Marxism-Leninism and the state.

[FONT=Verdana]From a Marxism-Leninism point of view what will happen to the state, when we reach communism. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I'm happy to see that there are still people on this forum. What you all just posted is the same thing that the anarchists say. So why do they always calls Marxist-Leninists, state-capitalists?[/FONT]

Because theyre tards whose worldview has been influenced by bourgeois propaganda. When they call us state-capitalists, its really a manifestation of the desire to distance themselves from the perceived evil that was the USSR.

So all of us Marxist-Leninists, belive that there will be a day when we will not need goverment, just like we will not need weapons? I don't see that day ever coming, so I have a hard time seeing a future with out a state. From what I understand The Soviet Union was the best state around. So why should we lose it.

So all of us Marxist-Leninists, belive that there will be a day when we will not need goverment, just like we will not need weapons? I don't see that day ever coming, so I have a hard time seeing a future with out a state. From what I understand The Soviet Union was the best state around. So why should we lose it.

At one time, nobody ever imagined that slavery would end. At one time, nobody ever imagined women would ever get the right to vote. Do you kind of get where I am going with this?

A statless society is perplexing to our minds because we've never seen anything like this on a large scale. But just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean it is not possible.

Communism is the highest point of society, thus, we must strive for that goal comrade.

Comrade_Stalin, you should read Lenin's "The State and Revolution" one of his (if not the) most important works. Lenin deals with the question of the state generally, the socialist state, its necessity, organisation, functions and purpose and finally the necessity of its "withering away" to achieve communism. He also outlines the differences Marx and Engels had with the anarchists and where our views differ.

[FONT=Verdana]

Well if you don't believe in a stateless society, you are not a Communist.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]That is a good question, because after talking with some of the people out their I believed that I was not a communist. But after reading Lenin's "The State and Revolution" I believe that I am one. It would have been nice to have him as a teacher; we seem to think a lot alike.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

At one time, nobody ever imagined that slavery would end. At one time, nobody ever imagined women would ever get the right to vote. Do you kind of get where I am going with this?

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]A statless society is perplexing to our minds because we've never seen anything like this on a large scale. But just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean it is not possible.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Communism is the highest point of society, thus, we must strive for that goal comrade.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]We imagined it. Not only did we imagine it, we also figured out how to do it. You need to figure out where you’re going to figure out how to get there.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Comrade_Stalin, you should read Lenin's "The State and Revolution" one of his (if not the) most important works. Lenin deals with the question of the state generally, the socialist state, its necessity, organisation, functions and purpose and finally the necessity of its "withering away" to achieve communism. He also outlines the differences Marx and Engels had with the anarchists and where our views differ.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Thank you a lot Rjevan that answer a lot of question. My problem was that I was think that the state and the government are one in the same. Which also seems to be supported by the btpound and The Duck That Goes Quack. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]But I still have some problems with understanding Lenin train of thought. First I understand that there is a difference between the state and the government/administration. But have a hard time understanding how the government will enforce anything without the state. From what I understand, the state is armed bodies of men, the legitimate armed force in any region. This includes jails, courts, police, and the military. The state exists solely as a tool for one class to suppress another. I can see this form an economic point of view. As the number of enemy goes down, the need for armed bodies also go down. But I can’t understand how it would go to zero. Which is at odd with something else that he was writing that even at the last stage we will still need armed bodies to fight against the opportunists. [/FONT]

I recommend Engels' pamphlet "On Authority,"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx.../authority.htm

I recommend Engels' pamphlet "On Authority,"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx.../authority.htm

[FONT=Verdana]Could you guy list the synonyms for what Marx and Lenin mean by the state. It not the military, as he think that they should still be around to fight opportunists, and it is not the government, as he believes that some on should still be running the boat. The closes synonym that I could find is bureaucracy, as it is a left over from the capitalist system, and is normally in the way of the government from getting things do.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Could you guy list the synonyms for what Marx and Lenin mean by the state. It not the military, as he think that they should still be around to fight opportunists, and it is not the government, as he believes that some on should still be running the boat. The closes synonym that I could find is bureaucracy, as it is a left over from the capitalist system, and is normally in the way of the government from getting things do.[/FONT]

The state in the capitalist sense is the military and police. Pretty much any legal organ designed to protect and legalize class rule.

What the State a Revolution states is that we need a workers state. But once the workers take power, the state is no longer a state in the proper sense. It's been smashed and removed its parasitic limbs, for the sake of maintaining a dictatorship of the proletariat.

So if it our military and police, it just not a "state"? Sounds like a double standard to me.

In the Marxist sense, the state is armed bodies of men. That is the state. It is the legitimate use of force in an area. It is the police, the jails, the court system, the military, etc. It sounds more like you are talking about administration. I don't know if the administration will ever go away all together. But the reason administration is needed at all is to preform the tasks the workers cannot preform themselves. So the less specialized everyone is. The more the basic operations of society become general, the less you need the administration.

The reason the state is needed at all, is to suppress the bourgeois counter-revolution. If the bourgeois no longer exist, and the conditions that generate the bourgeoisie don't exist, then you don't need a state. But i do think it is more complex then "state and rev" makes it seem. Just because the bourgeoisie don't exist doesn't mean that class antagonisms don't. There is still the divisions between manual and mental labor. The division between rural and urban workers. The division between the administration, "the party", and the people. Again, as the functions of society become more general, class antagonisms will ultimately disappear.

The real question is: how do you de-specialize society?

[FONT=Verdana]The “capitalist sense” is government and everything to do with the government is a state. This includes the military and the police as they are normally a part of the government. This is because the government in most cases pays their wages, supplies, and equipment. Revleft has different senses for the word “State” with is only the military and police. Now in the Marxism sense the state is a armed body of men, which would mean that PMC (Private military companies) are states. Also any militia would also be a state. This has to be wrong as Lenin point out, we will still need a armed body of people (both men and women). As are “Sense” stands now the State will never wither away. Lenin points out that the state is a “special machine”. If it was a simply as an armed group of people, then why did he not write it in “The State and Revolution”? The state as I understand it from Lenin is not the government or any of its part, but something we do to it. From my understanding so far, the “State” is specializing the government. So btpound is right the real question is de-specialize society, and it seems to start, with the government.[/FONT]

You're right. These private military companies are a state. They are part of the overall bourgeois state, because they are integrated into a system that compells them to defend the current ruling class. I don't think Lenin says they will never go away, but that eventually there will come a time when even the functions of the state become general. And disruptions will be settled, "like a crowd that breaks up the ravaging of a woman." The "government" is a term that includes the both the "state" and the "administration", in that the administration has control of the state.

I think we should just admit that we don't know how the state will wither away, and try to examine how we can achieve this. With certain laws? Term limits for office? Tell everyone they can only have their job for a year at a time? What are your thoughts?

You're right. These private military companies are a state. They are part of the overall bourgeois state, because they are integrated into a system that compells them to defend the current ruling class. I don't think Lenin says they will never go away, but that eventually there will come a time when even the functions of the state become general. And disruptions will be settled, "like a crowd that breaks up the ravaging of a woman." The "government" is a term that includes the both the "state" and the "administration", in that the administration has control of the state.

I think we should just admit that we don't know how the state will wither away, and try to examine how we can achieve this. With certain laws? Term limits for office? Tell everyone they can only have their job for a year at a time? What are your thoughts?

The goverment, does not all ways control the state then. PMC can work for anyone, as long as they have the money to pay them. How you define the "goverment" makes me question, if the USA has a goverment. As most of the time the "state" ius used by some else then the "adiministration".

I have a problem with Term limits as people stop doing their jobs and try to get re-elected.

The state is the forces who hold the monopoly of violence, the ones who can legitimize its use through institutions of power.

[FONT=Verdana]Then "Wither away the State" is nothing more than reducing your military, as the number of enemies goes down. Make sense to me. But this would mean that we would will all ways have a state, in one form or other.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Then "Wither away the State" is nothing more than reducing your military, as the number of enemies goes down. Make sense to me. But this would mean that we would will all ways have a state, in one form or other.[/FONT]

No, since communism is a classless society the state is unnecessary and will automatically cease to exist in communism. The state was, is and always will be a tool for class oppression. As Lenin puts it: "the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another". So while it is clear that we need a state in socialism as an organ of class rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to oppress one class (the bourgeoisie), we ultimately aim at a classless society. Once this aim is reached the state, which only existed to work towards this society and therefore its own end, "withers away" automatically since there is no class left to oppress as well as there is no class left to be oppressed.

[FONT=Verdana]

No, since communism is a classless society the state is unnecessary and will automatically cease to exist in communism. The state was, is and always will be a tool for class oppression. As Lenin puts it: "the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another". So while it is clear that we need a state in socialism as an organ of class rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to oppress one class (the bourgeoisie), we ultimately aim at a classless society. Once this aim is reached the state, which only existed to work towards this society and therefore its own end, "withers away" automatically since there is no class left to oppress as well as there is no class left to be oppressed.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Let’s say that we produce advance communism, in a nation, but not over the world, would we still have a state, even thought there are no longer any classes in our country? Also "the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another", is still very general way to define the state. It could ably to anything. The division in the government is one, as there have never been equal but separate, branches of government. This would lead to one group becoming more powerful then other, and setting up classes. It could also ably to the military, as they have a “monopoly of violence”. It could also ably to who is in the military. The State from this point of view is those people who make their living in the military. Now this “withers away” would make senses, as you would not wish one group to hold all the power and set up a new system of classes. But this would mean that there are nations out their will lower or no state as some military use conscription. [/FONT]