Is "communist state" really an oxymoron?

[Jacob Cliff]

I have traditionally engaged in debates and discussions with an understanding that the Soviet Union (pre-degeneration, which I will consider 1923, given the failure of the German revolution) was not a socialist society, not communist, but rather a state in transition to socialism/communism (and, following its degeneration and being forced to compromise its last vestiges of proletarian dictatorship, in transition to modern capitalist relations). Quotes by Lenin, including his from Tax in Kind (which he touches on somewhat in depth within just the first few paragraphs), readings by Trotsky, essays by Bordiga, and virtually every Marxist writer I've come across has stated they were a state in transition to socialism, not a socialist society.

However, I have been told by other users (Rafiq – though perhaps I have misinterpreted) that a "communist state" is not an oxymoron, that, in fact, the early Soviet government was communist, and has superseded capitalism (not in the sense that it immediately abolished all capitalist relations, but in that their disappearance was made implicit in the struggle for communism). This also seems to make sense, given the annunciation of War Communism and the claim that "Communism equals soviet power plus electrification."

Now, I know the commonly used Gotha quote of Marx ("In between capitalist and communist society can be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat") seems to point to that the proletarian dictatorship is entirely separate from communist society, even lower phase. But it would make little sense if we could declare communism once, say, this or that aspect disappears (or, to put it more succinctly: reducing communism to some ideal to be "achieved" dwells into Utopianism).

So my question is this, fundamentally: is a communist state an oxymoron? Can communism exist even when there is money, wage labor, etc., present in the country, in the sense that these things are doomed to disappear with further development of communism?

My current understanding is that communism is "not a state of affairs to be established," but rather is the movement that abolishes the present state of things. What this seems to imply is that supersession of capitalism does not mean the immediate sweeping away of capitalist relations and bonds, but instead means that these relations and bonds will be unable to reproduce themselves and will die out as a result. So in this sense, I consider the proletarian dictatorship to be congruent with communism in the sense that it facilitates the disappearance of capitalism, not that it abolishes them outright.

I may be rambling, but I'm just trying to fix my on understanding as it is now. So please poke holes in this and correct me where I fall short.

[lutraphile]

Communism is the end state of socialism, which is stateless and classless.

But everyone knows what you fucking mean when you say Communist state, and are just being pedantic.

[Chomskyan]

Socialist state maybe, but communism is stateless and classless. Even though I personally don´t believe the USSR was socialist, I´m willing to say it was. But communist, no I really cannot grant that.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You can have a state ruled by communists, and Soviet Russia in the early 20s was clearly a state ruled by communists. However, there's a question as to whether or not the economic and political system of this state is characterized by a communist economy, and I would say no. I am not sure what would characterize such a state as "Communist", since labor is still exploited, currency still exists and property relations prevail.

If there is such a thing as a communist state, I would say it is one which has begun the process of withering away, not just a state that happens to be ruled by communist revolutionaries. I think the transitional program is the one where we are creating the conditions for the state to "wither"

[Alet]

We are playing with phrases here. The context of stating that this is in oxymoron was always that it is an opposition to silly bourgeois notions of communism. The fact of the matter is that exactly those bourgeois ideologues do not conceive it as a movement. For them it is pretty much "the more state = the more communism", although communism is, in fact, the exact opposite. If anything, a communist state is already a dying state, and this should be emphasized. Whenever we are talking about a communist society, we usually presuppose that the state has already withered away.

[Laika]

Overall the term "communist state" is not an oxymoron but generally is not that useful and is mainly used by people who have little understanding of communism or little desire to. The term "communist state" therefore is often equated with "totalitarian state" or "fascist state" because people place greater emphasis on the idea of a "state" rather than on the ideological, political, economic system it represents. e.g. libertarians would have the same debate about whether a "capitalist state" is oxymoron.

It very much is dependent on the specific ideology of Communism you are talking about, their respective views on the state as an aparatus of coercion and how different ideologies interpret the self-described socialist/communist governments of the previous century. As a "short-hand" in discussions which can often bypass the worst factional disputes, it is particuarly useful when talking about the latter even if it does appeal to preconcieved ideas and ideological assumptions of what the state is.

[Blake's Baby]

The most important bit of what you're asking, I think, is this:

... I consider the proletarian dictatorship to be congruent with communism in the sense that it facilitates the disappearance of capitalism, not that it abolishes them outright...

However, the victory of the revolutionary dictatorship is not assured. Look at Soviet Russia, or Hungary or Bavaria or the Paris Commune. These states did not facilitate the disappearance of capitalism, but I would claim they were all expressions of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The revolutionary dictatorship only facilitates the disappearance of capitalism if it wins. And you don't know that until it has done. At which point, when there is no more bourgeoisie, and no more property, and no more proletariat either (and, therefore, no more revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) then you already have communist society. The revolutionary dictatorship may be pregnant with communism, but the baby must be safely delivered.

[RedMaterialist]

So my question is this, fundamentally: is a communist state an oxymoron?

Yes, a communist "state" is an oxymoron because the basis for all states is the suppression of a particular class of people. The last suppressing state is the DOP, whose purpose is to suppress out of existence the capitalist classes. Once those classes have been destroyed then the DOP "state" will begin to wither away and die because there will be no class left to suppress or exploit, i.e. the basic reason for the existence of a state will no longer exist.

Whether the suppression will be violent as in the case of Stalinist Russia or peaceful through a democratic republic will depend on historical, social conditions, etc.

Can communism exist even when there is money, wage labor, etc., present in the country, in the sense that these things are doomed to disappear with further development of communism?

No. But all these things can and must appear in the transition to communism, during, for instance, the DOP.

[Blake's Baby]

Or rather, they'll disappear in the revolutionary dictatorship. But they will exist at the beginning of the revolutionary dictatorship.

[Verneinung]

My current understanding is that communism is "not a state of affairs to be established," but rather is the movement that abolishes the present state of things.

That is it. As far as I'm aware.

I think people take "the state" too seriously. It is probably left over from ideology from pre-capitalist opposition to the state interfering with freedoms of people (both good and bad) and basic anti-authoritarian attitudes. With right-libertarian/anarchists (oxymoronic in its own) and those on the left, especially complaining about Stalin/Lenin, there is more force to punk out and start rejecting "the state" without even considering.

This quote from early Marx is telling:

"...the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the positive mode as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society."

The previous battle against feudalism in places, aristocracy/monarchy, theological influence on society, limits of freedom due to these things, is important.

If you take Spinoza, for example, I doubt he would have been rooting for the rise of capital. And I doubt attacking religion, specifically, a person would be thinking about Christianity and Judaism being taken over by capital and scientific ideology.

From Hegel:

"It is just as foolish to fancy that any philosophy can transcend its present world, as that an individual could leap out of his time or jump over Rhodes. If a theory transgresses its time, and builds up a world as it ought to be, it has an existence merely in the unstable element of opinion, which gives room to every wandering fancy.

With little change the above, saying would read: Here is the rose, here dance"

Hegel already gave the critique of liberal ideology; Marx gave the critique of political economy, which is important to realize -- it was not just a critique of capitalism or capitalist society or an explanation to how it functions -- it was a critique of ideology; and the critique of ideology included the religious aspects that have filled the void left by the Enlightenment.

So today, we need to make demands regarding the problems of today. Lincoln should not have been questioning what is to be done with the Blacks when the are let free, only that their freedom was a fundamental necessity. And the same should be held by communist in relation to the proletariat.

The ultimate goal is the elimination of the capitalist relation. The only thing that needs to be kept in mind (or the major thing) is not leaving a vacuum. And the biggest vacuum I can think of would be democracy and anarchy and what fills the theological void. Screw worrying about what will happen to the state, other than the logical fact that the state will no longer be capitalist; and, as far as a communist society, like porn, you will know it when you see it.

[khad]

There is a bit of semantic fuckery here, with a lot of Marxists toying with a specific definition of a state as a matrix of class domination. Thus if classes are abolished, you cannot have a "state" (defined along the preceding bourgeois lines) by default.

Honestly, it's not well defined what people mean when they talk about statelessness. It will be different from what exists under capitalism, that's for sure.