Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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…new democratic structures will already be in the process of creation a the revolutionary workers organise and plan the logistics outside existing [bourgeois pretend] democratic structures.

[my clarification]This seems to be the key difference between those, like SP and me, who think that proletarian structures external to bourgeois parliaments must come into existence during the 'run up to taking control', and those comrades who seem to envison parliament continuing to be the centre of power, albeit with workers' delegates, after 'taking control'.I think that the revolutionary process will involve a 'twin-track' approach, during which we workers will temporarily occupy the dying parliamentary structures to help 'legitimate' our proletarian democracy in the eyes of the (as yet) non-revolutionary state officials who cling to loyalty to their state, but we will also build 'new democratic structures', which I would call 'Workers' Councils'.The final and only act of the parliamentary majority (if it is allowed to come about), is to close down bourgeois parliament and 'legitimately' hand over any 'parliamentary powers' to our Workers' Councils.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

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?

Please note its not for me to expand on how DPD will work out in theory or in practice but those who are actually involved in setting it up.  Like I said I have no intention of going off-topic. 

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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".

They are regulated and co-ordinated by the state, and are frequently state contractors, fulfilling a franchise given them by the state: it may be that the left gets het up when a corporation gets to run a state function, but in the end they are carrying out state functions much in the same way an employee would.  All they really do is remove the employment layer by one so that their employees are no longer state employees.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Why create new democratic structures?  That seems like a fetishistic waste of time.  The democratic mass party is the device that fundamentally transforms those structures into a direct democracy.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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".

For so long as there were a capitalist class, there would be a state, whatever you want to call it. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Never read any Hobbes so you got the advantage of me, SP.  I think the consensus is that we build upon what we got. The State, centrally and locally, has created departments and ministries for the administration of civic society. There is little reason to duplicate them. Robbo's analogy of organ transplants is useful here. We use what is useful and discard the rest. I have no dispute with SP over his scenario that the actual progress and process of what is happening will minimise the need for formally capturing the machinery of the state…Those will already be transforming themselves as the numbers of socialists grows and the proximity of success nears just as the wider society will be. I don't recognise LBird's problem with the SPGB as a disagreement. I made it clear in an earlier post that 

Quote:

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 democracy

And YMS concurred

Quote:

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

From the SPGB's earliest debates with syndicalists and industrial unionists, we stressed social and not sectional ownership of industry etc. so we have to include the voice of the wider community in decision making even of cooperatives and workers councils, likewise , the delegates of production need to be present in community administration…Again YMS recognised that there has to be overlap and liaison between all aspects of society. I simply see no disagreement of any substance on this issue. I simply do not think it will be an either /or nor "inside and outside" parliament vying for dominance. We will be a large enough and varied enough movement to conduct both simultaneously. Brian's and Robbo's position that there will be a rise of self-help, non-profit associations will also apply and the constrictions placed upon them will heighten activity and opposition against capitalism. Perhaps we will not need to use the coercive arms of the State but for a period we should take control of them and having them in reserve is sufficient threat to belay any risk of counter-revolution. LBird acceptance of Paliament's role of legitmacy is a further development of Brian's nose -counting he mentioned earlier…and Engels thermometer analogy of elections and i doubt many will oppose it. I think really when it comes down to it, our Small Party of Good Boys image, that we are a parliamentary electoral party tied to majority voting for socialism is not what we actually advocate but it is the misrepresentation others have of us and because of those earlier disputes we had with syndicalists, industrial unionists, anarchists, Leninists, vanguardists  etc etc , we have ourselves been guilty of over-emphasising a certain legalistic outlook and not drawn sufficient attention to the nuances and caveats of our case. We have never declared that there is a one-fix-for-all solutuion and depending on situations and conditions around the world, there will be different ways of emancipation. Regard the UK, in the present time, nobody has convinced me, that we should abandon our core activity of taking political control through the existing political democracy. I have, however, been often persuaded that we should also take on board alternative tactics and strategies of obtaining political control outside Parliament. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I don't recognise LBird's problem with the SPGB as a disagreement.

I think that you underestimate greatly the differences between us, alan.I'd ask those on either side of this debate, the question: 'What will you do with a majority in parliament?'.I'd answer 'Abolish parliament'.I think the other side would answer 'Use parliament'.I've characterised my political strategy as 'Parliamentary Suicide'.I'd characterise the other side's as 'Parliamentary Metamorphosis'.I think that I'd place you and YMS as 'Metamorphosisers', and me and SP as 'Suiciders'.Furthermore, I think that the 'Metamorphosisers' are doing precisely what the anarchists and ICC accuse you of wanting to do: to run the state.In that light, I have more in common with the 'anti-parliamentary' strand of Communism, than with the SPGB strand (if the 'metas' are the heart of the party).Further discussion here is vital, to clarify just what is the 'SPGB strategy': Suicide or Metamorphosis?

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not just  "parliamentary suicide" LBird, I'm suicide of the whole Whitehall machinery that is the heart of "the state" in Britain. But I know by the same token, you are also of this view.This is my essential point. The heart of "the state" is undemocratic, so I don't see how it can be transformed. Why would a democratic, socialist revolutionary movement have any need of undemocratic machinery. I just don't get it. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. Perhaps we haven't succeeded in pinning down what "the state" actually is. I back LBirds call for a bit more explanation of the transformation of "the state" into "the agent of emancipation".I'll have to add, before I'm misunderstood, that I accept the use of the likes of parliament as being the most effective method to gain "legitimate" control, along with it being a good indicator of how the mood for revolution is proceeding. I'm not against it, I never have been.But like LBird and Robbo, I think it vital that the machinery of "the state" should be dismantled immediately, once a successful revolution has taken place. But another question then appears. How do we quantify the revolution a success?

[LBird]

Just to clarify SocialistPunk's words:

SP wrote:

I'll have to add, before I'm misunderstood, that I accept the use of the likes of parliament as being the most effective method to gain "legitimate" control,…

That is, 'legitimate control' in the eyes of state officials who wish to avoid a coup.For us, 'legitimacy' would lie in the organs of democratic workers' power, the Workers' Councils.

SP wrote:

…along with it being a good indicator of how the mood for revolution is proceeding.

Yes, 'parliamentary elections' as a barometer of our class consciousness, as long as workers are voting for 'Parliamentary Suicide' in conjunction with their activity in producing and developing Workers' Councils. Merely voting, for whatever candidate, SPGB included, would be entirely pointless.'Electoral activity' would be entirely secondary to political activity within class organs.

SP wrote:

But another question then appears. How do we quantify the revolution a success?

We have democratic control of the guns.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not sure if everyone has read this discussion document on Parliament from Manchester Br. in 1969 but it can be read on my personal bloghttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/08/revolutionary-use-of-parliament.html"Manchester branch therefore urges the Delegate Meeting (and Party members as a whole) to give this question of the revolutionary use of parliament urgent consideration. Our branch maintains that only by constantly deepening our analysis of capitalism and improving the way in which we present this analysis and the socialist alternative to the workers can the Socialist Party expect to extend its influence among the working class." SP's thread seems a rather belated response to the discussion recommendation  But i think perhaps these other extracts from various SS articles might assist in giving the party view:- 

Quote:

“When there is a majority of socialist delegates there will be no Queen's Speech, no White Papers nor any of the other shams that pass for democracy today. Just the historic announcement that capitalism has been abolished and that, henceforth, real participative democracy in the administration of social affairs, at local, regional and world levels, will obtain.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1996/no-1107-november-1996/capitalism%E2%80%99s-democratic-dictatorship 

 

Quote:

“Nor do we see why existing more or less democratic institutions cannot be transformed into instruments of the Socialist revolution. Given that there is effective universal suffrage, local councils and some central elected body like Parliament or Congress it seems pointless not to use them both to register majority support for the revolution and to co-ordinate the measures needed to carry it through. Why bother to set up also "institutions that would parallel existing structures of government"? No doubt as the socialist revolution approaches people will be organising in all kinds of informal bodies ready to take over and run society after the end of class rule, but as long as democratically-elected councils and parliament exist winning control of them through the ballot-box must surely be central to the strategy of any socialist party in a modern industrial country.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-790-june-1970/majority-revolution 

 

Quote:

“Democracy is not a set of rules or a parliament; it is a process, a process that must be fought for. The struggle for democracy is the struggle for socialism. It is not a struggle for reforms, for this or that political system, for this or that leader, for some rule change or other—it is the struggle for an idea, for a belief, a belief that we can run our own lives, that we have a right to a say in how society is run, for a belief that the responsibility for democracy lies not upon the politicians or their bureaucrats, but upon ourselves.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1132-december-1998/struggle-democracy 

 

Quote:

"In these circumstances the easiest and surest way for such a socialist majority to gain control of political power in order to establish socialism is to use the existing electoral machinery to send a majority of mandated socialist delegates to the various parliaments of the world. This is why we advocate using Parliament; not to try to reform capitalism (the only way Parliaments have been used up till now, which has inevitably failed to do anything for the working class since capitalism simply cannot be reformed to work for their benefit), but for the single revolutionary purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism by converting the means of production and distribution into the common property of the whole of society. No doubt, at the same time, the working class will also have organised itself, at the various places of work, in order to keep production going, but nothing can be done here until the machinery of coercion which is the state has been taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by political action.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1980/no-912-august-1980/world-revolution-another-confused-group

Apart from the question of capturing the State, i also think we should recall that one of the purposes is to enter the political field is in order to expose and oppose every party whose policy works against the interests of the working class. A reason for parliamentary action less than the capture of the machinery of the State. The Socialist Party will use parliament, as we use the internet and the media, in order to complete the proletarian education and organisation, and to bring to a conclusion the revolution that is prepared by this. 

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

This is my essential point. The heart of "the state" is undemocratic, so I don't see how it can be transformed. Why would a democratic, socialist revolutionary movement have any need of undemocratic machinery. I just don't get it. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. Perhaps we haven't succeeded in pinning down what "the state" actually is.

Well, one thing the state is is administrative skill and expertise, which we will need to utilise, but, you're right, the undemocratic aspects would have to be lopped off, the cabinet ministers meeting in secret would go, the office of Prime Minister would go, the Monarch and the House of Lords would go, etc. and business would be conducted in public.The bottom line is, whatever administrative units we divide the world up into (and, as I say, there's no reason why for different purposes different units could not overlap) there will need to be a co-ordinating body that would look for all the world like a parliament, after all, delegates would be frequently given free hands on many issues.

[DJP]

I think this article on "Workers Control" is relevant:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/workers-control

Quote:

The phrase "workers' control" is today frequently used as if it were some sort of definition of socialism. In fact it is nothing of the kind, implying as it does the continued existence of a working class and control of the productive system by units less than society.The origin of the idea can be found in the 19th century divisions between socialists and anarchists. These saw society from two completely opposed points of view. Socialists saw society and the individual as reciprocal terms; the one couldn't exist without the other. The anarchists, on the other hand, as a caricature of bourgeois individualism, saw the individual as the important unit, as an isolated being. For them society was a restriction on the freedom of the individual. While socialists recognised the need for an organisation to arrange the affairs of society as a whole, the anarchists were for a free federation of local communities and as much decentralisation as possible.Socialists did distinguish between society and the state. In their view the State, as a coercive instrument, only flourished in class societies and was the instrument whereby a ruling class controlled society. In the classless society of the future there would be no coercive government machine, central control would be purely administrative. Unfortunately many people, including some who called themselves socialists, overlooked this distinction between society and the state.[…]Kropotkin put forward the idea that the basic unit of the future society should be the free commune; where necessary, as for running things like the railways, these communes should be linked in a loose federation. This is the doctrine of Anarcho-Communism; it should be contrasted with the socialist view, that the basic unit of future society can only be society itself.[…]Ideas of workers' control became more popular in periods of disorder of the sort described above. The experiences of these periods have provided the basis for many theories' of workers' control and of spontaneous revolution without understanding or organisation. They have become part of a general mythology fostered by loose-thinking and an inadequate understanding of the nature of present-day society. These episodes in Russia, Italy and elsewhere have very little relevance for socialism; they were not socialist in character and could not have led to socialism, even if they hadn't been suppressed.[…]Basically the demand for workers' control is a demand that the workers on the shop-floor should control production through a workshop organisation rather than through society. Quite apart from the fact that there won't be any "workers" under Socialism, this demand is unrealistic and Utopian. The productive system of today is incredibly complicated in its world-wide organisation. It could only be controlled by society as a whole through a fairly complex and permanent administrative apparatus. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the nature of the modern world with its large-scale industry.

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

But like LBird and Robbo, I think it vital that the machinery of "the state" should be dismantled immediately, once a successful revolution has taken place. But another question then appears. How do we quantify the revolution a success?

Good question and one that socialist members have asked over the years in its relation to what actually constitutes a majority?  My approach is quantification of support is important for without sufficient support its not going to work in respect of the administration, production and distribution of human needs. The "success" can be measured and illustrated in a number of ways, and not just by the number of votes or seats in parliament for that is the confirmation of "success" being achieved.  Part of the process for quantifying support will be a significant increase in the number of volunteers engaged on a global scale in the necessary planning and preparation.  Another part of this process will be the setting up of a global communication system purely set aside for socialist communication.  There will also an increase in the rejection of capitalist values with the dominant ideas facing constant attack from all quarters.  There could also be a greater reluctance to becoming a member of the coercive arm of the state machinery.Finally, like I mentioned previously and echoed by others, the number of social organisations adopting DPD will provide sufficient verification that people are saying enough is enough!

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

This is my essential point. The heart of "the state" is undemocratic, so I don't see how it can be transformed. Why would a democratic, socialist revolutionary movement have any need of undemocratic machinery. I just don't get it. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. Perhaps we haven't succeeded in pinning down what "the state" actually is.

Well, one thing the state is is administrative skill and expertise, which we will need to utilise, but, you're right, the undemocratic aspects would have to be lopped off, the cabinet ministers meeting in secret would go, the office of Prime Minister would go, the Monarch and the House of Lords would go, etc. and business would be conducted in public.The bottom line is, whatever administrative units we divide the world up into (and, as I say, there's no reason why for different purposes different units could not overlap) there will need to be a co-ordinating body that would look for all the world like a parliament, after all, delegates would be frequently given free hands on many issues.

The issue I have in what you say YMS is you seem to identify "the state" with social organisation, as well as coercion. I on the other hand don't recognise the social organisation aspect of "the state" and see it only as a coercive body that can only exist in a class based, minority owned society.The state exists to conserve the status quo. It does not need to organise any social services in order to preserve the ruling class position.One way I suggest we could figure out what "the state" actually is, would be to look at those that are in existence today and identify commonalities. Obvious markers would be the existence of a military force and a police force. Pretty safe to say all states include those features. Some sort of legal framework is usually present.  I might have missed one or two essentials, but I think everyone gets where I'm coming from.Everywhere I've looked on this site and from quotes SPGB members have provided from various socialist sources, says that "the state" is a coercive force. So I think it safe to say, "the state" is a coercive force for the preservation of class based, minority controlled society. Oh, and they also do waste disposal.I also accept the complexity of organising and running a socialist society. But I don't see why some kind of central control would be required. As I've said before many services are owned and controlled by private companies, there are also many NGOs. While there will be certain regulations they must comply with to operate within "the state" they have their own logistic teams and managers. Such systems would be used by the socialist society.I can't imagine a socialist society having a central control. Such an idea reminds me of this scene.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xNnRBksvOU

[alanjjohnstone]

We do envisage a fairly rapid word-wide revolution but that is rather relative. We won't all fall in line simultaneously, will we, even if for most part , its a matter of weeks or months apart…(perhaps years in some regions where religion has a stronger hold o consciousness and behaviour)I sometimes envisage only parts of  countries actually progressing towards socialism. The Chinese coastal region, for instance, rather than all the agricultural dominated interior hinterland, may develop socialism first. This, I think, is a risky analysis since have read Trotskyists/Lenininists describing the St Petersburg factor…whatever happened there determined the course of Russia's development…But much the same as most capital cities …Paris…London…Cairo…or whereever. Politics seems to be determined by the centres and not always by dispersed populations.  Where we have a majority we get on with the task of building socialism and won't be waiting around. It will be for the non-socialists regions to adapt their relationships with a socialist world and catch up. Control of the state would be required to maintain international relations with those countries lagging behind…Who in the Helsinki Cooperative Producers Association has the authority to speak for Finland if the UK still is in flux and in the midst of the class war for supremecy and the still-existing state under capitalist control wants the customs and excise documents for the IKEA flat-packs when it comes trade? Crude analogy but i think people understand the issues involved …i think it was referred to in another context as simple book-keeping in another post but that paper-work will be required and somebody has to put their signature to it which is recognised.I see where everybody is coming from but i am not persuaded that there exists any real differences. Who knows if the socialist majority will immediately or gradually dismantle the State and which parts will deserved to be retained. Neither side of the debate are advocating a "Workers State", nobody is arguing that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is anything but another way of describing a socialist majority in parliament legally and constitutionally ending capitalist property laws. There is more similarity than differences.Like so many of our ideas, the get -out clause is things will be very much clearer at the time and decisions will be made by those involved in light of the situation pertaining to them and not from some advance abstract theory that ends with a square peg being hammered into a round hole. Our politics is the here and now and takes priority. We start from where we are at which i think was what Marx blamed the Utopian Socialists of NOT doing.  That's why i consider our attitude to reforms and reformism takes precedence. How do we achieve the popularity where we might be in an actual position of capturing the State. First things first. I have mentioned that one purpose for electoral activities is to challenge the capitalist parties on their own patch, not just being a barometer. We have a parliamentary propaganda role as a minority party.  The debate with other "socialists" is whether we engage with reformers to either obtain a palliative now, or to defend gains already gleaned previously from the capitalist class…SP already suggests we should be more active in defending the attacks on civil liberties and human rights…the names themselves for those democratic ideals infer that they are given parliamentary defence and the purpose of any protests,demonstrations and strikes is to demand those constitutional guarantees via the State. In the other thread, those democratic privileges cannot be switched off at will ONLY because it results in people opposing it. If there isn't resistance, then the switch is very easily turned to the off-position. We see that every time a war arises and elections are suspended, censorship imposed and strikes outlawed. And after wars, there is a reluctance to return to the previous status quo…there is no rush to repeal the anti-democratic laws…

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The issue I have in what you say YMS is you seem to identify "the state" with social organisation, as well as coercion. I on the other hand don't recognise the social organisation aspect of "the state" and see it only as a coercive body that can only exist in a class based, minority owned society.

The co-ordinating features/functions are currently carried out by the state: they could be carried out privately, but then we would have private tyranny.  What makes them state functions is currently they must obeyed under the threat of villence, remove that threat and they cease to be state bodies.  I don't se why we should build parrallel versions when the bodies and their offices and information are in place already to be used.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I also accept the complexity of organising and running a socialist society. But I don't see why some kind of central control would be required. As I've said before many services are owned and controlled by private companies, there are also many NGOs. While there will be certain regulations they must comply with to operate within "the state" they have their own logistic teams and managers. Such systems would be used by the socialist society.

There will be authorities, even if we cantonised the world, the cantons would be centrally controlled.  But we in fact will need a worldwide body, that would look like a parliament of delegates, to set worldwide plans into action. We'll need some sort of sea authority, transport links like railways will need global authorities.  You can't have a railway where each branch and each train does its own thing. We'd need resources boards, and worldwide food planning.  These will all need democratic control.  We'd need a global human rights and democracy commission, to help ensure that local majorities don't try and oppress local minorities. etc. etc.  What none of these would have would be guns to back them up. In the first days of the revolution, though, we will need the guns, at the very least safely where we can see them and no-one else has them.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

We'll need some sort of sea authority, transport links like railways will need global authorities.  You can't have a railway where each branch and each train does its own thing.

 We shouldn't think people will simply walk away from their jobs and responsibilities come "The Revolution". Simply take that train ride and see the complexity of getting to A from B by rail. It is going to be incredibly hard to regain and recover knowledge if the actual workers and operators were no longer there.Continuity of the smooth running of society is a priority, not its disruption …and if that is too Hobbesian, so be it But i'm with SP that the State actually performs a minimal role…These things run autonomously. Take Air Traffic Control. It is organised under the auspices of  the United Nations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization#Governing_CouncilAnd what about all the rules and regulations run independent of the State by trade or professional bodies, i suppose the easiest example is the General Medical Council supervising doctors. http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/Council_and_other_governance_groups.aspThe risk is not that without the State we won't have responsible administration. It doesn't take the State to get mail from Peckham to Peking. Again, it is the UN overseeing it. It has become  self-regulating. 

Quote:

The Postal Union did not elect an international postal parliament in order to make laws for all postal organisations adherent to the Union. The railways of Europe did not elect an international railway parliament in order to regulate the running of the trains and the partition of the income of international traffic. And the Meteorological and Geological Societies of Europe did not elect either meteorological or geological parliaments to plan polar stations, or to establish a uniform subdivision of geological formations and a uniform coloration of geological maps. They proceeded by means of agreement. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kropotkin/ancom/

[Author]

Posts