marxism & the state

[Black Sheep]

some lines that struck me down!

Marxists have always had an a-historic perspective on the state, considering it as purely an instrument of class rule rather than what it is, an instrument of minority class rule. For anarchists, the "State is the minority government, from the top downward, of a vast quantity of men." This automatically means that a socialism, like Marx's, which aims for a socialist government and a workers' state automatically becomes, against the wishes of its best activists, "socialism from above." As Bakunin argued, Marxists are "worshippers of State power, and necessarily also prophets of political and social discipline and champions of order established from the top downwards, always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the masses, for whom they save the honour and privilege of obeying leaders, elected masters." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 265 and pp. 237-8]



For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the basis of revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished. If these organs of workers' self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as happened in Russia) then their power will be handed over to the real power in any state -- the government and its bureaucracy. The state is the delegation of power -- as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and design.


source: anarchist faqhttp://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
comment please

[trivas7]

Bottom up, top down, no amount of railing against the state will bring it down unless the economic conditions which are its basis, its raison d'etre, are understood.

Who are you quoting?

[Black Sheep]

And what are these economic conditions to which the proletarian state will aim at?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Marxists have always had an a-historic perspective on the state, considering it as purely an instrument of class rule rather than what it is, an instrument of minority class rule.

This is pathetic. Marxists have always recognised that the state (hitherto) has been an instrument of minority class rule. It is already obvious here that author is being dishonest.


For anarchists, the "State is the minority government, from the top downward, of a vast quantity of men." This automatically means that a socialism, like Marx's, which aims for a socialist government and a workers' state automatically becomes, against the wishes of its best activists, "socialism from above."

This is even more plainly stupid. The author provides here a definition of the 'state' in Anarchist theory and then (ignoring the clearly different definition of the 'state' in the Marxist sense mentioned in the quote above) goes on the apply it to Marxist theory.


For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the basis of revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished.

Such a federation of workers councils is none other than a "workers state". Above I noted that hitherto, the state has been an instrument of minority class rule and as such had certain features (different in different epochs on the basis of different economic formations). The state post-revolution will again take on a distinctly different form because of class rule it exercises, that is the rule of a majority who seeks not the perpetuation of this class rule (and the existence of classes in society) but the abolition of class and thus the state.


If these organs of workers' self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as happened in Russia) then their power will be handed over to the real power in any state -- the government and its bureaucracy.

Here again we see either the same foolish mistake or dishonest misrepresentation.


[To the Anarchist] The state is the delegation of power -- as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility.

*Fixed*


If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all.

The state is an instrument of class rule! The author acknowledged that above and then here forgets that completely! They are either impossibly stupid or blatantly dishonest.


The state [hitherto] was designed for minority rule. No state [form used hitherto] can be an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and design.

*Fixed once again*


And what are these economic conditions to which the proletarian state will aim at?

The interest of the proletariat is none other than it's self-abolition, the abolition of exploitation and alienation in production (taking the form of wage-labour) which the ruling class seeks to preserve and the abolition of general commodity production.

When this are achieved we can no longer speak of the state (that is an instrument of class rule) as classes no longer exist. This is the economic condition for the abolition of the state

[trivas7]

And what are these economic conditions to which the proletarian state will aim at?
Communism, I would hope(!) -- but perhaps this isn't the question you mean to ask(?)

[Morpheus]

This is pathetic. Marxists have always recognised that the state (hitherto) has been an instrument of minority class rule. It is already obvious here that author is being dishonest.

No they're not. Their statement lacked the hithero which you added. Their position is that the state is always a form of minority rule due to its hierarchical structure and monopoly of violence. This differs from the typical Marxist position, which asserts that the state is an instrument of class rule, which hithero has been minority classes but in the future will be controlled by a majority class (the proletariat). This differs from their position, which is that the state can only be controlled by a minority class and predicts that all attempts to create a state controlled by the majority will result in minority rule. The distinction they draw between the two is valid.

If the federations of workers councils advocated by most anarchists is the same as your version of a workers' state (I take it you disagree with Lenin & others on this issue?) then how does your position differ from anarchists? You seem to be advocating the same thing. If federations of workers councils have no hierarchy and do not monopolize violence on what grounds can you call them states? And if these federations are a state, how do you intend to organize society after they 'wither away'? Why do you want to gradually abolish them and what should they be replaced with?

[Niccolò Rossi]

No they're not. Their statement lacked the hithero which you added.

That one word makes a lot of difference mind you.


Their position is that the state is always a form of minority rule due to its hierarchical structure and monopoly of violence. This differs from the typical Marxist position, which asserts that the state is an instrument of class rule, which hithero has been minority classes but in the future will be controlled by a majority class (the proletariat).

Me thinks you misrepresent the divergence (which is not surprising as many Marxists and Anarchists do).

You stated above that "the state is always a form of minority rule due to its hierarchical structure and monopoly of violence" (my emphasis added). This is the standard Anarchist line of argument because it uses a distinctly Anarchist definition of the state (ie. it being a "hierarchical structure and monopoly of violence").


This differs from their position, which is that the state can only be controlled by a minority class and predicts that all attempts to create a state controlled by the majority will result in minority rule. The distinction they draw between the two is valid.

The distinction is valid only in so far as they apply their own understanding to the matter. The fact is what the Anarchists are referring to and what the Marxists are referring to are two very different entities.

The Marxist definition of the state is far more general (and arguably more vague), simply referring to the instruments of class rule or what is the same thing, political power. The Marxists see various forms of state structure each bound up in certain economic formations, who's structure may be determined by myriad of different factors such as the form of class rule being exercised.

The Anarchist on the other hand take the characteristics bourgeois state (a specific form that the state may take in the Marxist sense) as being the state.


If the federations of workers councils advocated by most anarchists is the same as your version of a workers' state (I take it you disagree with Lenin & others on this issue?) then how does your position differ from anarchists?

It doesn't. Marxism and Anarchism are not totally mutually exclusive, they can and do overlap.

It also should be noted that in the State and Revolution, Lenin's position was not too far from my own. Of course this is not Lenin's usual line of thinking and certainly shows Lenin at his most “anti-statist”, but the fact still remains. But yes I am not a Leninist in the usual sense of the word despite that I do draw a lot from Lenin.


If federations of workers councils have no hierarchy and do not monopolize violence on what grounds can you call them states?Such bodies are an organ of the proletarian state in so far as they exercise the class dictatorship of the proletariat, that is it's political supremacy.


And if these federations are a state, how do you intend to organize society after they 'wither away'? Why do you want to gradually abolish them and what should they be replaced with?First of all, such federations are no in themselves "states". At most they may be considered organs of the state.

Secondly, the “withering away of the state” is not something that is chosen, we don't “want” to gradual abolition of the state. It is necessitated by the fact that classes can not be abolished at one stroke, even something an Anarchist would not deny.

Finally, by the state "withering away" Marx meant no more than the withering away of organised violence by one class over another.

Bound up in today's state form are many tasks which can not be done away with. What of public administration and planning, will this wither away (or abolished at one stroke as the Anarchists wish)? By no means. Whilst the function today is bound up with the state, it is not in itself a task which can (or “should”) be done away with as it is not serve the interest of any particular class.

[BobKKKindle$]

If the federations of workers councils advocated by most anarchists is the same as your version of a workers' state (I take it you disagree with Lenin & others on this issue?) then how does your position differ from anarchists?

The anarchist assertion that the state must always exhibit a "hierarchical structure" is flawed because it presents the state as something which is always the same and so does not account for the class character of the state. Marxists recognize that the state does not always exhibit the same structure, instead, the structure of the state apparatus depends on the class which controls the state; the power of the bourgeois state is exercised by armed groups of men which are separate from the rest of the population and are given the authority to command armed force against the working class when the property rights of the bourgeoisie are threatened. This structure is derived from the weak numerical strength of the bourgeoisie, such that, because the proletariat is far numerous than the bourgeoisie, the proletarian state exhibits a different structure, based on extensive democratic participation, including the democratic management of the productive forces, as explained by Lenin in State and Revolution:


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. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead).

State and Revolution, The Transition from Capitalism to Communism

[Devrim]

Let's look at Bakunin's view:

It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers.
...
The number of these individuals should not, therefore be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.

Well, that sounds pretty libertarian to me.

Devrim

[Black Sheep]

In the proletarian state, (assuming that there is the danger of some level of bureaucracy developing) the participation of the workers in the functions of the state has to be massive:
but if we have that level of working class awareness and active participation, then why do we need the post-rev state anyway?

[Lamanov]

I don't think it's very clever to bring out some XIX century beef in order to understand the movement today. Both wings of the First International had their fair share of mistaken views and conceptions, as well as a hint of authoritarianism.

Thus, I will not indulge the modern sectarian Leninist trouble-seeking where they are trying to identify themselves as "rightful heirs", nor modern anarchists who ignore mistakes and ambiguities of Bakunin.

[Niccolò Rossi]

In the proletarian state, (assuming that there is the danger of some level of bureaucracy developing) the participation of the workers in the functions of the state has to be massive

Naturally. This would also have to be the case even if we assume a hypothetical where a bureaucracy could not develop. The structure of the state reflects it's tasks.


but if we have that level of working class awareness and active participation, then why do we need the post-rev state anyway?

The state is nothing more than those instruments of political power used by a class in the suppression of other classes. Active participation and class consciousness do not in any way invalidate the need for a workers state. The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is thus a necessity (whether realised or not under the Anarchist definition of the word).

[Black Sheep]

The state is nothing more than those instruments of political power used by a class in the suppression of other classes. Active participation and class consciousness do not in any way invalidate the need for a workers state. The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is thus a necessity (whether realised or not under the Anarchist definition of the word).

Yeh, but since u are using the state to suppress the burgeoisie AND the utilisation of the state comes with some dangers lurking around (power corruption, bureaucracy, opportunistic turns)--->
IF u already have the mass participation and class awareness of the workers, why do u need a state and its mechanisms of control (state courts and laws, police, army) in order to suppress the burgeoisie, since the workers themselves can suppress them directly (since u have a vast popular action)

and one more thing.Marxists claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, that capitalism leads there.

Why?

[trivas7]

Marxists claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, that capitalism leads there.

Plenty of Marxists (perhaps the majority) don't believe this.

[Niccolò Rossi]

utilisation of the state comes with some dangers lurking around (power corruption, bureaucracy, opportunistic turns)

Revolution comes with dangers. Unless you think that the bourgeoisie and it's ideological allies will sit idly by whilst capitalist society and economic relations are smashed to pieces, you will realise that the proletariat need at it's service instruments which will allow for the suppression of such remnants.


IF u already have the mass participation and class awareness of the workers, why do u need a state and its mechanisms of control (state courts and laws, police, army) in order to suppress the burgeoisie, since the workers themselves can suppress them directly (since u have a vast popular action)

What exactly is this vague notion of 'direct suppression' of such bourgeois remnants?

The fact of the matter is this 'direct suppression' will always find expression only through certain instruments which are by their nature organs of a workers state.


Marxists claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, that capitalism leads there. Why?

As Trivas noted, this is incorrect. Any notions of capitalisms collapse and the advent of socialism being inevitable, forgetting the subjective element of workers self-agency is only garbage carried over from the Second International.

[Black Sheep]

The fact of the matter is this 'direct suppression' will always find expression only through certain instruments which are by their nature organs of a workers state.
I m just naming direct suppression the anti-burgeoisie action without the structyral form of democratic centralism (by which i imagine the proletarian state would be run)

[GPDP]

I find it hard to imagine that the biggest difference between anarchists and Marxists, the question of the state, is just semantics regarding what a state is or isn't.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I m just naming direct suppression the anti-burgeoisie action without the structyral form of democratic centralism (by which i imagine the proletarian state would be run)

Democratic Centralism is a form of internal organisation used by Leninist parties (how well they actually adhere to the notion may be debated). You don't "run" a workers state on the basis of democratic centralism.


I find it hard to imagine that the biggest difference between anarchists and Marxists, the question of the state, is just semantics regarding what a state is or isn't

The difference is not only one of semantics.

Even if we only consider the question of the state some "Marxists" would reject the claims made by myself above (and Marx) about the need to smash the bourgeois state, instead preferring like the Anarchists to identify the 'state' with the modern bourgeois state. They thus see the dictatorship of the proletariat being nothing more than the appropriation of state power in the interest of the working class.

[GPDP]

And who would these Marxists be, pray tell?

[Niccolò Rossi]

And who would these Marxists be, pray tell?

I'm not one to start with the name calling so as to avoid being labelled a sectarian but I'm sure you'll agree that many a Leninist finds it hard to differentiate a workers state from a bourgeois state.