Communist revolution in a socialist society?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Just something I thought might be interesting to bring into conversation... Perhaps we're wrong that the mechanisms of the state will not wither away with the advance of socialism, for whatever reason. Has anybody ever written about or speculated on the idea that there might need to be another revolution, within the socialist society itself, to eradicate the state?

[An archist]

Yes, the anarchist point of view is that after socialism is established and the communist party is in power. The officials will be in a privileged position, the withering away of the state would mean that they would have to abandon that position, wich is against their personal interests.
So it would be better to just skip the stage of socialism and build a communist society right away.

[Revy]

Socialism and communism are synonyms.
Socialism does not refer to an intermediary period. Socialism refers to a specific society where workers control the means of production.

[ZeroNowhere]

Socialism and communism are synonyms.
Socialism does not refer to an intermediary period. Socialism refers to a specific society where workers control the means of production.
Thanks for that.
Also, in the Marxist definition, the 'state' is simply the enforcement of one class' interests over another's. Thus, a "workers' state" simply means that the bourgeoisie still exist, that is, the revolution is not yet international, and thus pretty much a form of mini-socialism (socialism/communism is international), like the Spanish communes.

[BobKKKindle$]

The "withering away" of the states makes perfect sense as long as you understand the Marxist conception of the state. Marxists recognize that states are organs of class oppression which exist to maintain the position of the ruling class and prevent the existing mode of production from being overthrown, and so the state will necessarily exist as long as class antagonisms continue to exist. Immediately after the seizure of power by the proletariat, class struggle will still occur as the remnants of the bourgeoisie will use any means at their disposal to challenge the power of the proletariat and attempt to restore capitalism by armed force, and in pursuit of this objective they will call on the support of imperialist states, all of which will be eager to defeat any successful socialist revolution in order to maintain control of their own proletariat, as occurred in Russia in the form of the Civil War. The state will only be able to whither away once these enemies have been defeated, and will gradually disappear as the strength of these enemies is gradually diminished.

[Qajmer]

also, socialism is basically a transition phase, so the establishment of a communist society will be achieved after a world revolution occurs and the proletarian dictatorship brings a stateless, classless community..

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

The "withering away" of the states makes perfect sense as long as you understand the Marxist conception of the state. Marxists recognize that states are organs of class oppression which exist to maintain the position of the ruling class and prevent the existing mode of production from being overthrown, and so the state will necessarily exist as long as class antagonisms continue to exist. Immediately after the seizure of power by the proletariat, class struggle will still occur as the remnants of the bourgeoisie will use any means at their disposal to challenge the power of the proletariat and attempt to restore capitalism by armed force, and in pursuit of this objective they will call on the support of imperialist states, all of which will be eager to defeat any successful socialist revolution in order to maintain control of their own proletariat, as occurred in Russia in the form of the Civil War. The state will only be able to whither away once these enemies have been defeated, and will gradually disappear as the strength of these enemies is gradually diminished.

Right, I understand the Marxist conception of the state, but just because it's a Marxist idea doesn't necessarily make it true. What if that doesn't happen? What if, as imperialist states start to disappear, the state apparatus does not gradually diminish and the state apparatus becomes entrenched in society despite its superfluity?

[Labor Shall Rule]

There can be production for need, rather than to maximize profit, and you'd still have bourgeois forces that will find subtle, quiet ways to corrode whatever gains have been made. It's not like someone would stand up in a factory or neighborhood meeting, and blatantly say that "capitalism must be restored" - there'd be (pardon the conservative pun) a 'culture war' to make sure such elements are rectified.

[redarmyfaction38]

Just something I thought might be interesting to bring into conversation... Perhaps we're wrong that the mechanisms of the state will not wither away with the advance of socialism, for whatever reason. Has anybody ever written about or speculated on the idea that there might need to be another revolution, within the socialist society itself, to eradicate the state?
trotsky advocated a "political revolution" in the former ussr.
what he advocated wasn't quite he same as what he hoped for.

[Pogue]

Anarchists in our opposition to the state/socialist stage oppose the state in the Bolshevik sense, i.e. the vanguard/government holding power...I think immediately after any revolution, or during it, depending if its sudden (a week of uprisings and such) or staggered (a year of major reforms and mass movements leading to the government being destroyed and communes being established), obviously there will be a stage between capitalism or whatever we call that stage where there is still oppresion, and communism, the classless stateless collectivised society. This stage will effectively be a dictatorship of prolertariat but simply because the working class will be united as the main force through its ownership of arms, political power, support etc, but it wont be a government, or a vanguard/state doing as it pleases.

[Pogue]

So basically, there might need to be a sort of communist reovlution if the 'workers state' (in the corrupted, Bolshevik sense, or just in the sense of a party/group holding power and we're beginning to fear they're gonna keep it indefinatly), but the progression to communism following a proletarian revolution would hopefully be natural because class conciousness dictates that the workers will desire communism, as the only viable form of social organisation in place of capitalism and the capitalist state.

However I think if a socialist countyr needs a violent uprising of workers to get rid of it then I don't think it's a proper socialist area because under socialism there'd be no one to revolt against and replace...such a state would either by resisted by the bourgeosie in a bourgeoisie counter revolution or would have been corrupted and its representatives would have sold out...either way, socialism would not exist. Basically, if the workers have to overthrow it, it wont be socialism, but a government claiming to be socialist following a revolution similar to 1917 in Russia.

[Angry Young Man]

Yes, the anarchist point of view is that after socialism is established and the communist party is in power. The officials will be in a privileged position, the withering away of the state would mean that they would have to abandon that position, wich is against their personal interests.
So it would be better to just skip the stage of socialism and build a communist society right away.


If, of course, all the social and cultural problems of an area immediately evaporated when capitalism was abolished; or the revolution happened in all parts of the world at exactly the same time thus negating the need to fight off capitalist enemies.

[ckaihatsu]

Are some disagreements regarding the state merely down to semantics?


Yes, * absolutely *. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)



I've noticed in many discussions between anarchists and Marxists on the question of the state, the Marxists insist that a workers' state would work very differently as opposed to a regular "bourgeois" state, implying that this state would take a form so radical that even us anarchists would no longer recognize it as a state.

Perhaps to drive home this point, I've seen at least one Marxist on this board (forgot who it was, and I can't find the thread) describe the Spanish communes as being workers' states.

Are these disagreements, then, merely caused by a general unwillingness on our part to use the term "state", whereas Marxists embrace it, recognizing that even an anarchist or anarchist-esque commune would be an example of a workers' state?

I know there is much more separating us than just the matter of the state, but I'd like to know how much of this disagreement is based on the dislike of the word itself.
__________________
LOL NO YOU DONT YOU IDORT


---



So basically, there might need to be a sort of communist reovlution if the 'workers state' (in the corrupted, Bolshevik sense, or just in the sense of a party/group holding power and we're beginning to fear they're gonna keep it indefinatly), but the progression to communism following a proletarian revolution would hopefully be natural because class conciousness dictates that the workers will desire communism, as the only viable form of social organisation in place of capitalism and the capitalist state.

However I think if a socialist countyr needs a violent uprising of workers to get rid of it then I don't think it's a proper socialist area because under socialism there'd be no one to revolt against and replace...such a state would either by resisted by the bourgeosie in a bourgeoisie counter revolution or would have been corrupted and its representatives would have sold out...either way, socialism would not exist. Basically, if the workers have to overthrow it, it wont be socialism, but a government claiming to be socialist following a revolution similar to 1917 in Russia.


The pitfalls of discussing hypothetical scenarios -- albeit *feasible*, historically precedented possibilities -- is that we can only talk in the abstract, unless we use examples from history. But then those examples from history are from the *past*, not from the future, and so are just *approximations* of what it is we're reaching for to describe as future, feasible possibilities.

I've seen plenty of friction and flare-ups occur between Marxists and anarchists, based on *nothing* -- cultural differences, at most. What counts is how it all plays out, of course, but in practice I think Marxists and anarchists have the same spirit / vision / intentions.

In the abstract, as H-L-V-S is pointing out, all you can say is: "Is there still an oppressive class in power?" If so then struggle is called for to overthrow it in favor of worker-based control over the means of mass production.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --