The question of the state was one of the cornerstones of Marxist-Leninist theories of power. Traditional theory held that the class nature of the state was determined by the class with economic power. This meant that a socialist state was inconceivable if the bourgeoisie retained their traditional rights of property and predominance in industry and commerce. The new theory in the Communist parties just after 1945, on the other hand, held that developments towards socialism were possible without immediate socialisation of the means of production, if the Communist parties could set about changing the state system on the basis of parliamentary majorities. Instead of violent revolution, the idea was that there would be a gradual dismantling of bourgeois power by parliamentary means. That this was tactical thinking can also be seen in Furubotn's case. He stated that the new favourable circumstances for international Communism, and the fact that the NKP and Labour had an overall majority in the Storting, meant that ``The whole problem of our relation to the state must be viewed in a different perspective than before...''. ``Given the same conditions,'' the main emphasis must be given to using the ``parliamentary weapon''.(75) The state system must be purged of bourgeois influence as the renewal of the administration was an essential premise for a peaceful transition to socialism.

Furubotn was alive to the fact that the overall socialist majority in the Storting (parliament) had opened up a new perspective on the principles to be applied. The bourgeois constitution would enable the working class to adopt ``its'' resolutions. He did not believe that the new situation would lead to socialism automatically. Among other things, a great deal depended on the attitude taken to political issues by the Labour Party, the largest socialist party and on that point, Furubotn was not overly optimistic. Nevertheless, the parliamentary weapon -- based on 53 per cent of the vote --was something new and hitherto untried in the labour movement. He said that the most important task for the NKP was to ``teach the people how to use this weapon''.(77) In the new parliamentary situation, strikes, formerly the main weapon of the working class, must take second place. The strike weapon could now be ``supplemented by the bourgeois judiciary''. But the main doubt in Furubotn's mind was whether the NKP had enough ``sense'' to use the principal new weapon, the socialist majority in the Storting.(78)

By strikes, Furubotn did not mean the usual strikes over pay and the like, or outbreaks of strikes, but a general strike, used as a political weapon in the seizure of power. In an internal NKP report, he wrote: (79)

The position of the working class is not that it is abandoning the strike weapon, but that it is keeping it bright -- polishing it -- together with the other political weapon in its other hand, the working class majority among the people. What questions will this new principal political weapon enable us to focus on and apply in the service of the working class? We may get into a situation which calls for both weapons. The possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism depends on how we use this main political weapon.

This shows Furubotn expressing the view that the peaceful road depended on the fulfilment of certain conditions, for instance that the labour movement must have an overall parliamentary majority (i.e. that socialism could not be achieved just by ministerial action), and that it must change the traditional state system. In the spring of 1946, he said that if this process did not begin, the peaceful transition to socialism would be ``struck off the agenda...''.(80)