Does Parliament matter
- This topic has 46 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:A 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
But the State is not just the armed forces. It's the whole "public power of coercion", i.e laws, law courts, police, prisons, etc. The socialist revolution will be the socialist majority enforcing their will on the capitalist minority. Winning control of the State will give the workers (the socialist majority) the upper hand as it will mean that the public power of coercion will no longer be used to uphold and enforce capitalist property rights. Instead it will be there to enforce the will of the socialist majority.Most anarchists (the exceptions being the anarcho-capitalists and the anarcho-pacifists) accept that the capitalist class will have to be forced to give up their ownership. Only they envisage using workers militias or whatever to do this. A bit suicidal if you leave, as they propose, the State in the hands of the pro-capitalists.There is also the point that the State is the centre of social control as well as the public power of coercion and so could be usefully used to co-ordinate the socialist revolution. In fact, once the socialist revolution is over this is all that will remain of its present functions. The centre of social control will be an unarmed, democratically controlled administrative body. Not having coercive powers it won't be a State.
SocialistPunk wrote: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.Well, yes, the first thing the working class will need to do when it wins control of the State is to lop off its undemocratic features (the monarchy and the House of Lords as well)
SocialistPunk wrote: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 people through re-inforced democratic control. But we're not talking about a lengthy period. It's actually (if I dare say so) the period Marx (somewhat misleadingly) called "the dictatorship of the proletariat",or, better, the period of the revolutionary transformation by political means of capitalist society into socialist/communist society.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Care to c and p the full Times article as it is behind a pay-wallOK.
Quote:Johnny Rotten still seeks revolution— but now he takes a more conventional approach, writes Jack MalvernAs Johnny Rotten he cultivated a reputation as an agitator for an anarchist revolution, declaiming that he was the Antichrist who wished to "destroy passers by".As John Lydon, speaking 38 years later to a crowd at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, he urged people dissatisfied with politics to take their grievances to their town hall.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. He declined to say which political party he supported. "I'm very wary of tagging my name on to supporting any of those phoney b***ds, but don't be like like Russell Brand," he said at the festival, which is sponsored by The Times and The Sunday Times."If you don't vote, you don't count. It's only a century ago that none of us had the right to vote and we don't want to go back to that route."Brand argued last year that refusing to vote was his way of renouncing the political system. He cited Lydon's experience at state school, which he said "seemed to primarily be the installation of a belief system that placed his generation and class at the bottom of an immovable hierarchical structure". Lydon said that people who wanted change should engage with politics, not reject it. "Go to town hall meetings and give them f***ing hell," he said. "I'm not being flippant. If you don't start locally you're not going to change the world."He asked people to shout the name of the party they support, prompting several cries of support for Ukip. "What is the UK [Independence Party] about? I've been away a bit and all of a sudden it's a bunch of aw-haw-haws. They look like a real bunch of rejects from the other [Conservative] party."He's right about UKIP.
Adam, I was hoping you or someone else would be able to explain how a socialist majority in parliament goes from there to taking control of The State?The coercive elements of the State can only be dismantled if actually under control of the socialist majority in the first place, it is why I mentioned the need to remove the military hierarchy in the first place.
If John Lydon is telling people to engage with politics he's a little late. Far from telling people not to engage in politics the "bumhole" ,Russell Brand is advocating people take politics into their own hands. He's looking for a solution to the same old crap that is mainstream politics, and he knows that solution has to come from the people.I guess when you were once known for being outrageous, calling for Anarchy in the UK and are now better known for advertising butter, it gives your once edgy creability a publicity bosst to have a dig at another celebrity who has actually put the idea of revolution back into the public arena.
SocialistPunk wrote:Adam, I was hoping you or someone else would be able to explain how a socialist majority in parliament goes from there to taking control of The State?The coercive elements of the State can only be dismantled if actually under control of the socialist majority in the first place, it is why I mentioned the need to remove the military hierarchy in the first place.Much as a capitalist parliamentary majority does now. A socialist majority in parliament (reflecting of course a democratically self-organised majority outside parliament) will control the executive and the executive will continue to control the coercive powers of the state, including the armed forces. I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can but I can't see a socialist majority, on winning control of political power, not completely democratising it (by lopping off its bureaucratic and military excrescences) before using it. Many members of the armed forces and civil service will of course be socialists themselves and so prepared to go along with and implement this. Or are you asking if the executive (today and tomorrow) does not or would not control the armed forces?.
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Adam, I was hoping you or someone else would be able to explain how a socialist majority in parliament goes from there to taking control of The State?The coercive elements of the State can only be dismantled if actually under control of the socialist majority in the first place, it is why I mentioned the need to remove the military hierarchy in the first place.Much as a capitalist parliamentary majority does now. A socialist majority in parliament (reflecting of course a democratically self-organised majority outside parliament) will control the executive and the executive will continue to control the coercive powers of the state, including the armed forces. I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can but I can't see a socialist majority, on winning control of political power, not completely democratising it (by lopping off its bureaucratic and military excrescences) before using it. Many members of the armed forces and civil service will of course be socialists themselves and so prepared to go along with and implement this. Or are you asking if the executive (today and tomorrow) does not or would not control the armed forces?.
How does the socialist majority control the executive when the executive in British politics is in fact the appointed government?This is why earlier I mentioned a socialist government. There is a big difference in having a socialist majority in parliament and controlling The State.As to the military and who controls it, I think it is not beyond the realms of believability to think a military coup would be instigated against the parliamentary majority. What we are discussing here is not the changing face of capitalist politics, as all relatively recent revolutions have been. We are talking about the once and for all overthrow of capitalism. It's why I mentioned the removal of high ranking military officials as quickly as possible, once the socialist majority gain power.
SP,actually, history shows it's the upper ecxhelons who remain loyal to the regime. Pinochet had to assasinate his way through the Army ranks to become Generalissimo, and Franco was a Colonel as well. What we need to see off the threat of a military coup is a solid majority, and to hold back adventurers who might give them an excuse to act unconstitutionally.
Quote:Only they envisage using workers militias or whatever to do this. A bit suicidal if you leave, as they propose, the State in the hands of the pro-capitalists.Suicidal in the widest context !!In all my long years as a socialist i have only known a handful who have ever had any military traning and since conscription/draft been abolished there simply won't be too many with the relevant experience in arms and weaponry to be an effectivve militia. I have only know one..a single person…who thought armed insurrection was inevitable and joined the TA to get that required military skill. But even so, they never taught him how to drive and fire a tank, or range and direct an artillery barrage, or fly a helicopter gunship and host of other high-tech armaments, even if available.Surely those who disagree with us that the military will fall in line with the democratic consensus, reinforced by our legality and legitimacy regards the constitution, must take the steps now for a "red army" militia and i see no evidence of this. A few scattered sects do argue for the re-introduction of conscription and the establishment of a British Army on the lines of some other countries "citizen" army ie the Swiss and Swedish but probably the most reflective is perhps the Israeli and they aren't that popular to emulate.As far as America is concerned the establishment of armed militias have been predomnantly right-wing racist survivalists…hardly a recommendation. The days of Black Panther urban guerilla warfare have long past as they themselves discovered turning into a self-help mutual aid organisation and self-defence becoming secondary role.
One of the first acts of Franco was the execution of 200 senior Spanish Army officers right at the start of the civil war.Most of the Spanish Navy remained loyal to the government.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,actually, history shows it's the upper ecxhelons who remain loyal to the regime. Pinochet had to assasinate his way through the Army ranks to become Generalissimo, and Franco was a Colonel as well. What we need to see off the threat of a military coup is a solid majority, and to hold back adventurers who might give them an excuse to act unconstitutionally.And what of the reserve powers of the head of state?I cannot foresee another situation other than a civil war, albeit between the majority and a smaller in numbers military. Unfortunately it would likely be a civil war against a military with the majority of the firepower that they would use against the people.
Once there's a socialist majority the game is up for capitalism and the capitalist class. A "slaveholders rebellion" (such as Marx expected after the workers won control of political power via the ballot paper) would only delay things a while, but in the end the majority would get its way.For a start, the armed forces would be split without some, perhaps a majority, refusing to join the rebellion so its effectiveness would be considerably weakened. There would mutinies while at the same time workers would be refusing to supply the rebel units with food, electricity and other resources.Even under capitalism an isolated minority can't hold on to power for long in the face of majority opposition or non-support. Otherwise why has any dictatorship come to an end?You're being too pessimistic !
The article in the latest SS on non-violent revolution pointed to a study showing that state violence against substantial civil resistance was more often than not futile, and that peaceful opposition has generally been more effective in achieving ends (albeit obviously, not so far, majority socialist ones) than violent opposition.Once they realise their number's up, there won't be much the violent minority can do. Especially when there's every reason to think that most of the police and armed forces will have come over to the other side. After all, high-powered generals and the like still need minions to do their fighting for them.Would that we were anywhere near that stage.
I'm not being pessimistic Adam, more like realistic. While I accept that without a majority willing to supply and prop up any attempted military coup, there are absolute loyalist lunatics in the high echelons of power, who would be prepared to take whatever measures they deemed necessary. I would even suggest that they would even be prepared to use the ultimate "deterrent" if they could.What of my question about, as you put it controlling the executive. Do you mean it as I see it. If a socialist majority gains a sizeable majority in parliament, by constitutional definition they have the legality to form a government. However no government will be formed, instead power will be devolved to whatever structures the socialist majority deem necessary.When I talk of abolishing the State, I see the State as the legitimizing framework, parliament, government, monarchy, legal system, police and military. Although the State controls many of the useful services in this and many other countries, those useful services are capable of functioning without State interference. In fact most useful services in this country have been privatised and the few remaining are in the pipeline for eventual privatisation. As you and others put forward the idea that most of the military and police force will become part of the socialist majority, the State would be left a virtual ideological shell, so could be layed to rest, immediately after a socialist revolution.
I share your sense of foreboding Socialist Punk. A great many of these "squaddies" are impoverished dullards who have already been brutalised in childhood even before they start learning how to be killers. This article exposes what happens to these murderers when they come back home. Apart from the deeply entrenched ultra nationalism inherent in military culture the fact is that we as depending on these people to join the class war when a large proportion of them are fucking psycho's whether Sergeant Major, lowly private or Brigadier General. And the global arsenal they've got behind them! It's terrifying. I think a bloodless revolution would be a total miracle. It could end up being a very dangerous situation indeed…if we ever actually get there of course. Fuck I'm being a pessimist again. Canny help it. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/collateral-damage-ex-soldiers-living-with-ptsdI just hope this link works. Can't seem to cut and paste properly for this forum from my iPhone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.