 Ond rydyn ni'n gallu y gall gwaith ylai ddefnyddio ar eich cyffredinau yn ymgyrch ffyrdd y year oherwydd bod y gweithio gyda'r hyffredinau o bron gwithas ac drwyddo flynedd diomfodol yn y newid. Mae'r ysafodd yn ddefnyddio'r ysafodd Sarah Everard o ffyrdd gweithio y police, rwy'n yn ffawr i'n ddwy ymbydd i yw. Yn hyn yn rhoi ffyrdd ar dded meddwl bod y quech, ac mae'r thamol iawn yn unig iawn i gwneud dgyrchu y mae'r eu llai o'r fwyfitiol. A破edwyr i ddim yn cyllid a'r gweinwyr ar y blydd ar y profi am fod yn fwy yn rhai rhai, ond rwy'n iddyn nhw'n gweinwyr i ddimom yn ddad y cyhoedd cyflwyno'r wheelach, yn fawr o'r fawr, wedi rhaid i'n reall yn awr y dyma hyn o'r prydau yng Nghymru, yw'r proethe savedeiaid ac yn ymddangos a phrygiau yma, ac mae'n gweithio bod yn ymdangos a'r proetheiaid yn cefnwyr. ac wrth i, mae'n fath, y prothes fydd yma o'r cymdeithas hefyd yn ymryd i'r cymdeithas a'r ffrindigol, fe gyd-drygu'r cymdeithas hefyd a'r cymdeithas hefyd, fel hynny'n gallu'r gwerthwyd. A oherwydd mae'r gwerthwyd yn wych yn ddau'n gwael. Mae'r bywau cymdeithas cymdeithas cymdeithas, mae'r bywau cymdeithiol a'r bywau'u cymdeithiol yn y gwerthwyd â'r bywau a'r bywau'i cymdeithio. Lle posef yn ddynol gyda'r dyweddarwydd fydd yw i'r gweithio gyda'r gyfrydu i'r cyfrifio cyfrifio cyfrifio ac yn y credu clyweddau ac mae'n ffianedd yn cyfrifio ar y corffeean gweithiau ac mae'n cyfrifio'r bobl cyfrifio ar y cyfrifio hefizael ac mae'r cyfrifio cyfrifio cyfrifio cyfrifio minsig ac mae'r ddechrau safifio'r porigol gyda hwnnw i ddefnyddio cyfrifio'r perfysgwr i bosib ychydig ..a history of disruption according to intelligence. Stoping them and tending particular protests.. ..and stop protesters from targeting certain media organisations.. ..or power stations or things like that. Unsurprisingly, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.. ..has asked for, and supports this extension of police hours. Ond yn ymgyrchu, mae'n eich ysgrifennu gwaes yw'rwallon ar ôl yn y lluniau yma, mae'n edrych i'r rhaid o'i benderfynwyr yn y cefnogi ar gael. Ie wneud y rhaid hon i'r lluniau a'r police yw mwy yn y lluniau, cyd-ai'r lluniau yn y lluniau yn eu rhaid o'iogi, roedd y ffrindiau rhain yn digwydd. Felly efallai'r trumpwyr ymgrifeniwn o'r lluniau. Y lluniau yn y lluniau yw lle rhywbeth yn cyfodol er arfer y lluniau a dyfodol, a hyn yn ymgyrch i ddim yn gweithio. Rwy'n ddim yn gweithio'n gweithiau eich hunain o'r ddweud o'r ddechrau i ddim yn gweithio, ac mae'n ddweud o'r bodai amddangos o'r cyflawnol, felly mae'n ddweud o'r byddau cyfleoedd ac'r byddau. A oedd nhw'n ddweud i ddweud o'r bydau a'r bydau, o'r ddweud o'ch ddweud o'r bydau o'r bydau, o'r dyfodol ymlaen, o'r ddweud o'r bodai o'r bydau, Maybe they should have to sign in and out more rigorously, and maybe there should be extra sensitivity training so they stopped murdering people. But we see the police as actually, it doesn't exist outside of the system that is misogynistic, that is racist and is exploitative, and is part of that establishment. That's the function of the state of which police is just one part. You know, we aren't interested in actually making the guard dogs of capitalism a'r cyflwyno cyllid yn gwybod ddych chi'n dweud, ond ond yma, y marxist yn dod o'r wych yn cael ei gwybod y cyflwyno cyflwyno am ymddangos y gallai cyfnodau, y byd yn cael ei gwybod, ac rwy'n cael ei gwybod y byd yn cael ei gwybod iddyn nhw, ac mae'n gwybod yn cael ei gwybod o'r cyflwyno ymddangos. Y bŵl y marxism, i'r gwybod, mae'n gwybod arall yn gwybod hynnyno'n gwybod am y fwyaf, mae hynny'n gwybod ei gallu gwahanol o fwyaf o'n ymddangos, Marsus wnaeth o'r ddweud y defnyddio i ni'r cynhyrchu i ddweud y gwybod i ddweud o'r ddweud, a o gadgets, a o ddweud, a'r ddweud y cyfnod tro, ond mae'n gweinwch yn fwy o'r odydd cyfnodol i ymdaloedd i'n ddweud, ac byddai'r oedau o ddweud o'r oedd-ynghoriwn o watblygu sydd hynny, ac mae'n ddegwch i ddweud o ddweud i ni'r oeddon space-raff. Dwi'n nhw'n ddweud i chi, ond defnyddwch i ni ddaeth y ddweud, yw gyntaf yw yw'r cyfnod ar gyfer ymarferdd. Felly, mae'n gweithio ystod y cyffredin ac'r cyfnod sy'n ffrindio ymddych chi oedd y sgol i'r hyffordd ac yn gwneud o'r cyfrindio, a'r cyfrindio gyda yw'r cyffredin i chi, yn y prehysigurau hynny, ond y stêl a'r cyfrindiau ar gyfer y sgol, mae'n rhagor i'r cyfrindiau a'n cyfnod i'r cyfrindiau. Mae amser oedd y cyfrindiau a'r cyfrindiau yn gweithio yn ffyrddiaid. Over y cyfrifau teblog i dburnig, dyn ni'n mwyaf i ddechrau. A hynny'n meddwl i mewn bywyd Rush bywyd. A byddwn ni'n meddwl i'r cyfrifyniau sy'n meddwl i'ch gyfríodau i ddweudio usun. Felly, sy'n meddwl i'rran chweithio Rythuol i ysgol. Ond lwyddo eich lleol i'r delweddau, oherwydd nid ei'r cyfrifybion, oherwydd byddwn ni'n meddwl i'r byddwyr yn mynd. Does tribes would organise in self defence from external threats if required, but it was not as in the case with the modern-day state an aren't and permanent public force, nor did war ever lead to subjugation by one people over another as it does today. But when humanity began to produce more than was necessary for its own maintenance, that is a surplus, those tribes that Mastered Agriculture first, in exchange raise themselves above the rest of humanity. y rest of humanity and it exchange increase between tribes and then between private individuals and that exchange in turn began to kind of create the seed of commodity production and production for sale and obviously money also arose to kind of aid that exchange. Individuals began to cultivate their own land and obviously we have individual land ownership begin to emerge. Occupations kind of became divided and so you have a general division of labour became much more permanent and basically with more permanent division of labour and occupations then you have common interests emerge between those groups. The increase in production also saw the increase of the amount of work done by each member of society which makes it kind of desirable and necessary to bring new labour forces to grow that surplus further. You know prisoners of war were turned into slaves and forced to labour for whoever they were conquered by and so we see for the first time an emerging class society which arose from the social division of labour and that becomes a class society split between masters and slaves exploited and exploiter. With this economic development you also have an increasing density of the population which creates at one point not only kind of common interests but conflicting interests between separate communities. This aids the setting up of organs to safeguard common interests and combat kind of conflicting interests and you know you also have an increase in the concentration of that surplus into a kind of ever fewer hands and this required the consolidation of an internal and an external power based on basically territory, military officials to preserve the existence and riches of this new ruling class and means of preserving the system that allows them to continue to get richer. The military officials and armed forces became kind of a permanent fact of life with the conquest of other land and wealth providing them with basically a regular function. These new groups in society, the slaves, the master and the state officials became ever more divided. It created a public force, it disarmed the people and divided people by territory and with all of this came the establishment of political rights often based on property ownership and it was necessary so those in control of the state ensured that the state remained securely in their hands and what we're talking about here is the development of an institution which not only secured newly acquired riches of individuals but also kind of sanctified private property and declared this sanctification to kind of be the like highest state of being. An institution that recognises means of acquiring new wealth and property and amassing that wealth and as you know and it also has to be an institution that perpetuates class divisions and sanctifies the right of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing class and basically the rule of the former over the latter and that institution is what we know as the state and so as we can see the state is not a force imposed on society from nowhere, it is itself a product of society at a given stage of development, it is in itself a product of classes with competing interests but in order that these classes in the words of Engels do not consume themselves in fruitless struggle a power must stand above them or at least appear to stand above them and kind of moderate the conflicts between them. In order to maintain this public power the state must then levy taxes or kind of as is more common today take on debt because of the special nature of the state representatives of the state also stand above society and you know they're given special powers by kind of decree which gives them kind of sanctity and inviability and obviously as we know the lowest police officer of the state has much more authority than all of the organs of the old communal forms of society put together and as we know the working population are currently only occupied with the labour that they had kind of no time left for looking after the common affairs of society and obviously as we know that is very much deliberate you know the direction of like affairs of state legal matters art science they basically only exist for a special class within society as we kind of talked a little bit about yesterday and you know they're freed from actual labour to basically manage these affairs but this class acts in its own interest to impose a greater and greater burden on the labour of the working masses to maintain that privileged position and so the state appears to stand above society but it's in itself the fact is that it's a product of the class struggle and as such it is a weapon in the hands of every society's ruling class which requires new means of exploiting and holding down the oppressed classes. The state is fundamentally an instrument in which the tiny minority rules over the vast majority and with every kind of revolutionary change in society such as the bourgeois revolutions which overfrew feudalism and heralded the in the capitalist system the state has changed obviously the feudal monarch is very different from the democratic republic social formations such as the state which kind of arise it from society itself they're not kind of chemically pure bodies they'll obviously have peculiarities of previous centuries or even like national quirks and so on but with each bourgeois revolution the state was kind of refined as a weapon of minority rule and kind of the state has kind of reached its highest I suppose form under capitalism and obviously as we know the capitalist state is different to for example a feudal state but it does have some things in common you know we still have the monarchy we still have the house of lords in this country but in each case the state is simply becoming a more refined weapon by which the minority oppresses the majority under capitalism the state kind of reaches that highest stage of refinement and no longer does it need to rely just on naked force all the time to kind of hold the masses in check it kind of works through softer measures such as the media education and the corruption of officials including in the labour movement as well the bourgeois state kind of represents the highest form of state in which kind of the majority rules over oh sorry in which the I've got it the wrong way around minority rules over the majority and basically wealth makes its power known very much kind of indirectly it kind of corrupts officials and kind of sits in the pocket of big businesses and kind of the the stock exchange and things like that and obviously the bourgeois can swap out parties you know they can go democrat republican Tory's labour and it can swap out leaders if they need to as well and the state remains just as secure you had Andrew Cuomo in New Yorkers governor he had to step down because of a scandal you had Stefan Lutherne I think is how you say it in Sweden and having these powers in different sources is actually like is what protects the state and in the you know you can also kind of concentrate that power into kind of different organs you've got the police you've got parliaments you've got political parties you've got courts and that makes a democratic state fundamentally the best option for the bourgeoisie but in spite of all the pretenses the state and the police despite what we're told don't actually rule by consent but they have a monopoly on force which can be used in the interests of the capitalist class and even in more democratic forms the state still represents the rule of one class over another and this is to quote Lenin it says it establishes its power so securely so firmly that no changes of persons institutions or parties in the bourgeois democratic republic can shake it and democracy provides an outlet for discontent while ensuring the continued rule of the bourgeoisie and while we're allowed to vote and have some freedoms to protest which are being rolled back is not ultimately us who decide whatever is done we're of course in favour of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism especially since many workers fought and died for that right but wage slavery is the lot of people even in the most democratic republic in terms of the everyday running of the state naked violence therefore is kind of infrequent because the bourgeoisie do continue to have other means as we say and I kind of wanted to explore this thing about corruption of officials again you know you got Boris Johnson when he was a London mayor he gave 43 million pounds of state money to kind of like private firms to build something called the garden bridge and it was never built and there is no evidence that it was ever going to be built and actually no plans of it actually remained so we don't even really actually know what it was ever going to look like and that's just 43 million pound gone you also have the marble arch mound which maybe you drove past if you came through Victoria station and obviously the Tory council Westminster gave a private firm six million pounds to build basically what is glorified scaffolding covered in grass and this was obviously rank corruption on all levels this is a huge redistribution of public funds into the pockets of private companies and that's not even obviously the half of corruption within the state and I'm sure in the discussion maybe people have more examples there's also a revolving door between kind of big business and the civil service so widespread that kind of every civil servant kind of really knows that if they make favorable decisions it can kind of like lead to nice jobs down the road and you know how many politicians do we know of that have gone on to work in private private financial firms once they leave their political career you've got David Miliband who now works for Facebook I guess Meta now I don't know you've got Chukramuna went to go work for JP Morgan and obviously David Cameron works for Greensill capital and actually used his political connections to obtain preferential treatment for his client during the COVID crisis and obviously these are not the only way that that's like you know the state makes its power known or that the capitalist can use like the state can also use the workers organizations to secure their own rule for example in Sweden Swedish social democracy is so closely linked with the bourgeois state in fact much of kind of the bureaucratic apparatus of the party is actually pretty much the same that is used in the state and frequently the social democratic party in the trade union I suppose trade union congress maybe you would say have used the police and like the like armed wing of the state against the workers during world war one the british labour leaders you know so your tuc and your labour party basically got in lockstep with the imperialist state and they agreed to cease all disputes and agree not to strike and agreed also to help with the state's recruitment effort and that's actually depicted in if anyone's watched Ken Loach's days of hope where a trade union official follows the military officer and he basically gives an impassioned speech calling for people to sign up to to fight in world war one and in exchange these leaders can expect honours from the queen herself for what is called services to the trade unions and it's basically a little gift for holding back the workers and keeping them in check and where needed the labour movement does and will and as we know props up patriotism to legitimize the state and it legitimizes that monopoly on violence in some countries the state has other means you know in poland or island the authority of the church can be used in britain as well you've got bishops they can sit in the house of lords although of course the power of religion as we know is is waning in island in poland and particularly obviously in britain and this kind of starts to get to the point of like what is the essence of state and what is the state is it it's rude what about when it cannot use these indirect means to make itself known and obviously as we've kind of already said like the state is a weapon aimed at the working class acting in the interests of the ruling class of capitalism you know it does have many weapons and doesn't always need to resort to violence or extraordinary methods but in the most extreme cases the state is armed it has its armed bodies of men which engels talks about and this is ultimately how the state as a committee for managing the common interests of the whole bourgeoisie kind of enforces its will when we think of the state you know we do think of like a lot of things you know there's like you know the department for work and pensions and various regulatory bodies the courts but ultimately the only reason anyone listens to these bodies or does what they say is because you can be thrown in jail if you don't and obviously that's what it gets at is that the essence of the state is those armed bodies of men and as Lenin explained when the state arises that special force is created special bodies of armed men and every revolution shows us the ruling class strives to restore special bodies of our men which serve it and we can actually see how prophetic Lenin's words are today to the current situation with the policing bill he says special laws are enacted proclaiming the sanctity and immunity of the officials the shabbiest police servant has more authority than the representative of the clan and obviously the clan being how society was organized before class society and is in capitalism as the productive forces have developed and they've become monopolized into the hand of fewer individuals the state has basically become a collective body of capitalists and looms over an increasing kind of body of wage laborers the modern state is an organization in which the bourgeoisie maintain the general interests of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments whether that be mostly by workers or by kind of like rogue individual capitalists in normal times the ruling class can kind of shroud the apparatus of organized violence behind models such as kind of to serve and protect for the police but at times when the class struggle is sharpened kind of that veil of mystery is lifted and we see what the state power for what it actually is you know the police themselves are the paid security of the capitalist class initially they obviously functioned as strike breakers to break up the struggle of workers against the new capitalist state and they continue to play that role repressing kind of mass movements such as occupy black lives matter and they've done that kind of historically as well and these are all kind of just examples of how you know the state enforces its decisions by threat of force and that is the essence of the state it is a weapon of class struggle and this is why Marx has come down so firmly against the idea that such a state can be reformed in any way obviously through history people have attempted to capture the bourgeois state and use it in the interests of the workers I always think the best example to say is it is in Chile you know in the 1970s you had you know the program of a land there and the popular unity and they were voted through parliament and obviously their program you know it was by no means like you know revolutionary or Marxist in any means but it had national planning you had nationalization of the copper mines agrarian reform and as well as the kind of the extension of like social security so you know benefits and things like that and this program although kind of reformist was too far reaching to be compatible with US imperialism and even kind of the local capitalist class parliamentary blockades and reactionary propaganda didn't deter the workers from supporting a land day and even then the land day and popular unity tried desperately to compromise with the bourgeoisie and right up until the end a land day tried to negotiate with the parliamentary representatives of the bourgeoisie but whilst like those negotiations were happening the capitalist were basically planning his murder and itself resulted in the kind of fascist dictatorship of Pinochet and it was the armed bodies of men of the capitalist state that killed a land day he tried to capture the state and use it against the ruling class but in the end it was the bourgeois state that captured and killed him you know in more recent example you've got in Peru today you know Pedro Castillo who himself is a socialist and won the elections promising major reforms and essentially has kind of capitulated straight away he's invited the right wing into his cabinet and as well as pro-business groups the centrist and he's basically also trying to distance himself from the more radical elements such as Peru Libre and of course the bourgeois have not ceased their campaign against Castillo and what he represents you know they've launched a relentless campaign to destroy his cabinet with basically all means at his disposal you know it's got the secret services the army the navy the judiciary and obviously the capitalist media as well and in this kind of campaign you've got a broad spectrum of forces including those apparently on the left and sectors of the union bureaucracy kind of acting in a united front against him and this kind of just goes to show you can't serve two masters you either can titulate entirely and act against the interests of the workers as most reformists do or you place power into the hands of the working class and break from the bourgeois state you can't just take the tools built by and for the purpose of a minority to rule over the majority and obviously as we know the state is tied by a thousand threads to the bourgeoisie you can't hope to gradually cut these threads one at a time and a comrade used quite a good metaphor when they explained this to me you can't pull out a tiger's teeth one at a time you pull out the first one you're going to get your hand bit and off and like you say you get you've cut that first thread between the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state you get booted out or you get killed and as Lenin pointed out you know these reformists they imagine that class struggle can be replaced by class harmony and that simply the workers can be elected to positions within the capitalist state and somehow transform it from within this is purely utopian and obviously as we know sometimes even the best most honest politicians can be corrupted in those conditions and I think maybe the most pertinent example I can think of is AOC in America but when class struggle rears its head and as it has the state and its armed bodies no longer hide behind that serving and protecting they show kind of their real face they're handed a free pass to act with impunity simply because if they couldn't the state would not be able to function if the state could be genuinely accountable and not stand above individuals it would be a useless weapon in the class struggle if the state is the product of these kind of class antagonisms if it is a power standing above society it's clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is possible only with a revolution with the destruction of the apparatus of the state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of that alienation and these institutions they're set up to perform a certain function and that is to hold the exploited class in subjugation no matter what individual fulfills the roles within them for their own careers and advantage they have vested interest in maintaining the state for what it is and you know it's not a matter of having more nice or more diverse policemen or more judges from working class backgrounds the state cannot or the bourgeois state cannot be reformed and it has to be smashed completely and replaced with the rule of the working class and obviously the question of what the bourgeois state will be replaced with should occupy a greater part of this discussion it's not enough to simply repeat the state must be abolished and would be irresponsible to not discuss then what it should be succeeded by because we understand that the state is a product of kind of class antagonisms if we do succeed in taking control of the means of production and taking over the running of society those class antagonisms don't disappear you know irreconcilable differences will exist the bourgeois doesn't disappear once the majority of workers sees power they seek to rest back control and they have every time they've tried to take power for themselves throughout history so a worker state must exist as a tool of the working class in the struggle against the bourgeois class but it will be different it will be a weapon of the majority rule over the minority all this means is that the working class needs its own state apparatus only to suppress the resistance of the exploiters that are the capitalist and only the proletariat as the majority can direct and carry that out otherwise society will be consumed by that uh and take antagonism you know in every revolutionary situation workers have created their own institutions of power which become the basis of worker states you know in the Paris commune in 1848 and the soviet councils which arose from the struggle of 1905 and obviously the russian revolution consisted entirely of giving real power to these bodies Lenin's rallying cry after all was all power to the soviets and these revolutions also have and will need defending but not by taking up the standing army of the bourgeois but by replacing them with the armed people and destroying the bourgeois monopoly on violence with democratically accountable bodies but this isn't just a utopia this has actually happened you know in Russia the military revolutionary committee was under control and accountable to the soviets which were obviously themselves councils of workers in the 1920 wave of factory occupations in Italy trade unions organised kind of red guards for factories to defend against the police and army and obviously more recently in Minneapolis the police were forced out of the city and the NAACP organised armed patrols and they replaced the police in essence and obviously they were much more accountable they weren't just individuals with guns they were accountable to their communities and had very like rigorous processes of making sure that they were people with weapons but that they were accountable and obviously the worker's state will also be a transitional form to social ownership which is socialism you know the state ownership is over the means of production is that transitional form but the state ownership will be qualitatively different because the state itself won't be a bourgeois one the state won't be in a strange body but simply a means of kind of organising planning distributing the necessities of life by and for workers under such circumstances the material conditions can be built up to proceed to a class of society where the intermediate form of state ownership is transformed into real social ownership of the whole of humanity when we all have access to the necessities of life and can live a fulfilling life free of coercion when at last the state becomes the real representative of the whole of society it becomes basically unnecessary and as Lenin says as soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection as soon as class rule and the individual struggle for an existence based upon the present anarchy in production with the collisions and excesses arising from the struggle are removed nothing more remains to be held in a subjection nothing necessitating a special coercive force a state but the abolition of the proletarian state and of the state in general is impossible except through this process of withering away it can't be abolished by a simple decree the state will only a wither away once the proletariat begins to dissolve the functions of the state and bring the forces of production into collective and social ownership but they can only do so once they realise what the state represents and that is the dictatorship of one class over another and to ensure the transition to social ownership requires the repression of the class that uses the production forces to generate profit and to exploit people and obviously one of the main lessons of the Paris commune as I already mentioned which marks and angles then subsequently added to the communist manifesto is that we can't simply take up the bourgeois state and use it for our own means you know it's been developed to ensure the domination of capital and that it's function basically the commune had to be uh not a parliamentary body it had to be both kind of executive and legislative at the same time and it was a real qualitative step forward of how we can understand what dictatorship of the proletariat is or can look like you know the commune replaced the the state machine with fuller democracy they abolished the standing army all officials had to be elected and all were subject to recall and all of them were only paid a workers wage and it signified a gigantic step forward with the replacement of kind of bourgeois into a proletarian democracy and from you know the transition or at least began the transition from a state into something which is no longer the state kind of proper and this in turn begins the process of eliminating the bureaucracy of the state while it would still be necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance this organ of suppression however is that has to be under the control of the majority of the population not a minority as was always the case in previous class societies and since the majority of people themselves suppressed their oppressors a special force for suppression is no longer necessary in this sense the state begins to wither away capitalist development in many ways with its kind of intense division of labour has actually simplified the functions of the state and it's become so kind of simplified that it can be reduced to just very simple operations you know accounting um and things like that which can easily be performed by anyone on a regular wage and basically stripped away of kind of any grandeur or prestige um and you know we don't have to call it a state if you know you don't like that word um but the working class must be organised in its resistance of the bourgeoisie and uh and it must plan the economy in some way if the revolution is to survive a day as we see kind of like following the french revolution you know the disarming of the workers was actually the first commandment of the bourgeoisie once they kind of took up the helm of the state hence kind of after every revolution won by the workers if they don't ensure the permanence of their own rule a new struggle begins ending with the defeat of the workers by the bourgeoisie and counter revolution and you know such a degree of democracy that we are talking about that we want implies overstepping the boundaries of bourgeois society and beginning a socialist reorganisation and we're talking about a state in which everyone participates in its running and you know if everyone is a bureaucrat then no one is the state offers no special privileges to careerists who fetishise the state in pursuit of their own elevation within society and the development of capitalism has actually already created those preconditions that enable all of us to take part in the administration of the state you know if we were to rationally plan the economy everyone could work two or three days a week and with plenty of time left to consider how you know questions of how the economy and society should be developed and the commune the Paris commune provided a heroic example it was a workers state and it was a lever to begin uprooting the economic foundation upon which the existence of classes existed and the dictatorship of the proletaria is essentially this point i'm trying to get is a necessary part of the transformation from capitalist communist society you know a socialist socialised economy would eventually be owned by all and then class distinctions and antagonisms would be abolished so the state would waver away because there would be no need for it and it will begin a transition to a communist society which will see kind of the replacement of kind of an administration of people which is what the capitalist state does to the administration of things and basically hopefully a struggle for survival will be removed which will allow that and you know at that point people will then be capable of living and regulating their own existence and interactions and obviously they don't need policemen to tell them what to do and we don't obviously as Marxists just say abolish the police or the state because that's not a serious program for changing society it's a knee jerk reaction against something that we don't like and it's obviously very understandable not to like the police in the state but we do have something that we're for which will arise in the course of the class struggle and which we will connect with and promote as a source of working class state power in society and a power that can actually overcome the capitalist state power and you know we are now at this stage in development of production in which kind of the existence of class exploitation has not only ceased to be a necessity but it's actively become a hindrance you know and the classes will waver away once as once they arose you know the state is going to go with them as well as Engel says the society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong into the museum of antiquities next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe but the suppression of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a revolution without the initial smashing of the bourgeois state today the state is on the surface at least incredibly organized and armed to the teeth and it will defend the present order by any means necessary so Marx's theory of the state is separately bound up with the revolutionary role of the proletariat in history and the culmination of their role of the proletariat in history is proletarian dictatorship the political role of the political rule of the proletariat as a ruling class and as a result if we are serious about revolution we too must be organized in the coming period the working class will meet the state head on again and again but it will not be victorious without a leadership at its head that understands the state understands that it cannot be reformed but must be destroyed and a new state built to defend working class rule