The Abolition of the State: - New Book

[rebelworker]

The Abolition of the State: Anarchist & Marxist Perspectives

This new book by Wayne Price (NEFAC-NYC) covers the following topics: the nature of the state; the concept of the abolition of the state, in the anarchist and Marxist traditions; how concepts of the state affect the question of reform versus revolution; and much more!

The Abolition of the State: Anarchist & Marxist Perspectives

by Wayne Price

AuthorHouse Bloomington IN:, 2007. 196 pages.
ISBN: 978-1-4343-1696-7 (softcover)

This book covers the following topics: The nature of the state. The concept of the abolition of the state, in the anarchist and Marxist traditions. How concepts of the state affect the question of reform versus revolution The Marxist concept of a transitional state and its limitations. How anarchists may conceive of a post-statist society carrying out the social tasks of defending society from counterrevolutionary armies, or from antisocial individuals. How anarchists may conceive of social coordination in a nonstatist society. Whether productive technology is necessarily in conflict with a nonstatist society. How nonstatism is consistent with a cooperative, experimental, noncapitalist, social system. A conception of anarchism as a radical extention of democracy.

These concepts are grounded in a review of historical revolutions,
particularly the Russian revolution and the Spanish Revolution, as well as the struggle against the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany.

This book is now available for purchase on the AuthorHouse Web site:
http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemD...px?bookid=45363 (http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=45363)
The price from AuthorHouse is $9.90 (more elsewhere; $14.49 on Amazon.com).

Also, orders can be accepted via email: [email protected] The Book Order Hotline is 888.280.7715. Using this number, you can place an order and pay with your credit card by phone (or send in a check after the phone call).

[syndicat]

well, i've read thru most of it. it's a bit uneven. the chapter on the Spanish revolution takes a basically Trotskyist position. he claims that the failure to move towards the overthrow of the Generalitat and a more coordinated working class governance structure in Catalonia was due to opposition to "power." But, as with the Trots who say this, he provides no evidence.

Like the Trots, he trots out the Friends of Durruti group as an exception but apparently has no idea of where they came from or where their program came from, as if they dropped from the sky. In reality their program was the official program of the CNT for a brief period in Sept 1936. He defends the line of Trotsky that they should have formed soviets, even tho the Spanish working class had no tradition of this sort.

This is moreover inconsistent with statements he makes elsewhere where he writes approvingly of various left-libertarian writers who talked about community assemblies. Yet soviets have the disadvantage that, especially in Spain the '30s, women and others would have been excluded from equal participation. He fails to discuss the Zaragoza program of the CNT of May 1936, and its proposal for a dual structure of community and worker assemblies, and of both industrial federations and worker congresses, and of congresses of delegates from the geographic community assemblies ("free municipalities"). And for this reason he also avoids mentioning the Friends of Durruti group's commitment to the free municipalities.

He never seems to come down to any particular idea about how the governance system could be organized or should be organized in the aftermath of a revolution, as far as I can tell, as far as the decision-making bodies are concerned. Should they be based on assemblies in neighborhoods/communities, should they be based on assemblies in workplaces, some combination?

He does try to answer arguments about the alleged need for a centralized professional army, and his arguments here seem reasonable. He points to examples like the Swiss militia system.

[abbielives!]

What distinguishes a soviet from the collectives that were formed in Spain?

[syndicat]

A soviet is a governance structure for a city or area based on delegates elected from workplaces. The industries were expropriated by the unions in Spain, but no soviets in the Russian sense were built. There was a regional congress of delegates from village assemblies in Aragon, but that would be more akin to a soviet congress, if we're making comparsisons to the Russian revolution. The anarchists proposed "free municipalities" based on the neighborhood assemblies, only they didn't actually build these in the cities. So in some cities the unions set up revolutionary committees. This would be the closest to soviets, but this was based on the unions. The soviets in the Russian revolution were not based on the unions, because there was little tradition of mass unionism in Russia.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The article fails from the get go, because a basic tenet of communist theory (originally developed by Marx and Engels) is that "the state is not abolished."

A state arises on its own, out of class antagonisms (and the need for one class to repress other class, to maintain the conditions of its rule). The state will only disappear as class relations do -- first turning into a purely administrative body, then withering away completely.

[Marsella]

The article fails from the get go, because a basic tenet of communist theory (originally developed by Marx and Engels) is that "the state is not abolished."

It depends on what you mean by state and which one.

The basic difference, as it appears to me, is that anarchists deny the state altogether - whether it be in a feudal hierarchy or capitalism. They attack the state as an institution divorced from class realities. Marxists recognise the state is the result of class antagonisms and that only when those class antagonisms are resolved will the state 'wither away.'

However, both agree on the abolishment of the bourgeoisie state; of the police, the army, the hierarchy. Personally, I think that the Paris Commune serves as a good example of what will stand in place for the bourgeoisie state.


If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the preliminary condition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent (Marx, Marx's Letter to Kugelmann)

So in that sense our aims are converged.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

However, both agree on the abolishment of the bourgeoisie state; of the police, the army, the hierarchy.

There would be great were it true. Unfortunately, history has shown us examples of "anarchists" cozying up to, supporting or even trying to run the bourgeois state, and "communists" (for example, those blindly supporting Chavez) forgetting a key pillar of communist theory, i.e. that the working class cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state and use it for its own ends.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 11, 2007 07:37 pm

However, both agree on the abolishment of the bourgeoisie state; of the police, the army, the hierarchy.

There would be great were it true. Unfortunately, history has shown us examples of "anarchists" cozying up to, supporting or even trying to run the bourgeois state, and "communists" (for example, those blindly supporting Chavez) forgetting a key pillar of communist theory, i.e. that the working class cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state and use it for its own ends.
True.

But we were talking about theoretical ideals - you did say 'communist theory' after all. Both anarchists and communists have been guilty of taking over and running the bourgeoisie state.

That doesn't disprove the fact that our aims are similar or that we can learn from each other.

I think that what anarchists argue about the state, the police, the cooperatives is useful and relevant to communists. I also think that what communists argue about historical materialism, class consciousness and religion is important to anarchists.

Marx claimed that the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat, Bakunin claimed that it was representative of a future anarchistic society.


I am a supporter of the Paris Commune, which for all the bloodletting it suffered at the hands of monarchical and clerical reaction, has nonetheless grown more enduring and more powerful in the hearts and minds of Europepis proletariat. I am its supporter, above all, because it was a bold, clearly formulated negation of the State. The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State, Bakunin.

Personally, I think there is little that divides anarchists and communists, apart from the Leninist type.

[syndicat]

CdL:
The article fails from the get go, because a basic tenet of communist theory (originally developed by Marx and Engels) is that "the state is not abolished."

A state arises on its own, out of class antagonisms (and the need for one class to repress other class, to maintain the conditions of its rule). The state will only disappear as class relations do -- first turning into a purely administrative body, then withering away completely.

how do you know? You haven't read the book. You're just mouthing Marxist dogma in a kneejerk fashion.

Marx never explained what "withering away" means or why it would occur. This topic is discussed in the book.

The fact is that if there is a separate administrative layer with power over society, and that is what a state is, there is no reason to think it will wither away, rather than simply be the basis of entrenchment of a new state-based ruling class.

The author discusses how the revolution can be defended by a non-state governance system and democratic militia successfully, and why if external and internal threats diminish in the future, the military/police functions would become less important. But it isn't a state.

The revolution itself is the process of destroying the institutions of class domination. If those institutions are not destroyed, the revolution was defeated. The state is one of those institutions, as is hierarchical control in industry.

but, hey, as i said in another thread, i know you're a dogmatic state socialist.

[KC]

The fact is that if there is a separate administrative layer with power over society, and that is what a state is

[syndicat]

CdeL:
There would be great were it true. Unfortunately, history has shown us examples of "anarchists" cozying up to, supporting or even trying to run the bourgeois state, and "communists" (for example, those blindly supporting Chavez) forgetting a key pillar of communist theory, i.e. that the working class cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state and use it for its own ends.

if you were to read the book, you'd see that the author is critical of those anarchists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 11, 2007 09:04 pm

The fact is that if there is a separate administrative layer with power over society, and that is what a state is
Which anarchists fundamentally oppose.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 11, 2007 09:15 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 11, 2007 09:15 pm)
Zampanò@November 11, 2007 09:04 pm

The fact is that if there is a separate administrative layer with power over society, and that is what a state is
Which anarchists fundamentally oppose. [/b]
What is so wrong about that? If it is democratically accountable, what would the problem be with an administrative layer?

[syndicat]

by an "administrative layer" i'm talking about concentraton of expertise and decision-making authority into a hierarchy, such as we see in the corporations and the state. That sort of structure presupposes a class division in society.

in the Russian revolution you had things like concentration of the power of local soviets into the executive committees, with their personnel derived from the more educated professional class and the plenaries of delegates converted into rubber stamps, the setting up of a central planning board appointed from above, the appointment from above of one-man mangers to boss workers, etc. etc.

separating off a hierarchical administrative layer like this is the beginnings for the emergence of a new dominating class based on the state hierarchy and hierarchical management.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+November 11, 2007 09:27 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ November 11, 2007 09:27 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 09:15 pm

Zampanò@November 11, 2007 09:04 pm

The fact is that if there is a separate administrative layer with power over society, and that is what a state is
Which anarchists fundamentally oppose.
What is so wrong about that? If it is democratically accountable, what would the problem be with an administrative layer? [/b]
There should be no administrative power separate to society.

[KC]

Which anarchists fundamentally oppose.

Sorry, at the time I thought it was easy to understand what I meant when I quoted it, but I guess it's not, after looking at it again. I should have explained it.

A state isn't a "separate administrative layer with power over society". It isn't something independent of class relations (i.e. it isn't separate), and it isn't something holy that is imposed on society from some mystical force (i.e. it isn't over society).


There should be no administrative power separate to society.

There can't be; it's impossible.

Well, unless you're a theist, but then it's still just make believe.

[syndicat]

separate from control by the mass of the people. that is what i was talking about. in "The Origin of Private Property, the Family and the State", Engels listed this is a characteristic of the state. Separation from control by the mass of the people is needed if the state is to serve is social function of protecting the interests of the dominant classes, and of a social order based on oppression.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 11, 2007 09:45 am

A state arises on its own, out of class antagonisms (and the need for one class to repress other class, to maintain the conditions of its rule). The state will only disappear as class relations do -- first turning into a purely administrative body, then withering away completely.

But the existence of the state preserves those very conditions which we find objectionable!
It creates a new class by placing decision making power in the hands of a few, and what exactly is the incentive for this new elite to give up power?

[blackstone]

"How anarchists may conceive of a post-statist society carrying out the social tasks of defending society from counterrevolutionary armies, or from antisocial individuals. How anarchists may conceive of social coordination in a nonstatist society"

Does the book convincingly argue these concepts? I'm cheap, I don't want to spend 12 bucks on something that's not going to give me a new outlook on things.

[rebelworker]

There's a review of the book up on anarismo.net