The Workers' State

One of the defining points when it comes to Socialism, specifically, Marxist Socialism, has been the role of the Workers’ State. Or even beyond that, what is the Workers’ State? Through a series of debates, discussions and reading, I feel I can confidently give an analysis of the Workers’ State, or at least the idea of what the Workers’ State should be.

As with all left revolutionary groups, the results aimed for are the liberation of human beings fromm an oppressive society who maintains its control through a series of elaborate laws, ideological propaganda and the segregation of the oppressed. Namely, these groups have a tendency toward an Anti-Capitalist stance. One of the many issues that face these groups is the role of the State as it exists today, and more over, whether it can be used in the favour of the oppressed.

Well to an extent it can be. As we, the oppressed, have proven many times the State apparatus can be forced to reform its ways in our favour. Some of these reforms are equal pay for equal work, the right to welfare, the right to an education et cetera. These reforms were won through a process of necessary struggle by the oppressed. The oppressed, taking action into their own hands created large scale mass movements. These movements then sought solidarity from those outside the movement, and with this mass of people found the political strength to make demands for such things above.

However, the State as it exists today is not an ally of the oppressed, nor is it a neutral party to the goings on of the world around us. Rather, it acts in opposition the majority of the time to us. It either acts of its own accord to oppress and belittle the oppressed, or capitulates to the will of other oppressors. Some may claim that despite this, we have a democracy, and that what we must do is put good people into the legislative body to create good policy, and to tell the oppressors to get lost. This is an impossibility.

The State as it exists today is designed against us in almost every way. Its democracy is barely recognisable as a democracy. Rather, it is a dictatorship using the facade and rhetoric of democracy. This dictatorship, consisting of members of the oppressing class, bicker and debate in public forum, then tell us that this is democracy. In the same breath, they tell us that it is they who represent us. Then once every so often, usually every three or four years, they will allow us to vote, and make a choice: Do we want this oppressor? Or do we want the other? Which one bickered the best? And which one sounded like they cared the most?

This is but one fallacy of the current State. To go beyond this, we are forced to abide by a set of elaborate rules which are accompanied by a very specific ideology. That ideology is justified with supposed evidence. The ideology, of course, is that we must be told how to live and how to act. That we are too stupid to be civilised. We are told that when their laws do not exist that chaos and anarchy in its worst form takes control. (To clarify, I mean a specific type of social anarchy, the kind of anarchy portrayed in any given punk-rock promotional video. This kind of anarchy is by no means the action or the political view of most – if not all – true Anarchists.) If we are uncertain of this justification, we are given graphic images of violence, of arson, of cries of terror and distress – usually from places that dared to deny this ideology. What they do not allow us to know is that it was not those average oppressed people who caused the horrific scenes. Rather, it was a very malicious, often minority group, who exacted their violence upon those people. Be them radical terrorists, the Capitalist saboteurs or the very State which attempts to perpetrate this ideology.

Those laws imprison us, chain us to the will of those oppressors. If we do not obey them, we are punished. And often the punishment is outrageous in comparison to a crime. For example: There was a time in old London when stealing a loaf of bread could see you arrested, jailed and then shipped off to unknown lands – not at all too dissimilar to today – where for stealing an iPod, you can be arrested, have the goods confiscated, then be forced to work ‘community service’ of any amount of time (I’ve never heard of less than 60 hours), unpaid. In simple terms, this is theft being punished with slavery.

The final arm of the State which serves as a facade and aids in its justification is the violence at its command. The Police force and the Military. The Police, we are told, protect us from ourselves. They maintain order and keep us safe from our neighbours. This could be anything but the case. The Police may help little old ladies from time to time, but more often than not what the Police are doing with all their time is searching for people to lock-up. Searching for people who do not canonise to the will of the societal order they serve. This can be anything from a humble shoplifter to a person skateboarding without a helmet. They will merrily fine you, take money from you and hand it to the state. But to a greater extreme, it is their role to suppress you. At the moment you, and perhaps those around you, turn your attention to those they serve and demand something against their will, the Police are there to keep you at bay. They push you back with riot shields, blind you with tear gas, smash you with batons if you advance, and in recent times, shoot you with ‘non-lethal’ bullets, and perform the modern version of electro-shock therapy upon you.


This is not a case of civil dissidents. This is a case of your average activist, taking an opposition to the horrific proposals and actions of the State which serves as a means to oppress.

The State serves us only when we exercise our political strength in numbers and our economic strength in numbers. Through public protest and demonstration we exercise our will, and through strike wave campaigns, we force it upon them. But these steps gain us only humble reforms. Reforms which are every day being pushed back, and pushed down, until they can be hidden away and become unrecognisable in the darkness. Consider censorship, consider freedom of speech, consider welfare rights, consider health care, consider the eight hour day and consider equal pay for equal work. Consider the right to assembly. All of which have been under constant attack – especially in recent years.

Never the less we resist, we continue to try to defend our victories. However, if we capitulate to the will of reformists who believe the policy makers will save us, we’ll find ourselves starting back at square one.


If you have not caught on yet of what I am talking about, I am talking about specifically the social relations of Capitalist society. The oppressing class, the Capitalist class, who by means of mass murder, colonisation in the period leading up to the dominion of Capitalism and through oppressive state arms, seize control over all means of subsistence. All productive forces are in the hands of this oppressive class. The oppressed, the working class, those whose backs Capitalist Society rests upon, who necessarily are disenfranchised and stripped of their connection to products of their labour to create the oppressing class. The State, which serves as a secondary Capitalist venture, however ‘socialises’ itself in order to turn a profit. It too competes as the lone Capitalist might, however it goes further. To coin the term ‘[...]the highest form of Capitalism.’ The Capitalist State has developed Imperialism. Capitalism in its most brutal and darkest form. (This opinion is debatable. I would amount the state to being just as horrific as I do free market Capitalism.)


Through the process of struggle, Socialists say, the Working Class must rise. In fact, many revolutionary thinkers will align themselves to this train of thought. It is necessary for the oppressed to rise to the same level of the oppressors in order to defeat them. Now I could go into details about how the working class would rise to this point, however, it will consume too much time and space, and as this is a long article, I would rather just provide further reading at the end.


Socialists say that in the heat of struggle, for a Revolution to be successful, an opposition to the Capitalist State must be created. It is called the Workers’ State, and it is nothing like the Capitalist State.

The Workers’ State is by its sheer nature, by the conditions it is created in, true democracy. Consisting of a series of committees or councils, these groups created by the workers themselves, consisting of workers themselves, electing delegates, representatives, who have no greater power or wealth than the workers their represent, who are able to be repealed at any time if they do not act in the way expected of them. These councils are a symbol of workers’ united power, of workers’ ability to organise themselves in such a way that all the needs of their comrades can be met, and so that they can defend themselves efficiently and swiftly as a unified whole.

Why is it that a Socialist says it is necessary to create the Workers’ State?
With the overthrow of the Capitalist State, and with it the ideology of Capitalism, with the overthrow of Capitalism itself, a power vacuum is create. What occurs then, is various other powers attempt to fill that vacuum. Consider the varying forces at the time of this vacuum’s creation. The reformists, the Capitalist counter-revolutionaries, the Totalitarians and let us not forget the Free Market itself. Let us theorise that the working class has not created its own organised power (as we have seen many times in the past), let us assume that once the revolt is complete, and the over throw is complete, that these other forces capitalise on the situation, quickly we have a fight amongst outside forces vying for dominance and the support of those who revolted, and with no one there to oppose them in an organised fashion, they have no resistance to reinstalling themselves, or recreating the ruling class.
This is why the Workers’ State is necessary. In this period of time, while other forces which oppose democracy and working class liberation exist, it is necessary for the working class to recognise the need for themselves to fill this void. Merely returning home does not fill this void. It is necessary for the working class to acknowledge their own power, and make clear to other forces, “This is our will!” lest those other forces assume the rhetoric of “We serve you! Trust us!” which all too often has been proven quite convincing.

With the installation of the Workers’ State, other forces now have no option other than to capitulate to the will of the Workers’ State, or to outright oppose it. And we have seen this outright opposition before, as well as the forced capitulation.
With this new power, the Workers’ State, the working class can strip back the wealth accumulated by the Capitalist state and by the Capitalist themselves. It can voice its will upon the world, and as the majority would undoubtedly support it – as it is them – go unrivalled. Its mere existence strips the power from the Capitalist state, makes its legislation irrelevant, and provides a coherent body for defending against the violent arms it has monopolised.

This state reorganises the mode of production to that of human need instead of profit and accumulation of capital. The boss, the manager and the owner are now irrelevant, as all the means of production are centralised and redistributed to the working class. Production now creates what is needed, and what is fairly wanted by the working class. Distribution is now performed without limitation, goods and services are now distributed on the basis of need, and are given at no cost. Distribution occurs freely with only one string attached: The resources which are used to produce must be replenished.


Is the Workers’ State totalitarian?
Admittedly, yes. However it is not a totalitarian oppressive force which exploits and belittles the vast majority of people. To coin the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Working Class)” the new workers’ state serves one true purpose: To suppress forces which oppose workers’ power, and to suppress those who would re-enslave the masses. However, do not let this statement fool you into believing it to be undemocratic, or against equality. This totalitarian dictatorship of the vast majority, returns the former ruling class to the position they were in when they were born: no more than a human being with equal value and opportunity to other human beings.


At what point does this Workers’ State ‘wither away?’
At the point in which no other oppressive force exists. With the absence of counter-revolutionaries, without anyone else to fill any vacuums, the role of the Workers’ State becomes unnecessary, and therefore is discarded.

It is the role of the state to suppress. That can be admitted. However there is a hefty difference between the suppression, or rather, oppression of the Capitalist state as opposed to the Workers’ State. The state exists because there is such an irreconcilable struggle between existing classes that there must be an institution, an apparatus existing to suppress the lesser class.

The workers state is different in that, rather than oppressing many to create a ruling minority, it suppresses the ruling minority and maintains the level of ruling class for the majority. Once these classes no longer exist. Once it is only worker, the state has no justifiable reason for existing, it has no substance or purpose, and as stated, dissolves.


The Workers’ State is no longer a Workers’ State at the point where power is centralised into a restricted portion of that organised body. It is no longer the Workers’ State if the delegates / representatives have no accountability. And it is no longer a Workers’ State if it is not the Workers themselves who control it. (This statement is made against those persons who would try to make out that the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba might be Workers’ States.)


Depending on your political views, you may or may not disagree. However, as a Socialist I will say that it is absolutely necessary for this vastly different state apparatus to be formed at the time of successful revolution. And it is required only as long as there are forces capable of seizing dominion over the working class in existence. I do not aim to allow the creation of a minority dictatorship such as the USSR (Stalinist), or the Chinese Communists (Maoist). I aim to see the majority dictatorship of equality, freedom and dignity. Of the self-emancipation of the working class.


A final note.
I could very well be wrong in my analysis. I could be mislead somewhere. I am only human. My expressed views are not the same views of every Socialist, nor are they the same views of every Revolutionary Socialist. However, this is my interpretation of the Workers’ State based on what I have been given. And it is my understanding that this form of State is the only justifiable one, as all others are oppressive and designed to enslave rather than liberate.

Readings:
Rather than list several individual readings I will point you in the direction of a handy website. This website has plenty of works, you need only look for them.
http://www.marxists.org/

Fuck hope, Let's make change!

One of our talented comrades created this poster piece - which in its simplicity I think puts out a very concrete message that smashes through the soft political stance of many of our fellow organisations and political parties.

Fuck hope, Let's make change!