View source for Essay:The "State" Can be Revolutionary

''Refutation of “The State is Counterrevolutionary” Video Series by Anark'' [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwxpTyGUOI video]] [[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary text]]<blockquote>'''Every power presupposes some form of human slavery, for the division of society into higher and lower classes is one of the first conditions of its existence. The separation of men into castes, orders and classes occurring in every power structure corresponds to an inner necessity for the separation of the possessors of privilege from the people.'''</blockquote>This is the [[Anarchism|anarchist]] variation of class analysis, that, like Nietzche’s “new slavery”, proceeds from the superficial observation that certain sections of the population are oppressed whilst others are privileged with oppression. Without [[historical materialism]], classes are forgotten, the nature of the state is unknown, and we are met with this childish argument:<blockquote>'''The only conceivable counter-argument, that a benevolent leadership which does not act in their own self-interest may sit in the seats of power, neglects a simple reality: all humans die eventually. And once those benevolent dictators die, the reins will be handed back over to a new group of human beings, turning the state, on a long enough timeline, into a game of Russian Roulette with the future of the masses lying in the balance.'''</blockquote>This passes as anarchist “theory”! With no attempt to grapple with Engels’ ''[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State]'', or any Marxist analysis of the class character of the state, it may be ignored, and these self-assuming superficial definitions of the state are proven by their very existence. Then the state is ruled by “good people” and “bad people”, this is its motive force (don’t laugh).<blockquote>'''A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.'''</blockquote>This is basically correct, but since Anark has no understanding of the class character of the state, does not even mean to address it, this “class” has no features other than its oppression, so that we may arrive at [[Mikhail Bakunin|Bakunin’s]] nonsense of a “new proletariat” suppressed by the DOTP.<ref>{{Citation|author=Mikhail Bakunin|year=1873|title=Statism and Anarchy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm|quote=“Let us ask, if the proletariat is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? In short, there will remain another proletariat which will be subdued to this new rule, to this new state”}}</ref>

The state is an apparatus for the suppression of one class by another, of, in orthodox, the suppression of the majority by the minority, for the reconciliation of irreconcilable contradictions, although in the national sense the proletarian state (which Lenin clarifies in this sense is no longer a state proper)<ref>{{Citation|author=Vladimir Lenin|year=1917|title=The State and Revolution|chapter=Supplementary Explanations by Engels|section=Letter to Bebel|page=46|quote=“The Commune was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word’—this is the most theoretically important statement Engels makes... The Commune was ceasing to be a state since it had to suppress, not the majority of the population, but a minority (the exploiters). It had smashed the bourgeois state machine. In place of a special coercive force the population itself came on the scene. All this was a departure from the state in the proper sense of the word”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf}}</ref> may through the masses suppress the bourgeoisie whose power is supported internationally, as seen from the counterrevolutionary movement against the Bolsheviks supported by the imperialist powers.<blockquote>'''Regardless of the temporary existence of selfless leaders, self-interested people will exist within the state.'''</blockquote>This is childish drivel. The DOTP does not rely on selfless leaders, but those elected by and derived from the masses, whose power is enforced through the masses as led by the proletariat (naturally the tendency towards this as elaborated in historimat will not be discussed). The nature of the bourgeois state is not merely the result of corrupted people but its very life essence, just as the nature of the proletarian state is not a matter of selfless people. This is a fundamentally absurd misunderstanding. Self-interested people may exist, but if the nature of the state remains in the hands of the masses, they will be driven out, as seen in Xi’s corruption drive, or in repeated purges, of which anarchists would of course decry “infighting”, despite no understanding of these matters.<blockquote>'''The power of the state is what allows those people to act in their self-interest.'''</blockquote>It allows classes to act in their self interests, but individual state actors are subordinated to the nature of the state. What is the proof of this “self interest” nonsense?<blockquote>'''Therefore it is in the interest of all people that operate the state, to perpetuate the power of the state.'''</blockquote>From a bad tree descends bad fruit; the state is not a result of “self interested people” but the definite relations between classes. Here Anark puts up an image of the [[1989 Tian'anmen Square riots|Tiananmen Square riots]] as well, despite the fact that these protests were organized by the [[United States of America|U.S.]] (with the implication that an anarchist “organization” would have allowed this to occur), that the protests were not a genuine mass movement, and that the state allowed the protests for a long time until riots broke out elsewhere (as well as the fact that a protest leader admitted their intent was to create a “massacre”).<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Vancouver Sun|title=CIA Man Misread Reaction, Sources Say|date=1992-09-17|url=https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1BcfxpzK9Oy7oT9TCkJMEA6GaKcTOKu-FhCABj4TsidM/pub}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Sun Feiyang and Roderic Day|newspaper=Red Sails|title=Another View of Tiananmen|date=2021-03-03|url=https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/}}</ref> This is not mentioned, however, because Anark is not intending to disclose the truth, but rather to place these images on the screen (with implied correlation) and create a skewed narrative.<blockquote>'''The very act of centralizing power is thus an act of violence against the workers. So long as the state is allowed to exist, worker emancipation is impossible [...] Class abolition can then only ever hope to succeed if it corresponds to an abolition of centralized power. Such a statement is not a preference, it is a foundational requirement for the next phase of human development, and all attempts to make the state into a vehicle for liberation are misguided negotiations with a potent counter-revolutionary force.'''</blockquote>Material conditions determine tactics, not ideology. Capitalism relies inherently on decentralization, while the tendency in production skews it towards centralization under socialism:<blockquote>“The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers” — Karl Marx, [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ ''Manifesto of the Communist Party''], 1848</blockquote>So on the one hand preference is denied, and on the other it is asserted as the motive force of worker suppression. So long as the state exists, total emancipation is impossible, this is quite correct, but this in no way negates the temporary revolutionary character of the DOTP, which is configured to: reconcile the birthmarks of capitalism, including the existence of a remnant bourgeoisie and of bourgeois relations; defend against bourgeois/reactionary counterrevolution, which would have overtaken the Soviets in a day, as Lenin remarks; in the case of underdeveloped nations, to organize and put into practice the development of the productive forces under the leadership of the proletariat and oriented towards their betterment.

This leads the way for the abolition of classes, a task which may not be completed by slogans or utopian dreams but by real means, that the proletarian state will by its design be the last. The state may not be “abolished”, it will exist so long as classes exist, and will wither away only through real struggle to remove its life essence.<blockquote>'''lying at the center of the authoritarian left conceptualization is the notion that any socialist project managed by the people is too weak and too aimless to defend itself from sabotage and that, instead of the people governing themselves in the interim, the state will need to rapidly centralize power, then wield that power benevolently in the interests of the masses'''</blockquote>Wonderful sophism, but “managed by the people” means nothing. What does this entail? The people must delegate a certain group of themselves to be armed and fight off counterrevolution, the people must delegate a committee to handle economic organization, and the people must elect representatives from their communities to handle the affairs of the country. “The state” is given supernatural powers for rhetorical purposes; this power will not be wielded “benevolently”, because the state does not exist above society but derives its power from it, through the dominant relations it serves. *''Anark quotes Marx to disprove that he supported a “paternalistic state”, but it is only the anarchist thesis that a state of this form is demanded by the “authoritarian left.''”*<blockquote>'''This quote from Lenin’s work ''What Is To Be Done?'' is quite instructive of the attitude he takes toward revolutionary organization: “Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers.” Leninism is predicated on a fundamental lack of faith in the workers to organize themselves and to arrive upon a coherent conception of their class position without a party to lead them. To Lenin, the vanguard, occupied by enlightened socialist thinkers, was a representative body of proletarian class consciousness. Thus it was the job of the revolutionary party to tutor the masses on their liberation ‘from without.’ Wherein the workers lacked such a guiding hand, Lenin took a dim view of their mass potential, believing that the highest state that they could achieve on their own was what he called trade union consciousness; that is to say, the ability to band together into trade unions.'''</blockquote>Should all workers attain class consciousness at once? Even the real means of material liberation will be distributed unequally or in separate intervals. Why, then, should a worker’s vanguard be opposed? Leadership is absolutely necessary. In fact, the theoretically advanced and devoted, as in those making up the vanguard, are derived from the workers themselves. The quote from ''[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf What is to Be Done]'' is so deliberately misconstrued as to invoke a great suspicion of dishonesty. We will begin from where Anark left off:<blockquote>“The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes. For that reason, the reply to the question as to what must be done to bring political knowledge to the workers cannot be merely the answer with which, in the majority of cases, the practical workers, especially those inclined towards Economism, mostly content themselves, namely: ‘To go among the workers.’ To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the population; they must dispatch units of their army in all directions.”</blockquote>Either Anark read, “''We therefore beg the reader not to get wrought up, but to hear us patiently to the end''” and ignored this warning, or neglected to read the work entirely. In any case, this is a grave mistake that risks discrediting their entire argument. “From without” refers to “from outside the proletarian class”, but the reference to trade unions means only within the proletarian class, that without considering all classes they cannot enter the total political struggle. Many Social Democrats were workers themselves, and yet in typical anarchist fashion (the complete ignorance of the nature of class), any distinction at all negates this.<blockquote>'''In 1904, Rosa Luxemburg, after reading Lenin’s ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back'' wrote a response called ''Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy'' to criticize this attitude, in it she said: “...the two principles on which Lenin’s centralism rests are precisely these: 1. The blind subordination, in the smallest detail, of all party organs to the party center which alone thinks, guides, and decides for all. 2. The rigorous separation of the organized nucleus of revolutionaries from its social-revolutionary surroundings.”'''</blockquote>The principle of democratic centralism is “from the bottom up, and the top down”, forgetting the former is not “analysis.” From the bottom up means that all decisions by a certain strata and promotions from that strata must be agreed upon by all members within, and from the top down (the “top” which from the bottom up had been configured), all decisions must be carried out and modified thereafter according to the mass line. The vanguard party is made up of and adapts to the proletariat. Blind subordination is an inaccurate description, nor is it correct that the party center alone makes/criticizes policies at all levels (regardless, the party center is dictated by the masses).<blockquote>'''There is something perverse in this conception, wherein Lenin does not seem to want to change the relations of the workers to the means of production, but instead to simply refocus proletarian obedience to the capitalists with proletarian obedience to vanguard authority.'''</blockquote>This is “proven” from a single vague quote from Luxembourg which misrepresents democratic centralism.