[HoniSoit]

By FallenRaptor

Now I wish to temporarily deviate from economics to explain how the superstructures fit into the economic relations. First I will cover the state.

The state is the legal institution of repression and coercion in society, which includes the police, the military, the prisons, etc. Contrary to what the dominant liberal ideology of today claims, the state is not ruled by law and all are not equal in front of it. All states are ruled by people. People who create laws and decide whether or not to enforce them. These people also have their own interests in mind and have relations with other self-interested people with whom they may have mutual interests with.

While there are those who claim that the state is a necessity in society, it is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. The state only appeared and became necessary in society when it became divided into classes and antagonisms between these classes deepened. The state has also always been the state of the class that controls the social means of production, as the people who control the state are more associated with members of that class than any other. The state is therefore the apparatus of repression and coercion that serves and protects the social interests of the ruling class.

Of course, this does not mean that the state always acts in the interests of the entire ruling class. Classes are not homogeneous groups, and many times the state will favor one faction of it over another. The state may even take actions against the immediate will of the majority of the ruling class if in danger of the whole social system collapsing. This is why various capitalist states have attempted to appease to the lower classes with "socialistic" policies.

The form of government does not negate the state's nature as a repressive organ of class conflict, since the ruling classes (especially the bourgeoisie) have always found thousands of ways of maintaining their influence over it. In some cases the state's nature is obvious. In many cases, such as in liberal democracies, it is not as obvious as the state's true nature is cleverly hidden by many illusions, such as the ones mentioned earlier. While the state is the primary means by which the ruling class maintains its hegemony over society, it is not the only one. Even the most repressive states will be crushed by the masses if it cannot maintain at least some sympathy. Therefore it becomes necessary for the ruling class to use ideology to maintain their hegemony.

[HoniSoit]

Hey, FallenRaptor - another excellent article, and it's very lucidly written.

A few thoughts after reading your article:

The definition of the state you give in the article, I would say, is very much shared by left anarchists. There is disagreement about what to do with state apparatus during and immediately after the revolution, but I don't think there is any disagreement about the nature of the state. From my understanding, Marx himself did not develop (or at least had not the time to write) a full analysis and critique of the state. Do you think subsequent Marxist theoreticians have extended and further developed the analysis of the state?

I agree with your argument that the state is neither a necessity, nor I think is something 'natural' but rather the result of particular circumstances, namely, a class society. But would you make a distinction between state in the way you describe it, and government as merely a form of social and political organisation? Or do you think there is no difference between them?

On ideology and hegemony, I very much agree with you and it really took a somewhat unexpected turn when Marxists and former Marxists began to look at hegemony in cultural forms, and subsequently developed cultural studies and critical theory. What's your attitude toward these subsequent development?

[FallenRaptor]

Thanks, Honi.

The definition of the state you give in the article, I would say, is very much shared by left anarchists. There is disagreement about what to do with state apparatus during and immediately after the revolution, but I don't think there is any disagreement about the nature of the state.

I think there is at least one thing Lenin and the anarchists can agree on: "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."

From the Revolutionary Marxist view, the workers must demolish the old state apparatus and replace it with a new one under their control. The new state apparatus will "wither away" as class contradictions subside. I'll write more on this in a later article.

From my understanding, Marx himself did not develop (or at least had not the time to write) a full analysis and critique of the state. Do you think subsequent Marxist theoreticians have extended and further developed the analysis of the state?

Marx and Engels actually wrote a decent amount concerning the state, but their analysis was scattered throughout various works. It would seem that Lenin was the one that wrote the most concerning the state, but his book The State and Revolution largely consisted of quoting different passages from Marx and Engels while adding his own commentary and views.

But would you make a distinction between state in the way you describe it, and government as merely a form of social and political organisation?

This is an interesting question. There seems to be some confusion regarding this since in liberal political structures there is an alleged separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This separation of powers, however, is ultimately artificial since there are also "checks and balances" amongst the different branches. The executive branch can veto legislation, and the legislative branch can enforce the law onto the executive branch. The legislative branches also have some say in determining the composition of the executive and judicial branches. I don't believe that the 'government' can be completely abstracted from the state apparatus as a separate entity.

On ideology and hegemony, I very much agree with you and it really took a somewhat unexpected turn when Marxists and former Marxists began to look at hegemony in cultural forms, and subsequently developed cultural studies and critical theory. What's your attitude toward these subsequent development?

I think it's a pretty "natural" development in Marxist theory. Marx and Engels had mentioned ideology and it's role in social hegemony a few times, but Gramsci was really the first Marxist to go into a great extent of detail. While ideology is considered part of the 'superstructure' it is something that has a great deal of influence in historical development, and it is also important in refuting vulgar and schematic interpretations of Marxism. I plan to go into detail about ideology and it's role in hegemony in the next articles.

[Average Voter]

In many cases, such as in liberal democracies, it is not as obvious as the state's true nature is cleverly hidden by many illusions, such as the ones mentioned earlier.

If everybody is happiest under such a state, should we necessarily find such an illusion a problem?

[FallenRaptor]

This isn't an opinion article. Besides, if both the state and the illusions about it are indeed necessary, how 'happy' could everyone really be?

[Average Voter]

This isn't an opinion article.

Though it discusses opinions.

Besides, if both the state and the illusions about it are indeed necessary, how 'happy' could everyone really be?

I really don't know. I suppose you wanted a question more objectively answerable. Here is is: is it presumed that those under such an illusion do not find that situation most favorable? Regardless of such an illusion being deceptive about the intention of the state, does that necessarily contradict the possibility that the illusion is the intention of the people?

[HoniSoit]

From the Revolutionary Marxist view, the workers must demolish the old state apparatus and replace it with a new one under their control. The new state apparatus will "wither away" as class contradictions subside. I'll write more on this in a later article.

I think the state will 'wither away' if all the Marxist preconditions are met. In other words, if the new state is not really a workers' state but a handful of elites seizing control for themselves and constituting a new ruling class (not in an economic sense). How do you think this can be prevented from happening?

Marx and Engels actually wrote a decent amount concerning the state, but their analysis was scattered throughout various works.

From what I understand, Marx was planning to treat the subject of state in a later volume of Das Kapital that he never got around writing.

I plan to go into detail about ideology and it's role in hegemony in the next articles.

Very much looking forward to reading that.

[FallenRaptor]

I think the state will 'wither away' if all the Marxist preconditions are met. In other words, if the new state is not really a workers' state but a handful of elites seizing control for themselves and constituting a new ruling class (not in an economic sense). How do you think this can be prevented from happening?

The preconditions for socialism didn't exist in countries where Marxist-led revolutions have been successful. In Russia, for example, the working class made up less than 10% percent of the population. Only the urban areas were industrialized and most of the country still lived under 18th century conditions. Soviet Russia became dominated by elites as a result of pressure from foreign imperialism and domestic reactionaries under these conditions. Most other countries either faced similar conditions, were under heavy Soviet influence, or some mix of the two. The conditions in most countries, however, have changed a lot since 1917. The proletariat is currently the largest class in the world, and it's also the fastest growing one. Much of the third world is more developed and integrated into the international economy than 100 years ago thanks to technological advancement and imperialism. It would seem that as capitalism ages, the conditions for socialism become better.

I'm not sure what you mean by a non-economic ruling class, though. In the historical materialist paradigm, class is determined by economic relations of production, and politics is mainly an extension of economics. However, I agree that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be carried out by an 'elite' claiming to represent them, but needs to be carried out by the armed workers themselves through political organs based on revolutionary democracy(such as communes or workers' councils).