39;re gaining popularity because they&#39;re the ones most militant in resisting American and Israeli imperialism. They are able to do this partly because they have quite a lot of money from various sources, including States. Of course, that is a discussion for another thread. I believe several of those threads exist already.


Originally posted by Hammer

An additional advantage to this sort of party would be that, though extensive, it could never set up a new State. It wouldn&#39;t have the means, or the legitimacy to do so.

Certain left-communists here disagree with your notion. The historical fact is that the vanguard party is absolutely needed for revolution, which CANNOT be absolutely spontaneous (Luxemburg&#39;s dialectic).
What, exactly, does your response have to do with my statement? I never said that a party is not necessary, but I do differentiate between a Vanguard party, whose job it is to lead compliant proletarians, and a Revolutionary party, whose job it is to urge on militant proletarians. The concept of the Vanguard party assumes a docile, impressionalbe working class, unable of understanding and attaining its own interests, while the concept of the Revolutionary party assumes a working class that understands its own interests and only lacks the means and the will to attain them.


[email protected]
Ever heard of workers&#39; control over the state ownership of the means of production?
Way to conflate State ownership and Socialism. The two are not the same, much as a rectangle is not always a square. Obviously I&#39;ve heard of that notion, as I am challenging it. If the proletariat has expropriated bourgeois property and capital on its own, without the aid of a State, why should it need a State to manage it? The Bourgeoisie didn&#39;t need a State to manage its property, only to safeguard it from proletarian revolution.


Hammer

To be fair, dispossession alone wouldn&#39;t make proletarians out of the bourgeoisie. What it would do is create a large number of de-classed and disaffected people. These people would either become refugees, take up arms against the proletariat, or assimilate into proletarian society. The third option is impractical without re-education, the second would not be very worrisome, as the proletariat had defeated the bourgeoisie before, when they had the State behind them.

Actually, history has proven the second to be the most realistic case. While the class struggle wouldn&#39;t be aggravated within proletarian society, you ignore one other reactionary class at the disposal of the bourgeoisie: the lumpenproletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat) (including beggars and drug dealers).

Even the petit-bourgeoisie (perhaps myself included, depending on certain POVs on this board) would have a much easier time fitting in than even these folks.
Okay, do I even need to challenge this? You forget the reason why the lumpenproletariat exists; because of the chronic unemployment engineered by the bourgeoisie. Get rid of the bourgeoisie, and the lumpentproletariat disappears immediately, as the new proletarian order would guarantee full employment. "From each accoring to his ability," remember? The bourgeoisie alone is too small in numbers to be a real threat to the proletariat, at least without the backing of a State.

The lumpenproletarian would be a proletarian, if not for unemployment. Indeed, in times of (relatively) high employment, the lumpenproletariat gets smaller as its members percolate up the ladder into the proletariat. Therefore, the lumpenproletariat, in the right conditions, represents a temporary section of the proletariat, and not a seperate and distinct class of its own. It can easily be integrated into the proletariat by full employment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by People&#39;s Councillor+June 11, 2007 01:01 am--> (People&#39;s Councillor @ June 11, 2007 01:01 am) What, exactly, does your response have to do with my statement? I never said that a party is not necessary, but I do differentiate between a Vanguard party, whose job it is to lead compliant proletarians, and a Revolutionary party, whose job it is to urge on militant proletarians. The concept of the Vanguard party assumes a docile, impressionalbe working class, unable of understanding and attaining its own interests, while the concept of the Revolutionary party assumes a working class that understands its own interests and only lacks the means and the will to attain them. [/b]
^^^ Sorry for not being clearer above on Luxemburg&#39;s dialectic. I don&#39;t agree with Lenin&#39;s "consciousness" polemic in What is to be Done? as the basis for the organization of a vanguard party. However, that concept is justified by the impossibility of a spontaneous revolution, in spite of her later objections.



Hammer
Ever heard of workers&#39; control over the state ownership of the means of production?
Way to conflate State ownership and Socialism. The two are not the same, much as a rectangle is not always a square. Obviously I&#39;ve heard of that notion, as I am challenging it. If the proletariat has expropriated bourgeois property and capital on its own, without the aid of a State, why should it need a State to manage it? The Bourgeoisie didn&#39;t need a State to manage its property, only to safeguard it from proletarian revolution.

I NEVER equated state ownership with socialism. I also do NOT equate the DOTP with socialism, and consider the former to be a separate, protracted stage of history. I merely equate workers&#39; cooperative control over the economy, including the state ownership over the commanding heights (includes the already-socialised means of production, thanks to capitalist expansion of the productive forces), with the DOTP.


Okay, do I even need to challenge this? You forget the reason why the lumpenproletariat exists; because of the chronic unemployment engineered by the bourgeoisie. Get rid of the bourgeoisie, and the lumpentproletariat disappears immediately, as the new proletarian order would guarantee full employment. "From each accoring to his ability," remember? The bourgeoisie alone is too small in numbers to be a real threat to the proletariat, at least without the backing of a State.

You forget that the DOTP would also institute the DUTY to work along with guarantee to full employment. Folks like certain welfare fraudsters and drug dealers would NOT want to have to earn their living. In other words, their sloth and trickstering are tools of the bourgeoisie, the means by which the class struggle will be intensified after the revolution more than before.

Granted, there are indeed temporary lumpenproles, but many if not most are such on a permanent basis, and would NOT want otherwise except to jump right into the ranks of the bourgeoisie (skipping even the petit-bourgeois).

[People&#39;s Councillor]

^^^ Sorry for not being clearer above on Luxemburg&#39;s dialectic. I don&#39;t agree with Lenin&#39;s "consciousness" polemic in What is to be Done? as the basis for the organization of a vanguard party. However, that concept is justified by the impossibility of a spontaneous revolution, in spite of her later objections.
Thanks for making my argument. As I said, the proletariat understands its interests, but it is the job of the revolutionary party to give the proletariat the tools to make those interests a reality. The absense of those tools is why the revolution isn&#39;t spontaneous (I dislike using absolutist terms like "always" or "impossible"). Also, you again fail to make the distinction between the various types of parties. The Vanguard party is distinct from the Revolutionary party.


I NEVER equated state ownership with socialism. I also do NOT equate the DOTP with socialism, and consider the former to be a separate, protracted stage of history. I merely equate workers&#39; cooperative control over the economy, including the state ownership over the commanding heights (includes the already-socialised means of production, thanks to capitalist expansion of the productive forces), with the DOTP.
You never answered my objection. Why does there need to be a State? Collective ownership and management is easy enough without State intervention, just as individual/private ownership is easy enough without State management. If the function of the State is to safeguard the existing property relations from the anger of the oppressed class, then there is no need for the State when all classes other than the proletariat have been eliminated.


You forget that the DOTP would also institute the DUTY to work along with guarantee to full employment. Folks like certain welfare fraudsters and drug dealers would NOT want to have to earn their living. In other words, their sloth and trickstering are tools of the bourgeoisie, the means by which the class struggle will be intensified after the revolution more than before.
Welfare fraud and drug dealing are very labor-intensive practices. It&#39;s very difficult to decieve the bourgeois bureaucracy or to evade the actiosn of the police, and such actions require great creative effort. Thus, lumpenproles do "work" for a living, they just do so outside the normal capitalist property relations. This, and no other factor, is what makes the lumpenproletariat "declassed." It is not an unwillingness to work, it is an unwillingness or forced inability to work in the system of capitalist property relations.


Granted, there are indeed temporary lumpenproles, but many if not most are such on a permanent basis, and would NOT want otherwise except to jump right into the ranks of the bourgeoisie (skipping even the petit-bourgeois).
Can you provide statistics for that assertion, or are you just making blanket generalizations? It seems to me that you are characterizing lumpenproles in the same way that the nineteenth-century British characterized Nigerians; unable to contribute in any meaningful way to society. In any case, the lumpenproletariat is small, never usually more than 6% of an industrialized society, and is just as unlikely to be a threat to the proletarian order as the dispossessed bourgeoisie.

[KC]

I made a good post about this a while ago, but then my comp got fucked up before I could post it. Basically what I said was this:

How does the proletariat maintain the conditions of its rule? The answer to that question is your state.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 11, 2007 09:46 pm
I made a good post about this a while ago, but then my comp got fucked up before I could post it. Basically what I said was this:

How does the proletariat maintain the conditions of its rule? The answer to that question is your state.
I&#39;m sorry about your computer fucking up. It happens to me all the time. This was actually my third try making this thread. :lol:

As to your insistence on the necessity of the State in safeguarding the revolution, I would say that is...almost total bullshit. There are two sources of counter-revolution. The dispossessed domestic bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie from other countries. Now, obviously, the dispossessed bourgeoisie are not that big a threat once the proletariat has taken collective control of the means of production. After all, the proletariat was able to defeat the bourgeoisie when it had the State as a bulwark and weapon&#33;

The foreign bourgeoisie is a far greater threat, but that can be neutralized easily enough. Just look at all the national liberation struggles; organized human beings defeating the organized modern technology of the imperialists. There is absolutely no reason why the proletariat would be unable to defend its new order in a similar manner. Furthermore, you ignore the proletariat in other nations. With the example of a successful revolt staring them in the face, the proletariat is far more likely to emulate the successful revolutionists. Look at Germany or the USA in 1919, after the Russian Revolution.

[Rawthentic]

No, what Zampano says is correct. The state (working class organized as ruling class, armed, etc.).

Thats with what it protects its revolution.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

So you claim that the working class can successfully revolt without a State, but can only maintain its revolution with one? This seems illogical to me. The actual revolution is, of course, the most difficult and trying time in the class struggle; protecting it from outside bourgeois forces should be relatively easy.

The working class does not need a the State machinery to be a ruling class. It only needs to have control of the State power, that is, to be able to dispossess the bourgeoisie and to maintain its collective ownership over the means of production. Just as there is a difference between labor and labor-power (one sold as a commodity, the other is not), there is a difference between the State and State power that I outlined in the first post. It would waste server space to repeat it.

[Rawthentic]

Whatever, I agree with your second paragraph.

The state is what I defined it as in my last post, and the proletariat wields it through its state power.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Ah, I see. Because the organized, armed, ruling working class is what I would define as a proletariat able to weild State power without a centralized State. The State, as I see it, is merely the machinery, the bureaucracy, through which State power may be wielded, but which is in the main wasteful and unnecessary.

[Rawthentic]

The state is not a bureaucracy. In a working people&#39;s republic, it is manifested through elected worker&#39;s councils and assemblies.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

The State is the machinery used by a class to weild State power. That can take whatever form.

However, these democratic workers councils (which, by the way, I support) do not constitute a State. To be a State, they would have to be the only bodies capable of weilding State power in the stead of the proletariat. The proletariat, however, is still able to weild State power without the interference of these bodies. Therefore, they are merely a convenience, and not necessarily a State.

Furthermore, these bodies are exclusively proletarian, while older States employed people other than the bourgeoisie or whomever happened to be the ruling class at the time.

EDIT: why am I almost sure that we agree on everything except which terms to use?

[Rawthentic]

However, these democratic workers councils (which, by the way, I support) do not constitute a State
They do when they are armed and purposely defend against counterrevolution.


Furthermore, these bodies are exclusively proletarian, while older States employed people other than the bourgeoisie or whomever happened to be the ruling class at the time.
I think I dealt with this above.

[Hit The North]

People&#39;s Councillor:


I never said that a party is not necessary, but I do differentiate between a Vanguard party, whose job it is to lead compliant proletarians, and a Revolutionary party, whose job it is to urge on militant proletarians. The concept of the Vanguard party assumes a docile, impressionalbe working class, unable of understanding and attaining its own interests,

I think you&#39;re mis-characterizing the concept of the vanguard party. It does not rest on an assumption of a docile working class, but a working class subject to uneven development. The purpose of the vanguard party is to attract and organize the most class conscious and militant workers in coordinated activity inside the class as a whole and thereby win over other workers. The ambition of the vanguard is to become the mass party of a revolutionary working class.


while the concept of the Revolutionary party assumes a working class that understands its own interests and only lacks the means and the will to attain them.

So the "Revolutionary party" assumes a romantic view of the proletariat?

The mass of the working class lacks more than just the means, it also lacks an understanding of its own interests. To state otherwise would fly in the face of any empirical and experiential evidence. Try selling revolutionary literature outside a work place and see what response you get, comrade.

[KC]

As to your insistence on the necessity of the State in safeguarding the revolution, I would say that is...almost total bullshit. There are two sources of counter-revolution. The dispossessed domestic bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie from other countries. Now, obviously, the dispossessed bourgeoisie are not that big a threat once the proletariat has taken collective control of the means of production. After all, the proletariat was able to defeat the bourgeoisie when it had the State as a bulwark and weapon&#33;

The foreign bourgeoisie is a far greater threat, but that can be neutralized easily enough. Just look at all the national liberation struggles; organized human beings defeating the organized modern technology of the imperialists. There is absolutely no reason why the proletariat would be unable to defend its new order in a similar manner. Furthermore, you ignore the proletariat in other nations. With the example of a successful revolt staring them in the face, the proletariat is far more likely to emulate the successful revolutionists. Look at Germany or the USA in 1919, after the Russian Revolution.

You didn&#39;t answer my question:


How does the proletariat maintain the conditions of its rule?

In other words, how does the proletariat maintain its power over bourgeois class antagonisms?


The State is the machinery used by a class to weild State power. That can take whatever form.

However, these democratic workers councils (which, by the way, I support) do not constitute a State. To be a State, they would have to be the only bodies capable of weilding State power in the stead of the proletariat. The proletariat, however, is still able to weild State power without the interference of these bodies. Therefore, they are merely a convenience, and not necessarily a State.

Define "state power" and also tell me how the proletariat will wield it if not through these councils.