The spatial spread of socialist society

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There is no point in being dogmatic about it at this stage. What will happen will happen irrespective of what we today think should happen.

I'm not so sure about this, ALB. Surely,what we workers think should happen will be an inescapable factor in what will happen? And if we Communists insist that the class must also be Communists for a proletarian revolution to take place, that will play a part. If 'what happens' happens 'irrespective of what we today think should happen', what's the point of propaganda?No, I think being 'dogmatic' about the need for workers themselves to come to a Communist class consciousness, to build their own democratic delegate organisations, and to struggle against the wage system and money, is just about what we should be doing at every stage!

ALB wrote:

This being so, and since most unions have sufficiently democratic constitutions, if the members become socialist-minded they could transform the union.

I'm less confident about this, too, ALB. I think that 'most union' bureaucracies will expel members/officials/branches that adopt delegate structures and propagandise with their union for others to do the same. As with capitalism (or indeed Leninist parties), the 'democratic consitutions' aren't worth the paper that they're written on.Real power relationships within political organisations are rarely (ever?) captured in 'constitutions'. That's why we need an active class, not an active 'leadership', as for 'democratic centralists'. Workers will have to actively participate in the daily running of their society, and democratically change 'constitutions' as they see fit.

ALB wrote:

OK, they might prefer to break away and form a new organisation, but I don't think we can completely rule out the transformation from within of existing unions.

If you were to offer a bet, I think I'd put a fiver on that, against your view, ALB!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Hence, I see the role of propaganda and the battle of ideas within our class as a fundamental one, rather  inclined to think that there is a necessary link between Engels' positivist view of science, and the notion that 'struggle/experience' leads to consciousness. The Left Communists, I think, espouse Engels, rather than Marx, on this issue.

I wouldn't have thought that Engels can be made to carry the can for their peculiar ideas on how socialist consciousness arises, as what Engels wrote in his introduction to a reprint in 1895 of Marx's Civil War in France directly contradicts their view:

Quote:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required,

I think Engels is with us (both of us) on this one.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hence, I see the role of propaganda and the battle of ideas within our class as a fundamental one, rather  inclined to think that there is a necessary link between Engels' positivist view of science, and the notion that 'struggle/experience' leads to consciousness. The Left Communists, I think, espouse Engels, rather than Marx, on this issue.

I wouldn't have thought that Engels can be made to carry the can for their peculiar ideas on how socialist consciousness arises, as what Engels wrote in his introduction to a reprint in 1895 of Marx's Civil War in France directly contradicts their view:

Quote:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required,

I think Engels is with us (both of us) on this one.

Yeah, he's with us 'on this one'.But many Marxists insist on following Engels' stance on the philosophy of science, not his political or historical views. When we've discussed this previously, I think you made the mistake of thinking that I was condemning Engels' entire body of work, whereas I'm only condemning his positivist views on science, which I think are at odds with his (and Marx's) views on society.But, I think the obsession with 'material' factors/conditions, the 'concrete', etc., and the underplaying of the subjective role of ideas in human affairs (both scientific and political), has its philosophical roots in Engels, not Marx. That is, in the crafted unity known as "Marx-Engels"! To question "Marx-Engels" is to be a heretic, and to be condemned to burn at the stake, for the religious crime of 'Idealism'.Or should that be "Apostatic Idealism"?

[proletarian.]

ALB wrote:

Proletarian, your proposal to elect a single socialist MP as an experiment won't work as it assumes that socialist understanding would express itself in just one constituency whereas it is much more likely that when the movement for socialism takes off it will spread more or less evenly in different areas.

 So why then does the SPGB put up candidates in elections when there isn't "the movement for socialism"?

[steve colborn]

We put up candidates, as a way of getting the Socialist message out. It is also useful as a focal point for activity. Moreover, it is a useful indicator of how successful previous propaganda in a specific area has been, in getting the Socialist message out.

[robbo203]

So, just to get this thread back on track – what about the spatial spread of socialist society, then?  What does that mean?  What does it  imply?Do people here accept that the simultaneous or synchronous implemenation of socialism everywhere throughout the word in one go is simply a not a viable proposition? Do they agree that, if it was attempted (as the Left Coms et al propose) it would inadvertently mean  (given the relatively uneven growth of the socialist movement that is bound to be the case) having to set up DOTPs in different parts world,  pending everywhere in the world falling under a DOTP, so that collectively they can establish world wide socialism in one go?  That being so,  how could such DOTPs fail to function as just anther form of  capitalist administration that would effectively lead to, or inevitably evolve into,  a dictatorship of capital over the wage labour and so ultimately  would work against the the establishment of global socialism? Or do they accept that logically, if socialism cannot possibly be established instantaneously on a worldwide basis, that the only  alternative to this is that it  would commence somewhere and spread outwards from there, with capitalist state after capitalist state falling to the expanding sphere of socialism in domino fashion.  How does this differ from the theory of "socialism in one country" (which I believe it does in several important respects)?  How would an expanding socialist part of the world articulate with a contracting capitalist part?  What would be the forms of interactions between these two parts of the world?  And what be the role of a growing  global socialist movement in this whole process  given the fact that if a significant socialist majority was attained in one part of the world it would presuppose, at the very least, significant socialist minorities everywhere else, along with a radically transformed socio-political environment I am interested in getting a handle on the nitty gritty details of such a hypothetical set up.  To hell with the argument that we shouldn't speculate and "write recipes for the cook-shops of the future' . Lets live a little dangerously and use our imagination….

[alanjjohnstone]

No doubt in your wide reading you have come across this writer. https://www.marxists.org/archive/deville/1895/state.htm . Has the debate really progressed since 1895 , or keep going around and around  "Therefore,let us not confound State socialism with the infiltration of socialism into the State, and let us endeavor to increase this infiltration as much as possible until socialism shall be mistress of the State. That day will be, not the last day of the State, but the first day of the last phase of its evolution.The disappearance of the State, as I have said, implies the disappearance of classes, i.e., the previous modification of social conditions. This modification must be brought about by law, and it is this legislative task that the socialist State will have to accomplish. Between the time when the class-conscious majority of the proletariat, the socialist party, shall take possession of the State in order to give practical effect to its programme, to realize the suppression of classes, and the time when that suppression shall be actually accomplished, there will be an intervening period which will be the socialist phase of the State. During this period, the State will be as always government by a class, but it will be government by that class by which classes, henceforth useless and detrimental, will be suppressed.In the hands of the socialist party or – what is the same thing – of the organized proletariat, the State will have to regulate the situation of persons and material wealth on the basis of the socialization of capitalist property, and it will control and adjust this situation through the instrumentality of the law. It will act just as the State acted in the last century[28] in the case of the property of the nobility and the clergy, just as the present State acts. It is a tradition of the Revolution that what a law has done a law can undo, and that there is no possible appeal from the decision of the legislative body.When the socialization of capitalist properly shall have been effected, and legally effected, there will no longer be any economic subordination of some to others, there will be no more classes, and the State, made a necessity by the existence of classes, can at last be suppressed or, rather, it will disappear of itself when it shall have accomplished its task of transformation.This is not equivalent to saying that the socialist society will have no organization. But the future social organization, when antagonistic classes no longer exist, when constraint no longer has to be exercised over some for the benefit of others, will not be a State any more than the means of production will be capital after they shall have lost the power of exploiting the labor of others, or than the future remuneration will be what we call wages when it shall no longer presuppose surplus-labor. These two latter changes will be the result of the suppression of the character of capital which is to-day stamped upon the principal means of production.It is needless for me to talk of the future organization, and I limit myself to pointing out the general lines along which it will develop. In the transition period in which the transformation will be accomplished through conscious adaptation of measures to facts, there will still be a State, but that State will be a socialist State. In the following period, the political rule of the men who constituted the State in the transition period, will have become a business administration of affairs, Instead of government there will then be simply a business administration. Therefore, we must work without ceasing to elect more and more socialists to office, to permeate and saturate the State more and more with socialist ideas, until, in the hands of the socialist party or the class-conscious, organized proletariat, the State with all its powers, and especially that of law-making, becomes the instrument, which it is destined to be, of the economic transformation to be accomplished. When that transformation is completely accomplished, there will then be, instead of persons to be constrained, only things to be administered, and on that glorious day there will still be a social organization, but it will no longer be a State.

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

A state entails guns – yes certainly – and all the other stuff you mention.  But guns dont necessarily entail a state – anymore than a peice of machinery necessarily entails "capital".  The "state" and "capital" are only phenomena that happen under certain socio-economic conditions i.e. the state implies the existence of class relations.  No classes means no state

Guns are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of statedom.  However, I'd suggest that even if the wages system were abolished, and an autonomous organised military force existed, it would shortly reconstitute itself as anew ruling class.  It isn't just symbollic, it is necessary to physiocally take and hold the mechanisms of state.

Quote:

So I would fundamentally question your claim that Capitalism's historic response in the face of its "apparent eminent abolition" has been to fight .  We  have never ever been in this situation.  Not even remotely.

Oh, but we have.  From Russia to Chile the capitalists *believed* they were about to be abolished.  Hence why I said apparent.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 Guns are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of statedom.  However, I'd suggest that even if the wages system were abolished, and an autonomous organised military force existed, it would shortly reconstitute itself as anew ruling class.  It isn't just symbollic, it is necessary to physiocally take and hold the mechanisms of state.

I might be puting words in your mouth (for which apologies in advance) but if  you mean by "mechanisms of the state" –  those outer  trappings of the state like the civil service and the armed forces – then,  yes, I wouldnt disagree that you need to physically take and hold such things. With socialism being implemented one presumes, with the former, the intention would be to strip away those capitalist functions such as tax collection or social security provision that mostly concerns the so called civil service as we know it today, leaving only a residue of socially useful functions needed in a socialist society.  In the case of the armed forces one equally presumes that the intention would be to turn "swords into ploughshares" and that any need to use armed force in the immediate aftermath of establishing socialism would be minimal (I gave my reasons in an earlier post why I consider that the problem of the "recalcitarnt minority" is unlikely to be a serious one so wont rehearse those arguments here) Nevetheless, there is a distinction to be made between the trappings or mechanisms of the state and the state itself. (You seem to agree, judging by your comnment that guns are a necessary but not sufficient condition  of statedom), The state itself is not something that you can "physically take and hold".  It is a social institution which, as stated earlier, means a regularised or routinised pattern of rule- dominated behaviour.  Built into such behaviour is a set of expectations about how people are supposed to behave, the roles they are meant  carry out.  This is why I insist that  the capture of the state is essentially a symbolic act. It symbolises or triggers  the closure of one set of social rules about the functioning of society and its replacement by another , quite different set,  A bit like changing from a game of draughts to a game of chess using the same board, as i suggested earlier I dont see how an "autonomous" organised military force could exist in a socialist society (and even if it did Im not too sure that it would reconstitute itself as a new ruling class) What kind of leverage would such a force wield that would compel the compliance of the population, given the dynamics of a free access, voluntaristic society,?  Such an arrangement dissolves the very material basis upon which political power rests: alienated property What you are suggesting is that this autonomous military force can somehow free itself from the constraints and entanglements  of society´s expectations and its value system.  Not even where an actual ruling class exists is this really true. Our rulers hold on to power hegemonically and this is more and more turning out to be the case.  Old fashioned dictatorships are inefficient,  dont work and are increasingly on the way out. The growing socialist movement will be the decisive factor pushing them into complete extinction 

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, but we have.  From Russia to Chile the capitalists *believed* they were about to be abolished.  Hence why I said apparent.

 There is a big big difference between groups of capitalists who believe their existence to be imperilled and capitalism  as a system being imperilled,  Unfortunately, we have never ever reached the stage where the later is the case.  Even remotely, as I say.  When the writing is on the wall and the dusk begins to descend upon the capitalist epoch (to mix a few metaphors)  it will be far too late for the capitalist state to do anything about it.  That state will increasingly be held captive by developments that will begin to take on a momentum of their own

[Author]

Posts