Results 1 to 20 of 53
M-Ls: Could you please provide an example of where the state has 'withered away'?
So let me begin by saying I'm not trying to attack anyone, just looking for examples here. I frequently here Leninists say that state socialism is necessary until capitalist opposition ceases and the states can "wither away", meaning society can move into full communism. It seems in past examples of leninist ideology the state never did wither away or even hint at doing so. Yes I know nations like Russia were going through modernization and whatnot which made things more difficult, but surely this should have been factored in by Leninists at the time right? Even so, if the state truly does "wither away" under state socialism, are there any actual examples of it? And if not (and if you think it didn't in the past for various reasons like "that country was still developing"), what leads you to believe that such a "withering away of the state" would actually occur in the future under state socialism (as opposed to a vanguard party's authority corrupting them, leading to another Russia, or China 2.0 or something along those lines)?
For the record, I would (as an anarchist) gladly participate in any communist revolution where I could actually be convinced that the state would actually wither away leading to full communism (as opposed to the revolution merely leading to state capitalism). So please don't dismiss me as merely being sectarian here; I'm just looking for answers.
The Paris commune had a semi-state, so it was in the process of withering away. Also, why is this only for MLs?
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Sorry, it should actually be for all communists who support the implementation of state socialism leading to a withering away of the state. M-Ls were just the most major supporters of that that jumped out at me.
No, that's a ridiculous strawman, skybutton. First of all, "Leninists" don't say that "state socialism" is necessary. Nope.
As for examples, what? Why would anyone have wanted the state to "wither away" in Russia? The vast majority of the world was under the bourgeoisie's control. The bourgeoisie, with its armies that numbered in the millions, could have restored the capitalists' and landowners' rule in a few weeks if Russia didn't have an army to protect itself. And that's just one example at the top of my head. How does your question make any sense?
Don't be silly, the state cannot whither away in isolation.
Is the meaning of this socialism in one country is impossible if a country is surrounded by capital's states?
Well if they didn't actually want the state to wither away, then how can they be considered true Marxists, if a key part of Marx's ideology was that the state ought to wither away.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but it's been my understanding that M-Ls do support state socialism. If not, then could you please tell me how Leninist ideology differs from state socialism and is not a type of it?
Is the goal of socialism not communism? Seeing as communism involves a world in which the state has withered after socialism, how could the Bolsheviks possibly have seen a socialist state that didn't seek to achieve communism as Marxist to begin with?
If my argument is fallacious please call me on it, but I assure you I'm not trying to discredit Leninism with strawman arguments. I'm merely trying to understand how a true communist can advocate no transition from socialism into communism via the withering away of the state that Marx advocated.
Am I the only one who sees the paradoxes here?
-Socialism in one country impossible to maintain forever due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world
-They needed to maintain socialism in Russia (one country) because they couldn't wither away the state due to capitalist opposition in the surrounding world
-Can't strive for communism (through the withering away of the state) with socialism in only one country (Russia) because of opposition in the surrounding world that would ruin it
-The goal of socialism is communism
The state shouldn't be understood as something that can be willed in or out of existence. It is something that exists as a result of certain societal conditions, namely class antagonisms. The state comes into existence to mediate class conflict, to serve as the bastion of the ruling class's interests, and to provide an ideological or legal justification for the status quo or existing state of things.
The "withering away" narrative that you find among Marxists relates to this by basing itself on the premise laid out above. If the state exists to preserve the existing state of class relationships then it makes sense that any state of affairs where the workers are trying to preserve their revolutionary class dictatorship pending the unfurling of broader conditions that make socialism possible (international revolution) does indeed constitute a state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a semi-state, though, because whereas the state of class societies exists to preserve and justify the existing contradictions in society, the proletarian state exists only to preside over their neutralization.
The problem with the anarchist critique is that it supposes that we can indeed will the state in or out of existence. That before the dismantlement of global capitalism, we can create a tiny pocket socialism, which ironically constitutes a half-similarity between them and Stalinists even if their conceptions of what socialism is are different. It also kind of suggests that the state exists consciously on its own merit, to preserve itself, and has no relationship to class society, it just kinda exists as some kind of outgrowth of existing society. But if that is true, then that must mean that capitalism can be organized statelessly, which I don't see myself ever being ready to consider very persuasive.
Aha thanks for the feedback, I had not previously understood Marx's idea of "withering away the state" as being conditional.
The "tiny pocket of socialism" that anarchists strive for is not unlike other socialists necessarily. It'd be unrealistic to expect that an anti-capitalist revolution is going to occur around the entire globe at the exact same time, so of course there'd be times where some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not. The goal however is to expand that socialism to the world (in the case of anarchists, stateless socialism). I think us anarchists differ pretty widely on how we believe areas converted to socialism would be protected from capitalists before the entire world was converted to socialism. Personally, I'd support a common front whereas revolutionaries of different sects would agree to protect each other post-revolution, regardless of their own country was post-revolution (e.g. council communists and other libertarian-leaning leftists from such as common front [but from a pre-revolutionary region of the world] fighting to maintain anarcho-communism in a post-revolution region, and vice versa). This is unlike Stalinism in that it strives specifically for global revolution via a cooperative common front. This is certainly not an idea that all anarchists share, making how to protect post-revolution anarchist regions from capitalism (while aiding in global revolution) a variable amongst anarchists. However, while dealing with such a matter is a variable amongst, it does not mean that anarchists have no way of dealing with it in general. Additionally, I do not believe anarchy to be ignoring the state's relationship to class society. It merely states that society can exist cohesively with systems of governance other than the aforementioned state.
That's why you think that there are 'state socialists'. It's unfortunately true that the revolution will not result in simultaneous seizures of power everywhere. What is the proletariat to do when it has seized power in one place but not everywhere? It can't institute 'socialism' - so, no, contrary to your expectation there aren't times when 'some of the globe was socialist while other parts were not', socialism in one country is impossible, socialist society depends on the end of capitalism.
No, the goal is to expand the revolution. There is no 'socialism'.
Not while it's at war it can't. Not while production to help people survive while the world revolution is occurring it can't.
From the point where the working class (whether they're Marxists or anarchists or have no particular methodological framework and are just pissed of and determined to do something about an intolerable situation - I don't care because it doesn't matter which) seizes control in a particular place, to the completion of the destruction of capitalism and the state worldwide, that's the world civil war/world revolution.
While the world revolution is going on, the working class needs to organise society - production and distribution (food electricity gas petrol medicine etc); it needs to fight the encircling capitalist powers trying to attack the revolutionary territory; it needs to spread the revolution into the areas where the working class is not politically in control. It does this through its own state, because the state cannot (yet) 'whither away', because property and classes (which underpin the existence of the state) continue, and the revolutionary territory itself stands opposed to other territorial states.
So if you think that the revolution will not be simultaneous, what other choice does the working class have? States can't cease to be in a vacuum, because the gap will be filled by another state. Like a bubble bursting, when surrounded by other bubbles, they just move in to fill the gap. A post-revolutionary 'state' (of a kind) is a necessity; not a choice, but something that cannot be dispensed with, because the conditions that create states haven't been done away with. Only when property has all been collectivised, and therefore all classes done away with, can the state (in the end, an emination of a class society) 'whither away'. This has never happened; so how could the state 'whither away'?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
When the proletariat has seized control in one region, do you still consider that region to be capitalist then? What system of governance do you implement after the proletariat has done this? If not a socialist one, then what? Socialism in one country wouldn't be stable as it would either need to expand or cease to exist, but what would you call regions of the world that don't have a capitalist economy even while the world in general is largely capitalist? You're not going to have a global revolution everywhere, as you've recognized. "Revolution" is not a form of governance. You can't have the a society run by "revolution" a system of governance (when the proletariat has taken over that area but not all areas), even while trying to spread revolution. You have to advocate either a capitalist or a socialist or a communist government for the areas that the proletariat has taken over (before "global revolution") if you want a state.
Also, what makes you say that a state has to be what spreads global revolution? In fact, wouldn't states just build up more opposition due to the fact that they'd exercise authority over many people's lives causing even more resistance?
Skybutton, the state has never withered away. The state does not do that, it can only be abolished. You know this, you are anarchist.
I will help you with this discussion, because you seem to be horribly outnumbered.
The creation of an army does not necessarily come from a state. There is such a thing as a militia.
The leninists are those who think the Soviet Union during Lenin's time was a workers state, when evidently it was not, unless they consider a workers state is a dictatorship of the communist party over the proletariat.
The question does make sense, because anarchist theory states the state can never wither away, it must be abolished through revolution. He is asking for an explanation, not attacks to his ideology. If you are not willing to provide him with the explanation you are worthless in this thread.
I'm going to quote myself, cause I'm lazy, blah:
It can't be willed in or out of existance, but it can wither away?
Yeah, I reckognise this part of marxist theory.
Now let's see: The state can only dissapear when classes and property are abolished, but state will try to maintain these things which are fundamental for its existance; then we have the problem of classes and property not being able to be abolished in one country, which means the state can only be abolished after world revolution. This is problematic because it means you cannot change a thing unless the whole world follows you.
Yet one can set up a commune in the middle of a capitalist world and work in anarchy. How can communism only be implanted either in small communities or in the whole world?
So you support the dictatorship of the communist party?
If only someone had informed the bolsheviks about that...
Lies! The state has to be abolished with the revolution. When the revolution comes we must collectivise, abolish the state, and fight the invaders and fascists, all at the same time.
You often speak of how anarchists think the state is a mythical entity, but you are the ones who say it has the power to fight for its own destruction.
Capitalism can be organised statelessly, but that would lead to world control by companies, or dictatorship of the corporation. Instead of a state you have a corporation. I wonder if that can still be considered stateless.
You still haven't explained the Paris Commune to me!
The state has never withered away because capitalism has never been fully overthrown internationally. The DotP will have to exist has long as capitalism and imperialism exist throughout the world. At that point the state will "wither away" as it's put.
Freedom before Peace
Yes, once classes No longer exist, the state will cease to have a purpose, so will wither away.
Classes need to be abolished world wide for this to happen, as an army is required.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
'Socialism' isn't a polical form or 'system of government', it's an economic form.
What does 'want' have to do with it? States 'wither away' when the conditions that create states have been done away with, not before. Anyone can announce the abolition of the state - but without abolishing property relations, then the abolition of the state is a meaningless gesture.
Communism (AKA socialism) is a system that post-dates capitalism. Capitalism has never been abolished, so socialist society has never been established. There is no 'socialist' government.
What do you mean, 'states spread global revolution'? The working class spreads global revolution. But the working class can't 'abolish the state' any more than it can abolish gravity.
States are a reflection of class relations, so while there are different classes, there must be a state (there can't not be a state). So, the working class can't not have a state, if it exists as a class there must also be a state.
Only when the working class has seized power everywhere (when it has established control over the whole of the world economy and all states) can property be abolished. When there is no more property, then there are no more classes (because classes are an expression of different relationships to property). It's only after the successful world revolution that the working class can abolish the property system - ie capitalism - because capitalism is a world system. It needs to be abolished in totality, you can't just do away with it in one place.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
