Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[Young Master Smeet]

The GMC has a Royal Charter, so it is a quasi state body, and it operates in a state controlled regulatory environment.  The railways in most countries did have state co-ordination (if only to steal the land).  I hate to point this out, but the UN is a state body, established under treaty between governments…In the final analysis we will ned some sort of world body as a final court of appeal over any decision, that world body, of course, being everybody.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'll bow to your historical knowledge,YMS, but the point still stands, i think.They do not require the State to perform their tasks and are self-regulatory. Air Traffic Laws are determined not by an individual State but by professional bodies albeit operating under the UN charter so i think the point stands that capturing the machinery of the State is not required regards to many of the functions of society. They are outside the remit of any one state's control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_NationsBut here we are on this forum, me in provincial Thailand and you in London, yet we communicate because as Wiki explains those  who runs it,  is not the State although they do endeavour to submit it to its control.

Quote:

The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. The technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols  is an activity of the Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF), a non-profit organization of loosely affiliated international participants that anyone may associate with by contributing technical expertise.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#GovernanceRegardless of a Royal Charter, (a red herring, if i have ever seen one) the point is that it would continue its purpose without the SPGB capuring the machinery of the State via Parliament and elections. Its social role is independnt of the State and your early concerns of dying of cholera because of the break-down of health authorities isn't valid simply because we never took political control of the state-machinery, as would much of the functioning of present society and if people turned up at their work as normal post-revolution and performed their duties while of course continuing the transformation of work-places that begun when the small numbers of socialists began to grow into a significant section of the work-force and begn to turn their attention to their industries and occupations. I'm sure the nursing profession and the pharmacists plus the local health authorities (or hospital trusts)  and public health departments and food standards agencies would be joining the GMC in re-organising health-care….or at least the workers covered by their professional umbrellas will be, for ease of communication and liaison. Not, i think the State but the people involved within these fields will be forming cooperation chains. I worked a short time in a library, as i believe you do. The ILL service doesn't require any state intervention or direct control to make it work efficiently. I accept SP point that the elements of the State machine is in many ways autonomous and its workers because of the rise in their own socialist consciousness will simply assume the responsibilities of the existing State (a process that is organic in the growth of socialist ideas among our fellow workers)  without any need for the rubber-stamp approval of a socialist majority in parliament   

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I accept SP point that the elements of the State machine is in many ways autonomous and its workers because of the rise in their own socialist consciousness will simply assume the responsibilities of the existing State (a process that is organic in the growth of socialist ideas among our fellow workers)  without any need for the rubber-stamp approval of a socialist majority in parliament

The only task for "a socialist majority in parliament" is to 'rubber-stamp' its dissolution. And that's for the benefit of those who will still look to the state for legitimacy (some military officers and state functionaries, etc.), to give them a way to support the revolution.The "organic … growth of socialist ideas among our fellow workers" will be the legitimate rubber-stamp for our class' actions. And they will be organised and expressed through democratic Workers' Councils.

[Young Master Smeet]

Alan,at present the state, including local health boads, holds the information and physical means of controlling co-ordination of those activities: yes, yes in socialism largely self organising groups will run affairs, but we ned the physical offices, documents, etc. as well as the current systems as they stand (controlled and regulated by the state) to fall into our hands, we don't need to set up a parrallel system.  yes, those systems are run by workers now, but co-ordinated through the state machine.And a Royal Charter isn't a red herring, itr has a very direct link to the Privy Council system and the organisation of such bodies, backed up by statute.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm getting a bit confused here. No-one is declaring that we set up a parallel system since the claim being made is that these administrative bodies  system exists outside the State as it is and don't need the legitimacy of a socialist majority. If in its deliberations the GMC deem that things need amended in the field of medicine, surely the population are not going to say….no way…you may have the expertise and experience but we won't recognise it because it hasn't gone through the Civil Servants in the Ministry of Health or whatever its called these days. (Sorry LBird…in some cases i bow to the scientists democracy and not a supposed wider democracy)  I'm puzzled by the claim that by a parliamentary majority ie capturing the State machinery means we take possession of those organisations and bodies.  Surely, the  people who work in them will be the executors of the socialist transformation of them, firstly placing it under the democratic control of those who work in those organisations combined with the members of the communities they serve and those will be the agents adapting what of the State viewed as fit for purpose and lopping off all the redundant organs. One of the earliest parts discarded will be Parliament itself, once it served its purpose , as LBird suggests, soon as it takes the Royal Seal and rubber stamps the abolition of all property laws. It then has fulfilled its role and disappears. I accept and have said earlier on the thread that situations and conditions at the time will determine the time-table of this and it cannot be decided in advance. It will be as soon as practically possible. First it is the Royal Charter…Now it is the Privy Council…i'm not a constitutional historian but enough of those relics of monarchal feudalism…just what we do when the crown declines to give Royal Assent to the appropriation of its wealth and lands…the rubber stamp is invalid then, isn't it?…but the real world means it is going to be ignored.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_councilI refer you to your Message #7, YMSYour fears of typhoid are unfounded, no one is saying existing structures are immediately dismantled and new ones in parallel constructed…we simply take control of those we wish to keep from the inside as workers already within it and we discard those we don't want. And i agree, too often we readily dismiss such seemingly coercive bodies as repressive…I remember Frank Simpkins and Pieter Lawrence doing their best to remind us that we won't be going to Rampton Hospital and handing over the keys to the patients locked up there. In a way i view the electoral process similarly to the SLP…sword and shield…parliament and the people (i chose people because i think it is not necessarily limited to the SIUs or workers councils)…and depending on the conditions and tactics their roles interchanging (as i believe the SLP did themselves reverse the roles of the SIU industrial action and political action)Once we have a majority and again i don't think it means a vast majority numerically but an effective political majority, and are organised across all areas of life, then we shall look at the implementation plan for socialism…and it may well be patchy so i accept your caveat that the State may exist to coordinate but more likely to cordon and protect socialist regions from disputed and non-socialist parts.Anyways, i keep saying this …Aren't we getting a we bit ahead of ourselves in this discussion…a few hundred votes have yet to be metamorphised into millions and the topic i reckon won't feature prominently in the questions we will be asked right now…

[Young Master Smeet]

The point is that, for instance, local government has the plans of the towns, real material objects we'll need in order to make our transition; they have the telephone lists and the ermergency procedure points that we will need.  Some workers in the GMC may well become active socialists, but others may not, but will refrain from sabotage as long as ccertain structures remain.  the Privy council isn't a rubber stamp but a part of governance and co-ordination of many Chartered Societies (which often are backed up by legislation and regulation), it will simply be much easier to work with the grain of such structrues than against.

[Young Master Smeet]

Sorry, been short of time today.This discussion is conflating three things: coercion, co-ordination and authorisation.The state exercises all three, and the routes for the first two are the same.  Individual capitalists cannot trust their rivals with the powers of coercion and co-ordination (for the latter, see the LIBOR scandal).  Even where public utilities are run by a private firm, it is as a franchise, and under the auspices and control of the co-ordinating function of the state, backed up by the coercive power.  Authority exists because sometimes someone or something has to call time on debate and say: make it so.The state contains systems of co-ordination we can use, and also the use values of data (area plans, details of sewage systems, demographic data, etc.) we will need much of that.  Yes, freedom of information makes much of thast stuff available, but we need to secure it if we are to plan.  The workers in quasi state bodies may be able to take control of their own departments, but they will still need to co-ordinate (and particularly, need to co-ordinate how to take over their departments, and when).Of course, we will continue to have authorities in socialism.  A ship's captain at sea will still be implicitly obeyed, health and safety instructions at work will be obeyed, we'll still have to comply with building regulations and fire regulations (I for one am allergic to burning to death).

[alanjjohnstone]

First it was typhoid, now it's burning to death…Are you now insisting that the FBU and those inspectors that enforce the fire regulations and ensure they are not flouted, as they often are, are part of the State? They still have their respective jobs to attend to as the rovolutionary process unfolds. Those fire regulations (which begins at the point of production in the manufacturing standards) aren't going to be the first thing ip in flames. They'll still exist…and the people that ensure compliance don't all of a sudden disappear. The authority of the State is replaced by the authority of common-sense. I'm sorry but aren't we ignoring a vital part of the revolution…that it is being made voluntarily by people…most of the people…who are now more socially aware with a rise socialist consciousness and have now chosen to become more socially active, and have begun to work alongside co-workers and the wider community not only to achieve a new society but, more importantly, to implement it. That presupposes an active population taking control of their lives, especially, at work…and it means that sewage workers, civil engineering departments at town councils and all tthose involved in town planning are no longer passive spectators, merely taking orders or separated by status of the job-title. They become proactive in remodelling and restructuring first their place of work and then their profession/industry, molding it. Is this something that will only begin after the Revolution or will it be something men and women will be thinking about and planning in advance , as socialism becomes stronger. I recall Lucas Aerospace way back in the 70s looked at their technology and their equipment and machinery and proposed how they could turn "swords into ploughshares".The capture of the State would ensure they also had the shield to protect them as they applied the already thought out procedures and re-tooling.  Surely part of our purpose is to highlight that the co-ordination you boast of is in fact in many cases not applied. Isn't a part of the socialist case is that we intend to fix this. Isn't there rivalry between those various departments and bureaucracies to capture higher proportion of budgets and to defend what they deem to be their "turf" which often hinders cooperation among the State. You are right..there will be "authority" iin socialism. Whilst everybody who works in the hospital and those from the surrounding who use it will view the hospital as "theirs", it won't mean an ownership entitlement where the porter wheels the patient into the operating theatre and carries out the surgery. It may well mean the surgeon or anaethesist goes to the ward and wheels the patient to the operation and the porter position no longer exists. Maybe when the surgical staff scrubs up before the operation, they will be expected to scrub down the facility after it. I'll let that be decided after the Revolution by those connected with health to decide….delegation of decision making…which will i hazard to guess reflect little of such practices we have in it these days.No, i'm still not convinced by your Royal Charters and your Privy Councils as proof that it is a requirement or obligation for the reason we need to capture the State, historical anachronisms, that they are.I agree those chartered societies are vital, i grant you, since they are either professional bodies or trade associations that will be needed to collate data, disseminate information and coordinate society.Are they part of the State because of their title? No more than the Jockey Club is for the administration of horse-racing and breeding (albeit most of the members are in the Establishment and from the ruling class)…or Kennel Club…which i think the RSPCA and PDSA and a host of animal charities may well choose to take over from and change. I'm off-line for a few days so i'll have time to ruminate on the topic as i re-new my visa…submitting yet again to the present power of the State and looking forward to the time that the first act of socialism will end the Immigration Offices and burn all the passports …once the staff have copied the computer files, naturally, and added it to the Census Department data, which i assume will carry on doing its statistical mandate. Bye for now…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

(Sorry LBird…in some cases i bow to the scientists democracy and not a supposed wider democracy)

That 'faith' in 'scientists', in the light of what many scientists have been saying since Einstein, produces a situation as if the Catholic priesthood in 1600 had told the peasants that the Church didn't understand Latin either, and that the Church was going to publish the bible in English, so that all the peasantry could participate in debates about the bible.And the peasants protested, and they demanded that the bible be kept in Latin, themselves in ignorance, and that they still had faith in priests to tell the peasantry what the Latin bible said.'Scientists' Democracy' is the antithesis of proletarian class consciousness, alan.Put simply, you have a religious faith in science.

[Young Master Smeet]

Maybe the question isn't "Do we have to?" but "Wouldn't it be easier to?" yes, we could, possibly ignore the state, but it's making a rod for our own backs (and leaves the recalcitrant minority an opportunity for organising against us).  Once we accept that we're going to lop off the coercive role, why object to taking over the administrative mechanisms that already exist?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 Once we accept that we're going to lop off the coercive role, why object to taking over the administrative mechanisms that already exist?

Because they're not democratically-organised 'administrative mechanisms'?Because they haven't emerged from the self-activity of the proletariat?And, fundamentally, 'administration' has an aspect of 'power', and so the notion of 'administration' as a politically-neutral activity, which we can simply leave to the experts, is a non-starter.I often get the feeling that many within the SPGB don't really subscribe to producers' democracy (ie., what everyone else calls workers' democracy, but I know even talking about 'workers' seems to be a bit too much, for some here), but that the capture of parliament and its administration will basically be a activity of a minority.I want to see Workers' Power, and the building of organs which rest upon proletarian democracy, not a 'takeover' of a structure left mostly untouched.As I've said many times, this applies to physics as much as administration.After all, we're talking about a revolution in which the majority come to consciousness of the own power to control their lives, in every aspect. I don't get that sense of massive revolutionary change from many posters here.

[Young Master Smeet]

Who cares where an institution emerged?  The monarchy didn't emerge from the capitalist class but now serves their ends: our democratic self activity can take control of the physical structures and processes of state administration and transform them into the agency of emancipation.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Who cares where an institution emerged?  The monarchy didn't emerge from the capitalist class but now serves their ends: our democratic self activity can take control of the physical structures and processes of state administration and transform them into the agency of emancipation.

You say that as if "physical structures and processes of state administration" are neutral tools, simply there to be 'used' by a different 'user'.This all sounds very much like a continuation of the general attitude here to physics, scientists and knowledge.Once again, I don't get any sense of the huge changes that will take place in both social consciousness and social organisation, during a revolutionary process.It sounds to me that you think it'll just be a matter of changing the signs outside the various ministries.

[Young Master Smeet]

Small changes have big effects, the simple fact of opening up the decision making to public scrutiny would transform decision making radically.And, of course, my election as Socialist King would see the self activity of theworking class realised through a true Kojeveian process…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…opening up the decision making to public scrutiny would transform decision making radically.

I'm inclined to think that the 'public' (ie. the organised proletariat) will be the ones doing the 'decision making', rather than merely 'scrutinising' those made by 'experts'.I regard participation in decisions as the key concept, not scrutiny post-decisions. The former is 'radical', not the latter.Once again, I think that your words about politics also reflect your views about science.This political attitude can be summed up as "Leave it to the experts – they know best!".As it is in physics, so it will be in politics.

[Author]

Posts