On lemmy.world I posted a comment on how liberals use ‘tankie’ as an invective to shut down dialogue and received tons of hateful replies. I tried to respond in a rational way to each. Someone’s said ‘get educated’ I responded ‘Im reading Norman Finkelstein’s I’ll burn that bridge when I get there’ and tried to keep it civil.
They deleted every comment I made and banned me. Proving my point, they just want to shut down dialogue. Freedom of speech doesn’t existing in those ‘totalitarian’ countries right? But in our ‘enlightened’ western countries we just delete you.
No one should control the state because there shouldn’t be a state. If there is a state then there’s oppression.
Agreed, now let’s abolish the state through developing the material conditions necessary for it to happen instead of just saying “STATES BAD!!” online :^)
Absolutely, I agree - I’m doing what I can - but it seems a little strange to act like I shouldn’t participate in this discussion and should just be organising instead, like I’m somehow held to a higher expectation than everyone else in this comments section
I don’t want to speak for them but I don’t think Krause was saying that you’re not doing enough organising. I interpreted the comment as a reference to the Leninist concept of the state (following Engels). To put it somewhat crudely, a state (a) has class characteristics and (b) is a tool for organising class society and exercising authority.
From this perspective, it is reductive to say ‘states are bad’. If there’s an implied question in Krause’s comment, it’s not, ‘what are you doing to change they material conditions?’ but ‘how are we to secure those changes without, and why can’t we fast track them using, the state?’ Or, ‘how is any region supposed to secure its gains without a state in a world in which the US exists?’ (Also, most people on Lemmygrad are involved or trying to get involved in organising.)
Just in case it seems as though I uncritically see states as necessary in revolutionary action, I’ll mention Roland Boer’s excellent short book on Engels’ concept of socialist governance, which might help us here. He explains that a ‘socialist state’ is an oxymoron. Socialists must seize state power to prevent the capitalists from re-gaining power. After that, there’s no socialist state, only socialist governance.
As an ML I actually agree with you, the state is a weapon and i would like to see it one day outlive it’s usefulness and wither so that communism can be achieved. However, it’s a weapon that you absolutely cannot discard until capitalism has been destroyed, and until then, unilateral disarmament is guaranteed suicide for a revolutionary movement.
I could not have put it better myself, thank you for your illuminating comment.
As is blind faith in a revolutionary movement’s ability to wield such a weapon in the interest of the proletariat and towards communism. Seems like a lot of people in this thread are forgetting Mao’s critique of the USSR.
"The revisionist Khrushchov clique abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat behind the camouflage of the “state of the whole people”, change the proletarian character of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union behind the camouflage of the “party of the entire people” and pave the way for the restoration of capitalism behind that of “full-scale communist construction”. - Mao - marxists.org
But is this not equally true for China today?
No offense, but I can tell you’re some flavor of ultra/liberal by your use of dramatic, bombastic language to make sweeping statements that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
It is not.
You are an ultra? Then why do you sound like a yankee flag huffing neoliberal all the time?
Oppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, absolutely; the point is to eventually eliminate the bourgeois class. When class distinctions no longer exist, the state will, by definition (a tool for oppression of one class by another), cease to exist. How would you go about abolishing the state while classes still exist, or abolishing classes within a bourgeois dictatorship?
The issue is that where there is a state, definitively there will be still social classes - those with power within the state, and those without. If your position is “we can’t abolish the state until there are no class divisions” then you’ve got an infinite loop.
Obviously with the way the world is there is no way to go straight from the current situation to communism, but the goal is still the abolition of the state, and so many leftists seem to get angry with the concept that we should (and have to) abolish the state. That’s all I am saying - reading any deeper into my comment than that isn’t recommended!
I’m not sure if anyone is getting angry that you’re saying the state must be abolished. MLs fundamentally agree with that. It’s what revolutionaries are aiming for.
The criticism is that you seem to be saying that revolutionaries cannot use the state because it’s an incoherent notion:
By this do you mean to say that the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is logically contradictory? That it won’t work? You seemed to agree, above, that you don’t think that’s the case (i.e. you think the state can be used as a tool), but here you appear to be saying just that?
It may be helpful here to reiterate the dialectical element of Marxism-Leninism. It’s not a step-by-step sequence of events. First one, then the other. It’s a dialectical development.
The plan isn’t to seize the state, then to use the state to abolish classes. That won’t work. It’s anti-dialectical.
The idea is that by seizing the state and wresting control over the means of production from the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie will become redundant and whither away. This will take a long time. The state is needed to keep the reactionaries in line in the meantime.
It’s taken China over half a decade to start the process and most of the rest of the world hasn’t even begun the task yet. The DotP and the abolition of classes and the state are one process. They’re interrelated.
Have you read State and Revolution or ‘Better Fewer But Better’ by Lenin?
Of course there will be social classes – as I said, a state is a tool for the oppression of one class by another. For a socialist state, that means the workers (mainly the proletariat, but also other smaller classes of workers that remain from the pre-capitalist mode of production) oppressing the bourgeoisie. Most of the capitalists, especially the smaller ones, will gradually become proletarian. When there are only proletarians left, there will no longer be a state, unless the state stops acting in the interest of the proletariat at some point before that. A proletarian democracy (i.e. an actual democracy, where the people can force any elected representative to step down at any time if they’re not satisfied, and money has no role in the electoral process) will eventually turn into a democracy for everyone as everyone becomes a proletarian (which is equivalent to a classless society, since a class only has meaning in relation to other classes).
Yeah-yeah, and that’s why we’re supposed to jump through the magic portal that skips socialism right into communism. Move along trot…
I didn’t say that there couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be a provisional state. I was just reminding people of the end goal and that we should be actively working towards the circumstances necessary to end unnecessary power structures and, absolutely, the state.
Oppression of whom?
Those without (or with lesser) power than the ruling class of the state. Abolishing the current state and replacing the bourgeoisie with proletariat workers merely creates a new bourgeoisie. Power corrupts, so it has to be diluted or entirely dismantled.
In other words: the bourgeoisie, they are the ones who would be oppressed.
No, it puts a new ruling class in charge of the state, it replaces the current bourgeois state to form a new proletarian state.
This is idealism.
Unless you have a state which is fully, 100%, directly controlled entirely by the working class, then there will be working class individuals who have more power than others.
Unless you have a state which has no monopoly on violence and no authority to make and enforce laws, then the individuals with power within that state have the power to oppress others who do not have that power.
Unless you have a 100% unified, educated, omni-benevolent working class, then there will be those who have power to oppress others who will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and society at large.
While I will grant you that there are people who can be trusted to wield power selflessly, honestly and with wisdom and who would give it up when it is no longer needed, there are definitely many people who cannot. It is difficult (or impossible) to differentiate those people. Therefore, every time we empower an individual (or worse, a group) we are taking a risk. A state is that same risk, thousands of times, on a national scale.
Even then, some people will have more power than others. It’s not feasible or theoretically sound to have 7+ billion people equally control every aspect of society, even on a local level. The point of a class analysis is to see the world as comprised of classes. It defeats the logic to then treat each class as the separate individuals who comprise their class.
This is exactly what a state is for. That’s why revolutionaries need to seize it. Without that monopoly or authority, the revolution will be crushed. The need to seize control of the state is driven by the need to oppress the bourgeoisie and other forces of reaction.
This is how China manages to execute billionaires when they step out of line – the working class controls the state, acting as a class.
What will protect the working class from oppression is it’s ability to exercise class power, not it’s level of education or the ‘benevolence’ of others. As Mao said, ‘political power grows out of the barrel of the gun’. If a state is needed to exercise class power, there’s no option not to have one.
The Haitian slaves didn’t need an education to overthrow their oppressors, they needed organisation. They got it. Then they won. They were indebted by the French after that. But how long would they have lasted without organising state power? European armies turned up quicker than you could blink. Without exercising class power through a state, a bill for compensation would’ve been the least of it.
The moment we do this is the moment we lose. Successful revolution does not, cannot, rely on handing over power to people who claim or appear to be benevolent. That’s how the USSR fell, betrayed by it’s own. Imagine if Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Ezhov, and others were given even more power – the project wouldn’t have lasted a day.
A revolutionary state won’t succeed because power can be handed to a few trusted individuals. It’ll succeed because it remains committed to Marxism and maintains organisational discipline. Everyone must be removable whether they want to go or not. Individuals don’t get to decide whether they’re the right person for the job. They only get to decide whether to put their name forward or whether to accept a position offered after being head-hunted.
What a cheap cop out. Look to history, look to sociology for explanation of this logic. That power corrupts is a material fact, reconfirmed every damn day. Power is a network of relations that creates and sustains the conditions for its own reproduction, which will start to deviate from the interests one represented in the beginning…
I have yet too see this, except for in individuals, which isn’t really sustainable for a political system. As marxists, denying your line of argument is truly shooting oneself in the foot, as there exists nothing more uninteresting than a socialist vision that cannot be clearly separated from a boring dystopia. Perhaps a better definition of a tankie would be someone who is not interested in marxist theory development, but rather the exercise of conservative, dogmatist circle-jerking.
I can’t speak for Kraus but I have something to add myself.
It’s only a cop-out if it’s interpreted in light of certain assumptions.
One of those assumptions is that by ‘idealism’, Krause meant that power does not corrupt. But that is a bizarre interpretation and assumption.
Idealism is to be contrasted with materialism, yes. But I don’t think Kraus was saying that power does not corrupt in the material world.
The phrase was said in the context of a discussion about states. The argument was that revolutionaries can’t trust or use states because the people who run them will be corrupted by their power. That’s idealism because it prefers an idea of the state based on a concept of bourgeois states over what the state would actually be under a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The fact that power corrupts is not a reason for arguing against the need for a state in securing a revolution. It is idealism to think so. With organisation and discipline, it doesn’t matter that power corrupts because the new ruling class will have to account for that in its constitution. A Marxist state that leaves room for people to use power in a corrupt way is doomed to failure.
Which countries does your “socialism” have?