I consider myself a Marxist despite the facts that 1) I haven't studied Marx in-depth enough to be able to claim it, and 2) I don't think KM was infallible. What I found bedrock in Marx, though, was the idea that there are different classes that are in contest with each other and that ultimately it's a struggle between the owners of production (capital) trying to exploit the means of production (labor) and the means of production trying to keep as much of their creative value for themselves (and not to profit the owners).
According to (my understanding of) Marxist theory, the workers should eventually win out over the state and, enlightened by their experiences of state power, abolish the state altogether, creating in its wake the ideal: communism. I agree with the premise and I tend to agree with communism as the ideal. It's the how we get from exploitation to communism that clearly has not turned out.
Instead, labor got control of the state - at least sort of. In the wake of the Great Depression and WWII, Socialist parties in Europe and the Democratic party in the US won elections. Perhaps the fears provoked by the crises of the times made it obvious to the ruling classes that some redress of proletarian grievances were necessary in order to avoid calamity. In any case, the control of the state was then claimed by those who either in word or in fact represented the interests of the proletariate. As much as the radical left talked about the wool being pulled over the eyes of the workers, working-class people understood that state power was a tool for meeting at least some of their needs.
But where there is a state there is control and a reaction against that control. James Scott points out in The Art of Not Being Governed that the power of the state extended along with technological innovation in transportation, communication and weaponry. But if we look at where the state continues to project power, we find where it is weakest, today: the urban ghettoes and rural spaces of America. It is not accident, for example, that these are the places that have the most limited educational success. In part it has to do with money invested, perhaps, but in part it also has to do with the fact that some of the people in these areas reject the power of the state. Disconnecting themselves from the political system, they look with cynicism on both political parties that would have them educated and accepting of the state, only to be exploited.
Republicans would prefer to use the stick: why bother spending money on schools for people who don't/won't/can't learn - the money is better spent on the prison system.
Democrats would prefer to use the carrot: build schools to teach them the tools they need to succeed in our society, (forgetting/ignoring all the while that the capitalist system which they uphold will relegate most, even the well-educated, to poorly paid, life-draining service sector jobs with no benefits (somebody has to make the fries)).
This anti-statist attitude isn't held by all - some see the state as a means to personal power, but some too see the state as a threat to their personal power. Being the king of one's block has more attraction than being a wage-slave for a multinational corporation. So anti-state communities exist and are in competition with the state power. Republicans tend to take an aggressive, offensive, hawkish approach. Democrats tend to take a defensive, tolerate-it-as-long-as-the-violence-doesn't-spill-into-the-pacified-areas-(read: bourgeois neighborhoods) approach.
Where does that leave me? I have issues with the state - I am a communist, after all. But I also know that anti-state societies often are capriciously violent, inhumane and unjust, ruled by the local strong-man (usually, though perhaps strong-person would be more inclusive), not by law.
So, do I paraphrase Churchill and say that states are terrible things, but better than the alternative? Well, not quite. I still believe in non-state societies, organized on principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood (to borrow a phrase from the French Revolution). I'm not sure how to get there, but it is an ideal worth pursuing. In the meantime, I want the state to work for the good and to work well.
My new Marxist paradigm sees the function of the state as much more complex, since it is a tool that is at least partially up for grabs, but also a dangerous tool that must be wielded carefully and with consideration and ultimately, hopefully, a tool that becomes obsolete. The way to get there is to organize politically within the state in order to pursue progressive policy to ameliorate the effects of capitalism: pursuing a more equal distribution of wealth - this can be done the old-fashioned way via unions (we need to organize the sales clerks, btw). But we also need to start building a parallel movement to create communist communities at the ground level - political control is ephemeral, social change is lasting.
A final reflection: "dropping out" of the system does not constitute a revolutionary act. By this I refer to all those bourgeois who fancy themselves anti-state, but in reality depend on the state keeping the "low-class savages" from looting and pillaging. Also, too, even real leftists tend to preach to the converted and revolutionary communities end up being cloisters rather than integrated into the proletarian community. We need to do better than this.
