A dear friend and correspondent of mine, Alan Hodge, sent me some food for thought this weekend. It was essentially a criticism of the orthodox Marxist notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
As a person with a deeply ingrained anti-authoritarian bent, I have studied this question for quite awhile, and continue to struggle with it. Here are some notes outlining my current reasoning of the matter.
Is the establishment of a workers’ state necessary to the project of human liberation?
First, let’s be clear about what we mean by “the state.” It is essentially an institution which uses force or the threat of force, implicit or explicit, to coerce people into obedience. This sounds inherently evil to a lot of us, and we’ve certainly witnessed real life evil perpetrated by the state throughout history and in our own lifetimes. No wonder that it is tempting to simply dismiss any approach to revolution which advocates seizing and wielding state power as part of the plan.
Here’s why we must not only resist, but reject that temptation. The current ruling class already has these means of coercion at their disposal, and time and again have shown no hesitation to employ them. They will not give up their position voluntarily. They will cling to power down to the last tooth and nail.
Imagine what would have happened if, after the October revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks had said “Okay, we’re all free now. Everybody cooperate with each other. The state no longer exists.” The old ruling class or another aspiring ruling class would have immediately asserted themselves and seized power. In fact, even with the (albeit deformed) workers’ state in place to act as a bulwark, this is precisely what the reactionary forces, Russian and international, set out to do.
It would be nice to believe, as the anarchists do, that we can establish purely voluntary associations, free of any coercion, to govern society, and that once these organizations are established and federated, an ideal socialist society would take root and flourish without the need for a state. It would be nice to believe in the efficacy of any number of other approaches to worker ascendence, be they cooperatives, or plans to vest workers’ pension funds with control of existing companies’ stocks, or whatever. The fact remains that under any such arrangement there will still be a wealthy and powerful ruling class with which to contend all along the way – a ruling class which enjoys their position of privilege, and will do whatever is in their power to keep it.
Whether we like the idea of a coercive state or we don’t, if we’re going to abandon it as part of the quest for liberty and equality, then we have a responsibility to solve the problem of how to otherwise mitigate the forces of reaction. I’ve not seen a feasible alternative solution proposed to this problem, and, frankly, cannot imagine one.
For those of us who believe that the power of a state will be needed, at least temporarily, in order to achieve human liberation, how can we best ensure against the emergence and entrenchment of new ruling elites?
The notion that Stalin was inevitable has been a part of ruling class ideology and propaganda for three-quarters of a century or more. It is important to reject the inevitability of Stalinism, while at the same time recognizing the danger of Stalinism. The challenge involved in creating deeply democratic structures of power and governance which prevent a new ruling class from putting down roots is daunting. But it begins with how we configure our own organizations of resistance and struggle today. We mustn’t fetishize the models of the Paris Commune or the Russian workers’ councils (“soviets”), but I do think that we can look to them for inspiration. We also need to continue to look at the lessons of history, examine where revolutionaries went wrong in the past, and do our best to create not only structures but cultures of democracy right from the beginning.
Marx believed that it was through the revolutionary struggle itself that the working class would become fit to rule. This may well be the case. It’s not a question to which we yet have a fully satisfactory answer. But unlike the question of the need for a state, there remain, at least, possibilities.
Robert M Roman says
I don’t think ideology made Stalin inevitable. At very worst, maybe it facilitated his rise. My humble opinion, is that Lenin, as an individual, probably had more to do with it than anything else. Lenin was a real sociopath.
I could be wrong, of course, but we’ll never really know, will we?
Brian K. Noe says
Nice to hear from you, Bob!
I obviously wasn’t alive to know Lenin, but I don’t find much in the honest history that I’ve read to tag him as a sociopath. He was regretful, or at least penitent, towards the end, for some of the steps the Bolsheviks had taken that he felt were actually counter to the revolution (however necessary).
I know that there has been a longstanding “anti-Lenin” tradition within DSA. I always thought that it had more to do with interactions with Leninist organizations than it did with Lenin himself, but I may have that wrong too. 🙂
Robert M Roman says
There isn’t all that much of an “anti-Lenin” tradition in DSA, Brian, but there was in the organization where I got my start in lefty politics: the old Socialist Party of America. And even there, it was more anti-Stalin than it was anti-Lenin.
Going from the Socialist Party to the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee or from the New American Movement to DSA involved something of a change in culture. In the old Socialist Party and (from what I can perceive from a distance) in NAM, politics generally needed to be justified in ideological terms. There usually was an ideological argument in support of actions and statements. DSOC and most especially DSA, politics takes the foreground and ideological argument is secondary when it’s even present.
NAM, of course, started out regarding itself as something of a “communist” organization but without the “democratic centralist” organization. All the time I was active in Chicago DSA, there were usually several folks active or in leadership who included Lenin in their ideological toolkit.
I see this as healthy but, understandably, it drives some people up a wall. My position is that ideas do matter, but nowhere near as much as ideologues imagine. An argument that Stalin was inevitable because of ideology alone just doesn’t seem very credible to me.
Tagging Lenin as a sociopath might seem offensive as it has some pretty negative connotations — it’s a disease, after all, pretty much the same as being a psychopath except sociopathy is regarded as a learned, circumstantial condition rather than being an inherent feature of a personality. But when you consider the obsessive focus that’s a part of it, I would speculate that Lenin might have felt it to be a necessary trait for the success of his revolution.
So is it a bug or is it a feature? The answer was probably “yes”. My humble opinion is that it was also a major factor in its ultimate failure.
The bottom line being that I pretty much agree with your post except that I suspect personality is a significant factor the course of history.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure that I’m entirely comfortable with your definition of “state”, also, but beyond expressing unease, I don’t have much to contribute. If you can find a copy, you might want to read “Privatopia” by Evan McKenzie. It’s about some of the specific forms of “private government” common here in the States.
I do stop by now and then, Brian. I may be on sabbatical from activism, but I still keep an interest in politics and ideas. Thanks for your help on “Talkin’ Socialism”. That was an interesting project.
Brian K. Noe says
It’s always nice to hear from you, Bob. I admire you so much for your work tirelessly carrying the torch forward for so many years. Thanks for the perspective on DSA history too. I wasn’t a member until 2012, so I have no firsthand knowledge at all.
And it was an honor to help (what little I did) on the podcast. It was one of the first things that I listened to regularly when I was waking up politically.