Do left communists agree with the leninist notion of setting up a "workers state" AFTER the revoloution? Marx said the state is needed during "the exporation of the exporiators" otherwise known as revoloution. After that, socialism, as said by marx the "lower stage of communism" would be stateless and classless, the only major difference being the use of labour credits after setting up collective control over the MOP's etc. what are the left communists view on this? what is the period of transition for left commies? is it revoloution? is it a state AFTER the revolution? And from an ICC pamphlet i believe, there were somethings about how "the revolutionary class cannot identify itself with the state in the period of transition" and that "the state will be a conservative organ of power" can you guys clear this up for me? thanks
Hi StrictlyRuddie This is a complex issue and has been an object for debate within the left communist movement as a whole. The ICC has also had a number of debates on this question, which were published in our pamphlet "The Transition Period". The Resolution produced at the conclusion of this debate is online at our website. We do not minimise the complexity and difficulties of this question and don't claim to necessarily have "the answer". As we say in our Platform, "Similarly, the experience of the Russian revolution has shown the complexity and seriousness of the problem of the relationship between the class and the state in the period of transition. In the coming period, the proletariat and revolutionaries cannot evade this problem, but must make every effort to resolve it." Ultimately, this question will be decided by the actions of the proletariat itself as it grapples with a contingent historical situation it is impossible to foresee with any certainty. However, even if we don't have a ready made answer, it is still possible to try and identify the right questions, based on a Marxist understanding of the state. And, based on this, it is possible to anticipate in a very general way the problems that will face us in this period and the general principles to take into account in confronting them So, bearing in that in mind, I'll try and answer your questions! A state is both inevitable and necessary after the revolution. The revolution will not, in itself, abolish the "cell forms" of capitalism: that is commodity production, wage labour, etc. There will still be different social classes, even if the bourgeoisie itself no longer exists. Many of those classes will not have the same interest in the creation of communism that the proletariat has. The peasantry, small farmers, shopkeepers, etc. have little interest in handing over their livelihoods to the proletariat, especially in the midst of a chronic economic dislocation that will no doubt accompany the revolution. If the proletariat cannot simply stare down these classes through the barrel of a gun, nor can it allow them to just go their own way. Although a revolution is necessary to overthrow capitalism, society cannot live in a state of permanent, open class war. The transitional state will appear as an expression of these contradictions: it will provide legitimacy to the new order, by setting out the rights of the various classes as well being used to hold down the potential for counter revolution from the bourgeoisie. However, it is precisely because the state will both suppress and regulate the conflict between the remaining classes that it essentially conservative. It cannot express the pure interests of the proletariat and this will be exacerbated by the fact that we will probably need the services of former bourgeois or petit-bourgeois experts who may not be entirely at ease with the new order. (As an example, consider the divide in a hospital between extremely well-paid consultants and junior doctors, let alone nurses and cleaners! They will be needed, obviously, but it's unlikely they're all going to quickly adjust to the new relations of authority i.e. taking orders from former subordinates!) So this state is not a "workers' state", because it doesn't express the interests of the proletariat but rather the contradictory interests of all the social classes. So, although the state will express the social need for stability and compromise (even if temporary) between classes, it is these characteristics that make it a conservative organ. It will tend to become a drag on the proletariat's need to push forward the restructuring of society in the face of resistance from other social classes. It is thus the ideal environment for counter-revolutionary tendencies to take root and grow. This is what we mean by the state being a "conservative" force. Because of this, we think the working class must consciously distinguish itself from the state and resist any tendency to become absorbed by it. Workers must retain their sense of specificity both in terms of consciousness but also practically by retaining their own organs of organsiation - the workers' councils. Nor will the state have the monopoly on armed force. Workers will maintain their independent, armed forces that will not be subject to the state. But what do you think?
Thanks, Samyasa. Your posts are brilliantly articulate, and help to clear up alot.
The ICC has also had a number of debates on this question, which were published in our pamphlet "The Transition Period". The Resolution produced at the conclusion of this debate is online at our website. Actually the whole pamphlet is; http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition Devrim
Thanks for linking us up, Dev, I don't have the rank yet. That's not the whole pamphlet, but it does have one of the best articles from the latter and the Resolution I mentioned. The print version has lots more fun stuff in it
Bilan, thank you for the kind words! Generally, I'm happy when I manage to make any kind of sense at all!
