Tory Legislation on ‘Extremism’

[SocialistPunk]

Gnome wrote:

The SPGB may not "have an exclusive claim that the road to socialism must be via the limited state democracy of parliament" but you've failed miserably to present a cogent (or any) argument as to why the SPGB is incorrect.

Sorry Gnome old chap, trying to avert attention from your beloved stance of "If it aint SPGB, it aint socialism", by claiming I've failed to prove such a stance wrong, is quite laughable. I've never said the SPGB parliament approach is wrong or that I disagree with it. All I say is that the parliamentary route is not necessarily as vital as some think. It's useful in that it should pull the teeth of the military and it adds "legitimacy" to the revolution. Though legitimacy is unimportant as socialists care nothing of the claims of capitalists. But if their limited democratic structures are used against them, then they have no counter claim of illegitimacy.

Gnome wrote:

But there is a more positive reason for winning control of political power. The state is an instrument of coercion, but it has assumed social functions that have to exist in any society and which have nothing to do with its coercive nature: it has taken over the role of being society’s central organ of administration and co-ordination. Gaining control of the state will at the same time give control of this social organ which can be used to co-ordinate the changeover from capitalism to socialism. Of course, it couldn’t be used in the form inherited from capitalism; it would have to be reorganised on a thoroughly democratic basis, with mandated and recallable delegates and popular participation replacing the unaccountable professional politicians and unelected top civil servants of today.

A simple question. What social functions does the state provide that are not already capable of independent functioning, or would not be under workers control by the time a convincing socialist majority won control of parliament? I've previously made this point using the NHS in Britain. It is more than capable of functioning independently of state interference. Likewise, services in the UK such as energy, water, communication, postal are no longer in the hands of the state.You also say the state would need to be reorganised. For what purpose? What social purpose would a withered relic of minority ownership serve? What's the point?As a socialist revolutionary movement grows, democratic organisation on a mass scale will be taking place by the workers, who already run society, outside the state. It won't be a case of "Right, we've gained control of parliament, now what?". The state won't need reorganising because the workers would have already organised in readiness for the reorganising of society as a whole.The parliament route serves only two functions as far as I can tell. One is practical, in potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state and the other is purely decorative "legitimacy".I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.

If there's no conscious and active majority then socialism is not going to happen. But do you think there's any good reason for this majority to not send delegates to parliament?

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.

If there's no conscious and active majority then socialism is not going to happen. But do you think there's any good reason for this majority to not send delegates to parliament?

Yes where a parliament does not exist, a conscious and active majority cannot send delegates.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The parliament route serves only two functions as far as I can tell. One is practical, in potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state and the other is purely decorative "legitimacy".I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.

You're completely and utterly confused, aren't you, AnarchistPunk. On the one hand you admit that the "parliament route" serves the function of "potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state", but in the next breath you say "controlling parliament is not essential" for socialism to come into existence". (your bold)   Which is it to be?As far as your other "function" is concerned, that which is "purely decorative", one of "legitimacy", how better to know if the majority support the socialist revolution other than by the ballot box?You've abysmally failed to present one alternative to the "parliament route" other than to posit the completely ludicrous situation where "the people decided to use force" (#47).  Against the modern state?  Come on, you cannot be serious.Present us with what you consider to be 'viable' alternative scenarios, AP, and they will be systematically demolished one by one.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

The parliament route serves only two functions as far as I can tell. One is practical, in potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state and the other is purely decorative "legitimacy".I'll say it once more in case it hasn't sunk in. Controlling parliament is not essential for socialism to come into existence.

You're completely and utterly confused, aren't you, AnarchistPunk. On the one hand you admit that the "parliament route" serves the function of "potentially disarming the coercive elements of the state", but in the next breath you say "controlling parliament is not essential" for socialism to come into existence". (your bold)   Which is it to be?As far as your other "function" is concerned, that which is "purely decorative", one of "legitimacy", how better to know if the majority support the socialist revolution other than by the ballot box?You've abysmally failed to present one alternative to the "parliament route" other than to posit the completely ludicrous situation where "the people decided to use force" (#47).  Against the modern state?  Come on, you cannot be serious.Present us with what you consider to be 'viable' alternative scenarios, AP, and they will be systematically demolished one by one.

I'm not confused at all Gnome.The social organisation aspect of gaining control of the state is unnecessary as I pointed out previously. (quoted below) . But you still fail to answer that point, despite it being a point that you placed importance on. (see #54) 

SocialistPunk wrote:

As a socialist revolutionary movement grows, democratic organisation on a mass scale will be taking place by the workers, who already run society, outside the state. It won't be a case of "Right, we've gained control of parliament, now what?". The state won't need reorganising because the workers would have already organised in readiness for the reorganising of society as a whole.

As for the military issue. I was asking you a question regarding your response to a "what if" scenario, when I posited my "ludicrous scenario". (#47)I actually base this line of enquiry on things I've read in the Socialist Standard and this forum. Not long ago there was a discussion on this forum about the possibility of a bloodless revolution, with suggestions that the military machine would likely grind to a halt as a socialist revolution gathers serious pace. It was pointed out that soldiers are workers with families and friends and so most would be unlikely to turn their guns on them.I've already said I'm not against the parliamentary approach. However I definately think winning control of the state is unimportant regarding social organisation. For me the military question is the issue. But I'm not dogmatic in my outlook, I'm simply trying to get some clarification on a few things here. For some reason you seem to be on a major defensive as if I'm trying to smash the SPGB philosophy.But be my guest and demolish my "scenarios", starting with the one you forgot about in my quote above. I'm more than willing to expose myself to  correction, even ridicule, on this forum if it teaches me something. Are you?

[alanjjohnstone]

I see even the Tories are now at logger-heads themselves over the crack-down on liberties, with one department accusing the other of introducing censorshiphttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/mays-plan-to-censor-tv-programmes-condemned-by-tory-cabinet-colleagueAnd now freed of the LibDems, Cameron is apportioning all the blame for rising immigration upon their reluctance to support his "strong" stance…

[robbo203]

I suppose what can be said about the parliamentary method of establishing socialism is that it ticks all the boxes as far as the revolution is concerned and it is for that reason, I would endorse it .  It is difficult to see quite how the democratic nature of that revolution can be demonstrated and put into effect without some form of head counting. And it is difficult to see how, in turn, that could be done outside the electoral or parliamentary process.  True, dual power scenarios in which alternative structures – e.g.. workers councils – exist alongside the parliamentary institution seem to do this but the great weakness with them is that they don't really address the question of the state and who controls that. They are thus constantly at risk of being attacked or taken over by the state which regards them as a rival source of social legitimacy Nevertheless that does not necessarily mean we have to reject the idea of workers councils.  It would be more helpful to see their role as supplementary – or complementary.  The same would be true of other sorts of other developments – including the growth of  the non market sector which is almost certainly bound to happen in the wake of the growth of  the revolutionary socialist movement itself.  The repercussions of such growth are also likely to transform incrementally the entire social climate in which political debate takes place, making it more and more difficult for governments to get away with implementing the kind of measures that the present Tory government is contemplating.  One thing I would caution against is any suggestion of the socialist movement taking  over and reorganising the state. In my view the capture of the state is synonymous with its complete and immediate disappearance.  It cannot be anything other than this. Call me pedantic but, for me, the state signifies the existence of classes- it is a class institution. Holding on to the state in any way shape or form means holding on to some form of class society.  I am vehemently opposed to the Marxian concept of the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is fundamentally flawed and illogical.  You cannot run a slave society in the interests of the slaves and the longer you pretend to do so the more likely are you to morph into a slave owner yourself. So a distinction needs to be clearly made between the state qua state and its administrative machinery.  It is acceptable to talk in terms of taking over and adapting that machinery for the benefit of a socialist society but it is totally unacceptable to talk in terms of taking over  and adapting the state itself. With the socialist revolution, the state goes  – immediately  – because the institution of class ownership likewise goes immediately.  If organised coercion or force is required to thwart the intentions of any undemocratic minority to overturn the decision of the great majority then this coercive force will be of a non statist nature because it will issue from a  non class society. It is not as if you cannot have organised force without a state and there are numerous examples of  non statist – or pre-statist -acephalous societies that actively deploy force and engage in violent methods to achieve their ends. I am thinking in particular of mainly pastoralist societies such as the Nuer in southern Sudan which is a fiercely egalitarian non statist tribal society but also one noted its warlike activities…. Not that I am suggesting a socialist society would be organised along lines similar to the Nuer but the basic point  remains – organised coercion does not have to be statist in nature

[Young Master Smeet]

Just a small point, but the Party isn't committed to Parliament, as such, but to political action (as opposed to direct action, a general strike and union action, or military action).  Parliament is just a means of political action, and converting the state into the agent of emancipation (including the armed forces and police).  I'm quite happy with the idea of putting police on the picket lines to keep the scabs out…

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

With the socialist revolution, the state goes  – immediately  –

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position and as you know a position opposed by both Marx and the SPGB. A conference resolution in the 80s  or 90s went against our D of P and was later corrected – I think. But I agree that gaining control of the state is essential. 

[Young Master Smeet]

Vin wrote:

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into THE agent of emancipation.

Corrected.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I believe the SPGB's position is that the state is converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. the immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position…

I think that the issue is a bit more complex, Vin.I would argue that Marxists who look to Council Communism would 'immediately abolish the state' by ensuring that political power is transferred to Workers' Councils.But this political form of democratic workers' power is regarded by anarchists as just another name for a 'state', because they correctly see that 'individuals' will be still under some form of democratic compulsion.So, the three positions might be regarded as:1. Convert the state (still a state, but used by workers, perhaps 'temporarily');2. Destroy the state (and replace it with Workers' Councils, which can democratically compel 'individuals'). Destroy the state (and replace it with 'Free Association' for individuals, who can ignore democratic controls).On these threads, perhaps Vin argues for option 1, I argue for option 2, and robbo203 argues for 3.FWIW, I think that there is confusion within the SPGB between options 1 and 2.I have before characterised my position as 'Parliamentary Suicide', where the whole purpose of parliamentary activity (ie., getting votes in elections) is to display a legitimate claim, to those in our society who remain wedded to bourgeois forms (like many state officials, police and military officers), that the handover to Workers' Councils is 'legitimate' even in their terms.Of course, many will attempt a coup, but many will be loyal to their parliamentary ideals, as Chile in 1973 perhaps showed. We should attempt to strengthen the numbers of the 'loyal idealists' who come over to our side, because they value democracy over military rule.

[Anonymous]

Lbird, I am merely stating the position of the SPGB since 1904. Your post, I'm afraid is full of confusion. Chile has nothing to do with socialism. There will be and cannot be workers' councils in socialism. The means of production will be held in common by all.   

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Lbird, I am merely stating the position of the SPGB since 1904. Your post, I'm afraid is full of confusion. Chile has nothing to do with socialism. There will be and cannot be workers' councils in socialism. The means of production will be held in common by all.

It's not 'full of confusion', Vin, but an attempt to delineate a more complex analysis than your 'either/or' post earlier.You also don't seem to understand about the 'Chile' example. In Chile in 1973, during the military coup, many senior officers, including top generals, stayed loyal to the Allende government, because of the officer corps' sense of duty to the democratic state. This example is nothing whatsoever to do with 'socialism in Chile', but is to do with the need to strengthen our appeal to those state officials who wish to remain 'legitimate', in their own eyes, during the revolutionary process.Further, you have shown ceaselessly on other threads that you won't have the word 'Workers' associated with the post -revolutionary society, even though Marx used the term, too. OK, call them 'Producers' Councils', if you wish. The real point is, they are not 'parliament', which is the real issue being discussed, not your fetish for 'correctness'.So, 'Producers' Councils' (which everyone else refers to as 'Workers' Councils') will be the political form, not parliament. That is position 2, which I outlined above. You don't share it, and remain wedded to position 1.That's what separates us, politically, not some difference in the use of a word.

[ALB]

I can't see how we can (or do) say that going through parliament is the only possible way to socialism. It's the obvious, the easiest, the least messy, and the most openly democratic way to do it and that's why we advocate it and criticise those who say we should ignore or try to by-pass the state. But if, once there's a majority in favour of socialism, the ruling class foolishy and suicidally were to decide to suspend parliament this can't and wouldn't prevent the establishment of socialism. It would just make it take a little longer and be messy but it would happen. In this hypothetical scenario I'd imagine mass strikes and civil and military disobedience would have to be resorted to instead to dislodge the ruling class. But this is all hypothetical. What we can say is absolutely essential is a majority desire for socialism.

[Author]

Posts