What is the State? Is it an oppressive bureaucracy in which controls & exploits those who are oppressed under said State, or does it act as a tool for the oppressed to re-oppress the bureaucracy in which threaten their very lives? In other words, is it State A or State B? Well, under these two enactions, we are only visualizing the State based on its actions, but the reasoning behind said actions remains unclear, until now. If one was to ask "the anarchist" (& please understand that, when I say "the anarchist", I am only referring to the majority of anarchists, whereas the minority of anarchists, as I have witnessed, see the State under a Marxist analysis) on what they see as the State, they clearly define it under the ideal that it "naturally" operates itself - as I have defined it - as State A. But is the State, as "the anarchist" defines it, under such a natural order?
How exactly does something act under a "natural order"? Well, if one was to look at it under religious terms, one would say the State acts under its own embodiment, in which is clearly illogical & untrue. If one puts it under a scientific perspective, then one would realize that the State acts merely based on those who control it. Meaning, if the State acted under a natural order, the natural order would have to be first created by those who control the State. All this does is create another religious fixation on the State, as "the anarchist" has defined it, for it bases itself under the belief of "human nature", instead of human conditioning. So does that mean State A acts under a religious fixation? Quite the opposite, for the State, as I have defined it under State A, is clearly different than how "the anarchist" defines State A. State A, as I have defined it, acts under a set of present conditions instead of, as "the anarchist" defines it, under a natural order.
So does that mean that State B, while under contradiction from State A, is untrue? No. And this is where things get interesting. The State enacts itself under both State A & State B. Though, because both State A & State B are in contradiction from one another, that would mean there's a contradiction between both set of conditions in which both States operate under. But what are State B's set of conditions, & why are they in contradiction from State A's set of conditions? To understand this transition from State A to State B, one must first understand how both Marx & Engels defined it. State A - or the bourgeois State as Marx defines it - must be abolished as the conclusion from violent revolution, in which the proletarian class - working class - enacts itself as rulers of the State. What both State A & State B have in common is their acts of oppressment. Where, under State A, oppressment is lead by the bureaucratic elite against the working class, oppressment, under State B, is lead by the working class against the reactionary, elitist elements who had survived after the conclusion of violent revolution. This is the contradiction between State A & State B's set of conditions. As the conclusion to the newly conditioned State of oppressment, State B does not then become abolished like State A did, but rather State B merely withers away, for it no longer has any need by those that controlled it, nor to act against those that opposed it.
So in conclusion, where "the anarchist" see's the State as their "natural" enemy, in which leads them to the ideal that the State must be abolished immediately, we can logically find ourselves to oppose such a flawed ideal. Whereas we understand the State through three things, under a scientific analysis:
- the State does not act under a natural order;
- there is more than one kind of State;
- both States operate under a different set of conditions which contradict from one another.
- Because of this understanding, we, the working class, know how to rid ourselves from the State through the proper set of conditions & proper set of actions.
"As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight." ~Friedrich Engels
Red Love & Salutes!
