The state is a tool used by the ruling class, the capitalist class, to maintain it power over another class, the working class. Therefore, when only one class remains then the state will be obsolete and therefore "wither" away.
Results 1 to 20 of 36
The "withering of the state"
Sometimes I feel like debating with communists is like a game of hide and seek - there's been many societies established on communist principles, but criticizing them is a strawman because they were not real communism. They were not real versions of communism because their states never withered away.
So what lessons can be learned from the faux-communisms of the past?
How does the vanguard gracefully vanish to leave only communism behind?
"Marxism is the only contagious mental illness I've ever known. With the possible exception of psychoanalysis." - Jack Kerouac
The state is a tool used by the ruling class, the capitalist class, to maintain it power over another class, the working class. Therefore, when only one class remains then the state will be obsolete and therefore "wither" away.
When talking about the socialist state there was never any true consensus on the subject. Marx and Lenin formulated that the withering away of the proletarian state would happen as a precondition to communism but as to how this would happen they never talked much about. I think this is because it is heavy theory wise and to explore it in any meaningful manner there must be examples which got close to withering way, there hasn't been so far; instead what we got were socialistic states which eventually degenerated into deformed workers states which after after heavy siege by imperialist powers eventually collapsed and had capitalism restored.
THE REV-LEFT STUDY GUIDE PROJECT
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
What we can learn from past experiences of the communist movement now more than ever is that international revolution is vital for the prospects of socialism. They show that the struggle toward a socialist economy, when confined to a regionally circumscribed area, results in developments like Stalinism. I also think that they demonstrate very intensely the necessity of the democratic process as a mechanism for keeping the political decisions of working class organizations the actual sanctions of the working class themselves and so that bureaucratic deformities do not take form that substitute themselves for working class rule.
As far as the whithering away of the state goes: many of its opponents view it thusly (and on second thought, some of its proponents, unfortunately..); that the "state" in question comprises of some junta of bureaucrats that humbly forego their powers and privileges when they decide that it should be so. However, and more fortunately, what we are speaking of is a state run by, of, and for workers and thus comprising of representatives that are accountable and recallable to and by the workers.
A state is the organ of governance that is tasked with maintaining the contradictions and antagonisms of class societies. If a state is in existence, then classes still exist, or at the very least contradictions and antagonisms of the old order have not been neutralized, or new contradictions and antagonisms have developed.
So a worker's state must necessarily be historically unique because it is purposed only with neutralizing the contradictions of the old order, not prolonging and maintaining the contradictions of a new one.
This was always the argument- despite the hypocracy in the formation of various regional socialist parties in the 19th century.
Unfortunately, it does not lead to any other conclusion except that 'stalinism' is the only plausible outcome.
But again, the problem that was faced was not only hostility from the capitalist and imperialist powers (which socialists are forever explaining are very powerful adversaries) but also disagreement amongst the socialists as the proper way forward.
ect ect,
A state is a state. The workers state will perform all the same functions (and then some) as what occurred in the bourgeoise one. The rest is the torturous and ridiculous arguments of Marx on the subject- trying to deny that a duck is a duck.
I feel bad for you here, yea alot of the bad communists argue like this. You can't refute them because there were no real socialist states. Sorry about that but they ought to rename it "No Real Communist" Fallacy in our honor.
But to get to your question. I feel like the best answer is Lenin's that the state should be one that can not help but to wither away, or it should be a form of the state that is nothing more than one class exersizing it's physical force upon the world and it should involve as much direct democracy as possible
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. The question of national self-determination with regard to being a boon to the socialist movement, and the question of socialism being established in one region was not exactly settled until we observed the developments of the Soviet Union in the twentieth century.
If by "regional socialist parties" you mean simply an organization based in one country such as CPUSA or SPD, then that is still not hypocritical even with the fallacy of socialism in one country considered, because it just makes sense from an organizational and strategical perspective to focus your resources on organizing on that level, while still being affiliated with an international, such as the Comintern and Socialist International respectively.
Hopefully you live long enough to see the workers of the world prove you wrong. Obviously from an anti-communist perspective i.e. a perspective that has an interest in a more rapid hush-up of the communist position, it makes perfect sense to posit that Stalinism can be the only outcome because all you and I both have to go on is the historical experience of the 20th century communist movement, which was a failure.
The communist, on the other hand, will of course be tasked with approaching the question with more nuance and even-handed consideration.
Well of course. Such is natural in any movement, you will have disagreements on policy, on strategy, organization, and so on and so forth. For example you had the question on whether to defend Stalin and co. unconditionally, to defend the Soviet Union but not Stalin and co., or to consider it state capitalist, et al. These were very divisive but it's just something one has to deal with.
However differences in opinion on critical matters do not negate the need for democratic decision making or refute the argument that they are necessary. So I am not entirely sure which direction you were wanting to go with this.
Well for example I say to the anarchists all the time that we do not necessarily have to call the revolutionary provisional government a state but by Marxist sociological standards it would nevertheless constitute one.
As far as the worker's state "performing the same functions as the bourgeois states" goes, well that just depends on what functions you have in mind. If the function in question is to maintain in an armed manner the hegemony of a ruling class, then yes, I suppose so, but that is rather vague, ambiguous, and uninsightful. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the necessary functions of the two are quite different in terms of their relationship to their respective societies.
I think the usage of the term semi state is useful because it helps to demonstrate that what we could call a state will and can only exist under worker rule until the neutralization of all the contradictory lasting vestiges of the old order. Furthermore, for all practical purposes and intents it ceases to exist upon this neturalization. To call it a semi-state helps us to understand the historic uniqueness of the worker state being the first mode of class rule to preside over only temporary contradictions and the purposes of eliminating them, not perpetuating them.
Last edited by Ostrinski; 1st January 2013 at 05:38.
Well yes, the truth can be a nuisance. This, however, doesn't entitle you to changed positions on the rest of our parts.
edit: you people owe me and the rest of us. You owe us every minute that we have spent (minutes that we will not get back, mind you) explaining to non-communists that Stalinism=/=communism.
Excuse me, I should have clarified. Of course there were alot of states that were socialist in name only, and there is a great debate between the various strains of Marxism over which states these are and if any of these states were socialist at all. All sides of the debate have put up good arguements and have a degree of merit in all of them. But then you have those "liberals who like Marx" sort of people who read the Communist Manifesto concluded that all of those other Marxists were wrong because they didn't read Marx enough and were too violent, and that we can all just achieve pure communism by sitting in a circle and singing Kumbuh my lord Kumbuya until the bourgeois pity our plight so much that they decide to hand us the means of production on a silver platter
Well, while I adhere to the "was not real communism" I think it's a bit of a cop out to leave it at that. As a Trotskyist I adhere to a rather specific analysis of why the USSR degenerated and the limitations of subsequent stalinist regimes around the world. I stand apart from them politically much like I stand apart from the first generations of reformists in the 2nd International, although admittedly hardly anyone tries to conflate the revolutionaries with the social-patriots. But I think there is a vital historical paralell there, that is the degenaration of the early marxist movement, because, make no mistake virtually everyone of the first generation of marxist reformists proclaimed to be revolutionaries of some kind or other. And yet they, and along with them fairly massive organizations, ended up in the pro-war camp of bourgeoisie.
I am a bit tied for time at the moment, but I will try to be back later.
"I want to say sweet, silly things." - V.I Lenin
Well I think this may be a strawman in of itself although people certaintly do argue - I am one of them - that an attempt was made in Russia to establish socialism and it failed.
I don't see how this is "hide and seek" because if you get in a car to drive to Vegas but end up on the side of the road outside of Baker, it's is both true that an attempt for Vegas was made, but "something" happened which prevented this from actually happening. It could be that the driver had bad directions, it could be that enough gas wasn't planned on, it could be that stopping in Baker was inevitable due to the poor condition of the car, or if it's Stalinist USSR, then the tour guide drove you to Baker and told you it was Vegas so he could pocket the difference in price between hotels in Vegas and Baker. But IMO it doesn't mean any attempt to drive to Vegas will end up as a weekend in Baker.
So I would question this assumption in your post: "been many societies established on communist principles". I would say for many of the so-called socialist countries this was not true at all if socialism is defined as rule by the working class. In Russia this failed, but in many of the later "Communist" states there wasn't any real working class revolution - a natioanlist one if anything. "Not withering away" is not the reason that these states were not socialist (worker's power) but a symptom - specifically of a ruling group that had an interest in maintaining their position and power over the rest of the population.
If you mean countries have used policies that have been associated with socialism, this is true in part, but many capitalist countries in the 20th century also enacted, or were pressured by the population to enforce, similar policies.
Vanguard just means "advanced" so in this context it's committed revolutionaries - if there is a working class revolution than the vanguard in society may play a role because of any organic credibility they may have, but essentially all the revolutionaries are the "vanguard" at that point because a large chunk of the class is in motion and is "advancing". So the concept of a vanguard, or organizing the vanguard, is more about how revolutionaries can operate in non-revolutionary times. If you are just out there unorganized, then chances are you may eventually be drawn away from revolutionary activity because you are isolated and can not have much of an effect, so organizing people like this together, uniting around some common revolutionary ideas, is a way to help maintain revolutionary organizing and try and build for a future mass movement.
I think there are inherent problems with the idea that one group will just grow and then become the sole vanguard organization which then basically steps in as the state. It's a pretty mechanistic view of struggle first of all, but also it's a distorted view of revolution and can IMO be a barrier to actual self-emancipation by workers. The vanguard should help facilitate and encourage this, not smother it. But I do believe it is necissary for revolutionaries to organize and try and learn from eachother, the struggles they are a part of, and coordinate from that.
Well this would be the whole constructive point of discussing any of these questions for radicals. And there's no short answer because essentially many of the modern divisions on the Left in terms of outlook and often strategy have been due to differences in trying to understand and learn from the failed revolutions (and just movements) - both where and how they did make some advances and also why they ultimately failed.
That they were not communism, had nothing to do with communism and were not 'on the road to constructing communism' either.
It doesn't. That's the problem. (though 'vanguard' is a weird term 'cause it doesn't necessarily refer to the 'vanguard party' since it can also designate those sections of the class which are most 'advanced' in the struggle)
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
The latter is NOT the reason you wind up in Baker rather than Vegas.
So why would not the Communists be the most "advanced" section of the class? Indeed, Would it not be odd if any self-described socialist individual, party, or movement did not believe himself or themselves to represent the most "advanced" in the struggle?
Before I begin my response, it is important to understand what the state is, according to a Marxist analysis. That is something that is vitally important to understand for a discussion on this topic.
The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class and creating a superstructure without a state. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.
It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc).
So, with this understanding....
Well, this is just not true. There haven't been many societies established on "communist principles". There are, I would argue, some societies that were working towards communism and were proletarian dictatorships (such as early Bolshevik Russia before the sucess of the counter-revolution due to the isolation of the revolution) but no societies based on a classless, stateless, internationalist, etc. society.
There are a few essential things that can be learned.
1. The revolution has to spread, and cannot be isolated. Socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism.
2. The transition from the proletarian dictatorship to communism must proceed as fast as possible.
Those are the two main things I think we can learn from those societies.
By the vanguard I assume you mean the state. It is different than the way you are making it sound. The state doesn't one day just "abolish" itself, but the semi-state destroys the basis for it's own existence. These include class society, wage labor, etc. After these things are done for, the state itself has lost it's purpose for existing.
EDIT: Here is a quote that I think explains my position fairly well.
Amadeo Bordiga-On The Dialectical Method
Last edited by Brosa Luxemburg; 31st December 2012 at 14:55. Reason: Clarification
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
What exactly are you trying to get at here?
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
Most Leninist Marxists would argue that the working class will take control of the state and use it to assert the dictatorship of the proletariat over the rest of society. Basically that the state will become an instrument to be used in bringing about a classless society. The withering away of the state according to them will happen as communism takes a firm hold in society and the need for coercive power against class enemies is no longer required.
The historical problem with this approach has been that it leads to the state apparatus being used not to bring about a communist society but simply to perpetuate state power itself and leads to a new ruling class.
Being an anarchist I start from the point that the capitalist state apparatus cannot become an instrument of workers power and must be dismantled and that any successful revolution will have within it the beginnings of new forms of social organization.
Last edited by Let's Get Free; 1st January 2013 at 01:58.
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
Actually, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat comes from Karl Marx himself.
You ignore material conditions.
Which is why we Marxists propose SMASHING the capitalist state apparatus, and replacing it with a proletarian variant.
Marx argued for eliminating the bourgeois state as a whole, and replacing with the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists generally tend to advocate conquering existing state power and using it against the ruling class. These two things are not the same. http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state is a good article if you're interested.
