Why capture political power, and what that involves?
- This topic has 157 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning.
No, "all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our social conditioning."The use of the term 'environmental' suggests that well-worn word 'material'.Our behaviour is not the product of 'material' conditions.If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.That is, 'social conditioning' involves 'ideas and nature', not simply physical environment, which is the infamous 'material conditions' that Engels wrote about, as opposed to Marx's 'material production', involving human ideas and natural environment.'Environmental conditioning' is a conservative concept, and is of no use to Communists who wish, through theory and practice, to transform our world.
Final 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.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.Only if you are an idealist and believe that the realm of ideas has a mystical existence outside of the material world.
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:i do argue that some laws are unversal and should be applied over and above local custom and practice. Brian's original comment tended to say that local rules take precedence. Again, the question is …do we when socialism is establish still apply the rules and conduct as defined in law-books, or do we immediately abolish law and permit lynch-law, which lets be honest, is often the first response and reaction a community has to a particularly nasty and anti-social crime. Hud i think agrees that these things are complex complicated questions to decide a priori, so isn't it sensible that existing law stands until it evolves into something else…which means such things as identified as the State (to once more return to the thread topic) such as police, courts, judges, prosecution services, lawyers and jails do remain until they are adapted and modified over time.I'd be interested to know what 'laws' you regard as universal, Alan. I think you are posing a false dichotomy here. Why should we suppose retaining 'rules of conduct' as defined in the law books, and applying lynch law are the only options?. Yes, I think these are complex questions. Right now we cannot prescribe answers; we can only attempt to clarify the issues as far as we can understand them. And as far as I understand it, it seems to me very likely that allowing existing law to stand would be the one thing we could not do.
"What 'laws' you regard as universal, Alan."Probably the very same as your own, and much of the 10 Commandments stripped of the religion.The UN has with various conventions tried to define those. The declaration on human rights, for instance, requires only the minimum of amendment to be applicable in socialism. Taking one issue already stated, the UN convention define a child as anyone under 18. Me, i think that is too old. We in the party do not define such either on biology, judging eligibility of membership on a simple basis, the understanding of socialist ideas and we have no time for any two-tier membership, such as a youth wing. After all, in Scotland we let everybody over 16 vote in the independence referendum. So yes even such 'universal' opinion on a child diverges. I have seen and you most likely too have witnessed prejudice and bullying. But likewise i have also in my own lifetime seen incredible shifts in attitudes, the most obvious has been on womens equality and gay rights and on race/ethnicity. No doubt there is still a lot more ground on all those to re-claim but for now i am pleased with much of what i have seen in the changed behaviour of people i once knew as bigots and their newly acquired more relaxed attitudes.Sadly this isn't universal applied and exercised and if we understand uneven development then we need …sorry – socialists at the time …must come to agreement on how to treat such backward cultures. The complexities and the complications that you, Brian and myself also understand of putting into practice democratic principles of justice and respect and dignity begins well before socialism and we know capitalism itself creates much of the change even if it is for its own reasons (eg, the pink pound) We have attitudes and behaviours that have been decided as norms to be adopted by all and those have been codified over centuries in common and criminal law that has been constantly updated and amended to encompass changes. YMS has said , why re-invent the wheel. For sure, we can and we must improve upon what we have but we have the basis already in existence…The co-option of our peers to perform as jurors to hear the evidence and decide the outcome of arguments that are presented by advocates with an independent person overseeing the fairness of the procedures. Obviously problems arise on that one person's role in imposing the appropriate sanctions but then there is a appeals process and an appeal process to the appeal process.We also have a parallel process in medically defining mental health issues, being sectioned, and compulsory detentions under that currently exists. Is that too be immediately abandoned?I think there is always a risk of mob justice when we have no recognised and accepted means of determining "truth"…LBird's constant reference of it being democratic is certainly reflected in the jury sytem where 11 or 15 people vote on what the" truth" is,(having been legally forced to perform that duty and not from any ideological inclination to choose to participate)I'd be very intersted in our members who actually are qualified or experienced in the legal and justice system for their prescriptive options because as you say it is not a simple black and white dichotomy but various shades of grey.Again, i have to say this all to do with the original question , on the capture of the State. What will be the role of the police….Will traffic cops still patrol the motorways and have the power to stop and detain bad drivers or badly maintained vehicles …Or are those powers transferred to other agencies…Who detects and investigates criminal behavious and acts? Who, to return to the above, determines the worth of the charges and initiate the justice process? We aren't utopians or saints…we know socialism won't create the perfect world and we will at the beginning inherit the crap of the past…and the legacy will be the State which the new socialists must determine which parts are useful or redundant. But do we wait for some mythological Day of Revolution that all the debates and the change begins or do we also engage in struggles beforehand…(bringing me back to the other thread on reform and reformism). Is it valid to deem it unnecessary to campaign or support campaigns against discrimination of sections of society, here and elsewhere?
Reading another old pamphlet Industrial Socialism by "Big Bill" Hayward and Frank Bohn that came out in 1911, here's what it says on this subject. The "Socialist Party" in question is the (reformist) Socialist Party of America:
Quote:What will the Socialist Party Do?-The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of government and thus prevent them from being used by the capitalists against the workers. With Socialists in political offices the workers can strike and not be shot. They can picket shops and not be arrested and imprisoned. Freedom of speech and of the press, now often abolished by the tyrannical capitalists, will be secured to the working class. Then they can continue the shop organization and the education of the workers. To win the demands made on the industrial field it is absolutely necessary to control the government, as experience shows strikes to have been lost through the interference of courts and militia. The same functions of government, controlled by a class-conscious working class, will be used to inspire confidence and compel the wheels of industry to move in spite of the devices and stumbling blocks of the capitalists. (p. 54-55)The Socialist Party and the Government of Cities – The Socialist Party has a further function. Modern industrial cities are a product of Capitalism. They are growing and will continue to grow constantly larger. The governments of cities are much more than the agents of the capitalist class. They develop social service departments, such as the fire department, the waterworks, public schools and parks. Through a department of public health, they can, by means of scientific hygiene, protect and promote the health of the community.These governments of cities are at present run by politicians, in the interests of the capitalists, for graft. They must be captured and used in the interest of the workers. But at present, city government in the interest of the workers is made almost impossible through the capitalist control of the states. With $he growth of the Socialist political power they can more, and more be liberated to serve the working class.The mission of the Socialist Party is therefore threefold: First, it must lay hold of all the powers of political government and prevent them from being used against the industrial organization of the workers.Second, it must be the bearer of sound knowledge, using its great and growing organization to teach Socialism.Third, it must use the governments of the cities to advance the social interests of the working class. (pp.58-59).You can see that this could have a reformist as well as an industrial unionist interpretation (both authors were associated with the IWW as well) but even so.These passages are from the 6th edition. The second passage was omitted from the 7th edition, which is the one on libcom here.
Never mind "this could have a reformist….interpretation", I read it and instantly saw old school Labour Party oozing from it.The first and most important role of any real socialist organisation is to bring about socialist class consciousness among the workers. The revolution won't ever happen without a mass socialist movement. Yet this article has that as number two in order of priority. Suggesting that it is possible to have a socialist government working within capitalism to nurture and protect a growing socialist movement. It comes across like a vanguardist proposal.Surely it should be more like…Firstly the creation of a mass socialist movement. Second the mass movement must, where possible, democratically take power away from the capitalists. Thirdly, any existing State structures the movement deems useful must be used to advance the creation of global socialism.
Can i suggest that for any worker, sheer survival is the number one priority, socialism come second….those languishing in destitution and deprivation, rightly think of only their bellies.
Quote:to cease the struggle is to reduce human labour-power even below the commodity status… Therefore every means that strengthen the workers in that struggle are good in so far as they do so…he has to ask what are the essentials of Socialism. The first essential he discovers is—a human race. Without humanity there can be no Socialism. Directly he admits this he discovers that, even as the frigidly pure, passionless, scientific exponent and advocate of Socialism the every day affairs of men do matter, for assuredly if any calamity threatened to blot Man out of the scheme of things, to obliterate one of the essentials of his scientific obsession, it would concern him.(i dare say this argument can also be applied to those eco-socialists engaged in campaigns over the environment)The underlying ideolgy of the Haywood and Bohn is of course the SLP and the DeLeoniist attitude of the sword and shield…the need for political action to protect industrial action. I forget when it was switched about to express industrial action being the protective of political action.
SocialistPunk wrote:Never mind "this could have a reformist….interpretation", I read it and instantly saw old school Labour Party oozing from it.I agree with your conclusion about what the order of priorities of a socialist party should be, but this passage is far too flattering to Old Labour. I don't think they ever came anywhere near advocating what Haywood and Bohn did. I would say rather that their views expressed those of Old Leftwing Social-Democracy (from which, incidentally, our Party emerged) which still justified a socialist party having a "minimum" programme of reforms under capitalism as well as a "maximum" programme of socialism which eventually disappeared more and more into the background, turning the party into a completely reformist one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.