>A capitalist state is where the capitalist class rules and a worker's
>state is where the working class rules. You seem to be defining the
>state so that it necessarily acts over and above the working class. I
>don't think this is necessarily true. Or do you believe that it is
>impossible for the working class to become a ruling class? IN classic
>socialism, since there is no more capitalist class, everyone is a
>worker, hence a classless society.
but capitalists don't rule directly in places like the US, do they? so, it's not a question of personnel but ultimately of form and character. so, if the form of the state consists in class rule, then how is it possible to say that there is a state in a classless society? if you agree that the character of the state consists -- in large part -- in the regulation and reproduction of class relationships which are not guaranteed or reproducible within the immediate processes of production, then how, once again, is it possible to assert that there is a state in a classless society?
i get the sense that, ot1h, you see the state as an important kind of transitional mechanism. i might argue with that for some reasons i've already noted. but i lose that sense of provisionality when you write that in socialism, everyone will be a worker. ie., what i get here instead is the sense that you see socialism as a heightened form of proletarianisation.
in short, i lose the sense of the abolition of the working class, as much as i lose the sense of the abolition of the state that i would think is important to recall in communist politics as distinct from socialist politics.
Angela