ICC on councilist left and anarchism

And to put it very crassly, what does your critique of political economy mean when it can be reconciled with union activity and activism?

Funny, many traditional anarchists would say the same thing about mixing Baukunin with Marx

Yes, because given the level of understanding Lenin, like most Marxists, showed about anarchism he thought it was an insult. However, he was well aware that the "left-wing" communists had evolved to positions which were extremely close to anarchism. And Lenin could hardly have called Pannekoek an "anarchist" if he had argued for revolutionary parliamentarianism now, could he?

And in the process in politics evolved from a standard Marxist one to a standard anarchist one on many key issues. By the end, he had more in common with Bakunin than Marx on numerous important issues. Yes, he never called himself an anarchist but that seems to be the ultimate insult within Marxist circles so I can see why he avoided it. Although, apparently towards the end of his life he actually started to look into anarchist ideas and was more sympathetic to them.

No anarchist I know of calls Pannekoek an anarchist. They usually call him a libertarian marxist and note that his ideas were close to anarchism. As I have done here. I would say its "intellectually dishonest" to assert that I have referred to him as an anarchist, I have not.

Except we don't refer to Pannekoek as an anarchist. Usually he is referred to as a libertarian marxist. We also note that on many issues he is close to anarchism.

What I said was intellectually dishonest was you (and others) referring to him as a 'libertarian' Marxist, which is a label he would have (and did) reject.

Devrim

DP

Actually, I am extremely aware of it. I've read Marx and Engels extensively, plus such key figures as Martov and Lenin. I also am able to understand plain English when I read it, unlike some around here. I am also well aware of the actual history of the Paris Commune, which helps as well.

Please! Marx and Engels both generalised a definition of the state as "an instrument of class rule," they did not limit it to the "bourgeois state". That is clear from, say, Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" Both were also clear on the fact that the democratic republic (subject to suitable reforms) could be used by the working class to introduce socialism. That is extremely hard to reconcile with the notion that Marx wants to smash the state rather than the state machine.

ROTFL! Who said that it described "transhistorical state structure"?That is the problem, he used the term to describe a social structure in which the minority had power and the majority. His definition of the state as an instrument of class rule ignored how the state evolved to ensure minority rule and so generated illusions that transforming a republic (or creating some other representative governmental structure) could be used by the oppressed in their struggle for freedom.

In reality, as Bakunin pointed out, the republic could not be used in that manner, nor any state. Hence Bakunin argued for a federation of workplace and neighbourhood delegates to organise and defend the revolution rather than the democratic republic Engels considered the "specific form" of the proletarian dictatorship.

Yes, for Marx the masses could elect a socialist party to power and then said party could reform the state and slowly abolish private property (by turning it into state property). Thus we have the "dictatorship of the proletariat", for universal suffrage was "the equivalent of political power for the working class . . . where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population." Its "inevitable" result would be "the political supremacy of the working class." Marx seems to see voting for a government as being the same as political power as the "fundamental contradiction" of a democracy under capitalism is that the classes "whose social slavery the constitution is to perpetuate" it "puts in possession of political power through universal suffrage."

Except, of course, as Bakunin pointed out the "working class as a whole" does not take political power, the government does. That Marx aimed for representative democracy rather than direct democracy is a key part of the anarchist critique.

Marx was well aware of how the Commune was formed and its structure, it was "formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town." The elected representatives then introduced numerous reforms which broke up the existing state machine as (to quote Marx) "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." And to quote Engels when he was asked what that meant:

Perhaps Marx never actually discussed this with Engels. Or perhaps Engels was not paying attention when he did so. Perhaps Engels got out the wrong side of the bed and totally forgot what Marx meant by his words.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, Engels knew what Marx meant and repeated them fatefully and clearly, in plain language....

What seems more likely?

Not, of course, that these words actually contradict my argument, nor Engels clear explaination what Marx meant by his words in the published version of his account of the Paris Commune.

And how could anyone repeatedly ignore the quote from Engels when he explains what Marx meant? How anyone fail to note that I have argued that, for Marx, the state power would have to be reformed and transformed? That he argued elsewhere that freedom "consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it"? Or when Engels proclaimed that "if one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

And, more importantly, that shortly after Marx proclaimed that "[i]nsurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work" in Britain and America, as "the workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means." Now, I thought that the bourgeois state had to be smashed? Now, apparently, it can be seized by elections....

Again, I should point out that I have repeatedly argued that for Marx the state had to be reformed and transformed, as Engels explicitly explained. And I should also note that the Paris Commune was not up to the task of empowering the masses simply because it keep state structures (namely power delegated into the hands of a few representatives) rather than destroying the state (rather than state machinery) and replacing it with a federation of workplace and community assemblies.

As I explain here: The Paris Commune, Marxism and Anarchism

Yes, the working class were still proletarians, still wage slaves. That was another key part of the anarchist critique of the Commune -- that property was not expropriated. In such circumstances, its political power would have been limited. Moreover, to repeat another key part of the critique, the working class was not dominant -- its representatives held power, which they used to centralise more and more power into fewer and fewer hands.

The problem with the Commune was, as Bakunin and Kropotkin argued, that it was a partial break with the state. Within the commune, representative structures remained -- and they paralysed the revolution.

You really have not grasped my point at all, have you? I have repeated noted that Marx and Engels argued that the state machine had to be smashed and that necessary reforms implemented to make it more democratic. It was still, structurely, a democratic republic -- it had been seized by the workers' party and certain reforms introduced. As Engels put it:

He went on to stress that "[f]rom 1792 to 1799 each French department, each commune, enjoyed complete self-government on the American model, and this is what we too must have. How self-government is to be organised and how we can manage without a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French Republic." Significantly, Engels was explicitly discussing the need for a "republican party programme", commenting that it would be impossible for "our best people to become ministers" under an Emperor and arguing that, in Germany at the time, they could not call for a republic and had to raise the "demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of the people's representatives." Engels stressed that "the proletariat can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic" with "self-government" meaning "officials elected by universal suffrage"

Elsewhere he stressed that "the only organisation the victorious working class finds ready-made for use, is that of the State. It may require adaptation to the new functions. But to destroy that at such a moment, would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the working class can exert its newly conquered power." More explicitly, he notes that "[w]ith respect to the proletariat the republic . . . is the ready-for-use form for the future rule of the proletariat."

Perhaps Marx never mentioned what he meant. Perhaps Engels never read The Civil War in France. Or perhaps Engels knew exactly what Marx meant?

Really, this is getting silly. You really have not understood my argument nor what Engels wrote. As for the Commune, it is well known to Marx how the commune was formed. It was by a general election, using the existing structures of the republic. Various reforms were introduced to make said commune more democratic (some of these had been argued for by anarchists for some time, incidentally).

Now I have quoted Marx on this, let me quote a Leninist account of the Commune. Tthe revolution used the “elections under the old voting system to choose a communal council” and so “the council emerged from a conventional electoral system, where there is no organic link between elector and representative.” (Donny Gluckstein, The Paris Commune: A Revolutionary Democracy, p. 134) This echoing Kropotkin, who noted that the Communards gave “themselves a Communal Council copied from the old municipal councils.”

The commune then breaks with the state power, smashes the state machine, introduces reforms which make it more democratic (at least, it tries). And so on, as I have repeatedly argued. And to quote Engels (yet again!):

Now, are you seriously saying Engels did not understand Marx's ideas on this matter?

You really have no idea what my basic argument is, do you?

I'm actually quite shocked by this. Engels states that the revolution "must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes" Not smash or destroy, no, "refashion". And I have repeatedly stated that this does not contradict Marx. This is a staggeringly strange inability to understand plain language!

This is unbelievable! Engels states quite clearly that it is "the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power" which will be refashioned! It is not remotely "ambiguous". He states, explaining what Marx meant, that "the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power" is "refashion[ed]" -- not smashed or destroyed. Refashioned. This is hardly an isolated case.

.

Look, it is simple. I have repeatedly stated that this does not contradict Marx, it clarifies it. It is also in line with many other statements by Marx and Engels on this subject.

ROTF! Why should I bother? Really, denying what is plainly stated. That is staggering. Ignoring the actual history of the Commune. That is staggering. I guess that shows the power of ideology over mere facts...

Well, what can I say. I have repeatedly stated that Marx argued that the state had to be reformed, that the working class could not simply take over the existing state machinery and use it for its own aims. That had to be smashed. As regards Britain and America, these states could be used by the working class as they were republics -- and so socialism could be voted in. In the 1870s, Marx considered Holland, Britain and the USA to have "the genuine capitalist state." Significantly, it was precisely these states in which Marx argued a peaceful revolution could occur....

Now, if Marx considered that the bourgeouis state had to be smashed how to explain the awkward fact that in the "the genuine capitalist state" workers could introduce socialism by voting for it...

ROTFL! My whole point is that the obvious intrepretation produces the least inconsistencies. It is the intrepretation I am arguing against which produces the most inconsistencies in marx's thought! This becomes obvious once you release that, according to the flawed analysis, Marx and Engels concluded that the workers had to smash the state then,subsequently, concluded that this was not needed. It means arguing that Engels did not understand what Marx argued and was such a bad writer himself that he was explicitly asked what was meant, he replied in an "ambiguous" manner! It means ignoring how the Commune was formed and how it was structured in favour of denying these. It means, essentially, ignoring the clear difference Marx made between the republican state and the state machine (which, in France, predates it and needs to be smashed).

It means, well, ignoring quite a lot of what Marx and Engels actually argued when, in fact, my intrepretation shows that they do fit into a coherent whole.

Wow, talk about quoting out of context.... This refers to this quote:

"The association's 'single will,' Bakunin wrote, would be determined by 'laws' that every member 'helped to create,' or at a minimum 'equally approved' by 'mutual agreement.' This 'definite set of rules' was to be 'frequently renewed' in plenary sessions wherein each member had the 'duty to try and make his view prevail,' but then he must accept fully the decision of the majority. Thus the revolutionary association's 'rigorously conceived and prescribed plan,' implemented under the 'strictest discipline,' was in reality to be 'nothing more or less than the expression and direct outcome of the reciprocal commitment contracted by each of the members towards the others.'" [Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin, p. 115]

It also notes that anarchists do not subscribe to Bakunin's flawed organisational perspectives, but that the Marxist position on it leaves alot to be desired.

Funnily enough, this letter (including the quote proved) is quoted in an appendix. Strangely, this part of the letter is not quoted:

So a somewhat different perspective can be seen, once the full letter is quoted...

Let me provide some historical context. Bakunin an exile from Tsarist Russia, a regime which required secret organising. Moreover, having spent a number of years imprisoned by the Tsar, Bakunin would not have desired to end up back in prison after escaping from Siberia to the West. In addition, given that the countries in which anarchists were operating at the time were not democracies, in the main, a secret organisation would have been considered essential. As Murray Bookchin argues, "Bakunin's emphasis on conspiracy and secrecy can be understood only against the social background of Italy, Spain, and Russia the three countries in Europe where conspiracy and secrecy were matters of sheer survival." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 24]

So, given the circumstances faced by, and the experiences of, Bakunin I can see why he urged secret organisations. And such organisations cannot be that democratic, by necessity. However, if you do not quote selectively you quickly see that Bakunin's ideas were not quite the same as some people suggest. Which is the whole point of the FAQ section, to show that such selective quoting cannot be relied upon.

As far as this discussion goes, I really feel that it is not going anywhere. As I feared, the power of ideology precludes understanding clear language....

Well, he was not an authoritarian Marxist, that is for sure! Still, if you want to argue that you cannot be a Marxist and be a libertarian then feel free -- personally, I feel it is the height of sectarianism to suggest that all Marxists are authoritarians. Particularly as some marxists, a minority to be sure, are clearly in favour of self-management, genuine workers' councils, and so on.

So, sorry, I'm not prepared to dismiss all Marxist traditions as authoritarian, as non-libertarian. If you want to argue that all Marxists are authoritarians, feel free -- but I would object to that as its obviously not true.

As such, I think calling certain strains of Marxism libertarian makes sense, particularly as their positions are close to anarchist ones on many issues. I would not call them libertarian without adding Marxist, of course. Still, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is best to build walls between traditions and deny what they have in common. Perhaps it is best to consider all Marxists as authoritarians, but I do not. Sorry.

And where did Panneokeok reject being called a libertarian Marxist? Was anyone referred to as a libertarian marxist before the 1960s?

The whole idea of 'Libertarian', or 'Authoritarian' as it is seen in the usage connected to communists is one that springs from the anarchist tradition. He wouldn't have used either, but if pressed by anarchists he would probably have chosen 'authoritarian'.

I think that you really miss the point. It is not that I am arguing that 'all Marxists are authoritarians'. I am saying that it is not a differentiation that most Marxists make. So Marxists can be 'clearly in favour of self-management, genuine workers' councils, and so on', and not think of themselves as 'libertarian', or 'authoritarian' (Marxists) because it is a word that is completely meaningless in their discourse. I am not sure if I can explain it any better.

Devrim

Doubtful; he quite openly praised the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists didn't he? I think you make too much of the term anyway, it's only a loose marker (from an anarchist POV) that identifies the closeness in our positions, rather than revisionism. Your comparison that Makhno was a left communist is then invalid as it denotes a specific, defined ideology.

Hmm,

I wondering how many folks could verify this claim. I personally would not ever call myself an "anarchist" due to the wide and incoherent range of "thought" that passes for anarchism. I would certainly call myself a Marx-influenced communist since Marx at least had a somewhat consistent theory (Situationist-inspired is another adjective I'd admit to). Back when I would actually call myself a "left-communist", I never met any other left communists who considered Trotskyists, Stalinists or Social Democrats as "fellow Marxists" and we would grudgingly make common cause with anarchists. My sense is ideally, the "communist left" would like to distinguish itself only through its political economic analysis but in reality it must often distinguish itself by its rejection of the odious Leninist Party and all that it implies. Certainly, the Leninist political parties basically work to subvert the autonomy of any organs such as a workers councils whether they are nominally in favor or against such formations.

What are other folks' experiences?

Red

Hmm, the last time there were workers councils on German soil was around 1918, but should any pop up sometime in the near future, I will be sure and report here on Libcom if the Leninist political parties work to subvert them.

you bunch of wankers...anarchy has an academic critique...it's simple no leaders no political reasoning other than simplicity so working class people can understand...which is lots.. you fail to understand that anarcy is for the people not the intelgenistia..simplicity is the name of the game... you sound like a bunch of SWP'S..wake up and see what I am saying..reach out to the people they all agree with us. Keep it simple to what anarchy propogates...do I really need to tell you?

Yeah: "no leaders no political reasoning other than simplicity so working class people can understand...which is lots..."

Sounds very academic!

If "simplicity is the name of the game" you should work on making your posts not read like someone just barfed up a bunch of words everywhere.

P.S. What is the "intelgenistia"? Do you perhaps mean intelligentsia?

Red, were you a member of a left communist organisation, or were you just someone who 'would call himself a left-communist'? We define a left communist as a member or supporter of one of the left communist organisations. I don't think that that is unreasonable.

I wasn't implying that we consider Stalinist organisations as revolutionary in any way, but it is understandable that they share a few very basic terms with other Marxists, in the same way that very different strands of anarchism share the same terms. That doesn't mean there is any similarity between them.

For the communist left the currents within the worker's movement that took up the slogan of national defence, and dropped internationalism betrayed that includes 'the Trotskyists, Stalinists or Social Democrats'.

Devrim

Oh, right. Okay, all Marxists are authoritarian. Wow. Now that is sectarian!

So, you seem to be objecting to anarchists evaluating Marxists in terms of their closeness to anarchism, i.e., the correct revolutionary theory. Fine, I suppose, but I refuse to label all Marxists as authoritarians. Some are obviously close to anarchist ideas and should be acknowledged as comrades.

And I suppose I should note that the term "libertarian" has not been exclusively used by anarchists since at least the 1960s. Solidarity, for example, called themselves libertarians (and quite rightly too). non-anarchist socialists have also called themselves libertarian socialists, to differientate themselves from the mainstream Marxist tradition (Leninism, Stalinism, etc). I'm fine with that.

So, while all anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists.

And that is relevant, how? When anarchists call people libertarian Marxists they are pointing out that unlike, say, Lenin, they have some idea what genuine socialism is and advocate popular self-management rather than party rule. It shows that on certain key issues, they have drawn anarchistic conclusions. As such, it shows that we are aware that not all Marxists are authoritarians like Lenin.

That libertarian/authoritarian is often meaningless in Marxist discourse is part of the problem.

Thus one-man management is just as "authoritarian" as workers' self-management as both involve the coordination of collective work. Engels' "On Authority" really does have a lot to answer for (for a critique of that terrible essay, see section H.4 of An Anarchist FAQ).

Still, I think it is good to use the term libertarian Marxist -- it shows that we are aware that some Marxists are better than others, that a Panneokeok is fundamentally different from a Lenin.

Clearly, I’m having difficulties making certain people understand plain language. I think it is wise to start again and compare what could be called the mainstream Marxist position (as founded by Lenin, in “State and Revolution”) with the correct one (as expressed by myself and the likes of Martov and the SPGB). That should make the issues clear, hopefully.

The mainstream Marxist position is that Marx and Engels argued that the working class must smash the republican state and replace it with a new one. The other is that they made a clear distinction between the republican state and the “state machinery” and that, as a consequence, they argued that the republic could be captured by the working class and reformed. The next result of both notions is the creation of a really democratic state (this is where anarchists disagree, of course, arguing that any state, even an initially really democratic one, would generate new forms of class rule).

So I will first present the standard one, the one which apparently produces the “least inconsistencies” before expounding the correct one (which apparently produces the “most inconsistencies”).

In 1847, Engels proclaimed the revolution "will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people." The same year he argued that "democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of the proletariat." Universal suffrage would "make political power pass from the middle class to the working class" and so "the democratic movement" is "striving for the political domination of the proletariat." The Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the "immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties," namely the "conquest of political power by the proletariat," the "first step in the revolution by the working class" being "to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." Marx later noted that the "fundamental contradiction" of a democracy under capitalism is that the classes "whose social slavery the constitution is to perpetuate" it "puts in possession of political power through universal suffrage."

Then, after the experience of the French Republic Marx, apparently, concludes that the state needs to be smashed: "in its struggle against the revolution, the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to strengthen, along with the repressive, the resources and centralisation of governmental power. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it.”

However, the same year Marx seems to forget this. He argues that universal suffrage was "the equivalent of political power for the working class . . . where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population." Its "inevitable" result would be "the political supremacy of the working class." Yet, apparently, Marx had concluded that the state had to be smashed. Now universal suffrage could be used to ensure the political rule of the workers. How inconsistent!

Moving on, we turn to the Paris Commune. Here, apparently, is the conclusive proof that Marx argued that the democratic state (rather than the State power or state machinery) had to be smashed. Yet within a year Marx seems to have forgotten this conclusion:

"We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence of countries like America, England, and if I knew your institutions better I might add Holland, where the workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means.”

I know: a year is a long time. I cannot remember what I had for breakfast last week, never mind last year. What did he say in 1871? Well, he made the same point and argued that in Britain, "the way to show [i.e., manifest] political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work." Yet Marx, apparently, had proclaimed that the state had to be smashed. Now it could be captured by universal suffrage and used to introduce socialism!

Then there is Engels. Apparently he failed to understand Marx’s conclusions or, perhaps, did not ask him any questions about his analysis. Thus after the Commune Engels proclaimed the following:

"In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is political power; the ruling class defends its political supremacy, that is to say its safe majority in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first a share, then the whole of that power, in order to become enabled to change existing laws in conformity with their own interests and requirements. Thus the working class of Great Britain for years fought ardently and even violently for the People's Charter [which demanded universal suffrage and yearly general elections], which was to give it that political power."

Apparently universal suffrage gives the workers political power, which they should use to gain “the whole” of the power of the Legislature. He said the same about America in 1887, where the workers "next step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal." This new party "like all political parties everywhere . . . aspires to the conquest of political power." But I thought that the republic had to be smashed? How inconsistent…

Then, in 1891 he stated the following:

"If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

Engels goes on to argue that "[f]rom 1792 to 1799 each French department, each commune, enjoyed complete self-government on the American model, and this is what we too must have. How self-government is to be organised and how we can manage without a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French Republic." He stressed that "the proletariat can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic" with "self-government" meaning "officials elected by universal suffrage."

No mention of the Commune. No mention of smashing the state. Rather, the aim is a democratic republic as per America. Asked to clarify what Marx meant by smashing the “state machine”, Engels stated:

"It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes: whereas all bourgeois republicans since 1848 inveighed against this machinery so long as they were in the opposition, but once they were in the government they took it over without altering it and used it partly against the reaction but still more against the proletariat."

Nothing ambiguous there: In fact, it is exactly the same as Marx’s 1852 analysis.

Then there is the question of the first aim of the revolution. As Engels put it, "the first and direct result of the revolution with regard to the form can and must be nothing but the bourgeois republic. But this will be here only a brief transitional period . . . The bourgeois republic . . . will enable us to win over the great masses of the workers to revolutionary socialism . . . Only then can we successfully take over." The "proletariat can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic" for it is "the sole political form in which the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be fought to a finish." In fact: "With respect to the proletariat the republic . . . is the ready-for-use form for the future rule of the proletariat."

Against the anarchists, Engels states that, for Marxists "the only organisation the victorious working class finds ready-made for use, is that of the State. It may require adaptation to the new functions. But to destroy that at such a moment, would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the working class can exert its newly conquered power." What state is “ready-made for use” if it has been smashed, destroyed, broken? Elsewhere he states that the state is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy," although it "cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible" of it. How can you inherit something which has been smashed? And what is there to “lop off” if it is broken?

Then, finally, there is Engels comment from 1895: "Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat." And so we are back full circle, with Engels noting that he and Marx had proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage as the key from the start.

So, this is (apparently) the “least inconsistent” analysis of what Marx and Engels meant! Thus we have Marx and Engels both realising that the state needs to be smashed and replaced and then both forgetting it! The republican state has to be destroyed, except when it can be used by the workers, via universal suffrage, to introduce socialism. Yes, very consistent.

What of the alternative analysis. Well, this bases itself on the fact that Marx drew a distinction between the republican state and the state machine. This can be seen from his analysis of Bonaparte’s coup.

We find Marx recounting in 1852 how the "executive power with its enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its wide-ranging and ingenious state machinery . . . sprang up in the days of the absolute monarchy, with the decay of the feudal system which it had helped to hasten." After 1848, "in its struggle against the revolution, the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to strengthen, along with the repressive, the resources and centralisation of governmental power. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it. The parties that contended in turn for domination regarded the possession of this huge state edifice as the principal spoils of the victor." However, "under the absolute monarchy, during the first Revolution, under Napoleon, bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of its own." It was "[o]nly under the second Bonaparte does the state seem to have made itself completely independent."

So the state machine predates the republic but is used by the bourgeoisie -- a point he repeats in his analysis of the Commune ("The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature . . . originates from the days of absolute monarchy" -- which suggests that he is using the term “the state power” as an equivalent for “state machinery” in that justly famous essay). And to requote what Engels replied when asked what Marx meant by smashing “the state machine”:

"It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes: whereas all bourgeois republicans since 1848 inveighed against this machinery so long as they were in the opposition, but once they were in the government they took it over without altering it and used it partly against the reaction but still more against the proletariat."

Which is as remarkably consistent as it is remarkably non-ambiguous.

Interestingly, Marx also stated that "the industrial bourgeoisie applauds with servile bravos the coup d’état of December 2, the annihilation of parliament, the downfall of its own rule, the dictatorship of Bonaparte." He repeats this identification: "Passing of the parliamentary regime and of bourgeois rule. Victory of Bonaparte." So bourgeois rule is maintained by its majority in parliament, which in order to secure from the workers the bourgeois give more power to the executive and the state machine. Which, in turn, abolishes parliament and, apparently, the “rule” of the industrial bourgeoisie! Which fits in nicely with the notion that a democratic republic gives the people political power via universal suffrage, which Marx also expressed.

In this sense, the notion that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes" is perfectly consistent with arguments that universal suffrage gives workers political power. It is also perfectly consistent with Marx and Engels arguing that the workers party would have to introduce numerous reforms to make the republican state more democratic, more accountable to the electorate by, for example, introducing mandates and recall (as per the Commune).

It is also useful to remember that, for Marx and Engels, the French state was not considered a republic exactly like that of, say, America. For Engels, Proudhon "confuses the French Bureaucratic government with the normal state of a bourgeoisie that rules both itself and the proletariat." Marx also noted that "Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government" in The Civil War in France. In the 1870s, Marx considered Holland, Britain and the USA to have "the genuine capitalist state." Significantly, it was precisely these states in which Marx had previously stated a peaceful revolution could occur. To re-quote him from 1872:

"We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence of countries like America, England, and if I knew your institutions better I might add Holland, where the workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means. That being the true, we must admit that in most countries on the continent it is force which must be the lever of our revolution; it is force which will have to be resorted to for a time in order to establish the rule of the workers."

From which we can generalise. For Marx and Engels, the initial aim for a revolution would be a democratic republic (Engels notes repeatedly that this would be forced upon the bourgeoisie as they are scared that the workers would utilise it). Under this republic, workers would utilise universal suffrage to seize power – and then reform the state (smash the state machine, for example) as freedom (to quote Marx) "consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it." Force would be used to defend this refashioned republic against counter-revolution or if the republic was abolished before a majority was gained.

Which is what happened in 1871: an insurrection created a republic, a general election was called and the resulting Commune was "formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town." This town council then passed various political and social reforms to increase mass participation (the Commune “supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions"). For Marx and Engels, as for the social-democracy they inspired, this would be repeated on the national level.

Now, what analysis is more “inconsistent”? Both conclude the same thing, that Marx and Engels wanted to truly democratic state. However, one has to ignore or dismiss the awkward fact that both Marx and Engels repeatedly argued that the republican state could be captured via universal suffrage and used to introduce socialism. This means arguing that they wanted to smash the republican state somewhat difficult to maintain. The other shows how these statements are perfectly in line with the rest of their analysis.

Then there is the question of why Marx and Engels considered the structure of the democratic (bourgeois) state could be used by the working class. This, I would argue, flows from their confused analysis of the state as an “instrument” or “machine” of class rule. This flawed analysis also explains their equation of democratic representative structures with working class power. However, that is another issue and one that can be addressed now that the actual ideas of Marx and Engels have been clarified.

Anarcho, to go back to the original issue, you claimed that Marx’s theory is confused. Your initial argument as to why Marx’s theory is confused was that Marx used a “wrong” definition. Your comments on this theme are so logically flawed that I tried to grasp at an actual argument in your words, but you have consistently failed to provide one, instead insisting from the beginning that I simply “don’t have a clue” what you are arguing. You say of Marx’s definition that

Marx is not making a generalization. A generalization is not the same thing as a definition. If you want to argue that things that Marx describes as states are not actually instruments of class rule, that is fine, but it cannot make his definition “wrong.” To argue that there are states out there that are not instruments of class rule would be senseless, because such “states” are by definition not members of the Marxian set of possible states.
You write:

The notion that the state is an “instrument of class rule” does not “imply” anything about the republic. This simply makes no sense.
You write:

What you have stated repeatedly makes no sense. It is the height of absurdity to claim that this theoretical conclusion simply “follows” from a definition. A theorist using your definition of “an instrument of minority class rule” could come to the conclusion that the republic can be used by a majority class for its dictatorship—they could simply not call this new republican regime a “state.” A theorist using Marx’s definition of “an instrument of class rule” could come to the conclusion that proletarian dictatorship cannot use the republic—their class rule would still constitute a state, by definition. In brief, it does not follow.
You have also said that Marx’s definition of the state

It is beyond me how you think that this is an argument. Using Marx’s theory, the class rule of the working class masses is a state structure by definition. You seem to think that every state having “evolved to exclude the masses” shows that a state structure cannot be used by the masses, but as I have just said it is not a matter of whether a state structure can or cannot be used by the masses, as proletarian rule is by definition a state structure, within Marx’s theory. You must be using some other definition of “state” for your comment to make any sense whatsoever. Perhaps you think that you are not making a choice in defining the state in a certain way, but simply communicating the essence of “state,” making your definition an objective criteria of “stateness.”
Your argument on this point was so illogical that I eventually moved on to other themes. But it seems to me like your entire argument is based on this illogic, which makes it important to address. Early on, you claimed:

When Marx calls “this new social organization a state,” he is applying his definition of the state. It would show confusion if he contradicted his definition. It does not show confusion when he applies it. Do you understand? I do not think that you are appealing to a lexical (dictionary) definition of “state,” but rather to another stipulative definition as if it was some objective criteria of “stateness”!
Here is another example of the same confusion:

So, the anarchist critique of Marxism, according to you, amounts to a distinct stipulative definition of the state. You should realize that this is not a critique.

Now, going back to the idea that Marx’s theory is confused. I searched for some argument against Marx other than the repeated claim that he chose the “wrong” definition of the state. It seemed to me like you were claiming that Marx and Engels thought that the bourgeois republic could be used by the working class to exercise their dictatorship. You wrote:

I characterized your position later, and you agreed with my characterization.

Now, I went on to explain what Marx considered to be the key characteristic of the bourgeois state, and how he specifically wrote of this characteristic being overturned with the Paris Commune. Therefore, I argued that Marx did not see the Paris Commune as a bourgeois state, thus it is not an example of some theory of using the bourgeois state for proletarian dictatorship. You do not respond to any of this, but instead assemble a new mass of quotations as if it clarifies your argument that Marx’s theory of the state is confused. You seem to really think that the above Engels quote shows that Marx wanted to use the bourgeois state for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but Engels does not describe the character of the “refashioned” state power at all. It is in this sense that I called it “ambiguous.” The working class uses “it,” but what characterizes “it”? It is no longer “the old, bureaucratic, administrative cerntralised state power,” but you seem to think that this automatically means that Engels is referring to a bourgeois parliamentary government, when he has not specified the form of the state power at all. I think he has a republic in mind, but I have stated multiple times that Marx and Engels did not identify the democratic republic with the bourgeois state, as you and Lenin do. And we are talking about Marx’s theory here, not yours. You still have failed to deal with my argument about Marx’s theory of the bourgeois state, and how it is given very clear application in The Civil War in France.

Some of your latest comments reveal an even deeper confusion:

I have no idea what you think you are disagreeing with here. You seem to be indignantly re-stating what I have just said.

What, specifically, is "the problem"? You seem to be saying that Marx defined the state as a social structure in which the minority rules, but you previously complained that he should have done this, and did not. As we have said repeatedly, he did not define the state as “an instrument of minority class rule.” You could also be saying that Marx described “instruments of minority class rule” as states, which is obvious, and could hardly be a problem, as any example of an “instrument of minority class rule” or an “instrument of majority class rule” is a member of Marx’s set of “states,” given his definition. So the sense of your comment is entirely unclear.

Now, when you try to clarify the issues, you again do not address my argument:

(I am curious what definition of the state you are employing in your parenthetical comment.) According to this, I do not adhere to either of the positions you describe. I have never claimed that Marx or Engels held that the republic must be destroyed. I have written:

Of the Commune I wrote:

So I don’t understand why you think you are addressing my position, since you specifically drop the description of this republic as bourgeois. My argument is that Marx saw a change in the class content of the state as entailing an end to the parliamentary form, and the birth of “really democratic institutions,” i.e. directly democratic forms of delegation. Marx held that

, whereas

I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Marx even used the same words that Engels used:

Here is Engels:

This is the only reading of Marx that accords with his theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he considered a major theoretical advance, essential to his political theory. He writes:

He understood this dictatorship as the rule of an entire class, and the best (however imperfect) example of this during Marx’s lifetime (the Paris Commune) displayed the resumption of social powers separated from civil society which Marx had criticized in his major work on the state, the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. As Lucio Colletti points out, the Critique

In 1843 Marx wrote that

Colletti comments,

The worker’s state is necessarily different in content and form from the bourgeois state. This is my position. In other words, I see the key to Marx’s understanding of proletarian revolution in his idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of the proletariat as a class, which necessarily overturns the “abstraction” of the bourgeois state from civil society. I emphasize Marx’s consistency on this point in order to show that Marx’s theory of the state was not “confused.” I focus on the word “bourgeois,” in the term “bourgeois state” because we have to be clear about what Marx meant by this.

With regard to Martov, he held that Marx’s position on the Commune was contradictory. My interpretation very clearly resolves the inconsistencies that Martov’s creates:

The destruction of “the state as such”—exactly how Marx referred to the bourgeois state in his On the Jewish Question. The same concept is described as the “state itself” in the First Draft of The Civil War in France. As Colletti observes,

So, in my opinion, Martov is only repeating the Orthodox Marxist ignorance of the paramount importance of historical specificity in Marx’s theory, and very clearly confusing the state in general with the bourgeois state, which is exactly what Colletti identifies as a common mistake. Now, Martov was at least able to recognize a contradiction in his interpretation of Marx, and he did this without knowledge of Marx’s drafts for the Civil War in France, first published in 1934, or of the foundations of Marx’s political theory, as formulated in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, first published in 1927. Anarcho does not follow Martov’s good sense in admitting a contradiction, a contradiction which is simply solved by understanding that Marx considered the bourgeois state to be the “state as such,” or the state alienated from civil society.

With the Paris Commune, Marx is very clear about what he is praising: He praises, first and foremost, the democratic “spirit” of the Commune:

So when Marx says that the Commune is based on “universal suffrage,” he understands “universal suffrage” as opposed to hierarchical investiture. He is clearly against hierarchical investiture. This is his understanding of real democracy, plain and simple.

As for his use of the term “republic,” he is referring to a new type of republic, which he termed the “Republic of Labor,” the “Communal Republic” or the “Social Republic.” This new republic is necessarily organized in a Communal manner, a manner opposed to the previous “republic” and the previous “universal suffrage.” Marx writes:

What is the “Communal organization” that Marx sees as necessary for total social transformation?

He describes a pyramid structure of popular democracy, much like the council system. He states that there was no time to really develop this structure, but it is the structure that he favors. He does not praise the opposed principle of parliamentarism, but rather criticizes it. And Anarcho has still not conceded that Marx argued for the overturning of the parliamentary system.

That Marx's theory is confused is shown by the notion that the bourgeous republican state can be captured and transformed by the working class as means of introducing socialism. That shows pretty clearly that his analysis of the state, and the definitions that flowed from it, were pretty wrong and confused.

It is not about "definitions" as such, but the definitions reached by anarchists and Marxists show a different analysis of the state, how it evolved and changed and whether states can be used by the working class. The anarchism takes an evolutionary analysis of the state, recognising that it evolved certain structures to secure minority rule. They concluded that no state can be used by working class people for their liberation precisely because the state has structures designed to exclude the mass participation required for socialism.

Marx, on the other hand, analysed the state and drew the conclusion it was an instrument of class rule. Thus the working class could use a state to liberate itself. In fact, the bourgeois republic could be the means of doing that as universal suffrage gave the working class political power. Sure, said republic would have to be reformed and refashioned, but representative government (and the associated state structures) was compatible with working class rule.

Yes, he is -- when he says that the state, political power, is an instrument of class rule then that is a generalisation. It is also a definition. From this analysis certain conclusions arose, namely that universal suffrage was the political power for the working class.

Now, that conclusion shows that his analysis was confused and downright wrong.

Clearly my attempts to explain myself have proven fruitless....

Clearly Marx and Engels were not Marxist theorists then! Both concluded that a republic could be used by the proletariat to impose its dictatorship. That you simply fail to acknowledge that both Marx and Engels explicitly, and repeatedly, drew this conclusion is staggering.

Yes, because the working class would still be a proletariat -- they would have political power, but they would not have economic power. Their economic emancipation comes after their seizure of political power (via universal suffrage or not). That was one Bakunin's key criticism's of Marx's position, as well as Kropotkin's critique of the Commune. It is doubtful that their politcal power would remain for long, as Lenin's regime showed.

Then there is the awkward problem that in a state structure the masses are not actually in power, the party/government is. Another key part of Bakunin's critique!

Which is the whole point. Marx's definition is wrong, confused. The masses are not ruling, they are being ruled by their elected representatives at the top of the state structure. That Marx thought that electing a workers' party into power equated to working class rule shows how flawed his analysis of the state is.

That you could not understand my argument shows how confused the Marxist theory of the state is. It produces some strange perspective, for example when leading Bolsheviks proclaimed that the dictatorship of the party WAS the dictatorship of the proletariat (and vice versa). That sort of nonsense is only possible with a flawed theory of the state, the kind provided by Marx and Engels.

And the whole point is that his definition was wrong, confused, silly! It laid the ground for lots of silly positions, including the notion that the republic could be rehashioned into a tool for the working class.

I have provided more than enough quotes to show that this is the case. And the whole point is that when the workers capture the republic, they refashion it from the means of bourgeois rule to that of the working class.

And I showed how Marx and Engels considered the French state as not a typically bourgeois state, that in proper bourgeois states (like Britain, America and Holland) the working class could use universal suffrage for their aims. I also noted how, for Marx, the "state machinery"/"state power" which had to be broken predated the bourgeous republic (although used by the bourgeous to secure their power in the state). I also noted how Marx and Engels stressed that the republic would need to be reformed and refashioned to be of use to the working class, these reforms being used by the Commune.

You really have not been paying attention, have you? The Commune, as was acknowledged by Marx, was a republic -- it was the local town council, elected by universal suffrage in the existing wards! Structurally, this was identical to the "bourgeois" state. The Communards infused this (apparently neutral) form with socialistic content, refashioned it, lopped off aspects of it, made it more democratic and so on.

That you deny how the commune was formed and how it was structured is staggering.

And as I note in my article on this very subject (The Paris Commune, Marxism and Anarchism), this structure was not up to the task. Which anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin argued showed that the state, all forms of delegated power, had to be smashed.

Okay, so you have ignored the quotes and context I provided. I'm not surprised, as plain language seems to be a problem around here. Now, Marx explicitly and repeatedly argued that the working class could capture the bourgeois state and use it to introduce socialism. That you deny this is staggering.

Here is Engels: “It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes”

Now, that you cannot understand plain English when it suits you is staggering. You ask what is "it", when it is obvious that it is the "old" state power, refashioned by the working class. You deny that Engels "is referring to a bourgeois parliamentary government, when he has not specified the form of the state power at all." Please! According to you, this state has been smashed! How can you "refashion" something which has been smashed? How can you "use" something which is smashed? He immediately adds:

"whereas all bourgeois republicans since 1848 inveighed against this machinery so long as they were in the opposition, but once they were in the government they took it over without altering it and used it partly against the reaction but still more against the proletariat."

So he is talking about the same thing which bourgeois republicans have used! Surely that is clear enough? While the bourgeois republicans use this machine, the workers' party will refashion it before using it for its own purposes. That is, break the state machine, "lop off" the worse bits it "inherits", and so on...

I have presented enough quotes to show that this is precisely what Marx and Engels did you. Thus we find Engels stating:

"If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

He then states "[f]rom 1792 to 1799 each French department, each commune, enjoyed complete self-government on the American model, and this is what we too must have. How self-government is to be organised and how we can manage without a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French Republic." Engels stressed that "the proletariat can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic" with "self-government" meaning "officials elected by universal suffrage". He also states:

"One can imagine that the old society could peacefully grow into the new in countries where all power is concentrated in the people's representatives, where one can constitutionally do as one pleases as soon as a majority of the people give their support; in democratic republics like France and America, in monarchies such as England, where the dynasty is powerless against the popular will. But in Germany, where the government is virtually all-powerful and the Reichstag and other representative bodies are without real power, to proclaim likewise in Germany . . . is to accept the fig leaf of absolutism and to bind oneself to it."

Note, that he has added the French Republic to the list of countries (which included America) that could achieve socialism by means of universal suffrage. Germany is still included with the rest of mainland Europe were revolution to create a republic was required.

ROTFL! I've explicitly shown that you do not understand Marx's theory of the state in the slightest. I have dealt with it in great details and showed that you are wrong.

Given that you cannot understand a simple and plain sentence from Engels without finding it "ambiguous", I would suggest that it is you that is confused.

Because you fail to understand that by "republic" and "democratic republic" they meant exactly that! The bourgeois republic is bourgois because they control the legislature! And as Engels stressed, the workers had to change that. Once that was done, they would reform (refashion) the state they had just inherited!

ROTFL! My argument is that Marx argued that once the republic was captured, then it would be reformed and refashioned. As per the Paris Commune, but on a national scale. The class content of the republic depends on who is control of parliament (as can be seen when he proclaimed that bourgeous rule ended with Bonaparte's coup, for example). Hence Engels making a distinction between form and content when discussing it.

And this "only" reading requires that Marx forgets it within 3 months of the crushing of the Paris Commune....

Read all of Martov's analysis, it shows who exactly was "contradictory". It can be found here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/index.htm

In terms of the "consistent" analysis presented here by Dave, it requires that Marx forgets the lessons of the Commune by July of 1871 and announces that the working class need not smash the state after all! He also forgets it the next year as well! Now, read Martov in context and see which analysis is more consistent after all...

What is not mentioned is that Martov is critiquing Lenin's analysis in "The State and Revolution", showing how Lenin ignores the awkward bits and pieces in Marx and Engels which clearly refutes his analysis. I've presented more than enough evidence above to show that Martov is not remotely confused.

Read Martov's whole article and you will quickly see how Dave C is quoting out of context. Martov's analysis integrates the example of the Commune fully into it. He simply notes that Marx is commenting on a revolt whose leading ideas were Proudhonist -- the whole federation of communes is straight from Proudhon, via one of his associates who wrote the declaration in question.

ROTFL! Here is Marx on how the Commune was formed and structured: It was "formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town." Only Dave C seems unware that the commune was elected by a normal general election, using the existing electoral wards, to the existing town council. By "universal suffrage" Marx meant precisely that! I'll requote Leininist Danny Gluckstein, who notes that the revolution used the “elections under the old voting system to choose a communal council” and so “direct democracy” was not “built into the institutional framework” as in the National Guard. It could “still be expressed, but it was not closely tied in to the structure.” (p. 133) Therefore, “the council emerged from a conventional electoral system, where there is no organic link between elector and representative.” (p. 134)

I could quote Kropotkin as well, but why repeat what should be a well known fact yet again?

Of course, it would be churlish to note that I have repeatedly noted how Marx and Engels stressed that the republic would need to be refashioned, reformed, have its worse sides lopped off and so on. It would also be churlish to note, yet again, that Marx and Engels both argued that the American republic, for example, could be used to introduce socialism.

But why bother, when mere facts have no impact?

Strangely, Marx fails to note that this was written by a follower of Proudhon. Equally strangely, Dave C fails to note that Marx though this could be done peacefully in America and Britain, by means of universal suffrage....

ROTFL! Well, it would as it is expressing the ideas of Proudhon! And Bakunin had built on this and had been advocating a council system for some time perviously, including mandated and recallable delegates from workplaces. as Anarchist K.J. Kenafick states:

Which means, in part, Marx caught up with the anarchists. I say in part, because the experience of Commune did not actually shift Marx out of his notions that a republic could be used to introduce socialism. A few months after it was crushed, he proclaimed that workers in Britain could achieve their goals by reform! The following year, the American republic was considered suitable for such a process. Engels continued this theme.

You really have not understand my argument nor the numerous quotes I have provided from before, during and after 1871! Staggering.

Apparently, Marx came to the conclusion that the parliamentary republic had to be smashed in May 1871 only to forget this in July of that year! He then remembered it when he added a new preface to the Communist Manifesto the next year before forgetting it when he proclaimed:

Engels, likewise, had a bad memory as well. Or perhaps he never discussed the need to smash the republic with Marx (or only did so when Marx was being forgetful). Yet Engels subsequently proclaimed distinctly similar positions. For example, in America, the workers "next step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal." This new party "like all political parties everywhere . . . aspires to the conquest of political power."

Now, I could go on with this but, really, is there any point? What we have hear is an ideologue who simply refused to acknowledge facts or plain language. I've tried my best to explain what Marx and Engels actually repeatedly argued for, and how this expressed a confused/wrong analysis of the state, but to no avail. It is somewhat depressing, I have to admit.

Marx, on the other hand, analysed the state and drew the conclusion it was an instrument of class rule. Thus the working class could use a state to liberate itself.

The two statements don't follow from each other, leaving aside the question as to whether Marx and Engels reduced the state to an instrument of class rule in the sense of being the simple extension of a particular ruling class. In Origins of the State Engels sees the state first as an emanation of a class divided situation, which then becomes the instrument of the economically dominant clas rather than being the direct creation of the economically dominant class.

But I digress. If we stick to the simple affirmation that the state is an instrument of class rule, then we have to look at the nature of the classes which are ruling through it. Since the bourgeoisie followed the feudal class as a new exploiting class, there was no problem about it simply adapting the old state for its own purposes. The working class, as an exploited class, cannot use an instrument specifically geared to the maintenance of exploitation and is therefore confronted with the need to smash the old state power and replace it with an instrument which is not the direct negation of its communist project (which as Dave C has stressed in numerous posts, is inseparable from man appropriating the capacity to consciously direct social life). This is indeed the essential substance of Marx's thought from his earliest writings and despite confusions and regressions.

I would argue that even after the destruction of the bourgeois state there will still be contradictions, inevitable points of conflict, between the revolutionary working class and the transitional semi-state, but that is another discussion.

Jesus Christ, Anarcho, go take a logic class or read a book or two about it. It is tiresome to see you keep arguing about things that you obviously know nothing about.

Definitions do not "flow" from analysis! Definitions must precede analysis, or else you are not analyzing anything! If words are not defined before making an analysis, the propositions are empty, and you may as well be saying that "The proletariat will use x to liberate itself". I.e. you wouldn't be saying anything at all, the word would be empty, and nothing would be said.

No, a different definition does not show a different analysis, a definition shows nothing more than a different definition. Definitions are a prerequisite of any analysis. You keep harping on about Marx's definitions but he simply cannot be wrong about them -- definitions aren't wrong (any more than they are "true"), because they aren't propositions!

Do you realize that you are Marx and anarchists used the same word ("state") to talk about two entirely different things, and that your claims are therefore not valid? You keep talking about "the state" but the word is not defined the same way in the two theories. This is why you continue to misunderstand what Marx was saying. And don't try to say that the anarchist one is the more common, correct one, because the anarchist one relies on a stipulative definition just as much as Marx's. There is nothing wrong with this, it is frequently necessary when doing theory, but to act as if you are speaking of the same "state" that one speaks of in normal speech while Marx wasn't is completely dishonest.

Let us add the number "1" and the number "2" to the anarchist definition, and Marx's definition, of "the state", respectively, and see that two of your sentences do not contradict each other in any way when one recognizes the different definitions.

You can see the distinction much more clearly. The words have the same spelling and pronunciation, but not the same meaning any more than "chair[1]" (that you sit on) and "chair[2]" (that "chairs" a meeting), or "football[1]" (as in the ball used in American football) and "football[2]" (as in American football) and "football[3]" (as in what Americans call "soccer"). There are a million examples of this sort of thing in ordinary language, and your inability to understand it is most definitely impressive, but entirely understandable if it is recognized that you are a sectarian wingnut and not a serious theorist.

I should also point out that you again show deep confusion when you say that anarchists "recognise" that the state[1] "evolved certain structures to secure minority rule." You are treating this as if anarchists looked at "the state" and then noticed that it had "evolved certain structures to secure minority rule." But you state elsewhere that the anarchists define the state as an instrument of minority rule. Which is it? If it is a definition, then the claim that the state is a minority of class rule is not an analysis, it is a tautology. (Which is okay, since all definiitions are tautologies, but you should not act as if it is anything more than that.) If it is not a definition but an empirical claim, then you must be able to give a definition of "state" which is entirely independent of the issue of minority class rule. (Otherwise you have a circular definition.)

And you make a parallel error with Marx's argument, when you say that Marx "analysed the state[2] and drew the conclusion it was an instrument of class rule." Marx did not first analyse "the state", and then "draw the conclusion it was an instrument of class rule", because "instrument of class rule" was the very meaning of "state" to Marx. What you're saying makes no more sense than to say "I looked at all bachelors, and then came to the conclusion that they were all unmarried men." No, "unmarried man" is the very meaning of "bachelor"! There is no "drawing of conclusions" anywhere in sight.

I should also point out that some Communards themselves distinguished between the parliamentary republic (i.e. bourgeois democracy) and the Republic of the Commune. I can post a particularly explicit example some time next week when I get my copy of Stewart Edwards' collection of writings, many of them by the Communards themselves. There is nothing quirky or specific to Marx about supporting a Republic but being against parliament. This was apparently a common view for Republicans.

A couple more examples of Anarcho being rather obtuse.

The point is not that Marx and Engels are against a Republic (Dave repeatedly acknowledged that they were in favor of a Republic, albeit one that was not a bourgeois parliament!), but that there is no logical necessity in their being in favor of a Republic. A definition does not logically compel one to make this or that analysis of the state (or anything else). If you could draw conclusions from definitions there would be no need for empirical investigation -- we could just discover the meaning of words (or stipulate them, when necessary) and then discover all we needed to know about the world. There would be no need for science at all. (This is, by the way, the method of metaphysics, which you seem to be strangely comfortable with despite calling Marx's definition of the state "metaphysical.")

I already answered this with the example of the turtles and snakes being the same thing, if your logic is to be accepted. You have not even attempted to refute that argument yet you go on blathering about how Marx and Engels left the door open for the Bolsheviks.

If you want to keep making that claim, then you must also maintain that the idea that turtles are snakes is left open by scientists who call both turtles and snakes "reptiles". Or you will have to drop the claim altogether. Which is it?

...would follow if you created a completely arbitrary line between the two. Definition is involved in the act of analysis!

'resolving complex wholes from their elements', how do you do that?

We create definitions from analysis; require them for it and so use them in the process. Definitions 'flow' from analysis as much as precede them. And of course the concept of a 'state' existed in society before either Marx or Bakunin had anything to do with it. It, like the 'bachelor', has a whole array of connotations and meanings (besides the obvious) but unlike the bachelor it's incredibly difficult to define it, so the comparison isn't very good.

But this is just nit-picking. I agree that Marx and Bakunin whilst squaring up to each other were often having quite different arguments. But this isn't to deny that there wasn't cross overs in what they were 'defining' or, in short, to allow for the explaining away of their differences, which were at times clearly fundamental and not only in the way they 'analysed'. Marx, at one point of his life at least, really did believe in what anarchists would say is 'using the state' for revolutionary ends. Engels, who wasn't the same man but was close to his positions, expressed things far more clearly and really was opposed to the anarchist analysis in toto. It wasn't just about definitions. Then again, where you say, Marx and anarchists used the same word ("state") to talk about two entirely different things - the thing in question changed for Marx unlike for anarchists where it remained the seeming focus of their critiques; at least in their debates with other socialists. Marx seemed to move away from his earlier positions and a big part of that IMO is because of the influence of his hostile contact with the anarchists.

Words must have meaning before they can form a part of a (meaningful) proposition. This is basic logic and no amount of mystical holism (Marxist or otherwise) can change it.

If you mean that sometimes we find that we need to use new words with new definitions after having already completed a certain amount of analysis, then okay. But propositions cannot have a definite sense until the words they are composed of themselves have definite senses. So yes, we may need new definitions after doing a bit of analysis, but those newly-defined words were not used until after they had a meaning. (Unless, of course, the sentences are nonsensical. Which is always a possibility.)

This is exactly why stipulative definitions play a much bigger role in theoretical works than in normal conversation. Anarchists use/d stipulative definitions just as much as Marx/ists do/did.

It isn't. The whole argument turns on it. And until Anarcho can reconcile his comments with basic logic, they are useless. Again, are turtles snakes or not? This is not nitpicking. If your logic ends up arguing such ridiculous things then you start to look a bit ridiculous.

Read his 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. The positions he enunciated in 1871 were already there. This was long before Marx's contact with what we know as anarchism. The supposed change in Marx's political theory is a myth of which no evidence has ever been produced.

That said, I do think that there were real differences between Marx and Bakunin. Opposition to bourgeois parliament was not one of them.

The working class has to keep reaffirming and deepening the lessons it's already learnt. Even after the lessons of the Paris Commune, the clarity on the question of the state achieved by Marx and Engels was contradicted by Marx (in the 'Preface to the Gotha Programme'), calling the state "nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". This particular regression the Bolsheviks took up with the idea of the "proletarian state", the contradictory nature of which was almost immediately shown up in practice.
In his "Origins... " , Engels clearly analysed the state as the result and expression of irreconcilable class contradictions. Can the state be neutral, attenuating and mediating these contradictions? The oppressed and exploited classes of all of civilisation's historical epochs give a clear and unambiguous answer.
The state is an organisation of violence and exploitation that today expresses the mainenance of the dictatorship of capital. Engels said in the above on the development of the state that "the lowest police officer has more 'authority' than all the organs of gentile society put together...".
As an expression of a society divided into classes and as an expression of scarcity, the state continues to exist as long as the former exists and, as a conservative body, continues to try to extend and strengthen itself. The state is a fetter on the development of communism even after a successful revolution.
The bourgeois democratic state is a real development of exploitation, oppression and violence, particularly in the face of the ever deepening economic crises. It's essentially a representation of the global interests of the national capital - imperialism during the 20th century. The democratic states of the 20th century and the present day, while being a stronger weapon of class rule for the bourgeoisie, express exactly the same fundamental state capitalist tendencies as Fascism and Stalinism.

About the democratic state: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/toc.html

Worrying about whether politics is successful or not, and judging political success by hopes, ideals and other criteria which exist only in the mind of some thinker - that is a bourgeois theory of the state. Warmly recommending the concerns of politicians to a public eager to know what's worth thinking about and what to think about it - this is what newspapers contribute to political thinking. What citizens are left to worry about, what with the economy or war preparations or the lack of values, is: Who's the best politician - that's their contribution.

People with such a devout attitude toward the state, garnished or not with "critical reflections" or "background information," will no doubt consider a book that sets forth nothing but the purpose and reason for the "modern" state as too limited, or simply to "abstract and theoretical." For instance:

* that the state guarantees freedom and equality because this is the way it takes account of its citizens free will, but very conditionally;

* that law and order are not for preventing violence;

* that welfare measures are aimed at the expedient functioning of a certain class, and are by no means concessions to the majority, nor acts of charity;

* that the democratic competition for political power guarantees the freedom of this power from all the material interests of the electorate; i.e., has nothing at all to do with the exercise of this power being dependent on the people or their interests; and

* that there is a role for the people to play, namely, to be the available human material for the "objective constraints" or "unavoidable necessities" of domestic and foreign policy.

These must all be unpopular truths, but truths

Or maybe your bizarre reading of the transitional state power as a "conservative body" is completely alien to Marx's thought before, during, and after the Paris Commune . . . .

You should be well aware that Marx called for the workers to seize political power--that is, state power--before the Paris Commune. But there is not a shred of evidence that Marx achieved the "clarity on the question of the state" you desire. In the following passage from the second draft of The Civil War in France, Marx praises the Commune as a form of working class political power, and then parenthetically equates this political power with state power.

And before Marx wrote this in 1875:

He wrote this in 1873:

So Marx was quite clear: when it comes to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian state power is revolutionary, not conservative. But it is extremely amusing to see an ICCer adopt the traditional anarchist critique of Marxism on a thread started with one of the ICC's sectarian attacks on anarchism.

Proletarian power is revolutionary. The state is conservative.

And isn't your tone in that last post just a little sectarian Dave...Anyway, I think Baboon overstates his case by saying that there was a regression in Marx as regards the nature of the transitional state (the regressions that did take place were more to do with a relapse into the idea of an electoral takeover of the old state in certain countries) . There is a consistent line arguing for the identification between the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx's writings. The explicit critique of this identification doesn't come about till the Italian left and its reflections on the defeat of the Russian revolution in the 1930s. However, in putting this idea forward they were certainly not being anarchists and there is also a real strain in Marx's thought which could have fed the Italian left's position: certainly the early writings on Hegel and the state, but also some of the more 'anti-state' passages in the first draft of the Civil War in France: "it was a revolution against the State itself, of this supernaturalist abortion of society, a resumption by the people for the people of its own social life". Or again
"As the State machinery and parliamentarism are not the real life of the ruling classes, but only the organized general organs of their dominion, the political guarantees and forms and expressions of the old order of things, so the Commune is not the social movement of the working class and therefore of a general regeneration of mankind, but the organized means of action. The Commune does not [do] away with the class struggles, through which the working classes strive to [read for] the abolition of all classes and, therefore, of all classes [class rule] (because it does not represent a peculiar interest, it represents the liberation of “labour,” that is the fundamental and natural condition of individual and social life which only by usurpation, fraud, and artificial contrivances can be shifted from the few upon the many), but it affords the rational medium in which that class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and humane way".

The key passage here is the distinction made between the social movement of the proletariat and the Commune state - perhaps no more than a passing insight but one which for the Italian left was was to have tragic relevance in the light of the Russian experience, when the 'Commune state' became the point of attraction for the forces of the counter-revolution.