How would the state step down?

[safeduck]

Lets just assume for a minuite : most of the world have achieved socialism. We are now ready to govern ourselves and transition into communism. Would the state really step down? Why would they agree to throw away their power and if they would, how?
thanks.

[Bronco]

No of course they wouldn't voluntarily give up their power, that's what the Revolution is for

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You're going to get different answers depending on the specific tendency of the person replying.

I assume you're addressing the Marxist-Leninist variation of socialism, in which case a Marxist-Leninist would be a better person to answer. I'd be more inclined to side with Bronco; if the coercive state exists, the revolution failed or is incomplete.

[Ostrinski]

There would be nothing to necessitate this "stepping down," as it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.

[Caj]

it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.

Lol

And how exactly is that going to happen? Do you seriously believe that the State is just going to vanish the moment it becomes obsolete? That's absurd in the highest degree.

[Ocean Seal]

It doesn't step down, it doesn't immediately just disappear when it becomes obsolete, but through institutions of workers power the state becomes less and less present in affairs and if it is less necessary, less labor time is allocated to its interests and thus it *slowly* fades into the background.

[GPDP]

Well, I would imagine if the revolution was genuinely socialist, then the socialist state would be controlled by the workers themselves. Thus, if the workers decide to dismantle the state, then it will be dismantled, simple as. Talking about a situation where the state in socialism refuses to dissolve is absurd for that very reason. There wouldn't be an entrenched bureaucracy separate from the workers, and if there is, it's not really socialism, now is it?

This is the point where anarchists go on to say "well, then that's not a state." IMO, it becomes a semantical argument at this point.

[Caj]

This is the point where anarchists go on to say "well, then that's not a state." IMO, it becomes a semantical argument at this point.

Exactly. It seems that the differences between anarchists and left-communists/libertarian Marxists really boil down to differences regarding the definitions of terms like "State" and "political".

[Ostrinski]

The state doesn't exist to perpetuate its own existence. It's an instrument of force used to secure the rule of an economic class. It is not a thing that exists independent of all other phenomena, it can only exist where there is analogue for it. Power is exercised, not held. So if there is no bourgeois-contra threat, state power will not need to be exercised, ergo it will cease to exist.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Exactly. It seems that the differences between anarchists and left-communists/libertarian Marxists really boil down to differences regarding the definitions of terms like "State" and "political".

A post I made a few days ago addressing this issue:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

I referenced the same analysis Brospierre just brought up as well.

[Rooster]

The state is an expression of class society. The whole point of being a communist is to eliminate class society, that means eliminating the state. Not to perpetuate it and then just decide one day "we have socialism!". The revolution goes hand in hand with the destruction of the state, the reduction of it's powers which is centralised power. A state simply can't just be abolished.

[Lanky Wanker]

If "it" doesn't "step down", we'll just ignore it and watch it die on its own while we get on with our lives.

[Thirsty Crow]

Lol

And how exactly is that going to happen? Do you seriously believe that the State is just going to vanish the moment it becomes obsolete? That's absurd in the highest degree.

You do realize that you're pronouncing the materialist conception of history as "absurd in the highest degree" here? Or do anarchists consider themselves something other than materialists?

To expand a bit on this, the proletarian state, the network of territorial councils and workplace committees (I support workers' control - not in the sense of "oversight"), with its procedures of delegation, and the structure of the armed forces become obsolete when:

1) there is no longer a threat of capitalist restoration and/or capitalist aggression

2) when the division of labour receeds

The second condition is dependant upon the conscious efforts of communities as a whole, and policies aiming at this goal (reorganizjng education, job rotation, increase in labour productivity) must be carried through, in my opinion. Here there is a tough nut to crack: the resistance of the stratum we call intelligentsia (one could speak of a new petite bourgeoisie in fact, especially in relation to contemporary capitalist societies), whose privileges and social standing, which implies also a cosncious political action, will most probably be an obstacle.

Of course, I don't identify my politics as Marxist-Leninist, so the basic premise of the thread doesn't really apply, but I must say that I find your approach really simplistic and not at all productive.

[citizen of industry]

Absent of class, without economic inequality or nation states, functions of "state" relate to the production/distribution/conservation of goods and resources. This can be done inclusively and democratically. Without economic inequality there is no incentive for "power." Absent economic inequality, or scarcity, there are no politics, no countries, no armies and no sources or motivation to power.

Take for example a king with a personal brothel, an army and a bunch of gold. The prostitutes work in his brothel because they make better wages there then elsewhere. The soldiers for the same reason, plus they are necessary because the king has to defend his territory/expand it if there is scarcity. The king needs the gold to pay. Without terrotorial divisions and scarcity, the gold is just metal, the prostitutes and soldiers prefer another line of work, and there is no incentive to be king. His administrative functions have to be taken up by the community.

[Revolution starts with U]

If the materialist position denies that people sometimes seek power for power's sake, than the materialist position denies material reality. I know this is true because I have sought power simply becuase I liked being powerful, it gives you a good feeling, one feels important.

I actually agree with how you, Menocchio, said the process will work, how the state will "wither" away as people take more of a stake in their lives and the division of labor begins to be less personal. I just point out the "power for power's sake" side of things to remind people that there will be tyrants claiming socialism, all the while working against the establishment of socialism and the dissolution of the state.

If you think there are not members of this board, your unions, or other organizations who, if given the chance, would stifle genuine worker power to protect their own privelaged position... I think you're being naive.

[Thirsty Crow]

I

I actually agree with how you, Menocchio, said the process will work, how the state will "wither" away as people take more of a stake in their lives and the division of labor begins to be less personal.

I'm not really sure what this means.
To clarify my position a bit, I was referring to the division of labour between cognitive (which implies administrative positions) and physical labour. Which doesn't mean I think there will no longer be a need for hard toil (though, what is very important in my opinion is to automate as many jobs as possible), or that people will sit on their assess all day long and write poetry (not that I think you attributed this view to me, you clearly did not do so), but rather that the social organization of labour will be, and must be, radically refashioned (as I've said, job roatations, constant and conscious pressures from the very beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, shortening of the workday, reorganizing education and so on).

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not really sure what this means.
To clarify my position a bit, I was referring to the division of labour between cognitive (which implies administrative positions) and physical labour. Which doesn't mean I think there will no longer be a need for hard toil (though, what is very important in my opinion is to automate as many jobs as possible), or that people will sit on their assess all day long and write poetry (not that I think you attributed this view to me, you clearly did not do so), but rather that the social organization of labour will be, and must be, radically refashioned (as I've said, job roatations, constant and conscious pressures from the very beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, shortening of the workday, reorganizing education and so on).

By personal I meant singular, as in one guy does this, others do that. I mean, when people start being worker AND boss, and things along those lines.
We're on the same page here, at least on this issue.

[Zav]

There would be nothing to necessitate this "stepping down," as it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.

The State is obsolete now, and spends much of its resources trying to make people think otherwise. Those in power will resist their removal, probably to the death, and so the State must be willfully abolished.

[Ravachol]

The state will never 'step down' nor will it whither away. The state, by definition, is an organ that separates representative from represented and through the machinations of it's apparatuses enforces passivity and management of society through the elite (bureaucratic or otherwise) that controls it's offices. It's functioning is directly antithetical to 'people taking a progressively bigger stake in their own lives' and the very notion of communism, where social affairs are unmediated and administrated collectively. The state as a 'transition phase' will mean 'Communism in 20 years' for ages and ages.

[runequester]

There will always be some manner of administration and governance. When the state "disappears", it does not likely mean that there is no administration (such would render a communist society impossible, since resources could not be distributed throughout society), but that such administration is transparent to the citizens and workers, and that it is governed by them directly. In other words, a true, evolved state of democracy rather than the crony-democracy we experience today.