Does Parliament matter
- This topic has 46 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Vin, I to remember the "withering away" v "dismantling" of the state, debate!I think I will do, what I advocate on a lot of revolutionary issues, leave it to those involved at that time! That is not to say, I'm averse to debating various issues! You know me, I love a good debate.
I don't like to talk of the SPGB coming to power because what our declaration of principles envisages is the working class winning political power and organising themselves to do this, i.e. into a socialist party. In other words, the future mass socialist party will be the working class organised politically for socialism, its instrument to win control of political power to use to end capitalism.
Vin Maratty wrote:That is my view. I do not support the immediate abolition of the state.Conference resolution 1984 wrote:This Conference affirms that Socialism will entail the immediate abolition of and not the gradual decline of the State.gnome wrote:Conference resolution 1984 wrote:This Conference affirms that Socialism will entail the immediate abolition of and not the gradual decline of the State.I believe that the 84 resolution was superseded.
I remember voting against that resolution in 1984 (too anarchistic) and was pleased to vote for its repeal 20 years later and replacement by something more realistic:
Quote:That the 1984 Conference Resolution, 'This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State', be rescinded and replaced with: 'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use'. (2004).Vin Maratty wrote:gnome wrote:Conference resolution 1984 wrote:This Conference affirms that Socialism will entail the immediate abolition of and not the gradual decline of the State.I believe that the 84 resolution was superseded.
I'll get my coat….
ALB wrote:I remember voting against that resolution in 1984 (too anarchistic) and was pleased to vote for its repeal 20 years later and replacement by something more realistic:Quote:That the 1984 Conference Resolution, 'This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State', be rescinded and replaced with: 'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use'. (2004).I prefer the anarchistic version.The first (anarchistic version) is clear regarding the need to immediately abolish The State, whereas the second is almost saying, "It'll happen at some point." The concept of The State is entwined with government, legislative institutions, enforcement agencies. essentially anything that protects and promotes the ruling ideology. Bodies such as health care systems, educational systems, environmental maintenance systems, communication systems, maintenance of road networks and other systems modern life requires can all function independently of State control. Therefore the State would become immediately obsolete once a democratic Socialist revolution wins power for the people. There would be a lot of logistical State information that would be useful, so an organised effort of opening up the interior of The State for public scrutiny would take place. I think the second version is fine, but it could benefit from being more bold regarding the imediate abolition of The State. That's my view anyway.
One reason for not abolishing the State immediately is the possibility, however remote, of an uprising by a pro-capitalist recalcitrant minority. It would be foolish of the working class to disband the armed forces until they were certain that this was not going to happen. In fact the coercive powers of the State other than the armed forces will need to be used to impose the will of the majority to dispossess the capitalist class and make the means of wealth production the common property of society. even if there's no armed resistance to it by a pro-capitalist recalcitrant minority. I can think of other reasons too for not abolishing the state immediately, to do with the working class not winning control of all the states in the world on exactly the same day.It will of course depend on the circumstances at the time which we can't predict now, but I can't see under what circumstances "immediate abolition" would be a realistic or likely option.
jondwhite wrote:Was a conference resolution even necessary on this?It was considered necessary at the time (1984) because one member had committed the Party to "the gradual decline of the State" which would have put us in the same camp as all Leninist and Trotskyist groups and their view that the State could persist for decades after they had won control of it. This mistake needed to be repudiated.Unfortunately, the resolution to repudiate it was badly drafted and committed the Party to the opposite mistake of "the immediate abolition of the State". It should have spoken rather of something like "the rapid abolition of the State".Those were the days when Party conferences discussed politics and political theory rather than as today internal procedures and rule changes.
Here's Johnny Rotten's contribution to this thread:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/cheltenham-festival/article4234792.ece
Quote:The lead singer of the Sex Pistols said that people such as the comedian Russell Brand who refuse to vote as a form of protest were “bumholes” who misunderstood the nature of power.Well lubed by Country Life butter bum-holes, i hope…and the 5 million quid he got for advertising it.Care to c and p the full Times article as it is behind a pay-wall
Hi ALBA good enough point regarding the possibility of needing the armed forces to put down a minority capitalist uprising. However I think on another thread you said that it would be highly unlikely a defeated capitalist minority would to go head to head with a socialist majority of the people.I would say that deposing the existing hierarchy of the military would be a wise move to avoid any potential co-ordinated international military coup. That in effect would leave a leaderless military.Regarding my earlier question. If The State were not immediately dismantled, but kept in place just in case, how and who would manage The State during the period leading up to its eventual abolition?The Times article about John Lydon on Russell Brand is only available to subscribers, so I couldn't read it.Although I think John Lydon has produced a lot of good music over the years, (his best stuff without a doubt when in the Sex Pistols) in general he himself is a muddled "bumhole" when it comes to joined up political thinking. So far, Russell Brand is more consistent and interesting when it comes to political thought, than Johnny.
SocialistPunk wrote:Although I think John Lydon has produced a lot of good music over the years, (his best stuff without a doubt when in the Sex Pistols) in general he himself is a muddled "bumhole" when it comes to joined up political thinking. So far, Russell Brand is more consistent and interesting when it comes to political thought, than Johnny.So you wouldn't say Lydon is a socialist punk then?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.