Why capture political power, and what that involves?
- This topic has 157 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think this encapsulates the dilemma of all socialists, We know we need to do this. The question is how, and what approach do we take. The SPGB solution which follows Marx in the importance of capturing political power from the state is one. But I think we need to keep the discussion open with all groups founded in genuinely working-class politics.
Young Master Smeet wrote:No, it's that if we try to take over our workplaces now, we'll be sacked (and this remains so until we have practical control of the machinery of state to prevent that, including having the police and army around). Don't forget, De Leon swapped around which bit was the sword and which the shielf, for us political action is the sword with the shield of union action to back it up.I think we all pretty much understand why taking over workplaces before we are a coherent, aware majority, would be counterproductive, but I have never understood why the SPGB regards the political struggle as primary. I have no objection to it; the taking control of parliament would be useful to the working class in revolutionary conditions, but I do not see the force of the argument made here.The revolution is about simultaneously removing class power from the capitalist class and taking it into the hands of our own class. The power of the capitalist class is maintained through working class consent which includes ongoing military and police coercion. If the military and the police are on board with the revolution and the working class refuse complaince with the capitalist class in the workplace, then taking control of parliament might be useful but will not be essential. Under these circumstances the courts will become irrelevant. If the military and police are not on board with the majority, then taking power in parliament will not avail us and we will have to fight it out. Power does not reside in parliament but in the hands of those forces it wields by consent. Capitialism is run from top to bottom by the working class as we always say, but that extends to the political and state sphere as well. Remove working class consent to capitalism in its fullest sense, and you remove the significance of parliament itself as an instrument of class oppression.To my understanding, the primary act of revolution lies in the material action of the working class and not in taking control of a gassing shop.
I agree with what you've said, Hud, with the exception of your last sentence:
Hud955 wrote:To my understanding, the primary act of revolution lies in the material action of the working class and not in taking control of a gassing shop.[my bold]The proper formulation is "the primary act of revolution lies in the ideal-material action of the working class ". That is, in theory and practice, not in practice alone. Practice and the material do not produce 'ideas'. Only humans produce ideas, and the working class must produce its ideas prior to action.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', not a 'materialist'. He uses the word 'material' to mean 'human production', which clearly includes both 'ideas' and a 'material substratum'.
I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one. There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed. I deliberately stressed the term, 'material' to contrast it with the gassing that takes place in parliament (pointless without material power to enact parliamentary decrees). It's an imperfect opposition, but I thought it would be sufficient to convey the point. Obviously not. I disagree, though, with the use of ugly and dogmatic use of language as found in expressions such as, 'the proper formulation…' Such language belongs only to dogmatists and the power hungry. There is no such thing as a 'proper forumlation', only a useful, accurate, or effective one as determined by context. Our case is founded on a class interest not on a fixed ideology, and is made in the context of a changing world. There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority. There is only an ongoing dialogue.
Hud955 wrote:There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed.Unfortunately, we've been bamboozled since Engels by the term 'material'. Most people actually think that the term means 'material', rather than, as you say, ideal-material. The same has happened to 'concrete'. Most people think it actually means 'physical', rather than ideas and material. So, it's not 'assumed' at all. We need to spell it out, and rescue Marx's ideas about 'material production' meaning human ideas interacting with the 'material substratum', to produce our world, both ideal and material.
Hud955 wrote:I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one.No, not pedantic, but philosophically vital, one still not understood by even socialists, never mind the mass of workers.
Hud955 wrote:Our case is founded on a class interest…Who or what determines 'class interest'?The Leninists claim that 'matter' does, that they can tell what our 'material interests' are.We, following the point you made above, regarding our class interest as ideal-material, is based upon actively created concepts and practice, rather than passively accepted from the 'material'.
Hud955 wrote:There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority.But that's an anarchist or individualist belief, Hud.Our authority is class authority, determined by the democratic proletariat.Truth is elected, either by us as a whole, or by the bourgeoisie as an elite. Though, they pretend to be told by 'matter' itself. That's where the Leninists get their views from.
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed.Unfortunately, we've been bamboozled since Engels by the term 'material'. Most people actually think that the term means 'material', rather than, as you say, ideal-material. The same has happened to 'concrete'. Most people think it actually means 'physical', rather than ideas and material. So, it's not 'assumed' at all. We need to spell it out, and rescue Marx's ideas about 'material production' meaning human ideas interacting with the 'material substratum', to produce our world, both ideal and material.
Hud955 wrote:I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one.No, not pedantic, but philosophically vital, one still not understood by even socialists, never mind the mass of workers.
Hud955 wrote:Our case is founded on a class interest…Who or what determines 'class interest'?The Leninists claim that 'matter' does, that they can tell what our 'material interests' are.We, following the point you made above, regarding our class interest as ideal-material, is based upon actively created concepts and practice, rather than passively accepted from the 'material'.
Hud955 wrote:There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority.But that's an anarchist or individualist belief, Hud.Our authority is class authority, determined by the democratic proletariat.Truth is elected, either by us as a whole, or by the bourgeoisie as an elite. Though, they pretend to be told by 'matter' itself. That's where the Leninists get their views from.
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
YMS, just what will be the socialist position regards the Privy Council, that you previously raised. Upon reading a bit more about it, the powers it can assume are considerable. The most blatant use of it was the eviction of the Chagos Islanders from Diego Garcia. In the 1960s, the Privy Council made an order to evict the 2,000 inhabitants. In 2000 the High Court ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful. In 2004, the Privy Council, under Jack Straw's tenure, overturned the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice found the Privy Council's decision to be unlawful. Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards". He said there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth".[88][90][91] The Court of Appeal agreed, but the Law Lords (then Britain's highest court), reversed the ruling in a 3–2 decision and upheld the ordinance.The Civil Service is formally governed by Privy Council orders, as an exercise of the royal prerogative. One such order implemented the government's ban of GCHQ staff from joining a trade union. Another, the Civil Service (Amendment) Order in Council 1997, permitted the Prime Minister to grant up to three political advisers management authority over some civil servants. We have debated in the Party of the taking of the oath to take the seat in Parliamnet and concluded we would indeed swear allegience to the monarchy. There are 600 Privy Councillors…not elected but appointed…and they have no automatic right to attend Privy Council meetings and are invited to attendI certainly see a situation that if the king or queen has not sided with the people and supported socialism, constitutionally, the State machinery cannot be legally captured because of the Privy Council's over-riding privileges and power which would take us to legal litigation that would then leave the military with the reasonable excuse that its the authority of command is in limbo and will not act on behalf of a socialist parliament. From past exchanges and contributions from you , YMS, you relish answering those type of comundrums that we may eventually face, so i'm happy to hear your various scenarions centred on the role and function of the privy council
Alan,1) It is established constitutional principle that the Parliament can remopve the monarch – the 1688 Bill of Rights establishes that…(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction ) (Much more important than Magna Farta),2) In any event the Prime Minister, in effect, wields all the power of the Crown (the Monarch is obliged to accept advice).3) Thus control of the Commons is sufficient to control the Privy Council, and abolish it and give its functions to various democratic bodies.
On further reading, The Coronation Oath Act 1688 provided a new coronation oath, whereby the monarchs were to "solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same".As an aside, i note that we have a very similar right to bear arms under the 1688 Act as Americans have under their 2nd Amendment – but only if you are a proddy. The present thread has neglected the issue of the courts and law. In abolishing the State, do we burn the courthouses and the law-books? Surely not. In the beginning of socialism, won't we maintain much of the same legal principles as the late capitalist society and only those legal principles that are contrary to socialist principles will be abolished. Do we retain the police to enforce socially acceptable laws albeit in a different form?
We could retain the law as it is, allowing it to wither. A simple way, I feel to explain the socialist revolution is a simple legal change: making it a criminal offence to be an employer, instantly rendering all capital worthless.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The present thread has neglected the issue of the courts and law. In abolishing the State, do we burn the courthouses and the law-books? Surely not. In the beginning of socialism, won't we maintain much of the same legal principles as the late capitalist society and only those legal principles that are contrary to socialist principles will be abolished. Do we retain the police to enforce socially acceptable laws albeit in a different form?Before I go ahead with further discussion what legal principles are you referring too? Criminal or Common Law? Not that it matters in my estimation seeing that all laws are a reflection of class rule. With no class issues to contend with there is no need for laws.However, it goes without saying, that there will be a need for rules and regulations which reflect the customs, traditions, norms and values of a given locality.
Will there not be some sort of universal norms of behaviour that all communities and localities must abide by, Brian?…Or will the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Auchtermurchy, take precedence when i enter that village even though i have been brought up to follow the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Llanelli. Don't we say democracy will be local, district, regional and wider afield until global. Aren't we going to defend the liberties of those that are descriminated against in those loclities that lag behind…the fundamentalist Bible Belt of America, say. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/gives an idea to the extent of the challengeWhat about the lawyer profession..socially necessary? Or do we follow Shakespeare's advice "The first thing we must do, kill all the lawyers." Henry VI
alanjjohnstone wrote:Will there not be some sort of universal norms of behaviour that all communities and localities must abide by, Brian?…Or will the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Auchtermurchy, take precedence when i enter that village even though i have been brought up to follow the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Llanelli. Don't we say democracy will be local, district, regional and wider afield until global. Aren't we going to defend the liberties of those that are descriminated against in those loclities that lag behind…the fundamentalist Bible Belt of America, say. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/gives an idea to the extent of the challengeWhat about the lawyer profession..socially necessary? Or do we follow Shakespeare's advice "The first thing we must do, kill all the lawyers." Henry VIRather than take the drastic and pointless action of killing all the lawyers I can only lamely/hopefully suggest that these issues and problems you mention will be addressed during the preparation and planning stage for the administration of socialist society.Of course its a challenge regarding the complexity of putting the theory of DPD into practice but like we have always admitted there is no such thing as an un-problematic society. Which I suspect is what makes us tick?I think that if the essence of DPD is the accepted norm the rules of behaviour will converge around the harm principle.
No, it's a socialist belief, LB, just one that lies outside your own individual belief of what socialism is. I'm interested in the practical issue of whether or not taking parliament is a necessary or vital action for a revolutionary working class, and it is to that effect that I wrote. So long as others who want to engage on that issue understand the point being made, I'm happy with my formuilation. I'll leave the pedantry to you. Taking parliament or not taking parliament, etc, are vital issues for the working class; the niceties of your brand of philosophical dogmatism are not. The fact is that these issues will be resolved by the working class on practical grounds and with reference to current circumstances when the time comes to implement them; and when that happens, they will have more pressing matters to think about than whether they have conducted their debates in a language that is atisfactory to LBird. Right now, though, we can usefully try to clarify our thinking on this subject by applying a little practical analysis. I've made my contribution and I'm hoping for a strong argument to the contrary, so that the debate can be opened out. That will not be possible if people attempt to limit creative thought or censor discussion by demanding that there is a 'proper' way to think about it. Socialism is a dynamic social process in my view, It will never be nailed down by any individual thinker or participant. it will, though, be derailed if we don't keep open a discussion on subjects like the present one to ensure our understanding of it is clear and appropriate. To that effect we need to ask what our aims are, what the circumstances will be in which we will achieve them, how we will achieve them and what the difficulties might be.
Brian wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:The present thread has neglected the issue of the courts and law. In abolishing the State, do we burn the courthouses and the law-books? Surely not. In the beginning of socialism, won't we maintain much of the same legal principles as the late capitalist society and only those legal principles that are contrary to socialist principles will be abolished. Do we retain the police to enforce socially acceptable laws albeit in a different form?Before I go ahead with further discussion what legal principles are you referring too? Criminal or Common Law? Not that it matters in my estimation seeing that all laws are a reflection of class rule. With no class issues to contend with there is no need for laws.However, it goes without saying, that there will be a need for rules and regulations which reflect the customs, traditions, norms and values of a given locality.
Burn the courthouses and the law-books? Most certainly! Since both are almost exclusively concerned with the maintenance and administration of property we could hardly do anything else. What socialist principles would make the maintenance of property (class) relations acceptable? I'm not sure I know of any. Customs, traditions, norms and values are one thing. Rules and regulations to enforce them are quite another. I think there is a detailed debate to be had on this, but as I'm thinking about it now, the underlying issues seem quite clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.