Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[SocialistPunk]

Seeing as discussions that would come under this heading started on the "Tory legislation on "extremism"" thread, I thought it potentialy beneficial to set up a seperate thread.

As the title suggests, it covers a wide range of topics. But in general they center around the SPGB/WSM tactic of using existing democratic structures (such as parliament), where possible, to capture political power in order to fulfill the goal of bringing about global socialism.

I thought I would start off the discussion with a question. What is "the state"?

The following quote is taken from a publication, "An A to Z of Marxism", that can be viewed on this site.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism/s

Quote:

State. The state is essentially a coercive machine (police, judiciary, armed forces, schools, etc.) for conserving the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers in a geographical area. This puts us at odds with the views of the ‘pluralists’ who argue that power is (or should be) diffused throughout a plurality of institutions in society (trade unions, pressure groups, etc.) and that the state is neutral in relation to the class struggle. However, history shows how the state evolved:

‘The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument for exploiting wage labour by capital’ (Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884).

Moreover, the state and its machinery of government will have no place in a socialist society:

‘The society that organises production anew on the basis of the free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machine where it will then belong: in the museum of antiquities side by side with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe’ (Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1878).

The following is taken from the Declaration of Principles of the SPGB

6) That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.

For me at least, this raises a question as to what parts of the state get converted into "the agent of emancipation"? Or to put it another way. What use is the state to socialism, when workers have already organised outside it to ensure the transition from capitalism to socialism?

[rodshaw]

A similar question often occurs to me.Of course it's important that we recognise the current power of the state as the enforcer of class rule and that socialism will mean its disappearance.But once socialism is on the horizon as a realistic proposition, and the majority of the police and the armed forces have come over to it, a lot of democratic 'socialistic activity' will be taking place at local and regional levels without a state to get in the way much. There will be enough people simply to refuse to do its will, if it still has one. Much of the activity will involve finding practical solutions to problems hitherto unsolvable. Much of it will entail simply not doing things that are done in capitalism – things mostly to do with money and/or coercion, such as not paying for things, not sitting school exams, not putting people in prison, and so on. The state machine, as I see it, won’t as much be conquered as dispersed. Once the collective will is a socialist one, the state will already have gone.What is left of the police and armed forces, that a socialist society can use, will be those elements involved with logistical organisation, say for organising food banks and relief operations. Former judges, JPs and ombudsmen may be useful at helping to moderate meetings and settle arguments. Former schoolteachers will still have an educational role. And so on.

[alanjjohnstone]

We want control of the machinery of government, national and local, because that is essential to the achievement of socialism. This is our fundamental reason for contesting elections (albeit in present circumstances, the real reason is only publicity)The state—the agency of political power—can, and does, expropriate property, or transfer it to capitalists for their direct control. It can, and does when necessary, use violent force to protect the interests of the capitalist class. That force is used against other capitalists, and against the working class. The courts, police and military all respond to political power, not economic power contrary to the arguments of the industrial unionists and syndicalists. When the vast majority of the working class is socialist, so will be the police and military whose members are working class. At that time, the socialist working class will use its political power to capture the state. When the state, in its last action as the state, transfers legal ownership of the means of production to the people of the world as a whole, the economic power of the capitalists will have been extinguished by the political power of the working class. The capitalists could do nothing, with their economic power, to prevent expropriation. The fear that they could keep the working class out of the factories etc. is completely unfounded. How could they? Remember that the working class outnumbers them 10 or 20 to one. Also remember that the military and police (all working class, and mostly socialist) will be responsible to the political power of the working class. Even in the situations of Spanish Civil War and Chile most of the police and army either remained loyal to the government (or waited until who was going to prevail before choosing sides) The State is the form taken by the centre of social administration without which modern industrial society couldn't function. We want the working class to take it over and convert it into an unarmed democratic administration of things. We want to see an end to capitalist class rule not the breakdown of society.The workers en masse don't need create a different and more democratic decision-making structure from the ground up. What they need to do is to take over and perfect the existing, historically-evolved structures. We don't need to construct socialist society from scratch; this is not the way social evolution works; there will be a degree of continuity between what exists now and what will exist in socialism as there always has been between one system of society and another. We are not utopian system-builders like Parecon or Zeitgeist. You don't abolish the state, getting rid of our control of our society at the point of actually having won the thing, and then play at utopias. You grab it and hang on against anything the capitalist class, nationally and internationally, throws at us. During this process also you are transforming the institutions we hold from capitalist into socialist ones. What do we actually need to make a revolution? We need to be able to act in an imperfect world rather than waiting for a perfect one. Revolution is not merely an announcement of a successful ballot, it is a process, and the process itself will draw people into the struggle. The revolution makes the mass party – the actual date that power can be seen to shift to ourselves is not the beginning, but the beginning of a different phase. The revolution has a snowball effect. The more change is imminent, the faster and bigger it grows and rolls, without conscious direction of leaders, as many vanguardists and social democrats have often found. You cannot stop an idea when its time has come, as is frequently said. The Iron Heel couldn't maintain Marcos in Manila, the Shah in Tehran nor the party apparatchiks and nomenclatura  in Moscow, Berlin or Warsaw , nor in Tunisia when people decided to move. Despite the exceptions such as the Sisi counter-revolution in Egypt, when people want change they achieve it.Workers will use both fists to fight for socialism, and will not rely on only a right hook or be just a south-paw boxer. They will recognise it will be both parliament and non- parliament means to socialism. It is the democratic result that we want. Our case for Parliament is that it is the most efficacious application of the workers will to establish socialism. We seek the least disruptive method of revolution. We rather not build our socialism on the literal ruins of capitalism." The constructive element in the social revolution will be the the action of the Industrial Unions seizing the means of production in order to administer the wants of the community …Thus Industrial Unionism is the constructive weapon in the coming social revolution…In order to facilitate the work of industrial organisation it is absolutely imperative for the workers to disarm the capitalist class by wrenching from it its power over the political State …by destroying the capitalist control of the State , makes possible a peaceful social revolution…the work of the political weapon is purely destructive , to destroy the capitalist system. " William Paul , The State . Its Origins and Function ,1917 .Although we may have reservations on the actual economic organisation ie industrial unions , William Paul was much in accord with the SPGB views. "…The Socialist Party, in aiming for the control of the State, is a political party in the immediate sense, but we have an economic purpose in view, namely, the conversion of the means of living into the common property of society. Therefore, the question necessarily arises whether an economic organisation acting in conjunction with the political is vital to our task. We have on more than one occasion pronounced ourselves in agreement with the need for such an organisation, and in so doing have flatly denied the charge that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is "nothing but a pure and simple political party of Socialism." The Socialist Party and economic organisation, Socialist Standard , 1937William Paul, again:-"In order to facilitate the work of the industrial organisation, it is absolutely imperative for the workers to disarm the capitalist class by wrenching from it its power over the political State. The State powers include the armed forces of the nation which may be turned against the revolutionary workers. The political weapon of Labour, by destroying the capitalist control of the State makes possible a peaceful social revolution. But in order to tear the State out of the grasp of the ruling class the workers' political organisation must capture the political machinery of capitalism."

[Brian]

Great subject that well deserves a thorough discussion for it encompasses a wide ranging topic which AlJo touches on e.g social dynamics; revolutionary process; social evolution and uneven development.  Thus its important to understand and acknowledge that when discussing the process of the capture of political power it has to be in conjunction with the other three factors of the revolutionary process; namely: economic, social and cultural. And that because of this multi aspect of the process the pace and outcomes will differ from location to location and is much dependent on the tools and circumstances available to socialists in that location.So its not a case of one suit fits all revolutionary process – its dynamic and flexible – and not mechanical.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What do we actually need to make a revolution? We need to be able to act in an imperfect world rather than waiting for a perfect one. Revolution is not merely an announcement of a successful ballot, it is a process, and the process itself will draw people into the struggle. The revolution makes the mass party – the actual date that power can be seen to shift to ourselves is not the beginning, but the beginning of a different phase. The revolution has a snowball effect. The more change is imminent, the faster and bigger it grows and rolls, without conscious direction of leaders, as many vanguardists and social democrats have often found. You cannot stop an idea when its time has come, as is frequently said. The Iron Heel couldn't maintain Marcos in Manila, the Shah in Tehran nor the party apparatchiks and nomenclatura  in Moscow, Berlin or Warsaw , nor in Tunisia when people decided to move. Despite the exceptions such as the Sisi counter-revolution in Egypt, when people want change they achieve it.

The capture of political power however, involves both a purpose and a reason.  The purpose is straight forward: to disarm the capitalist class of its coercive powers.  The reason on the other hand is twofold and not just to provide legitiamcy but also to quantify support for the revolution through the ballot box.  Nevertheless, both the purpose and the reason will be observable to a certain extent, but not fully, before the eventual capture of political power takes place. In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participartory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.  In conjunction with this political development the necessary planning and preparation will also be developing apace.These devolpments in turn offer a rough benchmark on the growth of socialist ideas and when it is possible to quicken the pace of the revolutionary process by instigating elections for instance.  

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

For me at least, this raises a question as to what parts of the state get converted into "the agent of emancipation"? Or to put it another way. What use is the state to socialism, when workers have already organised outside it to ensure the transition from capitalism to socialism?

 If I  might just paste here what i wrote in the other thread  to provide context… 

robbo203 wrote:

In the first place. it is nonsense to claim that  the " immediate abolition of the state is an anarchist position". The anarchist position is rather to bypass or circumvent the state altogether. – because of its toxic association with hierarchy  The "abolition of the state" necessarily implies the capture of the state which is definitely not what anarchists advocate.  You cannot "abolish" something unless you have control of it to begin with. Secondly,  if you do not abolish the state immediately then be aware of what this means and what it is in fact that you are calling for. The state is an instrument of class rule.  The existence of the state implies the existence of class society.  In rejecting the idea that the state should be immediately abolished, you are asserting the need for the existence of the state to be prolonged and perpetuated and by that very same token  therefore you are asserting the need for the existence of class society to be prolonged and perpetuated.  This, after a democratic socialist majority has just captured political power with the clear mandate to eliminate class society.  I have had this argument before with Left Communists and others who apparently, like you, call for a period of transition commonly know as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" during which the the proletariat consisting mainly of revolutionary socialists will continue to administer a class – based society.  I put it to you as I have put it to them that whole idea is absolutely baloney.,  I don't care if Marx , Karl or Groucho, advocated it.  It is still complete nonsense How is it logically conceivable that this interim, a (so called) "socialist" administration in the face of the democratic socialist capture of power going to administer class society in the interests of the proletariat. Its like trying to run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle. It cannot be done. A class society exists by virtue of the exploitation of one class by another. Accordingly anyone who takes on the administration of such a class society must necessary administer it in the interests of exploiting class and against the interests of the exploited.

 So to respond to your point SP,  its not the "state" that gets converted once it is democratically captured.  It is the "machinery of government"  and, even then, only some of this – the rest will be scrapped as dysfunctional or pointless to needs of a socialist society e.g.. tax collection The moment the state is captured by a socialist majority  will coincide with its demise.  Anything other than than is is to buy into that preposterous notion that a slave society can be administered in the interests of the slaves – the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat". If the state continues in any way shape or form after the capture of it by the worker then that implies the perpetuation of class society since the state is essentially a tool of class oppression and you cannot have class oppression without there being classes.There may be disgruntled ex capitalists – but not capitalists – around who might seek to violently overthrow the new system but the force applied against such individuals will not be tantamount to the actions of a state but rather those  of a stateless society  (and as the anthropological literature attests, stateless society are also capable of wielding coercive force; this is a function not limited to state-based/class based societies)  Perhaps an analogy might help.  If an individual dies some of his her organs might be used – transplanted into the body of another individual.  The heart or liver of the deceased person is, however,  not the person as such. The person is more than the sum of his or her individual parts and it is that which has ceased to exist when that person dies. In the same way, when the state dies some of the functions carried out by the state and in the name of the state will to operate but they will no more imply the existence of a state than a transplanted organ implies the continued existence of the original donor

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participartory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.

Including the social organisation of all 'science', including physics.The social production of 'truth' must be by means of DPD.The only alternative is a pretence by an elite that they, and only they, have a politically neutral method which gives them, and only them, access to 'reality' as it is.That pretence is the basis of any ruling class' ruling ideas, whether priests, physicists or cadre.The religious, professors and Leninists all claim to have a 'knowledge' of 'reality' which we don't and can't have access to.They all deny democracy in their specialist spheres of influence.Physics is identical to economics in method, and deals with a similar 'reality': our knowledge of reality, rather than reality in itself.Knowledge is a product of society.If we are to have a democratic society, we must have democratic production of knowledge.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

For me at least, this raises a question as to what parts of the state get converted into "the agent of emancipation"? Or to put it another way. What use is the state to socialism, when workers have already organised outside it to ensure the transition from capitalism to socialism?

1) I for one an allergic to dying of typhoid the day after the revolution, the whole gammut of state regulation of sanitation and health will need to be taken over (disrupting it will be harmful).2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist?  Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like (even if we change the terms of election and their precise duties: what would definitely be dismantled would be the separate and secret executive functions of the state).3) Even if we didn't need to use the police and army, their weapons would be in our hands and useable against violent recalcitrant minorities.  We may need to lock up a few Anders Breiviks.4) Even if we could co-ordinate our revolution worldwide, there is the possibility of at least one remnant reactionary state power trying it on, and they will need to be deterred from exercising the war route.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist?  Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like …

I think that this is where we disagree, YMS.I don't regard 'local councils and parliamentary bodies' as 'perfectly functional' 'democratic structures'.I think that the root of this disagreement is in our views of the level of mass activity required to produce a proletarian revolution.I regard class consciousness as not merely the realisation that politics is important (and so one must actively discuss and vote on political issues, after which 'local councillors' and 'parliamentary candidates' will implement those decisions), but the realisation that politics, physics, culture, art, maths, etc., etc., are all important, and that we'll spend our lives actively participating in the production of knowledge in all these areas.That is the democratic control of the means of production.Not electing local councillors or parliamentary candidates.Now, not everybody as an individual will be entirely interested in every aspect of human affairs, but the vast majority must be interested in the vast majority of affairs, that affect them as humans.I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, and then arguing that most people are not capable of this level of active engagement in their own lives…… but if someone does argue this, I don't see how that view is compatible with the notion of democratic control of the means of production. In fact, to me, that view is incompatible with Communism, as I understand it, and will lead to continued passivity in the majority and the emergence of a new, expert, elite, who rule by undemocratic political methods.I define Communism as massive active engagement by the vast majority in their socially productive lives.It's certainly not electing a councillor or candidate, and then lying in bed all day, or shopping, or eating fast food.Passivity, whilst it lasts, spells elite activity in all areas, including science.Consciousness means activity.

[Young Master Smeet]

Erm, five paragraphs, and I can't see where you're disagreeing with me.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Erm, five paragraphs, and I can't see where you're disagreeing with me.

Yeah, you seem to always have this problem, YMS.Perhaps you're just naturally a conciliator.

[alanjjohnstone]

I think certain democratic bodies need to be created within the sphere of production and distribution or do we not intend to have industrial democracy as it was once described. Call them workers council, producers guilds or whatever but they will also transform the trade union movement into a much more hands-on administration of industry. At the moment, there is an absence of such and when created as part of the revolutionary process (and not post-revolution) they need to be integrated into the other expressions of democracy which maybe can be described as geographic democracy. Combined they become social democracyI also think perhaps existing but often dormant bodies will be revived such as at the local level the parish council. I know many responsibilities can be transferred to them. But they may well have already existing tenants associations to absorb or merge with too. We should be wary of implying the exporting a British-centric model to other regions of the world who may well have stronger traditions of local democracy and assemblies. The Town Hall Meetings of New England is often cited by Bookchin admirers but in many Central and South American countries there exist indigenous peoples decision-making organs in parallel with the nation-state. 

[Young Master Smeet]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think certain democratic bodies need to be created within the sphere of production and distribution or do we not intend to have industrial democracy as it was once described. Call them workers council, producers guilds or whatever but they will also transform the trade union movement into a much more hands-on administration of industry.

Or, co-operatives?  Yes, within and between firms we will need to establish democracy, as that is a sphere where democracy currently doesn't exist, however that doesn't mean where local bodies already exist we should abolish them (re-purpose, maybe),  we'll still need geographic bodies, but also overlapping distinct bodies, health boards, transport boards, etc.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

In that there will be a growth in the principle of Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) being adopted by all manner of social organisations.

Including the social organisation of all 'science', including physics.The social production of 'truth' must be by means of DPD.The only alternative is a pretence by an elite that they, and only they, have a politically neutral method which gives them, and only them, access to 'reality' as it is.That pretence is the basis of any ruling class' ruling ideas, whether priests, physicists or cadre.The religious, professors and Leninists all claim to have a 'knowledge' of 'reality' which we don't and can't have access to.They all deny democracy in their specialist spheres of influence.Physics is identical to economics in method, and deals with a similar 'reality': our knowledge of reality, rather than reality in itself.Knowledge is a product of society.If we are to have a democratic society, we must have democratic production of knowledge.

Good point.  But how it works out in practice depends on the tools and circumstances appertaining to those social organisations willing to adopt DPD.  The theory of DPD in practice is not set in stone neither is it – like I point out – a one suit fit all model.  DPD also takes into consideration the cultural aspects of a particular locality.  Thus, its application in practice will depend on how much baggage of the past is still attached to those procedural issues which can in certain circumstances serve the interests of an elite.Not that its my intention to go down that off-topic route.  Suffice to say the growth of DPD will be an indication that social organisations have decided that the current model of democracy is insufficient in addressing their needs or their aspirations and expectations.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

The theory of DPD in practice is not set in stone neither is it – like I point out – a one suit fit all model.

[my bold]I'm not sure what alternative there is, Brian, to the theory and practice of DPD. There is no 'theory' without 'practice', for the proletariat. DPD isn't a 'theory' that might, or might not, be 'practised'. Any 'practice' is based upon 'theory', so if it isn't the 'theory of DPD', what (and whose) 'theory' is this 'practice' based upon?Perhaps I place more emphasis on the 'P' being as much 'proletarian' as 'participatory'.If not 'Direct', who is to 'indirectly' control; if not 'Proletarian Participation', who is the 'active agent'; if not 'Democracy', what is the 'political method'?No, you'll have to expand on your alternative(s) to DPD, to argue that it 'is not set in stone' for Communism, I think.

Brian wrote:

DPD also takes into consideration the cultural aspects of a particular locality.  Thus, its application in practice will depend on how much baggage of the past is still attached to those procedural issues which can in certain circumstances serve the interests of an elite.

Surely the 'universal' class is the world proletariat, in opposition to 'localities'? That is, there will be, in effect at a final level, a World Commune, which will determine which 'local culture' is acceptable to humanity, and which 'local culture' is barbaric/elitist/bourgeois. Once again, DPD will be the determinant of acceptable 'particularities', not 'local elites', on any contentious issues?Won't the abolition of classes and private property, worldwide, remove any basis for 'particularism', 'localism' or 'elites', which runs counter to our world democratic wishes?

[SocialistPunk]

I think we're getting somewhere here, but there are a couple of points I am hoping for clarification on..

Quote:

State. The state is essentially a coercive machine (police, judiciary, armed forces, schools, etc.) for conserving the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers in a geographical area.

Quite self explanatory. And also obvious, that in order for a socialist revolution to be successful, states must be captured and dismantled.

AlanJJohnstone wrote:

The State is the form taken by the centre of social administration without which modern industrial society couldn't function. We want the working class to take it over and convert it into an unarmed democratic administration of things. We want to see an end to capitalist class rule not the breakdown of society.

Reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes.If workers will be organising outside "the state" in the run up to taking control, democratically, I seriously doubt if there will be a breakdown of society. If "the state" vanished within a capitalist structure, there would be a breakdown of society (and we often see it happen in the world today), but conscious socialists planning and forging ahead with a revolution would be supremely organised.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

1) I for one an allergic to dying of typhoid the day after the revolution, the whole gammut of state regulation of sanitation and health will need to be taken over (disrupting it will be harmful).2) Why create new democratic structures when perfectly functional ones exist? Local councils and parliamentary bodies exist and we will need something of their like (even if we change the terms of election and their precise duties: what would definitely be dismantled would be the separate and secret executive functions of the state).

I'll have to use Britain as an example. Firstly, not all health and hygiene services are state owned anymore. The NHS is more than capable of running independently of the state tomorrow if it had unrestricted financial resources. Plus it won't be too long before there is little left of a state owned NHS. Utilities are no longer state owned, likewise communication, most transport, postage. One of the Tories favourite mantras is "the small state".My point is social organisation and necessary services are more often not under state control. There would be no breakdown, or loss of function, as it is the workers who organise and run the services already. And so brings me onto the next point.Secondly, new democratic structures will already be in the process of creation a the revolutionary workers organise and plan the logistics outside existing democratic structures. During the "change over" period it would be more a case of taking control of premises, equipment and the book work.A similar thing would happen with privately owned services and production. Food for example would need to be produced and co-ordinated to meet the needs of a non profit society of common ownership. New democratic structures would need to be developed. And I suspect such planning would be taking place as the revolutionary movement gathered pace.So what is left, or even useful, of "the state"? The military? Would a reduced "state" be kept in place (not even sure what that means) to enable any violent capitalist resistance to be stamped out?  As Robbo points out, "stateless societies are also capable of wielding coercive force".

[Author]

Posts