Question on State and worker's democracy

[Tower of Bebel]

What distinguishes the State from the worker's committees as a whole? If the State is abolished and only worker's are in control, why can't we call the whole structure of committees a "State"?

[RGacky3]

Depends if they are a formal entity, ruling over a land with bounderies, and they have a monopoly on violence. If they are just a desicion making group, that is given that responsibilty by the workers, and are not enforcers, they arn't a state at all.

[Tower of Bebel]

It's about communism or anarchism. The workers set up committees or councils to make decissions and debate on various issues. In a city for example, you have various councils. The whole acts a one to organize the city. What distinguishes this from a State (the conept in general)?

A State is the product of conflict between classes. So how do we call the whole structure of councils and committees?

[LSD]

You're touching on one of the chief controversies of the left, and one of the more constant debates of this board; namely, what constitutes a "state" and what is the nature of political authority in a postrevolutionary postcapitalist society.

So don't be surprised if you get divergent or even outright contradictory answers.

As for "workers' committees", despite their "radical" sounding name, you're absolutely correct in that they could form the nucleus for an institutionalized state. Which is why we must oppose their empowerment.

Workers can and should get together and discuss issues, but there should be no special powers delegated to those groupings. Nor should we tolerate any formalization of "delegates" or "representatives".

Because if there's one thing that we've learned from almost a hundred years of practical socialism, it's that "workers' states" are just as oppressive as any other sort.


Originally posted by LSD

Well, duh. That's why I said that the bourgeois state must be destroyed.

Except you just want to replace it with another bourgeois state, only with different folks in charge and a slightly different set of "checks and balances".

The concept of "representatives" and "delegates" is itself bourgeois in nature. So any state based on such republican principles is nescessarily descendent from bourgeois political ideals.

Politicians "manage" society the way that the bourgeosie "manages" the economy. And any system of institutional managers requires an institutional managerial class.

There's a reason, after all, that politics and money so often overlap. The skills for succeding in one are indistinguishable from those of succeding in the other. That's why former "socialist" bureaucrats did so well "playing the market" following the collapse of their "workers' states".

The kind of people who tend to get elected are people who are good at playing the political game. And no matter how "accountable" you try and make the system, that will always be the case.

Republicanism encourages apathy and faith-based politics. When people are socialized to believe that political participation means checking off a name every 4 years, they're unlikely to even consider active involvement.

That's why despite being set up to encourage "popular representation", the leadership of liberal republics rarely reflect either the make-up or the ideas of the populace at large.

It's also why "socialist" republics like Cuba keep re-electing the same people back into power. Truly "recallable" leaders get recalled. No one is perfect, and especially when it comes to the complex busines of running a society, the notion that one "leader" could be so good as to never warrant replacement is absurd.

Even if Castro were the smartest human being to ever live, basic comon sense tells us that at some point, new blood would be a good idea.

And yet despite all the propaganda about Cuba's "democratic" structure, the same "delegates" keep returning and returning ...just like in every bourgeois republic. -- from Why were all states that claimed to be "socialist", authoritarian? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57724)

A good and somewhat concise analysis of postcapitalist governance can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62584). A much longer, and contentious, debate on the subject can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344).

I would especially recommend the second one, as it illustrates several opposing views on the nature of society, the state, and anarchism. Although, again, it's a fairly long read.

[Janus]

why can't we call the whole structure of committees a "State"?
Not everyone here does due to the differences in semantics. For example, most anarchists would not consider a federation of collectives to be a state, as they define a state to be a centralized, hierarchical authority, while many Marxists do.

I don't think we need to worry so much about we call such a body (names after all are not always good descriptors) but rather on the functions and powers/power delegations of such bodies. It is the later that is crucial to the success and maintenance of said society as opposed to the former.