Left Communists on The State

  1. Misanthrope
    Misanthrope - 1st August 2009, 06:02
    What are your views on the state? I've been reading a lot of Luxemburg and lurking this group a lot. I currently consider myself an anarchist and I am very interested in left communism.
  2. ern
    ern - 1st August 2009, 17:54
    This article gives a general overview of the ICC's analysis of the role of the state. It will be very interesting to hear your thoughts about it.
  3. ern
    ern - 1st August 2009, 17:55
  4. Misanthrope
    Misanthrope - 1st August 2009, 23:51
    I like how the article explains the functions of the state and the origin of the state as an institution. I dislike Marx's criticism of moral objectors to the state, as I have a moral objection to statism. I am anti-statist first, the state is force, the state easily corrupts and along with the state I believe some sort of political class will always be, a social class that benefits from the state more so than others.

    I really like this quote "The state is neither the bearer nor the active agent of communism. Rather, it is a fetter against it. It reflects the present state of society and like any state it tends to maintain, to conserve the status quo."

    From what I gather, left communists wish to replace the current state with workers councils. Would the government-populace relationship be a volutary agreement? Or would it be similar to the modern state in that it is forced upon the populace.

    " Why burden the name council with the name state, if they are synonymous and describe the same thing"

    It seems that this state that ICC invisions is not needed and acts as a vanguard that will only naturally lead to corruption.


    I see fit that the workers, as a whole should democratically run society under voluntary agreements. I would fully support a governing working council as long as those governed agree to be governed.

    Thanks for the article comrade ern.
  5. MilitantWorker
    MilitantWorker - 2nd August 2009, 02:31
    From what I gather, left communists wish to replace the current state with workers councils. Would the government-populace relationship be a volutary agreement? Or would it be similar to the modern state in that it is forced upon the populace.

    It seems that this state that ICC invisions is not needed and acts as a vanguard that will only naturally lead to corruption.
    WoP:

    Left communists don't wish to replace the current state. We seek to dismantle it.

    Mass assemblies and workers councils are historical forms that have typically arisen on the shop floor in revolutionary situations, we don't and shouldn't fetishize them. We advocate organic working class political structures because we advocated the working class.

    If you're caught up with the lingo, the terminology-- I really prefer to call the state-apparatus during the dictatorship of the proletariat a "semi-state." Either way we're arguing semantics.

    The working class, once it realizes the power it has to make change when collectively organized, will form organic structures useful to the actual insurrection of capitalism and in the periods directly after.

    I'm not a theoretical guru...but you shouldn't confuse the state, the party, and the vanguard. The state is a conservative force that should be eliminated. The international proletarian party will be the vanguard, and the party should never be merged with the state.
  6. Misanthrope
    Misanthrope - 2nd August 2009, 02:40
    WoP:

    Left communists don't wish to replace the current state. We seek to dismantle it.

    Mass assemblies and workers councils are historical forms that have typically arisen on the shop floor in revolutionary situations, we don't and shouldn't fetishize them. We advocate organic working class political structures because we advocated the working class.

    If you're caught up with the lingo, the terminology-- I really prefer to call the state-apparatus during the dictatorship of the proletariat a "semi-state." Either way we're arguing semantics.

    The working class, once it realizes the power it has to make change when collectively organized, will form organic structures useful to the actual insurrection of capitalism and in the periods directly after.

    I'm not a theoretical guru...but you shouldn't confuse the state, the party, and the vanguard. The state is a conservative force that should be eliminated. The international proletarian party will be the vanguard, and the party should never be merged with the state.
    Historically where have workers councils arose during a revolutionary period?

    Why do you prefer to call it a semi-state? Does this government consist of a voluntary agreement between government and governed?

    What's your definition of vanguard, "the party" and state?

    Thanks for the response.
  7. zimmerwald1915 - 2nd August 2009, 05:42
    Historically where have workers councils arose during a revolutionary period?
    Since 1917, workers' councils or similar/precursor institutions (general assemblies, strike committees independent of union control) have arisen in most upturns in the class struggle. These words were chosen very carefully, as there were very few, if any, "revolutionary" movements--that is to say, movements with the actual potential to challenge capitalism in whole or in part--after the defeat of the 1917-192x revolutionary wave. However, 1968-69 and the late '80s were upswings in the class struggle, and it was there one could see various pre-council organs of struggle.

    The working class organizes institutions to deal with the needs of the struggle through and during the course of its struggle itself. It is also important to realize that councils and the other forms of organization can't really survive and especially can't develop unless there is continuing class struggle.

    Why do you prefer to call it a semi-state?
    I believe the term semi-state is appropriate (though I don't presume to speak for you, Intifada) because the state during the transition from capitalism to communism cannot perform the same function that the state performs in capitalism or in any class-and-exploitation-based society. That is, because neither the proletariat nor any other class is exploitive, the state cannot align itself with an exploitive class and rule in its interests. However, though classes in the period of transition do not exploit one another, they do exist and they do have different interests; it is this fact which causes the state of the period of transition to form in the first place.

    This state differs from other states in another fundamental way: it does not command a monopoly of armed force. The armed proletariat exists, and its jurisdiction is above that of the state in the period of transition. Indeed, in the period of transition, it is only the proletariat that goes armed. The state in the period of transition exists not to exert the will of the proletariat upon everybody else; that is accomplished by the proletariat's manifest leadership in the revolution against capitalism, and by the fact that the proletariat controls the means of production. The state in the period of transition exists to balance the interests of all classes, including the proletariat.

    However, because this role naturally implies the existence of classes, the state in the period of transition is fundamentally incompatible with the proletariat's historic mission: a community without classes. It is thus in the interests of the state in the period of tranisition to preserve classes as such, while it is in the proletariat's interest to do away with them. This is why it is important for the proletariat to maintain its physical (armed) independence from the state, as well as its political organs of struggle (councils and party), which must also remain independent.

    Does this government consist of a voluntary agreement between government and governed?
    If you're talking about a "social contract", then no. The period of transition between capitalism and communism was entered into as a result of the proletariat's struggle with capitalism (along the way, the proletariat may or may not bring other non-exploiting classes along with it), and communism itself is entered into as a result of the proletariat's struggle against its own proletarian-ness, and the existence of classes itself. Over the whole world, and certainly in most countries, the proletariat probably makes up a minority (this is due to the industrial-development situation at the beginning of capitalism's slide into decadence, which slowed proletarianization in both the industrial and developing countries, and then due to the beginning of its decomposition, which began an epoch of de-proletarianization). However, it must be said that the period of transition is one of constant and continuing struggle (if sometimes low-level) against class itself, in which stability is rare and short-lived. Communism, of course, abolishes "government of [men over] men" and substitutes "government [men over] things".
  8. Devrim
    Devrim - 2nd August 2009, 12:06
    I see the state and the councils as two different things. The latter is the organised power of the working class. However, the proletariat can't completely disenfrancise all non-explotinig classes. There will be peasants' councils as well as workers' councils. To the extent that the state is the collectivity of these classes it is a conservative force in that it represents class which do not have communism as a material interest. The dictatorship of the workers' councils must be exercised independently and if neccesarily against the state.

    Devrim
  9. Gustav HK
    Gustav HK - 2nd August 2009, 21:55
    So the state under the transistionary period will be a state of all classes? Is that possible?
  10. Misanthrope
    Misanthrope - 2nd August 2009, 22:39
    Thanks for the help guys. I really appreciate it.
  11. zimmerwald1915 - 3rd August 2009, 02:14
    So the state under the transistionary period will be a state of all classes? Is that possible?
    I wouldn't say that. The condition that creates a "class state" is the existence of an exploiting class. In a period where classes still exist but where no class is exploitive, the state does not align itself with one particular class. This does not make the state a "state of all classes", since the state's interest in self-preservation is contradictory to the proletariat's interest in the abolition of classes. However, the other classes cannot become ruling classes because of the proletariat's independent, and armed, position which inhibit's the state's ability to enforce its will.
  12. Invincible Summer
    Invincible Summer - 20th September 2009, 02:48
    I see the state and the councils as two different things. The latter is the organised power of the working class. However, the proletariat can't completely disenfrancise all non-explotinig classes. There will be peasants' councils as well as workers' councils. To the extent that the state is the collectivity of these classes it is a conservative force in that it represents class which do not have communism as a material interest. The dictatorship of the workers' councils must be exercised independently and if neccesarily against the state.

    Devrim
    What's the difference between a "worker's council" and a "union?"
  13. ls
    ls - 24th September 2009, 01:46
    I see the state and the councils as two different things. The latter is the organised power of the working class. However, the proletariat can't completely disenfrancise all non-explotinig classes. There will be peasants' councils as well as workers' councils. To the extent that the state is the collectivity of these classes it is a conservative force in that it represents class which do not have communism as a material interest. The dictatorship of the workers' councils must be exercised independently and if neccesarily against the state.

    Devrim
    Is it possible to elaborate on your point about peasants' councils and what you perceive the progressive role of peasants as preferably being? Thanks.
  14. Alf
    Alf - 24th September 2009, 22:47
    In the next revolutionary situation, it's less likely that the peasants as such will see themselves as a distinct force in the way they did in Russia in 1917 - the peasants have been profoundly decomposed during the period of capitalist decay. In Russia the 'progressive' role they played was as a support to the uprising of the workers, since this undermined the power of the old landowners. But with the dividing up of the land, a measure the Soviet power was obliged to tolerate, there was always the threat that the peasants would turn against the revolution to defend their smallholdings. So in that sense the 'progressive' role of the peasant rebellion was rather limited.
    The point Devrim made remains: the working class may be organised in councils, but it can't simply prevent other non-exploiting classes and strata from being involved in the running of the post-revolutionary power. As much as possible the working class should not call on these strata to organise as classes but as a general population, through assemblies and councils based on neighbourhoods and villages. The overall structure emerging from these councils is what we see as the basic framwork of the transitional state.
    I hope that makes sense. it's a bit late at night here....
  15. MilitantWorker
    MilitantWorker - 25th September 2009, 14:13
    What's the difference between a "worker's council" and a "union?"
    I'll leave some room for the other comrades to elaborate but, basically the union is a defensive organ of struggle for the proletariat. In this period of capitalism they are no longer progressive organizations. They are now used as tools of the bourgeoisie and its state apparatus almost as an extension of management.

    ...on the other hand...

    Worker's councils would be and have been organic proletarian institutions, usually formed on the factory or shop floor, and are used as revolutionary organs of struggle against the state and bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Discussion, (re-callable) delegation w/ rotation, and decision-making are all aspects of the worker's councils. Groups of workers who organize themselves and create organic means to struggle against capitalism directly are revolutionary, while groups of workers who are encouraged to unionize by their bosses and go on to demand higher pay and so on are not necessarily revolutionary.

    I hope some other comrades could add what I have left out, it's 9 am and I'm still asleep ...