The need for a transnational state
- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I can put a basic argument together for why we no longer need a transitional state but I could do with a little more substance. Has anyone got any suggestions for reading material on this subject? I’d also like learn a little more about the history of the original “impossibilists”, who was first, what were their reasons and so on. I don’t have any money to buy books but any online links would be great. Many thanks.
There’s this article on this site about “The Myth of a Transitional Society”. There is also an article on “The ‘Transition Period'” in the January 1946 Socialist Standard but this does seem to be on (yet?).As to the history of the SPGB, online are this, this and this.There’s also this article but you have to register and pay to see it, so that’s no good then.And there’s this on the “impossibilists” of the Socialist Party of Canada.
Just realised that you wrote “transnational” in the title when you meant “transitional”.Also, although we reject such terms as “transitional state”, “socialist state” and “workers state”, we are not anarchists and do envisage that the workers, once they have become socialists, should aim to win control of political power, ie of “the state”, in order to stop it being used against them and to co-ordinate the changeover to socialism and, even, to deal with any violent resistance by a pro-capitalist minority (however unlikely).The point is that, since workers already run society from top to bottom and since private property is at present guaranteed by the state, this working class control of the state need not last very long. In fact, private property in the means of production can be abolished at a stroke by simply declaring all stocks and shares and all property deeds null and void. They can then be used to make lampshades.
so I did, I hope that wasn’t freudian. More likely I spelt it wrong or my spell cheka didn’t recognize it and I clicked the wrong option. Thanks for the replies (and in the duplicate thread) I’m reading through them all, very useful stuff and thanks for the E-mail as well.
ALB wrote:There’s this article on this site about “The Myth of a Transitional Society”. There is also an article on “The ‘Transition Period'” in the January 1946 Socialist Standard but this does seem to be on (yet?). ‘The Transition Period’ article is now available on here.I think the state as it currently exists is way too centralised and undemocratic to be used as “transitional”. Maybe someone can persuade me otherwise, but I think delegitimizing the state by using direct action outside of the legitimized state system.The best direct action is one which simultaneously takes care of a need of the people while at the same time undermining the laws of the current state.some examples: Encouraging stealing food for people in need, taking a public space without notice for the practice democracy (occupy movement), encouraging squatting and helping homeless find squats, etc.What all these examples have in common is that they take care of a public need or desire (food, participation, housing, etc)and the government is put in a difficult position of either crushing down on the lawbreakers and looking like a human-hating, democracy hating state OR they let it happen.Either way the state becomes viewed as less legitimate. In case of the Occupy Movement, they have brought into question the supposed democracy of the state with their actions. The state was forced to crack down and thus delegitimized themselves a bit more in the view of the citizens.In theory a new social organization can emerge out of this type of direct action once it becomes easier for people to get their needs and basic desires met thru them. In practice it’s probably going to be a lot messier.I see very little hope in promoting the idea of using the current state aparatus in a transitional phase with the enormous and very likely increasing distrust in the current political system.
dogmatic wrote:I think the state as it currently exists is way too centralised and undemocratic to be used as “transitional”.The SPGB does not advocate using the state to manage a ‘transitional society’. The ‘transition’ begins now, and you’re taking part in it, with people talking about and considering the possibilities of a new kind of society. Once the majority understands and wants this new kind of society we can exploit the ‘Achilles Heel’ of so-called democratic society and instigate the measures needed to transform society in as peaceable a manner as possible.For more read these:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamenthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1287-november-2011/what-wrong-using-parliament
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.