Questions about the state

This is just something I have been thinking about for awhile. While I do advocate communism as the ideal system there's something I've been thinking about: I do agree with Marx that there needs to be a transition stage between capitalism and communism. However, I also agree with the an-coms that often this state just ends up being too authoritarian. Is it possible to have a non-authoritarian socialist transition phase?

Secondly, relating to my first point some non-marxists in discussions I've been having brought up some interesting points. Because this transition stage becomes authoritarian how does a state just "wither away"? Keep in mind this was coming from people who have little faith in governments to begin with, but they think once a government takes power they won't step down.

The state doesn't 'wither away' due to some benevolent bureaucrats deciding to give up their jobs, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state. The state is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony (for example, I believe it was Marx who stated that capitalism could also be called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and there are certain material conditions which give rise to it, ie: it is a by product of class society. As materialists, it is then easy to see that when the material conditions which give rise to the state (class society) have disappeared, the state will no longer have any purpose for existing (given that it is a by product of class society) and society will become a stateless, classless, society of free producers.

Maybe it's these non-communists who had the misunderstanding then because I was thinking it was something to do with that, essentially the bourgeoisie establishing a state since they have the power and money to do so. However, it goes back to my other point again. Had there been worldwide revolutions had the authoritarian states in places like the USSR disappeared? That seems to be where people lose faith in marxism, thinking that a state like that would never give up power.

Had there been a success internationally of the proletariat against bourgeois power, yes, the state would cease to exist. On another note, the Stalinist states were not proletarian dictatorships, so it's useless to talk about the "abolition of the state" in regards to those regimes (which were essentially bourgeois dictatorships)

The authoritarian/libertarian scale is a false dichotomy.

How so? Do elaborate.

I know this wasn't asked to me, but I figured I would answer this as well since it is an important question asked quite a bit around here.

The reason it is a false dichotomy is because while some things may be quite libertarian to one group, they may be intensely authoritarian to another. The best example of this is the confiscation of bourgeois property. This is something every revolutionary leftist agrees with, because it is a necessary act for the liberation of the proletariat. While this act is libertarian to the proletariat, it is extremely authoritarian to the bourgeoisie. The best quote on this, I think, comes from Amadeo Bordiga in his writing on dialectics.

It absolutely isn't. Bordiga was full of shit. In a (Socialist) revolution; the workers exercise authority over the bourgeoisie, by casting off bourgeois rule, and seizing the means of production. However; merely exercising authority does not necessarily make one an; 'authoritarian.' 'Authoritarianism' is characterized by a monolithic concentration of power in the hands of a minority, and blind, unconditional submission to said authority. As the working class constitute the overwhelming majority of the population, and real Socialism necessitates that the workers, themselves, as opposed to some unaccountable elite, control, and administer the means of production, (as well as everything else) in a democratic fashion; it is, categorically impossible for a genuinely Socialist revolution to be; 'authoritarian.'

Yes, I think it is, though it is necessary to point out that the stabilization of such a state (no pun intended :D) of affairs will certainly be subject to immense pressures. It is the duty of communists to uphold and argue for proletarian democracy within (and without) the class wide organs of power, the workers' councils. Somewhat of a catalyst role I'd say.

I'd add that what is absolutely crucial here is the international scope of the revolution.

The pressures I mention, such as the historical weight of the petty proprietor peasants, would be most certainly alleviated, and industrialiazation of Russia could have been totally different.

This is relevant insofar as we acknowledge the importance of concrete economic and social conditions - that it is precisely these that give rise to one kind or another of a state. Alongside that, such a situation would definitely enable a more effective and resolute fight against the usurping bureaucracy.

After all, if a group would never give up power, they may be forced to do so in the end.

Bordiga was essentially ambivalent on the issue of workers' power through councils and factory committees (to regulate day to day operations within a workplace) and party dictatorship. This is relevant here I think.

Hey, it's me! I never saw that, thanks!

A scale is not a dichotomy by definition.
The deployment of authority is not contrary to libertarianism either.

Both Marx and Engels (and also Lenin) writes that the dictatorship of the proletariat (ie. the Paris Commune) is not a state proper but still a state in some aspect.

So what are these different aspects of the state? It seems to be:
1. Class dictatorship (organised monopoly force in the hands of the workers)
2. Bureaucracy

And they all seem to advocate that the second aspect should be abolished with or soon after the revolution. Down with the standing army and bureaucracy. Replace with workers militias and democracy. Instead of an hierarchic top-down order the officals (like judges, chief of police, administrators etc) are elected from beneath. The state ceases to be an independent organ above the structures of everyday life.

But it keeps control. It keeps utilising dictatorial force, to supress capitalism and reactionary elements and clear the way for communism.

I do believe it's likely that such a state would wither away with communist development. But our duty during this phase is to be very vigilant and prevent any development of the provisional state into a state proper.

Post 52, it explains everything!

Yes, it is called the revolution.

The state is always authoritarian, you cannot change that. The only way for there to be a non-authoritarian transitional stage between capitalism and socialism is for it to be stateless. In order to have have a libertarian system, you must always do away with the state. I can also prove to you why a transitional phase that uses a state is never going to result in socialism, but only if you ask me.

It doesn't. The state does not wither away, it never happened, it cannot happen, the state will not allow it. The state does not wither away, it can only be abolished through revolution.

It isn't true of course.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of doing away with the state, the reason that it didn't in Russia is that the revolution failed. Not because it 'used the state' but because it did not spread.


The state cannot do other than whither away when the conditions for the existence of the state have been destroyed (that is, property and therefore classes). How can there be a state that has no material basis? It's not a ghost floating about over the heads of society imposing itself on us all. It's not a god.

I'd agree that it has never whithered away, but that's because neither the Paris Commune, nor the revolutions of 1917-27, nor the Anarchist collectives in Spain, ever overthrew world capitalism. Thus - all past revolutions have failed. To claim that means revolution is impossible is to a grave error.

What you need to realize is that the; 'state' that Marx refers to is not a monolithic, bureaucratic centralized government, as in; 'nation-state', but, rather; a decentralized, direct democracy of the working class. So, in actuality; there is no disagreement, here.

My issues with this can pretty much be summed up by exactly what happened to the Paris Commune. Due to incidents like that alone I do believe there needs to be some kind of state during transition. I just disagree with many of the authoritarian measures that were used by people like Stalin and Mao.

It probably didn't since there wasn't worldwide socialism, too many forces both internal and external were trying to undermine every socialist revolution that existed.