[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I don't know to how explain any better; I've tried, but sadly failed.'Physicalism and reductionism' it is then. But no Marx, no value, no Capital, no Communism, no creative workers.Just the rocks.

Well  I get what you are saying, L Bird, and to me it makes solid sense even if it doesnt to others.  Old fashioned physicalist reductionism  – or identity theory – was overthrown or dethroned way back into the 1960s revolution in the cognitive sciences with the rise of emergence theory or "non reductive physicalism". I dont see how anyone can cling on to identity theory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary – if that is what some folk here are in fact doing Higher level properties or entities are not only  not reducible to the lower level properties or entities on which they supervene but also exert downward causation on the latter.  Think for a moment  what it means to reject this statement.  For socialists, for example,  it means repudiating any kind of socially grounded analysis.  What individuals do would then become completely explicable in terms of psychological facts alone. This is the Margaret Thatcher view of society – "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families".  That is, of course, preposterous but it is a logical outcome of rejecting emergence theory and the notion of downward causation.  Society cannot influence individuals – exert downward causation on them – because society apparently doesnt "exist" according to this view.  Of course society cannot exists apart from individuals – that is true – just as mind cannot exist apart from brain but that is not the same thing as saying that society cannot exist at all in any sense. You might just as well ask, in that case, if individuals exist.  Is the individual no more than just a bunch of  molecules?  What causes the burglar to break into somebody's house and nick their stuff?  "M'lud , I will argue that my client cannot reasonably be held responsible for this henous act  since I  will attempt to show that his motives were nothing but the outcome of  certain chemical reactions in his body over which he had absolutely no control"   Puhleeeze….. Where will it all end,  one wonders? Could the organisation of the working class into a socialist party really be the result of the mysterious antics of sub atomic particles colliding with each other? Must we wait for their fortuitous alignment into a pattern that will ensure the realisation of socialist society?

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Historical Determinism Marx’s guiding principle — the materialist conception of history — is deterministic:  “it is not consciousness that determines being but social being that determines consciousness”.The Socialist Party’s Declaration of Principles and the rationale behind its Object only make sense in Marx’s deterministic terms.If our Object does not deterministically guarantee the viability of world socialism — if common ownership and democratic control do not deterministically ground the day-to-day reproducibility of world socialism as a viable social system — then the Socialist Party Object is not worth our defending, and the Socialist Party and world socialism, as we conceive them, have no deterministic right to exist at all.Historical determinism is the beating heart of the Socialist Party’s case for world socialism.  It cannot be side-stepped.  The nature of world socialism’s beating heart must be comprehended by all and, for socialism to succeed, must be ruthlessly defended from the standpoint of unfamiliar socialism against the incommensurable standpoint of familiar capitalism.Voluntarism, or the attempt to sidestep determinism, is merely the ignorance of determinism.  Freedom is the recognition of determinism.

  TWC I dont really follow this argument at all.  How is the case for socialism "deterministic"? Are you saying socialism is inevitable?  If not how can we we usefully talk about "determinism" in the case of such a large scale pattern of social change in which a multiplicity of interacting  factors is involved? There is an interesting article here by Peter Stillman which argues against a deterministic reading of Marxhttp://www.marxmyths.org/peter-stillman/index.php

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 Guns are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of statedom.  However, I'd suggest that even if the wages system were abolished, and an autonomous organised military force existed, it would shortly reconstitute itself as anew ruling class.  It isn't just symbollic, it is necessary to physiocally take and hold the mechanisms of state.

I might be puting words in your mouth (for which apologies in advance) but if  you mean by "mechanisms of the state" –  those outer  trappings of the state like the civil service and the armed forces – then,  yes, I wouldnt disagree that you need to physically take and hold such things. With socialism being implemented one presumes, with the former, the intention would be to strip away those capitalist functions such as tax collection or social security provision that mostly concerns the so called civil service as we know it today, leaving only a residue of socially useful functions needed in a socialist society.  In the case of the armed forces one equally presumes that the intention would be to turn "swords into ploughshares" and that any need to use armed force in the immediate aftermath of establishing socialism would be minimal (I gave my reasons in an earlier post why I consider that the problem of the "recalcitarnt minority" is unlikely to be a serious one so wont rehearse those arguments here) Nevetheless, there is a distinction to be made between the trappings or mechanisms of the state and the state itself. (You seem to agree, judging by your comnment that guns are a necessary but not sufficient condition  of statedom), The state itself is not something that you can "physically take and hold".  It is a social institution which, as stated earlier, means a regularised or routinised pattern of rule- dominated behaviour.  Built into such behaviour is a set of expectations about how people are supposed to behave, the roles they are meant  carry out.  This is why I insist that  the capture of the state is essentially a symbolic act. It symbolises or triggers  the closure of one set of social rules about the functioning of society and its replacement by another , quite different set,  A bit like changing from a game of draughts to a game of chess using the same board, as i suggested earlier I dont see how an "autonomous" organised military force could exist in a socialist society (and even if it did Im not too sure that it would reconstitute itself as a new ruling class) What kind of leverage would such a force wield that would compel the compliance of the population, given the dynamics of a free access, voluntaristic society,?  Such an arrangement dissolves the very material basis upon which political power rests: alienated property What you are suggesting is that this autonomous military force can somehow free itself from the constraints and entanglements  of society´s expectations and its value system.  Not even where an actual ruling class exists is this really true. Our rulers hold on to power hegemonically and this is more and more turning out to be the case.  Old fashioned dictatorships are inefficient,  dont work and are increasingly on the way out. The growing socialist movement will be the decisive factor pushing them into complete extinction 

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, but we have.  From Russia to Chile the capitalists *believed* they were about to be abolished.  Hence why I said apparent.

 There is a big big difference between groups of capitalists who believe their existence to be imperilled and capitalism  as a system being imperilled,  Unfortunately, we have never ever reached the stage where the later is the case.  Even remotely, as I say.  When the writing is on the wall and the dusk begins to descend upon the capitalist epoch (to mix a few metaphors)  it will be far too late for the capitalist state to do anything about it.  That state will increasingly be held captive by developments that will begin to take on a momentum of their own

[robbo203]

So, just to get this thread back on track – what about the spatial spread of socialist society, then?  What does that mean?  What does it  imply?Do people here accept that the simultaneous or synchronous implemenation of socialism everywhere throughout the word in one go is simply a not a viable proposition? Do they agree that, if it was attempted (as the Left Coms et al propose) it would inadvertently mean  (given the relatively uneven growth of the socialist movement that is bound to be the case) having to set up DOTPs in different parts world,  pending everywhere in the world falling under a DOTP, so that collectively they can establish world wide socialism in one go?  That being so,  how could such DOTPs fail to function as just anther form of  capitalist administration that would effectively lead to, or inevitably evolve into,  a dictatorship of capital over the wage labour and so ultimately  would work against the the establishment of global socialism? Or do they accept that logically, if socialism cannot possibly be established instantaneously on a worldwide basis, that the only  alternative to this is that it  would commence somewhere and spread outwards from there, with capitalist state after capitalist state falling to the expanding sphere of socialism in domino fashion.  How does this differ from the theory of "socialism in one country" (which I believe it does in several important respects)?  How would an expanding socialist part of the world articulate with a contracting capitalist part?  What would be the forms of interactions between these two parts of the world?  And what be the role of a growing  global socialist movement in this whole process  given the fact that if a significant socialist majority was attained in one part of the world it would presuppose, at the very least, significant socialist minorities everywhere else, along with a radically transformed socio-political environment I am interested in getting a handle on the nitty gritty details of such a hypothetical set up.  To hell with the argument that we shouldn't speculate and "write recipes for the cook-shops of the future' . Lets live a little dangerously and use our imagination….

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Robin,the state, in the form of communication nodes; command and control points; files, records, archives, procedures and the like, is a very real Thing. Oh, and guns.  Lots of guns.   I for one am allergic to dying of typhoid on the morning after the revolution.Capitalism has a past record of continuing in the face of it's apparent imminent abolition: the historic response has been to fight.  Just as the Southern Slave owners, faced with their imminent doom chose one of the bloodiest wars in history as an option.

 YMS A state entails guns – yes certainly – and all the other stuff you mention.  But guns dont necessarily entail a state – anymore than a peice of machinery necessarily entails "capital".  The "state" and "capital" are only phenomena that happen under certain socio-economic conditions i.e. the state implies the existence of class relations.  No classes means no state  So guns can indeed exist outside the framework of a statist (class-based)  society.  That said, I have no doubt that, come a socialist society, swords will very rapidly be turned into plouhshares and AK47s into laptops or whatever. Unlike some on the Left  with  their hopelessly romantic and deparately dangeorus talk of barricades and armed revolt, I take the view that the growth of socialist movement will in fact, if anything, make for  a fundamentally pacifying effect on society as democratic socialist values seep into every nook and cranny, incrementally transforming the general social outlook.  States will be increasingly restrained and held captive by an electorate that, more and more, is not going to stand for war as a means of revolving conflict. A sifting process will commence that  will expel those more brutal elements of capitalist polity – like fascism – to the political margins or beyond – extinction.   Two sets of diametrically opposed ideas and values cannot flourish in the same soil.  Interpersonal relations too are going to be affected. Less and less will we see as others as simply a means to our own self interested ends.  What, for want of a better term, I call a "proletarian morality" (Engels) will take root and spread So I would fundamentally question your claim that Capitalism's historic response in the face of its "apparent eminent abolition" has been to fight .  We  have never ever been in this situation.  Not even remotely.  So the radically pacifying effect of a growing global socialist movement on capitalism has never had th opportunity to be tested or put into effect. If the state seriously wanted to crush the enemies of capitalism, NOW would be the time to do it when its enemies are weak and few in number.  When the writing is on the wall for capitalism it will be far too late . More to the point,  the very inclination to want to do so would have been selected out through a process of ideological evolution as a waning dominant ideology struggles to hegemonically maintain it grip and finds itself having to adapt to accommodate the changing currents of social opinion. One final thought. Yes the state is a "very real thing".  But only in the Durkhiemian sense of a "social fact". However, there is a very real danger of transferring a mode of  looking at the world pertaining the physical sciences to the social sciences. I'm talking about the problem of "reflexivity "as it is called.  We are part of the very thing we are "observing". It is impossible to step outside society abd "scientifically" examine it from an external standpoint as one might a rock or a plant or aome chemical reaction.  Indeed, at a more fundamental level of quantum physics with a phenomenom like the "observer effect", some  might even question that last claim. Point is that the state is rather like a kind of collective conspiracy or motivating myth.   We invest it with a normative "reality".  We develop a set of expectations around, and in relation to,  this "thing" we call a state – which expectations coercively influence, or reinforce compliance, in others. That is what a social institution is – a routinised regularised pattern of rule-dominated behaviour and the state is a prime example of a social institition. This to me is the strongest argument of all for "capturing" the state .  It affords the opportunity for a kind of cathartic symbolic switchdover from  one set of social rules to another  Rather like a ballon which we catch in our hands and then proceed to prick with a pin, the state instantly implodes.  And all that hot air generated by a generations of capitalist politicians dissipates safely into the atmospehere.  Or on second thoughts maybe we could recycle all that hot air even if it it does not count as a very clean energy source. Didn't Willaim Morris suggest in News from Nowhere turning the Houses of Parliament into a gassworks?    

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I must be missing something here.1) The socialist party achieves political majority within the working class.2) The working class achieves political power.3) The organised working class, using political power, works to abolish capitalism.Now, if only for a few days, hours or nano-seconds, the political preponderance of the working class will exist within capitalism.Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.For example, in the UK, I'd imagine any "socialist" administration that, say, won a parliamentary majority with 25% of th vote to do such things as (at least have referendums proposing to) abolish the Monarchy, House of Lordsa and Prime Minister and introduce annual Parliaments, elected office for important positions (Chief Exec of the NHS, BBC, etc.), etc.

 If anything, I would have thought it would be the other way round.  Even before the capture of political power by a socialist majority  capitalism would surely be struggling to maintain its own existence.  If the "expectation of profit " is  what motivates production under capitalism then what becomes of that when the expectation of capitalism's imminent demise becomes increasingly insistent and pervasive? How, for instance, do you persuade investors to invest when they are not going to receive a return should  socialism be just around the corner?I think this whole idea of a socialist majority  activily "using" the state in some positive sense -to become , as it were, a "socialist state"  albeit a very provisional and temporary one – in order to abolish capitalism  is throughly misleading. Better to think of  the capture of political power by a socialist majority as being tantamout to the immeidate abolition of the capitalism and ipso facto the immediate dissolution of  the state as an expression or institutional tool of class society. The state is not a " thing" and we should avoid thinking of it in such reified terms.  It is a  social institution and social institutions are "established  patterns of rule-governed behavior.".The whole point about the capture of political behaviour is surely its symbolic import.  It marks a change in the basic rules of the social game , expressing the wish of a significant majority.  With that wish having been expressed politically, to talk of capitalism continuing  to somehow linger on, dying a slow death,  seems to me a little nonsensical.  How could it possibly survive within a social climate governed by the expectation of such a socialist majority? Its like agreeing to change over to a game of chess while allowing  some aspects of the game of draughts  you had  just decided to finish to nevertheless remain. We breathe life into the state by acquiescing in it.   Take away that acquiescence  and it will simply evaporate. If a recalcitrant minority seeks to forcibly  resist the new social order , their resistance will be met, not by the state, but by the new society itself and by whatever methods it decides to use in its own defence

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think what i was describing  the process where the State is transformed into the administration of things , as you say,  rather than dwell upon the DOTP which we all seem to agree is a flawed concept so yes i did not use the classic definition in political left circles except the general understanding to mean the democratic will of the people, and since the majority of people are members of the working class, it is class democracy until indeed capitalist relations are made history.The transformation of the State into organs of social democracy i think is a more worthwhile debate since it is the more appropriate discussion on how to make socialsm practicable and viable than debating the DOTP, a throwaway aside from a 19th century writer who picked it up from another earlier writer but like another vague and seldom used  phrase "permanent revolution" it is seized upon for polemic purposes and distracts.

 I understand the point you are making, Alan, but I would strongly caution against making use of the concept of the DOTP in any way shape or form- -even as code for  the mere capture of political power when it is pretty much understood to be  a state of affairs that emerges after the capture of political power by the working class .  Indeed there are even some who argue, from a vanguardist perspective, that only a minority of the working class need be socialists in order for the working class to capture power – a problermatic notion which I think automatically invites substitutionisim (the replacement of the class by the Party/vanguard as the governing organ) To be honest, Im quite surprised, judging by the reponses on this thread , by  the causalness of the SPGB's attitude towards the whole question of the DOTP.  I would have thought, if anything, given its basic theoretical orientration, it would be robustly critical of the idea (and perhaps even produce a pamphlet on the subject!) .  The whole dogma of the DOTP has evolved into something far more than a throwaway aisde from a 19th century  writer.  It has become a central organising principle of the so called revolutionary left and I maintain it is a principle that gives warrant to  their underlying reformism.  After all,  the logic of DOTP, on the face of it , would suggests that capitalism can indeed be run in the interests of the workers who can indeed dictate terms to the capitalists .  And there can be no doubt that under the DOTP it is capitalism that will prevail since by definition the proletariat is the exploited class in capitalism and thus presupposes capitalism. That apart , there is still the question of how a socialist society might come about in  spatial terms which has not really been touched on in this thread. I think we can safely assume a degree of unnevenness in the growth of socialist consciopsuness that would rule out the synchronous implementation of socialism everywhere.  What does that mean for  those parts of the world that attain a significant socialist majority first?The Left's reponse is that they should hold fire and set up a DOTP ands continue with capitalism.  I think thats a ridiculous notion.  A majority in one part of the world presupposes a significant minority of socialists everywhere else and a radically transformed social environment – both locally and globally – that would provide the context in which those parts of the world where a majority had been first attained  can go ahead and establish a socialist society.The really interesting questions still remain to be discussed such as what might be the form in which an expanding socialist part of the world relates to the residual capitalist states.  The point is that these kinds of issues should not be dissmised as "merely speculative", something that can be left to a future socialist movement to deal with.  Like the question of whether or not a socialist society would be centrally planned, they are of an inherently  different nature to issues such as whether or not a socialist society will continue with nuclear power.  That latter issue is indeed a matter of speculation but not what we are talking about hereWhat we are talking here is an organic aspect of the socialist case, a logical deduction from what  will almost certainly be the case – the relatively unneven spatial growth of the socialist movement.  It is thus an issue that cannot be avoided or sidelined and requires therefore some kind of theoretical position be developed in relation to this matter if  the case for socialism is to come across as more plausible

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"…The socialist community would send delegates to parliament only to prevent it from being used against the organisation of production for use and free access… " My understanding is that it may not be simply a preventative measure as you suggest but in some cases will be used against a recalcitrant minority which may well endeavour to use violence against the will of the people. Our control of the State and with it the command of the armed forces may be wielded proactively rather than the passive role reflected in the section i quoted. We cannot also overlook the situation that some warlord will not yield and he and his supporters will have to be subdued forcibly. So the blue helmets may not be immediately redundant. (as an aside –  i do not actually foresee the military being disbanded but they also being adapted to a new role…all that testosterone can be channeled into a new type of a Peace Corps.  If they can wage war on the opposite side of the world they can be deployed in the wildernesses and jungles to develop the infrastructure) We will see a process within the State machine taking place. Those who are going to strip away its anti-social elements and enhance its social importance, i'm meaning all the ministries such as health an environment and departments of statistics., etc etc. Not an overnight process but importantly not one that will await the day after the revolution either. I remember how the unions during the 70 developed the Lucas Aerospace project where they reappraised what they did and how it could switch from the arms business to constructive industry. The DOTP may well be the process of dotting the i and crossing the t to this transformation of the economy as the resources are made available. 

 The flaw in this argument is that you are overlooking what the DOTP actually means.  It means the continued existence of a proletariat – you know, the wage slaves who sell their labour power to an employer who exploits them in return .   Do you propose that the process of "stripping away" all the anti social aspects of the state machine should be carried out while a majority continue to remain wage slaves – proletarians – and therefore under an ongoing system of capitalist relations of production which is what by definition a DOTP would be managing? In short, is what you suggest possible while capitalism still exists albeit DOTP style capitalism The problem, I think, is  that you are  confusing the state qua state with the administrative hardware  or bureaucracy we associate with the state.  Its the same with the argument you invoke that you need a "state" to protect the community against the odd warlord cum recalcitrant minority.  But this is confusing,  A state is an instrument of class rule. If socialism has been esablished there are no classes and therefore no state.  So it would not be the state that would be called upon to defend the community  but rather non-state bodies set up by the community for that purpose if so required. This is not a question of splitting hairs.  It is vital to an understanding of what a state actually is In the absence of a state – that is, in the absence of classes in  socialism –  there might very well still be means of defence needed against the odd psychotic warlord of course.  But these means of defence – weapons of various sorts – do not signify the existence of the state in themselves.  Anymore than a peice of machinery is "capital".  It is only capital under specific socio-economic circumstancess i.e capitalism. So by the same token means of defences only serve as the intrument of a state when a state exists,  When it does not exist the means of defence are still there to be used by the community if the need arises Logically,  it makes no more sense to talk of the state "withering away" than it does of getting rid of the money system one pound note at a time. It is the symbolism of the state and of the process of capturing the state that we should be looking  at – the need to draw a clear line between the society you have departed and tthe society you have come to embrace. The only sensible and coherent inference we can draw from that is that the state will be immediately abolished in the eyes of everyone along with the class relations of production that underpin the state.

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Dictatorsip of the proletariat means the dictariship of the majority instead of the few. What does it matter if it has been mis interpreted and twisted? So has 'socialism'.  The capitalist media  have good reason to hate our words. Let them tremble at the socialist revolution we have nothing to lose…

 The proletariat is certainly the majority but it does not follow from that that the dictatorship of the proletariat  means the dictatorship of the majority.  Again, you are missing the point completely. How can the proletariat exercise a "dictatorship" at all in any meaningful sense of the term when the proletariat by definition is the subject class in capitalism, the exploited class in capitalism?.  How can the exploited "dictate" terms to those who exploit them? It makes no sense.  It is only by overthrowing their status as the exploited class that the majority can "dictate". Thats blindingly obvious. The confusion still seems to loe with equating the capture of political power with the concept of the DOTP itself.   I repeat once again: they are not the same thing.  You can quite easily advocate the capture of political power by the working  class but completely reject the DOTP as I do.   The DOTP is something that is supposed to be  installed AFTER the capture of political power. The idea is that the working class having captured the state, continues to exist as a working class,  allegedly in control of the state, until such time as  DOTPs have been set up everywhere. Then and only then, according to the theory, is it possible to implement socialism – when every country in the world has set up a DOTP. The problem is that the DOTP by default will be administering capitalism in the meantime and, as we all know,  capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital. So inevitably the DOTP will have to operate a system that operates against the very working class it claims to represent. This is a recipe for class betrayal.  It would also kill any prospect of establishing a socialist society Thats why I say –  to hell with DOTP!  No revolutionary socialist should touch the idea with a bargepole.  To advocate the DOTP is tantamount to, say,  supporting  the early Labour Party which claimed to want to effect a fundamental redistribution of wealth and power in favour of the working class. And we all know what became of the Party of Tony Bliar and Ed Milliband

Vin Maratty wrote:

I cannot envisage uneven development but if there was a time lag, a community wanting socialism would not take the means of production into state ownership and wait for the rest of the world catch up.

 I agree with the latter part of this sentence.  But what you are doing here is rejecting the very grounds on which the advocates of  the DOTP advocate the DOTP!  It is precisely becuause they assert the need for the rest of the world to "catch up" that they advoicate a DOTPI think there is very likely to be a degree of uneven development but not much.  But still enough to rule out the possiblity of synchronous socialist revolutions across the globe 

Vin Maratty wrote:

I still think you are confusing Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat with Lenin and Stalin’s dictatorship over the proletariat.Property is not transferred to the state. it is taken by the community to be used in its interests

Hmm. I think you are on somewhat shaky grounds here if you are trying invoke Marx in supportThe Communist Manifesto which he co-authored states quite clearly: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.   This is what Marx's DOTP would look like – a system of state-run capitalism.  Lets not have any delusions about that.  True,  Marx and Engels equated it with a "democratic republic" and the Soviet Union was very far from being a democratic republic but capitalism under Marx's version of the DOTP would still amount to the same thing in practice, fundamentally speaking, as Lenin's or Stalin's version –  namely a dictatorship of capital over wage labour (since capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital). The difference would be that, with Marx, workers would be exploited under a democratically run DOTP whereas with Lenin and Stalin,  even the possiblity of wage slaves choosing their own masters was denied them

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Here's the ICC's crackpot solution to the problem raised by Robbo — world-wide civil war.And here's the CWO's admission that what would exist in the areas under the control of the "workers state" (with or without inverted commas) would be capitalist:

Quote:

A so-called ‘workers’ state’ or the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is, in the first instance, a political category. Nevertheless, a ‘workers’ state’ will take measures for the improvement of the conditions of life of the working class (reduction in the working-day, free access to the health and education system, etc) and try to direct production for the needs of society. But these measures are, in any case, milestones for a socialist future (. . . ) As long as capitalist commodity production in the rest of the world continues to exist, the diktat of the law of value holds (p.38).

Socialists shouldn't have too much difficulty in refuting these ideas on the various forums where and when they appear. I think Robbo's point is that the last sentence above isn't necessarily true. One major reason why the CWO think it is is that they don't envisage a majority of the population in the areas where capitalist rule has been overthrown being or having to be socialist-minded and so can't think of any means of dealing with it other than the old capitalist forms plus a few reformist "milestones". If, on the other hand, there was a socialist majority there then the population could understand and adopt other measures which did not reflect "the diktat of the law of value", certainly production directly for use and the direct distribution of products for use without money (even if not full free access).

 The CWO quote above  nicely illustrates the point that Ive long argued about the concept of the DOTP – that it feeds into and helps to rationalise or underwrite a Left reformist approach to politics.  I dont think its enough to dismiss the concept simply on the grounds that it is "outdated" or that the wording is potentially misleading. What has to be acknowleged also is that the concept itself – quite apart from being inherently illogical – is intrinsically toxic to the interests of the working class inasmuch as capitalism whether under a DOTP or any other form of governance, cannot possibly be administered in the interests of the class it needs  to economically exploit. The other point  the CWO make about parts of the word, where a socialist majority had first taken power,  being unable to flout the "law of value"" until such time as the entire world  had been been covered in DOTPs, rather undermines its  claims as to what a DOTP is capable of achieving given that a DOTP would then likewise be subject to the selfsame law of value.  By implication this means that a DOTP would be essentially no different from any (other) form of  capitalist regime likewise subject to the law of value. It would seem the CWO have rather shot themselves in the foot with this particular argument!  propsect of the DO 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

 No I never said that. Is there no such thing as revolution ? Only capitalism or socialism?If you reject the 'dictatorship of the proletariate' (which I agree is not a helpful term nowadays) are you also rejecting the need to take control of the state?

 Of course not.  The DOTP is something that is supposed to be installed AFTER the working class is said to have "taken control of the state".  Except, of course, that I would not say the working class  had carried out a revolution yet in that case.  If the working class or proletariat still exists  (and a DOTP means it does still exist) then clearly capitalism still exists and a fundamental change in the  very basis of society – what is meant by a "revolution" – would be something that has yet to be accomplished

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state 

 And therin lies the problem. You allude to a specific conference decision do you not? Without that resolution you could not have presented such an interpretation of the SPGB's position. I never saw the point in that  resolution and I still don't. If an organised working class is able to immediately abolish the state then that's fine but if it needs the state to defend the democratic will of the community and ensure the smooth transfer of property and power  then that's fine too. If that is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariate then I have no reason to disagree with that.

 Well lets look at this logically.If the state in the Marxian sense is an instrument of class rule and presupposes the existence of classes then what you are effectively saying here is that an organised working class, having captured the state, could or might decide to prolong its own existence as the exploited class in capitalism. Yes?  In other words, to prolong the existence of capitalism.  That to me is an absurdity. Why would a revolutionary working class majority which, according to you, would want to effect the transfer of property to the community in general, want at the same time to perpetuate its own existence as a class alienated from the means of production?     It just  doesnt add up.  However, this is what the concept of the DOTP asserts needs to be done. That may seem a somewhat pedantic point Im making but there is a further to make here. Why is it assumed that you need a state to defend the democratic will of the community anyway? Just as a peice of machinery  does not constitute capital in itself but only under certain socio economic conditions so the physical means of defending one self or asserting the will of the majority does not necessarily  constitute a state either but only under conditions in which class relations of production exist. What you are suggesting is that a stateless socialist society has no means by which to enforce its own will – something i would contest.  That aside, the idea that the state is needed to defend the will of the majority presupposes that the majority has already decided to scrap capitalism and ipso facto the capitalist  state.  The state is not something that exists in some physical sense outside of the values , expectations and beliefs of individuals. You cannot simply point to  something called a state as you might , say, building  and declare that you wish to demolish it..  The state is a social insititution and a social insitrituion is a“a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment."  *Stanford Encyclopedia)One of the strongest arguments in favour of capturing the state is precisely that provides for a kind of symbolic juncture – a specific point in time – when the rules of the social game can be conveniently "switched" and in a form that can be universally recognised and acknowleged by all , friend and foe. The growth of the socialist movement will bring with it the knowlege that the new society will be one in which there will be no classes and hence the state have no place.  With that a new set of rules come into being . To continue in the same metaphorical vein , some inviduals may quite possibly not  want to play the new game, may object to the new  rules and seek by various ways and  means to subvert them – a recalcitrant minority. But that does not alter the fact that socialism would be the only ball game in town once a socialist majoruty have captured the state.  And with that ballgame goes the understanding that classes and the state no longer exist.  Therefore from that point onwards they will cease  to exist.  Not bcause they have in some  literal sense been dismantled but becuase they have no place in the new social order that has just been formally – or institutionally – installed

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a danger of confusing a  class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority. Do not confuse our case with theirsSocialists will become anarchists if they abandon the need to take control of the state machinary in order to ensure the safe transfer of property and power to the communityIt would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. "

 Hi Vin, I can assure that there is no possibility whatsoever of me confusing a  "class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority". I understand the difference completely  and fully accord with the suggestion that such a democratically organised working class must take control of the state for the reason you state.  Im not an anarchist in that respect. Nor am i a vanguardist who advocates the minority seizure of political power However once again let me point out that this not the issue.  I wish people would attend to the argument that is being put.  The issue is what happens when you take control of the state.  I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state and all class relations of production that underpin the very existence of the state. In other words, the working class or proletariat must  immediately abolish itself as the exploited class of capitalism. In this event,  there can be no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat since there is no proletariat to do the "dictating".  On the other hand , the advocates of the DOTP  – like the Leninists you mention – do NOT advocate the immediate abolition of the proletariat but propose  – absurdly –  to unnecessarily prolong the existence of the proletariat as the exploited class in capitalism (and hence prolong capitalism itself) for some indeterminate period of time or at least until every country in the world has established a DOTP and everyone can then switch over to socialism in their view However , the implications of such an approach to establishing socialism would be nothing short of disastrous for the working class since what the advocates of the DOTP are suggesting is that  capitalism should be allowed to continue  after the organised working class had seized power. (if that were not the case then how could there be a proletariat if there was no capitalism) But you know and I know that capitalism cannot possibly  be administered in the interests of the proletariat.  So inevitably the DOTP will turn out to be something that works against the interests of the  proletariat.   Inevitably the DOTP will become a dictatorship of capital (more than likely concentrated in the hands of the state – state capitalism) over the proletariat This is the basic point Im trying to make. Please dont confuse the capture of political power by the working class with the concept of the DOTP. They are two quite different things. You can certainly advocate the former without going along with the later at all. 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a danger of confusing a  class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority. Do not confuse our case with theirsSocialists will become anarchists if they abandon the need to take control of the state machinary in order to ensure the safe transfer of property and power to the communityIt would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. "

 Hi Vin, I can assure that there is no possibility whatsoever of me confusing a  "class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority". I understand the difference completely  and fully accord with the suggestion that such a democratically organised working class must take control of the state for the reason you state.  Im not an anarchist in that respect. Nor am i vanguardist who advocates the minority seizure of political power However once again let me point out that this not the issue.  I wish people would attend to the argument that is being put.  The issue is what happens when you take control of the state.  I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state and all class relations of production that underpin the very existence of the state. In other words, the working class or proletariat must  immediately abolish itself as the exploited class of capitalism. In this event,  there can be no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat since there is no proletariat to do the "dictating".  On the other hand , the advocates of the DOTP  – like the Leninists you mention – do NOT advocate the immediate abolition of the proletariat but propose  – absurdly –  to unnecessarily prolong the existence of the proletariat as the exploited class in captalism (and hence prolong capitalism itself) for some indeterminate period of time or at least until every country in the world has established a DOTP and everyone can then switch over to socialism in their view However , the impications of such an approach to establishing socialism would be nothing short of disastrous for the working class since what the advocates of the DOTP are suggesting is trhat  capitalism should be allowed to contrinue  after the organised working class had seized power. (if that were not the case then how could there be a proletariat if there was no capitalism) But you know and I know that capitalism cannot possibly  be administered in the interests of the proletariat.  So inevitably the DOTP will turn out to be something that works against the interests of the  proletariat.   Inevitably the DOTP will become a dictatorship of capital (more than like concentrated in the hands of the state – state capitalism) over the proletariat This is the basic point Im trying to make. Please dont confuse the capture of political power by the working class with the concept of the DOTP. They are two quite different things. You can certainly advocate the former without going along with the later at all. Just to reiterate

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

For the "dictatorship of the proletariat", simply substitute the "will of the majority", or more simple still, "democracy". In essence, that is all that is meant by the DOTP. The confusion, as far as I am concerned, is caused by people giving overmuch emphasis on the term, "dictatorship". If one understands the prerequisites needed, before Socialism can be brought about, this term becomes an irrelevance, as understanding would explain.

Steve The problem is that that is NOT all that is meant by the DOTP…. I have no problem with the need to capture political power.  Nor have I any problem with the need for this to be done democratically  from the bottom up.  And you are right  – by "dictatorship" in this context, Marx and Engels did not mean the the absence of democracy but rather the "will of the majority "as you say ,  coming to prevail or dictate .  However, all of these points are not relevant to what is actually being discussed here The point is what happens AFTER the revolutionary capture of political power.   This where  the DOTP entails a lot more than just the argument that the working class needs to capture power.  It  entails also the idea that workers as a class should hold onto to that power – i.e. the state  – and should strive to manage capitalism in the interim  in the form of a working class government for some indeterminate period of time,  trying to operate capitalism in the interests of the workers  Then, and only then, when   DOTPs have been set up in every country in the world , can they collectively establish  global socialism in one fell swoop right across the world.  I hold that this view would be absolutely toxic to the interests of the working class for reasons that were outlined in the OP.   It would lead to substitutionism and the workers being sold down the river as the so called proletarian state adminstering capitalism would increasingly   find itself having to adapt to the exigencies of running capitalism with its need to first  and foremost  make a profit.  As I say, this is all bog standard SPGB thinking but what I  am trying to do is to show that all this will happen if you hold the view that socialism must come about globally right across the world in one single fell swoop There cannot be a working class  (or indeed a capitalist class) after the revolutionary capture of political power for the reasons explained.   Which is why, strictly speaking, I think Vin is wrong to argue that  the working class only abolishes itself after this  event.  The event itself  will mark – i.e. coincide with – the complete deconstitution  and disappearance of the working class rather than what Marx misleadingly stated would be an attempt "raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class"  – something that can only serve to perpetuate  a class divided society: capitalism. It is not possible for an exploited class to be a ruling class and it makes absolutely no sense even to make such a claim.  Worse still it feeds the reformist assumptions of the Left that capitalism can somehow be operated for the benefit of the working class.  The whole concept of the DOTP needs to be vigorously opposed by revolutionary socialists.

[Author]

Posts