Question for fellow anarchists.

[letsgetfree]

I was having a debate with a maoist friend of mine, we were discussing the transitionary state and so forth, I put my view out there and he responded with this.


A revolution the world over won't happen overnight. If the state if abolished at once, how do the workers practice dictatorship over the bourgeois? If the bourgeoisie are not crushed and continually struggled against, they will continue to organise for the seizure of political power. The only solution as far as I see it is cultural revolution under socialism.

I responded too the bolded quite easily but could someone help me with the rest please.

[F9]

first of all we are not dictators,so we wont apply dictatorship!:blink:
We have a revolution,we will fight against counter-revolutionaries.Do we need a state to fight?thats insane and has no meaning.We continue our revolution until our final goal which is Anarchism.There is no need of a state to destroy counter-revolutionary forces.

Fuserg9:star:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Since we will have expropriated the means of production and annihilated the state, the only means of power left for the capitalist will be the use of naked force. Worker's militias can ensure the destruction of that force.

[#FF0000]

Exactly what Fuserg9 said. Why do we need a state to fight counter-revolutionaries in the first place?

To be honest, I think the worry over counter-revolutionaries is a bit excessive in some people. Not to say that they couldn't be a problem post-revolution, but constant fear of an invisible, nebulous enemy can lead to very dangerous and counter-productive measures. The "Military First" policy of North Korea is an example of this.

[Decolonize The Left]

A revolution the world over won't happen overnight. If the state if abolished at once, how do the workers practice dictatorship over the bourgeois? If the bourgeoisie are not crushed and continually struggled against, they will continue to organise for the seizure of political power. The only solution as far as I see it is cultural revolution under socialism.

Revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. (dictionary.com)

It is quite clear that it is impossible for a revolution to occur in one day. So yes, it cannot happen overnight - though it can happen over a period of nights and days.


If the state if abolished at once, how do the workers practice dictatorship over the bourgeois?

The state will not be abolished "at once." Events do not occur in an instance, a moment, or "at once." The abolishing of the state by the revolutionaries will occur over a period of time - at this point it is impossible to say how long. Anarchists usually do not support the traditional communist theory of a transitional stage of socialism, and so we can perhaps conclude that the anarchist theory of abolishing the state and move to communism/anarchism will be faster than that of communist theory.

Anarchists are also not interested in becoming dictators, as it seems somewhat incoherent with a philosophy of equality and freedom. The workers will do as they feel is necessary; a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is merely a phrase used to describe the general events which will take place which need not necessarily be a 'dictatorship.'


If the bourgeoisie are not crushed and continually struggled against, they will continue to organise for the seizure of political power.

This is rather simplistic. You must think about the probability of a minority of individuals, with little support within the nation itself, attempting to overthrow a newly established system whereby the vast majority of individuals have seized political power. There will be no "organized counter-revolutionary force" by the bourgeoisie. There may be terrorism, and many attacks against the people, but it certainly won't be basic ground warfare. Why? Because it's insane - you, with your X number of fellow, don't attack a group which is 100-200 times your size openly.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

We have a revolution,we will fight against counter-revolutionaries.Do we need a state to fight?thats insane and has no meaning.

and


Exactly what Fuserg9 said. Why do we need a state to fight counter-revolutionaries in the first place?

You misunderstand communist theory. For anarchists, the "state" is an institution with the possession of the legitimate use of force. For communists, the "state" is the organ of class oppression. Many times these terms can be used synonymously - for example, when defining the current capitalist state, both definitions apply.

But when communists want to form a proletarian state, i.e. a "dictatorship of the proletariat," they are not necessarily referring to forming an institution with the possession of the legitimate use of force. Often times, they are merely saying that the proletariat will be the organ of class oppression directed against the capitalist class. It does not follow that this "state" will be institutionalized, hierarchical, or exploitative.

- August

[apathy maybe]

@AW: You are using "communism" as a synonym for "Marxist", please don't, it isn't correct (and it gets the anarchist-communists upset).

@letsgetfree: I suggest you have a search for "anarchist transition".

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34437
http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-transition-t44965/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/transition-anarchism-t73602/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/transition-anarchism-t73602/index.html

All those threads should be useful, plus there are many more threads (have a look at the "Similar Threads" at the bottom of the page).

[BobKKKindle$]

You must think about the probability of a minority of individuals, with little support within the nation itself, attempting to overthrow a newly established system whereby the vast majority of individuals have seized political power

Why would the counter-revolutionary forces comprise only a small minority relative to those who support the overthrow of capitalism? It may be possible for the remnants of the bourgeoisie to gain the support of large numbers of people, especially if they are able to retain the loyalty of the institutions which exercise the power of the bourgeois state (the police forces and armed services) and even if opposition to revolution is not widespread in the country where a revolution has taken place, unless revolutions occur at the same time across the entire world, the bourgeoisie of other states will also be able to pose a threat to the revolution, by providing material support to reactionary movements, and intervening directly with military forces. The global bourgeoisie would never be willing to accept the existence of a proletarian state where capitalism has been overthrown, because such a state would be a source of inspiration for the global working class (as shown by the uprisings which occurred, following the October Revolution) and provide support to foreign revolutionary forces.

The danger of counter-revolution following the seizure of power is shown by the Russian civil war (1918-1922) when the Bolsheviks faced several white armies under the command of former Tsarist generals, in addition to foreign forces, and so were forced to adopt authoritarian methods of control to prevent the collapse of the proletarian state.


first of all we are not dictators,so we wont apply dictatorship

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the repression of proletarian democracy and the rule of a single individual over the rest of the working population, but the collective struggle of the proletariat as a class against the remnants of the bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements.

[letsgetfree]

and even if opposition to revolution is not widespread in the country where a revolution has taken place, unless revolutions occur at the same time across the entire world, the bourgeoisie of other states will also be able to pose a threat to the revolution, by providing material support to reactionary movements, and intervening directly with military forces.


This is what my friend actually replied with, he asked how Worker militias are going to defeat American and world military aggression?

[BobKKKindle$]

This is what my friend actually replied with, he asked how Worker militias are going to defeat American and world military aggression?

How did you respond to this argument? Why don't you encourage your friend to join the site so he can participate in this discussion as well?

Marxists are not opposed to worker militias as an effective form of defense against the restoration of capitalism. In State and Revolution Lenin argued that the proletarian state would not be structured in the same way as the state which supports the power of the bourgeoisie in a capitalist society, because a proletarian state exercises power in the interests of the working masses, who, relative to the bourgeoisie, are numerically strong.


In other words, under capitalism we have the state in the proper sense of the word, that is, a special machine for the suppression of one class by another, and, what is more, of the majority by the minority. Naturally, to be successful, such an undertaking as the systematic suppression of the exploited majority by the exploiting minority calls for the utmost ferocity and savagery in the matter of suppressing, it calls for seas of blood, through which mankind is actually wading its way in slavery, serfdom and wage labor.


Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less

The State and Revolution, The Economic Basis of the Whithering Away of the State, The Transition from Capitalism to Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4)

[Decolonize The Left]

@AW: You are using "communism" as a synonym for "Marxist", please don't, it isn't correct (and it gets the anarchist-communists upset).

Perhaps you can clarify, but I was previously lectured (here on the board) about the two different classification of the state. I was under the impression that these two definitions belonged to the distinct, but similar, theories of communism and anarchism - not Marxism and anarchism (though this would make sense as well).

If I am not correct, how do "communists" define the state? Is it not the 'organ of class oppression?'

And furthermore, if communists aren't Marxists - at least to some degree, what is going on around here?

- August