Under socialism, the proletariat wields the state as an organ of its class rule and repression of the bourgeoisie, as part of a longer process of eliminating class distinctions. Socialism, as the political rule of the proletariat, necessitates a state, as any society with the continuity of contradiction of interests inevitably sees itself with a state. Many anti-communists, both liberal and utopian socialist, claim that socialist employment of the repressive state apparatus leads to the rise of a new, non-proletarian class in the form of the “bureaucrats” within the state, often going as far as to refer to this “separate class” as petite-bourgeois or bourgeois. The focus of this essay will be on addressing these claims, discussing the characteristics of states with regards to the class which wields them, and, with a focus on the Soviet Union, a determination of whether the socialist state constitutes, in and of itself, a class outside the proletariat.
Let us first address the specifics of these claims. Typically, they are made by liberals and anarchists against socialist states, claiming their revolutions lead to a rise of a new autocratic ruling class, reproducing the same oppressive system the revolutionaries rose to combat in the first place. They claim that the state actors become bloated off of the exploitation of the proletariat and peasantry, and that the state thus constitutes its own class, often referred to as being a “new bourgeoisie”. In terms of the economic system of socialist states, anarchists in particular claim that state actors, in their capacity as individuals, control the means of production as a non-proletarian class, and thus privately appropriate the surplus-value of the proletariat just as the bourgeoisie does. So, with these claims in mind, let us examine the characteristics of historic and modern states in connection to the class which wields them.
The structure of a state is influenced by, and reproduces, the rule of the dominant class in any given society. Political power in feudal states was given through hereditary titles, reproducing the rule of the large landowners. The state was organized largely on the basis of titles and privileges in accordance to the highly hereditary, estate-based nature of class in feudal society. In bourgeois society, the state is conducive to bourgeois rule in various manners. While bourgeois society has a tendency toward liberal democracy, such a system is not as it portrays itself. Historically, the dictatorship of the proletariat was far more obvious, with most bourgeois nations only allowing enfranchisement for landowners. While the right to vote is supposedly available to all citizens of liberal democracies in the modern age, in many cases, such as the settler-colonial US, this is systematically obstructed, whether through voter ID laws which tend to exclude the poor and colonized, exclusion of migratory labor, exclusion of prisoners (who tend to largely be criminalized colonized people), or otherwise. Attainment of political office is supposedly meritocratic, but because capitalist society confines the means of attaining training, higher education, funds, and connections necessary for running a campaign to the bourgeoisie, it is almost solely bourgeois politicians who are elected. Even if a proletarian is elected to an office within one of these liberal democracies, however, they are limited by the structure of this bourgeois state. They can only enact policies within the legal confines of the bourgeois liberal democracy, and thus cannot enact true proletarian class rule, especially in the hard fact that they cannot fully challenge the institution of bourgeois private property within the confines of bourgeois political organization. Instead, they can either recuperate proletarian interests with bourgeois order, or they can come into contradiction with this legal order and begin acting outside their capacity as a legally-acting political representative. The state under capitalism does not constitute its own class, although political representatives tend to be bourgeois and petite-bourgeois outside their capacity as state actors. Under capitalism, state actors do not own the means of production as individuals, as they would in their capacity as members of the bourgeois class. Instead, they manage the common affairs of the bourgeoisie, such as enforcement of property rights, mediation of disputes, and the organization of taxes which fund the reproduction of bourgeois society. The state is not separate from society, but is an organ for its reproduction, through maintaining social cohesion (and thus the status quo of the society in question), and by enforcing the will of the dominant class, while occasionally making concessions to the servile classes when necessary to maintain the reproduction of the society at hand. Now, let us come to the question of socialist states.
In a socialist system, the proletariat controls the means of production as a class, bringing forth a social appropriation of socialized production. The state is an organized apparatus wielded by the proletariat as a means of enforcing its political rule as well as planning and coordinating production. To determine whether state actors in a socialist state constitute their own class, we must examine their role in socialist economy. Marx describes the management of production, and surplus-value, under socialism thusly in the Critique of the Gotha Programme:
Let us take, first of all, the words “proceeds of labor” in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the “undiminished” proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
These deductions, and the associated need for an organization of socialist production, are carried out by the state. The state is a disciplined and centralized body that effectively coordinates the management of these funds, with far greater effectiveness than a decentralized, localized system could. The Soviet Union itself attempted such a decentralized economic system in its early life, and this threatened the Union with catastrophe, thus leading to economic centralization under War Communism. The state actors of a socialist state do not control the means of production in their own regard, but as organs of proletarian class rule, organizing social management of production and the use of surplus-value. Under the Soviet Union, only workers and peasants could vote, ensuring the confinement of political power to the laboring classes. The CPSU held sole political power, ensuring a socialist system. The appropriation of production was socialized, and the structure of the Soviet state favored further long term socialization of production, especially as the economy became further centralized. These characteristics are component to the reproduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rather than the state existing beyond society, as a group of “new bourgeois” bureaucrats, the state was a body coordinating socialist society in the Soviet Union. Proletarian management of a socialist economy must make use of a state for its organization until the bourgeoisie is eliminated as a class, productive capacity is developed in a full and even way, and the proletariat, through the mass institutions of socialism, is reshaped into a body which can organize and manage production out of collective habit, rather than through the use of an organized state. Of course, the need for central authority is still demanded by the characteristics of certain industries necessitating those of high skill to oversee and plan their management, but authority and the state are not synonymous. The socialist state is not a new autocracy. It is merely the dictatorial rule of the proletariat in a disciplined, skilled, and centralized form. And those who view it as a totalitarian nightmare are merely expressing the view of the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie who are liquidated under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to whom proletarian rule truly is a totalitarian prospect.
