The state is not "abolished." It dies out.

The state is not "abolished." It dies out.

Author

Message

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 571

Posted: 27 May 2005 01:58 pm Post subject: The state is not "abolished." It dies out.

German: "Der Staat wird nicht 'abgeschafft', er stirbt ab." English: "The state is not 'abolished', it dies out." It dies out -- Engels said it twice in his book *Anti-Duhring. He included this section in the excerpt that he later selected to produce his pamphlet, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*. What do you think? Do you agree or not? What do you think "dying out" really consists of? You can read the whole pamphlet for yourself, but for your quick reference, here are the parts I'm refering to: ====================================== Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was, pro tempore, the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor). The State was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But, it was this only in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: -- in ancient times, the State of slaveowning citizens; -- in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; -- in our own times, the bourgeoisie. When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase :a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand. . . . . The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master -- free. Last edited by mikelepore on 27 May 2005 02:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Vermont

Posted: 27 May 2005 02:26 pm Post subject:

First - for a quote longer than a sentence or so - its virtually impossible to read a large text quote on my 14 in monitor and with my resolution capabilities without continually screwing around with the text size commend. I promise I will give all text full attention if it is in normal size. Second - Engels is entitled to his opinion. I read him from time to time and consider what he has to say - but as to the end of the state, I see things with the benefit of at least a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the 110 years of capitalist decay since his death. In the present I think the end of the state in conjunction with the revolution would better be thought of as an active abolishment rather than a death by super-nutritian (transforming private to state property). The state and the SIU are two different animals. I do not agree and I sincerely hope that I am not working for, in any degree, the transfer of ownership of private property by the state. (I contradict myself here - if the state is an animal, at one point it would have to be alive. I stated elsewhere that since it was never alive that it would be illogical to speak of its death. This reminds me of the John Wayne / Jimmie Stewart movie. Stewart plays an old west doctor who just told John Wayne that he was dying of some incurable disease. John Wayne says - I can't understand it doc. You told me last year that I was healthy as an ox. To which the Jimmie Stewart charter replies - "Yes I did - but even an ox dies." What movie?) Dave Last edited by davesearles on 28 May 2005 05:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 571

Posted: 27 May 2005 02:45 pm Post subject:

Okay, i took out the bigger-size tag. But I don't think it's the fact that you have a 14 inch monotor; it's the setting you can choose when you go to desktop, right-click, properties, settings, screen resolution.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 571

Posted: 27 May 2005 02:51 pm Post subject:

I also don't agree with the phrase about transformation of capital into state property, and where it says the same thing in the communist manifesto I disagree with that phrase there also. I'm talking about the question of whether the state should be made to go away, what it means precisely for it go away, and how it can be made to go away.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 571

Posted: 27 May 2005 03:11 pm Post subject:

... and how long it might take. Assuming that anything that takes a day or less might be called "abolition", while anything that takes a week or more can be called "dying out", and in between, the terminology gets even more arbitrary. Can the transoformation to a stateless society be accomplished in less than two weeks?

graymouser

Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Tabernacle, NJ

Posted: 27 May 2005 05:54 pm Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

Can the transoformation to a stateless society be accomplished in less than two weeks?

All in all, probably not. The state has massive responsibilities and authority. What would happen is that its responsibilities would be shifted to another body (SIU, workers' councils, or something else) and the democratic state would relinquish the concommitant authority (failure to do so would be counter to the revolution); this process would eventually be complete and the state would functionally not exist. Some things, like getting society used to policing itself and not having a professional police force, would probably take longer than others.

-Wayne

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Vermont

Posted: 28 May 2005 12:24 am Post subject:

Darned if I would know how long the abolishment period will last. So if it doesn't happen ina day, it is not abolishment? If we do not view the state primarily as ever being a living thing can we logically talk about its death? The state has many important functions? No more important than many of the functions carried on under private ownership now. Dave

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Vermont

Posted: 28 May 2005 10:40 am Post subject:

Mike wrote: it's the setting you can choose when you go to desktop, right-click, properties, settings, screen resolution. Dave writes: This monitor came over on the Mayflower - it will only accept one resolution setting. It's so ancient that it will only play on my old computer, the new ones have long ago dropped support for it - anyway enough for being off topic. I should have emailed you to reduce the text size. Dave

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Vermont

Posted: 28 May 2005 05:27 pm Post subject:

Mike quotes F.E. : In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Dave asks: Why does it die out? What is the mechanism by which it dies? Dave

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 571

Posted: 29 May 2005 01:42 am Post subject:

I think the idea is to stop feeding the state so much. I won't die by making it go out of existence, but by ceasing to constantly make it go into existence. First, consider the coercive branches of the state, which appear in two general forms: the military and law enforcement. Suppose the country reduces the size of the military to ten percent of its former size; it doesn't eliminate it completely because certain other countries are still aiming explosing devices in this direction. (The real goal is a world without national boundaries, so that annual military expenditure will be zero, but that will probably take, say, five more years.) As for law enforcement, this now has two subcategories: direct and indirect capitalist administration. Direct capaitalist administration is the body of law that governs business, contracts, trademarks, etc. This chunk of the state can be abolished immediately. Indrect capitalist amdinistration includes, for examples, jailing the people who have been driven to violent behavior by being brought up in poverty. People who are unjustly imprisoned, by which I mean they were "guilty" but only of violating unjust laws, by stealing food or smoking dope, which is about a half of the prison population, can be released immediately. Unfortunately, it may take a unknown number of years before society will no longer have to be concerned with the the other half of the prison population. Serial ax murderers can't simply be released. Furthermore, some have turned out that way, not due to poverty, but due to organic causes, such as whatever takes place in the litttle-understood electrochemistry of the brain. It will eventually be medical science, not social science, that relieves society of the problem of people like Charles Manson. So how long dies it take for the state to be removed? Some parts can be removed on the first day after the workers take hold of the industries. Some other parts may still be fading after several generations. In other words: The state is not "abolished"; it dies out.

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Vermont

Posted: 29 May 2005 02:29 am Post subject:

Prisons are run on a private basis. Police forces run on a private basis. Schools are run on a private basis. Hospitals are run on a private basis. So all of those can be immediately run by the workers but those prisons, police units, hospitals, schools etc. that are currently state run - the workers have to wait until the state control of these dies out sometime after the revolution in the private sector? Dave