Why capture political power, and what that involves?
- This topic has 157 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Brian wrote:The state is the executive of a minority. That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that the state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.
The Paris Commune is not a good example to make your point. The Commune highlighted the need for workers to be in control of the State during the revolutionary period.
Control of the state machinery implies we have transferred the chains to the capitalist class. Which I agree with. In other words they are effectively shackled by our democratic control of the state. The only act which then needs to take place is the effective 'operation' of abolishing the state.
Bloody hell! I'm away for a day and I'm left playing catch up. There were several posts I wanted to respond to, DJP, Brian and Vin, and so on but instead I'll try and put my position across as I see it now.
Brian wrote:The state is the executive of a minority.Hud955 wrote:It wouldn't be at all easy to build an administrative structure from scratch, Adam, I agree, but this is a relative matter. Neither would it be at all easy to adapt the workings of central and local government to the needs of a socialist society either. Most existing computer systems would be useless, for instance and would have to be replaced with those geared to new needs, priorities and social relationships. Undemocratic and bureaucratic administrative systems would have to be reimagined, and so on. And the confusion that would result from trying to adapt one set of arrangements to another of a very different character especially given the creaky and inefficient nature of what we currently have would be horrendous. I would suggest that ultimately it would be more time and labour consuming than setting up new systems, which we could begin to prepare in advance.Couldn't agree more.I only use Britain as an example, but it's easy to get caught up with thinking in terms of highly developed western counties when trying to identify what constitutes "the state". It's why I previously suggested looking for common features found in all states throughout the world.Once more it boils down to what is recognised as "the State" and the machinery of the state. If we see the likes of the NHS as the machinery of the state, then the answer to transforming or abolishing is an easy one as no one here is suggesting the NHS would be dismantled and built from scratch, in some kind of Year Zero revolution. In my view the state and its machinery is the undemocratic, bureaucratic, coercive hub that in Britain revolves around Whitehall. Such machinery, as Hud points out, would be unfit for a democratic socialist society and new transparent, democratic structures would have to be introduced anyway. The only stuff of use from such an undemocratic structure would be the "bookwork".It's worth pointing out that the SPGB/WSM is already an example of a highly organised political, democratic structure existing outside the state. And I'm sure SPGB members would be delighted to see the WSM become the mass party of the workers socialist revolution.
Brian wrote:To stimulate the discussion further it would serve a useful purpose if you would kindly draw up a list of the agreements and disagreements. Or I suspect this thread is going to go completly off-topic with your invite to LBird to put some meat on the bones on his version of a functioning democracy.I don't have a list of disagreements. The only thing I see as rather ambiguous, is the the bit in number 6 of the DoP that implies the state will be transformed into the agent of emancipation.It's in stark contrast to this the quote I used from "An A to Z of Marxism", even including a quote from Engels.
Quote: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).So what's it to be? Active abolishion of "the state" and it's relegation to the dustbin of history, or transformation? That's all I was ever trying to resolve.
SocialistPunk wrote:So what's it to be? Active abolishion of "the state" and it's relegation to the dustbin of history, or transformation? That's all I was ever trying to resolve.Like money the state is not 'abolished' but looses its function since there is no longer any private property. The transformation of property relations is what relegates the state to the dustbin of history and whatever useful administrative functions that remain are adapted as necessary.
Engels wrote:The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organisation of the state. But after its victory the sole organisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune.The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished.” It dies out.LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:LBird wrote:I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.Worker's councils are a time-honoured and unobjectionable means of building a bottom-up administration, but not all workers around the world are organised into workplaces according to the tradiitional western capitalist model. Other forms of collective organisation are possible, or may be already in existence among peasant and non-hierachical communities, or may arise spontaneoudly in different parts of the world. We need to ensure that we don't get fixated on one way of organising things, since one model may not be appropriate everywhere or in every circumstance. Moreover, neither we nor any one group will be in control of a revolutionary situation when it happens, or be thinking from the same ideological viewpoint, and lines of communication may be broken or may not exist. It is not a matter of a 'third position' or even of a first or second position but of tolerating a situation where many different formal and spontaneous approaches may exist side by side not all of which can be integrated into an efficient whole.
SocialistPunk wrote:So what constitutes "the state"? I've asked that question a few times now and nobody has an answer.What constitutes a state and not "the state" are the national boundaries of internationally recognised sovereign terrority. On the other hand, the actual machinery which defines "the state" differs from boundary to boundary and without exception is the preference of the national capitalist class in that in their general estimation the machinery on which they have agreed up on is the best suited to protect their national interests.You OK with that?
I forgot to add that the common feature of all states are they are regulators on class struggle. That is "the state" decides when its necessary to intervene: between the local class struggle of the national capitalists, and to represent them in the international class struggle between competing interests; and also to defend the interests of the capitalists against the working class.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:I, too, am not against workers organising "councils" (even "industrial unions"!) to take over and run workplaces.Tell me more! What about the non-workers? Will they have a say?Are there any work places, even under capitalism. that have not been 'taken over and run by workers' ?
Exactly, what about those workers who are not in workplaces such as the sick, the disabled and the retired; how and where will they make their voices heard? Even under capitalism, universal suffrage, in the shape of the ballot box, permits their democratic, albeit limited, participation.
Not quite Brian.In relation to this discussion we are not talking about a particular state and its accepted geographical and international legal boundaries, but what constitutes "the state". The concept of the coercive machine. It could be any country.I've identified a few key features that are found in most countries, probably all. In no particular order we have:1) Some form of government, either dictatorial or democratically elected representative. Along with the machinery of governmental administration.2) A military force.3) Police force.4) A secret service.5) Some form of "legal" system.6) A prison system.7) Some form of educational system This to me is what constitutes "the state" and its machinery. These are the instruments of oppression, the coercive forces. How are these to be turned into "the agents of emancipation"?
SocialistPunk wrote:These are the instruments of oppression, the coercive forces.Well yes perhaps, but you've left a lot out of the picture….Here's a list of current UK government departments, how many of these are doing work that would be useful to a socialist society?https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations#non-ministerial-departments
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:I, too, am not against workers organising "councils" (even "industrial unions"!) to take over and run workplaces.Tell me more! What about the non-workers? Will they have a say?
It's the Party Case, comrade, and always has been! We've always said that, to establish socialism workers should organise economically as well as politically, i.e to keep production going as well as to capture the State. We've always stressed that, of the two, political organisation is the more important and rejected the basically syndicalist idea that future society should be run by industrial unions (or by work-based "workers councils") even though of course workplaces too will be democratically organised. As you say/imply, to involve everyone whether they work or not the democratic running of society will have to be community-based not industry-based,More here.From November 1937 Socialist Standard:
Quote:The Socialist Party, therefore, whilst holding that the working class must be organised, both politically and economically, for the establishment of Socialism, urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their labour-power. That the trade unions must inevitably accept the Socialist theory as the logical outcome of their own existence, and as such will provide the basis of the economic organisation of the working class to manipulate the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution when the capitalist ruling class have first been dislodged from political power. The essential conditions for obtaining Socialism must never be underestimated. At the very moment that the workers have gained control of the State machine provision must be made simultaneously for the economic requirements of the community. The Socialist working class of the future will, no doubt, see to this as one of its supreme functions.LBird wrote:I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".No, that's not the division of opinion here. It's between (a) those like yourself who seem to want to abolish all the institutions of the machinery of government, including essentially administrative ones, and create a completely new administrative structure from scratch, and (b) those who don't see the point of this and favour adapting, fully democratising the useful administrative parts of the existing machinery of government. Between, if you like, the utopian system-builders and the pragmatists.Being pragmatic myself, I can accept that some of the democratic organisations thrown up in the course of the struggle for socialism will no doubt be merged with the democratically-reformed existing structures to create the democratic administrative structure of socialist society.Nobody has yet made out a case as to why the health service, the postal service, local government, etc should be completely destroyed as part of the socialist revolution and replaced by newly-created institutions to perform the same functions.
SocialistPunk wrote:Not quite Brian.In relation to this discussion we are not talking about a particular state and its accepted geographical and international legal boundaries, but what constitutes "the state". The concept of the coercive machine. It could be any country.I've identified a few key features that are found in most countries, probably all. In no particular order we have:1) Some form of government, either dictatorial or democratically elected representative. Along with the machinery of governmental administration.2) A military force.3) Police force.4) A secret service.5) Some form of "legal" system.6) A prison system.7) Some form of educational system This to me is what constitutes "the state" and its machinery. These are the instruments of oppression, the coercive forces. How are these to be turned into "the agents of emancipation"?Well if you had already figured out what are the common features of "the state" why ask? In regards to what features are applicable to emancipation I go with 1,2,3, and 7. With the obvious caveat on 1) being the dropping of "dictorial". I can't see either the secret service,the legal system or the prison system being agents of emancipation. Quite the reverse in fact, totally reactionary! Nonetheless, the others will be a key feature during the transformation to a democratic society. After my own experiences with the funny squad, the latest revelations from N. Ireland and how intelligence was used during the miners strike, 4) in my estimation will be a difficult one to tackle before and during the capture of political power. I have never come across such a class ridden organisation in my entire experience. The army was bad enough but that lot took the biscuit.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:I think this post, containing Hud's and ALB's positions, is the most illustrative of the two stances being taken on this thread.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".No, that's not the division of opinion here. It's between (a) those like yourself who seem to want to abolish all the institutions of the machinery of government, including essentially administrative ones, and create a completely new administrative structure from scratch, and (b) those who don't see the point of this and favour adapting, fully democratising the useful administrative parts of the existing machinery of government. Between, if you like, the utopian system-builders and the pragmatists.
Use different names if you like, but you're just reproducing my analysis: your (a) is identical to Workers' Councils, and your (b) is identical to Democratic Parliament.
ALB wrote:Being pragmatic myself, I can accept that some of the democratic organisations thrown up in the course of the struggle for socialism will no doubt be merged with the democratically-reformed existing structures to create the democratic administrative structure of socialist society.Yes, 'pragmatists' like you will follow the lead of 'theorists' like me! That's why Marx argued for 'theory and practice': it's the scientific method, which 'pragmatism' isn't. Your method is not scientific.
ALB wrote:Nobody has yet made out a case as to why the health service, the postal service, local government, etc should be completely destroyed as part of the socialist revolution and replaced by newly-created institutions to perform the same functions.Have you never heard of Mengele and his academic professor, for whom his research was done?Or Harold Shipman? Or Beverley Allitt? John Stonehouse? T Dan Smith? There are thousands of criminals, psychopaths, liars, corruptors, elitists, snobs, etc., sown throughout the management of institutions that you name, and they created and structured those institutions for bourgeois purposes, just as they did academia and science.The case is, we need new revolutionary institutions for revolutionary purposes. And the 'functions' will be different, too. Many of their present functions will be not needed, and there are many functions that workers will require which those institutions are not suited to function for. Not least, democratic organisation and critical thinking from below.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.