SEMANTICS: USES AND ABUSES
21
class must be meant here "the economically dominant" class. To assert,
however, that the state is an instrument in the hands of the econom–
ically dominant class always,
i.e.,
at
any
given time, is obviously
false. For, aside from other evidence, on the Marxian theory itself,
political revolutions sometimes occur in order to create a new state
apparatus to serve the interests of the economically dominant class.
Economically, on the eve of 1789, the French bourgeoisie was the
dominant class and not the feudal lords. So that on the Marxian
theory of revolution itself, there are times when the state is not an
instrument in the hands of the economically dominant class. It is then
that the conquest of political power is on the order of the day.
The proposition that "the state is an instrument of the ruling
class" was used by Lenin to justify the existence of a proletarian or
workers' state which would serve the interests of the workingclass
against its enemies. In October 1Yl7, state power was conquered in
the name of the proletariat. But here again, it is important to bear
in
mind that the workers' state was not immediately the instrument
of "the
proletariat
as an economically dominant class. For a consid–
erable period of time elapsed before the instruments of production
were actually socialized. But more important, on the Marxist theory
itself, the phrase "the proletariat as an economic dominant class" has
no meaning. Under feudalism, the trinitarian coalition of lords, clergy
and monarchy constitutes the economically dominant class; under
capitalism, the bourgeoisie constitute the economically dominant class;
but under socialism, which according to
definition,
is an economically
classless society, there is no dominant economic class. Nor even in the
transitional period, where instruments of production have been social–
ized. The transitional period is one in which the state power is used by
those who
were
workers under capitalism, and their descendants, to
change the economy from a capitalist to a socialist one. Worker and
bourgeoisie are no longer defined in terms of their functional role in
the socialized mode of production but in terms of their historical
origin. But note the very meaning of the term "worker" changes
when we speak of the "workers" under capitalism, and the "workers"
in a transitional period from capitalism to socialism, and "the work–
ers" under socialism. Under capitalism, the objective referent of
"workers" are formally free individuals who sell their labor-power
to other individuals who own the instruments of production and
operate them in an ever continued quest for profit. Under socialism
and during the transitional period "the workers" are those who per–
form useful labor; they do not sell their labor power to themselves
and there is no other economic class to whom they can sell it.
Further, if we retain the meaning of "state power" assigned pre–
viously, then it cannot be true that, under socialism or a transitional
