We are the working class,do we really need the state?

[Black Sheep]

I ve been thinking about this.

Materially-historically,every revolution was like this:
There were times that within the economic situation of the society, either with the change/advancement of certain important characteristics of production and technology, a new economic power would emerge and stir up society.

The new class,which gradually would 'evolve' into the core of the economic 'status quo' would be suppressed by the social and economic standards,rules,and practises of the time.They would gain political power,use the lower classes to their advantage,utilize the state,overthrow the ruling class ,modify the state and society to their advantage,and become the new ruling class?


Now,we are the working class.Are we going to be Marxists and follow such a pattern? (meaning political party-political power-state) Because there are some radical differences comparing today with the older revolutions.

-We,the proletariat are the first class that is a vast majority.
-We do not want to become the new ruling exploiting class,but rid everyone of exploitation.
-We are the ones that keep this world running and alive.

So do we need the marxist model? Why do marxists claim that the political power model is a historical must, while not considering the above crucial differences in the proletarian revolution compared to the older ones?

[BobKKKindle$]

Political power in a post-revolutionary society means the ability to use force against the remnants of the former ruling class and other hostile forces such as imperialist armies which will inevitably try to restore capitalism and destroy the gains of the social revolution. When Marxists call for a post-revolutionary state, we base our analysis on the principle that all states are organs of class power, and simply mean that the working class will, in the absence of a simultaneous revolution in every country, and until capitalism has been overthrown throughout the entire world, need to defend itself. As you point out, the working class does not have the same characteristics of other classes which have taken power in the past, and this is reflected in the structure of the post-revolutionary state. Unlike the bourgeois state apparatus, this state is not based on armed groups of men separated from the rest of the population, or a permanent caste of bureaucrats, but exercises its power through a system of democratic militias which, through periodic rotation, involves the whole of the revolutionary class.

[Tower of Bebel]

Bobkindles is right, but the nature of the proletarian state made Engels suggest that we could equally substitute the word state for the word commune.
From a superficial comparison of Marx's letter to Bracke of May 5, 1875, with Engels' letter to Bebel of March 28, 1875, which we examined above, it might appear that Marx was much more of a "champion of the state" than Engels, and that the difference of opinion between the two writers on the question of the state was very considerable.

Engels suggested to Bebel that all chatter about the state be dropped altogether, that the word “state” be eliminated from the programme altogether and the word “community” substituted for it. Engels even declared that the Commune was [no] long[er] a state in the proper sense of the word. Yet Marx even spoke of the "future state in communist society", i.e., he would seem to recognize the need for the state even under communism.

But such a view would be fundamentally wrong. A closer examination shows that Marx's and Engels' views on the state and its withering away [Engels: Dying out] were completely identical, and that Marx's expression quoted above refers to the state in the process of withering away.

[Kassad]

No, we do not require a state. The problem is that in the current corporate capitalist system that prioritizes profit and globalization over the needs of humanity serves the capitalist interests. The current 'state' structure is the best way for the bourgeoisie to maintain control. They do this in every developed country in the world, in some way or another. To process to a stateless society, the current state and system must be torn down and destroyed, thus being replaced by the 'state' of the proletariat. This 'state' will serve the needs of the people, not greed of the oligarchy, until it is eventually phased out as we move towards total proletariat control and communism.

[Black Sheep]

the current state and system must be torn down and destroyed, thus being replaced by the 'state' of the proletariat.
Which, in detail will be like...?

[Q]

Which, in detail will be like...?

In short, and to add to what Bob and Rakunin said earlier, a soviet democracy (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets). This is where the Marxist analysis of a state (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state) kicks in, namely that of an oppressive apparatus of the ruling class that prevents the lower class from taking power. In socialism we still have a class society, as the disowned capitalists still exist as a social group. Thusly the soviet democracy acts as a workers state. However, this group of capitalists is in decay as it lacks the economical means to survive as a class. Thusly it "withers away" and with it so does the workers state. This does not necessarily mean that anything might change organisationally though.

The 1918 constitution of the RSFSR (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm) puts this formula in practice by, among others, only giving political freedoms to those who work. If you don't work, you don't have the right to vote in soviet elections. Simple :)
This is specifically mentioned in articles 64 and 65:

64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:

(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote.

65. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:

(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar's secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence.

[ZeroNowhere]

But such a view would be fundamentally wrong. A closer examination shows that Marx's and Engels' views on the state and its withering away [Engels: Dying out] were completely identical
This is debatable.


In short, and to add to what Bob and Rakunin said earlier, a soviet democracy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets).
Why so Soviet?


This is where the Marxist analysis of a state (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state) kicks in, namely that of an oppressive apparatus of the ruling class that prevents the lower class from taking power. In socialism we still have a class society, as the disowned capitalists still exist as a social group.
A 'social group', perhaps, just like us metalheads are a social group. A widow is not married, and former capitalists aren't a class. However, as Marx points out, when a revolution is successful in one place, "its [the proletariat's] enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished." Thus, "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it, it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means." I believe that Engels' point about revolution being naturally authoritarian is what he's getting at there, though Engels' application of it... :laugh:
"It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared. " That is, after international revolution, there is no bourgeoisie, regardless of whether there are ex-capitalists or not. However, while the revolution is not yet internationally successful, there is still a proletariat.

[davidasearles]

A lot of people like to talk about tearing down and/or and smashing the state - it sounds oh so fun.

I suspect that when all is said and done the workers shall zero in on the main issue of the revolution - their social relationship to the tool of production. Only that needs to change right now - nothing else. So why should we even bother with the thought of changing anything else until we see how things are going to pan out.

I see just about zero analysis of any actual problem with the state remaining while the workers set up the workers' collective. Many references to what Lenin said about Marx and Engels or what Bakunin said and when you get right down to it none of them comes right out and explains specifically what would be wrong with continuing with the state just as long as we have the workers' collective.

None of you would believe anything else on such little foundation as what you make such bold proclamations of tearing down or smashing - it's almost embarrassing.

It seems a lot like people who are married for a while start to have problems and instead of working through the problems they run out and get a divorce - problem is that 9 times out of 10 if not more often, they go out and marry someone who is just like to one they divorced. So we don't know why we just have to get rid of the current state, we just do - then is short time we'll be back to the same problems becuase we never dealt with actual problems to begin with.

If your answer to the question of what's wrong with the state is to paraphrase Lenin, Marx, DeLeon, Bakinin, Engels but you don't come up with an actual issue that won't exist under some other setup, then you're off on the wrong foot to begin with

[Black Sheep]

I see no necessity of an actual nation-scale 'state', meaning method of coercion and suppresion of the bourgeoisie.So,so so many talk about it is NECESSARY and the only way, to keep the state to do that,claiming it is a Marxist (and proletarian) must, while providing no evidence at all for it.

Quoting Marx is not an argument.

[Tower of Bebel]

I see no necessity of an actual nation-scale 'state', meaning method of coercion and suppresion of the bourgeoisie.You don't see why the proletariat must defend itself against the most powerful ruling class that ever walked the earth? There are vast armies of millions, rockets and an enormous economic machinery available to destroy any attempt of revolution. Are the proletarians stupid enough to give up any form of struggle? That's one thing. Second is the fact that socialism or communism isn't created overnight. For some period there will still be a capitalist mode of production; for some period their will still be money and capital. Which means for some time there will still be the economic and social bases for the continuous creation of capitalists and petty bourgeois elements. How will you be able to keep such elements under control without any form of coercion? Are you going to reason with them? Not all will give in to your arguments. There will be a form of working class rule necessary to defend the revolution against counterrevolution from the outside and counterrevolution from the inside.

All this doesn't mean that the Bolsheviks always did the right thing. They made lots of mistakes, and eventually their attempts failed.

[davidasearles]

Political power in a post-revolutionary society means the ability to use force against the remnants of the former ruling class and other hostile forces such as imperialist armies which will invariably try to restore capitalism and destroy the gains of the social revolution.

Oh I wasn't thinking of anything so dramatic. I was thinking more of pulling drunk drivers off of the highway, and interveneing in domestic brawls and other typical police chores. Or will the revolution simply abolish these?

[Tower of Bebel]

Oh I wasn't thinking of anything so dramatic. I was thinking more of pulling drunk drivers off of the highway, and interveneing in domestic brawls and other typical police chores. Or will the revolution simply abolish these?
Nope, but according to the marxist definition of the state this is'nt the reason d'etre of the state :).

[Bilan]

I ve been thinking about this.

Materially-historically,every revolution was like this:
There were times that within the economic situation of the society, either with the change/advancement of certain important characteristics of production and technology, a new economic power would emerge and stir up society.

The new class,which gradually would 'evolve' into the core of the economic 'status quo' would be suppressed by the social and economic standards,rules,and practises of the time.They would gain political power,use the lower classes to their advantage,utilize the state,overthrow the ruling class ,modify the state and society to their advantage,and become the new ruling class?

It's a marginally simplistic way of putting it, but along the right tracks.
Class antagonisms develop internal contradictions which lead to the existing economic modes demise, and which is mirrored by the rise of a new one, and new class antagonisms.
The emergence of bourgeois society within Feudal society is a very clear demonstration of this.
Primitive commodity production was born in Feudal society. It develops, and in turn, gives rise to a new economic modes.

Marx analyses this in Capital from here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) onward.



Now,we are the working class.Are we going to be Marxists and follow such a pattern? (meaning political party-political power-state) Because there are some radical differences comparing today with the older revolutions.

This is not an inherent idea of Marx, but of that which followed. The Dictatorship of the proletariat should not ever be confused with the Dictatorship of the Party.



-We,the proletariat are the first class that is a vast majority.
-We do not want to become the new ruling exploiting class,but rid everyone of exploitation.
-We are the ones that keep this world running and alive.

Exactly, and that's why the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential. It is us exercising our strength as the working class to abolish class itself. That's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

[mikelepore]

Oh I wasn't thinking of anything so dramatic. I was thinking more of pulling drunk drivers off of the highway, and interveneing in domestic brawls and other typical police chores. Or will the revolution simply abolish these?

Many people in this forum want to replace the police with a "workers' militia", an unworkable proposal that was answered with genius in the form of wonderful satire by forum user lvl100, who wrote:


The human brain its just another piece of machinery in the body, like liver or heart. And like any other machinery it can have defects from fabrication, from normal using, from external factors, from aging , etc......

Ok so explain me like to a 5 years old :

How do you solve a serial murder case , without specialized institutions, only democratically elected militias
- the baker will be the profiler ?
- the local dentist will be the forensic medic ?
- the detective will be the grandma `cause is good at spying the neighbors ?

source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1240920&postcount=49)

[Black Sheep]

You don't see why the proletariat must defend itself against the most powerful ruling class that ever walked the earth?
Come on,you have 3000 posts,do you really have to use that straw man?
Of course i did not mean that 'the proletariat doesn't need to defend itself', i think i was clear.


There are vast armies of millions, rockets and an enormous economic machinery available to destroy any attempt of revolution. Are the proletarians stupid enough to give up any form of struggle?
-We are outnumbered as it is,the situation is bad and we know it.The question is 'is the utilization of the state NECESSARY for a)defence and b)the growth of the communist revolution.


Second is the fact that socialism or communism isn't created overnight. For some period there will still be a capitalist mode of production; for some period their will still be money and capital. Which means for some time there will still be the economic and social bases for the continuous creation of capitalists and petty bourgeois elements. How will you be able to keep such elements under control without any form of coercion?Are you going to reason with them? Not all will give in to your arguments
With the mass support of the new economic model,that of the communist mode of production and distribution.Which is why a 'stateless' post revolution time would require a high level of revolutionary consciousness at the majority of the proletariat, and not just a handful of vaguards and the rest with opportunistic/ignorant/petit-bourgeoisie mentality.

Which the development of capitalism in creating 2 basic classes helps that.

[Psy]

Oh I wasn't thinking of anything so dramatic. I was thinking more of pulling drunk drivers off of the highway,

Moving towards mostly mass transit would reduce the need to patrol highways since you'd have so many professional workers on the highways that could at least radio in vehicles that are in trouble or vehicles acting erratically on the highway, with professional drivers given more time to make their run they could even deal with some of it themselves (like bus or truck drivers picking up disabled motorists on the side of the highway (not like anyone would steal their disabled car, or it be a big deal if anyone did in a socialist society). Also for pulling drunk drivers off the highway you really don't need that much force, just need pull over the drunk driver impound their car and drive them to a drunk tank.



and interveneing in domestic brawls and other typical police chores. Or will the revolution simply abolish these?
For domestic brawls you don't really need a powerful police force for that either since you just need to a force to separate the parties till they calm down, it could be done without arms as all they would need to do is to separate the parties and have a cool enough head to not make the situation worse.

[redguard2009]

I like the question "will the revolution simply abolish these" when talking about domestic disputes and drunk driving. Yeah, after the revolution, there will be no class antagonism, and so therefore nobody will ever get in fistfights at the pub, no couple will ever argue and start hitting each other. Nobody will drink and drive.

And those instances of more specialized investigational positions can actually be filled by a militarized agency. Of course nobody's talking about electing members of the prosecution and defense on the spot. There's really no need to. The basic functions of the institution work fairly well; the problem we face in today's society is, like so many other instances, in who holds the reigns.

Currently, important members of a nation's (or state's) judicial body is arbitrarily decided upon by politicians (and I don't have to go on about why modern bourgeois politics are daft). Members of Supreme Courts and other centralized judicial bodies are all decided closed-door, and it is their decisions which ultimately run down and decide the actions of local judicial services. The entire point of universal suffrage is to "open up" the methods and control of this sort of power to a) public decision and b) public feedback.

The 'gruntwork' of the judicial system -- profilers, forensics officers, chief investigators, etc, can be carried out by professionals as is currently done. The effect of replacing their management with popular control will have the effect of equilizing their ranks and weeding out injustice and inequality.

And such a system can be worked into the framework of popular militias. Of course, the judicial and security branches of government are quite distinct and there's no reason for one to be conformed into the other. Lawyers are not policemen, nor would they be members of the popular militia. The militia as a whole would take up the duties of modern security; enforcing the law, arresting criminals, fighting crime, rendering aid during disasters or accidents, directing traffic when streetlights go out, etc.

I think we need the state, for the foreseeable future. All of human civilization has used the state (though most have been used by it) for centuries upon centuries and the structure of civilization as we know it will not be able to simply shrug it off like a coating of dust. In the larger scheme of things, we are not simply talking about replacing fuedalism with bourgeois democracy, which by and large was a relatively simple transformation (which even then took 2,000 years to be accomplished if we count the very first forms of democracy in human history, ancient Greece and Rome). We're talking about a transformation of society on an enormous scale which quite feasibly none of us can really comprehend. I prefer to stick to smaller, more attainable goals, like transforming the state into a tool of the masses rather than a tool against the masses.

[Tower of Bebel]

We are outnumbered as it is,the situation is bad and we know it.The question is 'is the utilization of the state NECESSARY for a)defence and b)the growth of the communist revolution.By attempt I also meant a revolution that has already overthrown the ruling bourgeoisie. Even when in a certain locality, region or country has started a 'successful' revolution, it could take weeks, months maybe years before it spreads (Germany for example only saw revolution one year after Red October). Due to this situation the proletariat needs to defend itself as a class against the foreign opposing classes. The shapes and forms of this defense don't matter because all that matters is the social kernel: proletarian class rule. When we speak of class rule or a class dictatorship, how democratic however it might be, we see the involvement of a state. This is enough for marxists to call the whole of communes a state. To many it sounds weird that even communes and militias (opposed to bureaucracies and armies) can be the form of a state. Yet the Paris commune was a state in the marxist sense of the word. And maybe even anarchist Ukraine was in some way a state. The details and shapes of both the Bolshevik and the anarchist "state" don't matter because it is about it's function: class rule. That's the reason why Engels wrote that the proletarian state is not a state in the "proper" or "actual" sense of the word. That's why in certain circumstances we could equally replace the word proletarian state with a collective of communes.


With the mass support of the new economic model,that of the communist mode of production and distribution.Which is why a 'stateless' post revolution time would require a high level of revolutionary consciousness at the majority of the proletariat, and not just a handful of vaguards and the rest with opportunistic/ignorant/petit-bourgeoisie mentality.
When there is a dominant communist or socialist mode of production the state is gone (or at least a corpse). Because this mode of production creates no opposing classes. Socialism and communism are both classless. A socialist revolution isn't classless because it involves the transition from a capitalist class (and there for a state) society through the rule of the productive classes to a classless (and therefor stateless) socialist society.

[Kassad]

Which, in detail will be like...?

A democratic socialist collection of workers unions that eliminate fraudulent and corrupt thing such as surplus value and the profit system. It will put an end to production for profit and will produce a system of production of human needs. This system will tear the dollar sign off human necessities, such as education, food, healthcare and shelter. It will divert funds from the colonialist war machine and direct it towards the needs of society and humanity. The antithesis of everything the corporate capitalist system currently stands for.

[Black Sheep]

When we speak of class rule or a class dictatorship, how democratic however it might be, we see the involvement of a stateYeah,you see that because you judge from the revolutions of the past, which were a minority dictatorship.It is not analogous, because it is radically different.
And considering the nature of all statist regimes, i cannot see why you support it.

You could argue that the corrupting nature of the state (meaning that it will breed dictatorship to all who do not directly participate in it,not only the bourgeoisie) is not inherent,but a result of its use by a minority, but this claim lacks evidence.

I will not comment on the rest of that paragraph,as in this thread when i say state i mean a hierarchical organization mechanism.


When there is a dominant communist or socialist mode of production the state is gone (or at least a corpse). Because this mode of production creates no opposing classes. Socialism and communism are both classless. A socialist revolution isn't classless because it involves the transition from a capitalist class (and there for a state) society through the rule of the productive classes to a classless (and therefor stateless) socialist society.An off topic question on this:Are you saying that if in a country the communist mode of production was dominant the state would wither away even if in the rest of the world capitalism remained?

[davidasearles]

To process to a stateless society, the current state and system must be torn down and destroyed, thus being replaced by the 'state' of the proletariat.

This is much like saying that because the capitalist electric power stations supply electricity to run businesses, police stations, prisons and army bases they must be torn down and rebuilt .

It seems that the main thing wrong with the "bourgeois" state is the bourgeoisie. The "workers' state" can look exactly like the present state, Just have workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and then if any particular aspect of the then workers' state pisses us off we could change it then. (or do we as Ronald Reagan did just like to talk about evil empires and having things torn down?)

[Kassad]

This is much like saying that because the capitalist electric power stations supply electricity to run businesses, police stations, prisons and army bases they must be torn down and rebuilt .

It seems that the main thing wrong with the "bourgeois" state is the bourgeoisie. The "workers' state" can look exactly like the present state, Just have workers in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution and then if any particular aspect of the then workers' state pisses us off we could change it then. (or do we as Ronald Reagan did just like to talk about evil empires and having things torn down?)

You're way off base. You're taking this way too literally. Tearing down the bourgeoisie state doesn't mean tearing down every building in town. It just means taking control of the means of production from the ruling elite and putting it in the hands of the working class, thus effectively tearing down the current state that they maintain to keep us oppressed.

[mikelepore]

Kassad, that's not what many people here say. Many of them claim that any socialists who run for political office are trying to become "part of the bourgeois state" or "part of the system" because they're not "smashing" it.

[Kassad]

Kassad, that's not what many people here say. Many of them claim that any socialists who run for political office are trying to become "part of the bourgeois state" or "part of the system" because they're not "smashing" it.

Well, the Party I am a part of runs candidates, but they realize they will not win. They run merely to get the word out about their ideology. That isn't bourgeoisie. It's attempting to promote an ideology.