Hi, Ben:

There are two main points which you made in Essay 154 that I would like to respond to:

1) the use of grassroots anti-corruption movements by the workers as a means of maintaining control of the state; and

2) the establishment of a "moneyless gift economy" as a means of preventing the rise of a new ruling class.

The following subheadings contain my commentary on each of these two arguments, respectively.

While I do not think it can be disputed that grassroots organization by the workers is an essential component of the class struggle, I believe it is a fallacy to say that it can be used to "control" the state. Even in the bourgeois representative "democracies" that currently exist, it is claimed that workers have been given the rights (i.e., speech, assembly, the right to organize, etc,) to which you refer under a constitution. However, this notion fails to take into account the fact that "rights", by their very nature, are not something that can be "given" but that belong to us by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. Therefore, it simply is not possible for the State to "give" workers their rights. At best, all the State can do is decide whether or not is wishes to make it easier or more difficult for workers to exercise their rights; and, ultimately, what decision the State arrives at is solely dependant upon what whim happens to strike them. Therefore, the "rights" that a proletarian state would "give" the workers should not be viewed as rights at all, but as gifts or concessions.

Indeed, a proletarian state may create a system that makes it fairly easy for workers to exercise their right to organize and agitate. However, the only reason that this would be possible under such a system would be that the State wishes it to exist. If there ever should come a time that the State decides it no longer would like the workers to have this ability, that would be entirely up to their discretion. Regardless of whether the State ever does decide to exercise this power, the simple fact that they hold it in the first place dismisses the notion that it would be "worker-controlled".

Furthermore, even with the ability to agitate and organize, a proletarian state cannot be seen as being controlled by the working class. There is, after all, a difference between the workers influencing the state and the workers controlling the state. Influencing the State simply involves applying political pressure from without in the hopes that it will decide to take actions which favour the workers. Again, this ultimately depends upon the State’s willingness to comply with the desires of the people.

To control the State, on the other hand, is quite a bit different. In order for the working class as a whole to control the State, it would be necessary not to attempt to influence it from without, but to manage it from within. However, when we arrive at this point, we are faced with a catch-22. In order for the entire working class to manage the state (as opposed to a portion of workers occupying the state, automatically rendering them as a new ruling class), every working-class individual would have to become a state official. What is truly ironic about this is that a state, by definition, is a centralized body occupied by only a fraction of the population. This means that, in order to arrive at the point where the working class as a whole genuinely did control the state, the State would simply dissolve due to the fact that a "state" cannot exist when every member of the population occupies a position within it. In short, true working-class control of the state would result in anarchy anyway.

As an anarcho-communist, I agree with you completely that an economy of goods distribution based upon need rather than exchange is of critical importance in a truly just society. However, I don’t feel that the creation of such an economy is sufficient in itself to prevent the rise of a new ruling class. I believe that the creation of ruling classes is not solely a result of capitalism (or market-based economies in general), but a result of hierarchy in all of its manifestations. Therefore, I am not opposed to capitalism simply because it is capitalism, but because capitalism is inherently hierarchical, as is centralized government. As long as society is structured in such a way that man can wield power over man, then ruling classes will inevitably exist. After all, a ruling class based on political power rather than wealth is still a ruling class.

While the two primary points I wanted to make are covered under the previous two subheadings, I feel compelled to respond to your statements regarding my use of the term "vanguardist communism". I use the term "vanguardist" broadly to describe any communist who favours the existence of a "transitional state" between the period immediately following the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a classless, stateless society. In the sense that I use it, vanguardism is simply the idea that a specific organization must spearhead and "lead" the working class through the revolution. This definition does not include any preconceptions about what you refer to as "feudal" and "paternalistic" values which likely vary depending upon which vanguardist communist one would talk to. As stated, "vanguardism" is a general term referring to supporters of a transitional state, and does not have any additional connotations attached to it.