Why capture political power, and what that involves?

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

The state is the executive of a minority.  That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.

Was the state controlled by a majority of socialists? If not then how is the commune relevant?So what is your position re the state in relation to 6 of our D of P ? Do you disagree that we should use the state? "Unless Socialists use the power of the machinery of government to dispossess the capitalist class they will be unable to establish Socialism. We find it inconceivable that intelligent Socialists of a future generation would even consider such an act of monumental stupidity." Here is what Adam Buick argued was Marx's position in the socialist standard in 1970. Marx views can be summarised:1. The working class must first, either peacefully or violently, win control of the State.2. Then they must make it completely democratic, and,3. Use it to dispossess the capitalists and establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.4. This done, there would no longer be any need for the State, which consequently would cease to exist in Socialism.This displays no fear of the state in the hands of a majority.   

[Brian]

Vin wrote:

Brian wrote:

The state is the executive of a minority.  That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.

Was the state controlled by a majority of socialists? If not then how is the commune relevant?So what is your position re the state in relation to 6 of our D of P ? Do you disagree that we should use the state? "Unless Socialists use the power of the machinery of government to dispossess the capitalist class they will be unable to establish Socialism. We find it inconceivable that intelligent Socialists of a future generation would even consider such an act of monumental stupidity." Here is what Adam Buick argued was Marx's position in the socialist standard in 1970. Marx views can be summarised:1. The working class must first, either peacefully or violently, win control of the State.2. Then they must make it completely democratic, and,3. Use it to dispossess the capitalists and establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.4. This done, there would no longer be any need for the State, which consequently would cease to exist in Socialism.This displays no fear of the state in the hands of a majority.

 Nobody here fears abolishing the state. So what point are you trying to make? 

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether. 

It might be theoretically possible but hardly "just as easy".  Just as easy, for example, to set up a system of local government from scratch than to take over and democratise and reform the existing structure? Just as easy to set up a new health service from scratch? "Pretty pointless" is the alternative description that comes to mind.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Government machinery could be restructured to provide the administrative needs of a new society, though I suspect that would not be easy.  It might be just as easy to set up a new administrative system altogether. 

It might be theoretically possible but hardly "just as easy".  Just as easy, for example, to set up a system of local government from scratch than to take over and democratise and reform the existing structure? Just as easy to set up a new health service from scratch? "Pretty pointless" is the alternative description that comes to mind.

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".That is, an entirely new structure that has emerged from workers' self-activity and which is thus fundamentally democratic in its structures, roles, locations, ethos, etc., versus the re-using of an existing structure which emerged from very different socio-conditions and which has merely had the very top of the structure replaced.I think that my views are closer to the "Workers' Councils" position, than to that of the "Democratic Parliament".The only use that I can see for a "Democratic Parliament" is  self-abolition, and I think that those, like ALB, who regard the creating of new proletarian structures as "pretty pointless" are underestimating greatly the changes that will happen with a revolution.But then, I assume that all science (including physics), education, universities and 'truth production' itself will be changed massively by a class coming to consciousness of its own power, and thus wanting to destroy the old and create the new in all areas of social life.As I said to YMS earlier, I get the feel that the "DP" strand merely want to change the signs on the ministries, and that they think that most social practices, embodied in existing structures, will just continue, much as they are now.Put simply, it doesn't feel 'revolutionary', to me.

[Hud955]

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.  

[Hud955]

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". 

I disagree entirely.  I am not specifically arguing for workers councils, and I do not think there is a necessary opposition here.  

[LBird]

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.I think that these can be summed up as "Workers' Councils" versus "Democratic Parliament".

I disagree entirely.  I am not specifically arguing for workers councils, and I do not think there is a necessary opposition here.

'Entirely'? I'm surprised.

Hud955 wrote:

…a new administrative system altogether…

What would be the political nature of this 'altogether new admin. system', if not a structure built by class conscious workers, on democratic principles, from the bottom up? It sounds like "Workers' Councils", to me.If you "do not think there is a necessary opposition here", between the old parliamentary structure and your new admin structure, how would they operate together?If there is no opposition, and given the present nature of 'parliament', how would the two be reconciled? The only way I can see is to retain a "Democratic Parliament" as the top body, grafted above your 'new admin system', where political power is retained at the top, and not diffused throughout your 'new admin system'.On the contrary, I think the 'opposition' is fundamental, and necessary, because it is an opposition between the creativity of two different, opposed, classes, who create structures for their own political purposes.Still, if you think a third position, between what I've called "Democratic Parliament" and "Workers' Councils", could exist, could you perhaps give it a name and outline the commonalities of this third 'middle' view, with the other two?

[ALB]

I, too, am not against workers organising "councils" (even "industrial unions"!) to take over and run workplaces. Something like this will obviously have to happen.  My point was what was the point of trying to build from scratch organisations to run "national" services and local democracy and administration when structures exist that can be adapted. It doesn't make sense. Anyway, it's not how social (as opposed to merely political) change takes place — it's evolutionary and adaptive.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Anyway, it's not how social (as opposed to merely political) change takes place — it's evolutionary and adaptive.

[my bold]This has only reinforced my view that within the SPGB there is a strand of thought that restricts the 'revolutionary' to the 'political' (and so the final seizure of parliament by election is the only 'revolutionary' act).Thus, given that, this view sees all other change as 'evolutionary and adaptive': social, cultural, ideological, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.I think that this is a massive underestimation of the 'revolutionary and creative' that will take place in all human activities.Perhaps we're now getting to the root of the reason why my arguments for 'the democratic control of truth production' are causing so much heartache.It seems that the SPGB really does see 'revolution' as only a narrowly political act, and so can satisfy itself with the 'taking of parliament'.And physics and maths (as two examples only) will remain outside of any 'revolutionary' change, because, apparently, neither physics nor maths are political.Needless to say, this 'evolutionary and adaptive' approach to social activity in all its forms, is, to me, entirely unrevolutionary.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, it's not how social (as opposed to merely political) change takes place — it's evolutionary and adaptive.

[my bold]This has only reinforced my view that within the SPGB there is a strand of thought that restricts the 'revolutionary' to the 'political' (and so the final seizure of parliament by election is the only 'revolutionary' act).Thus, given that, this view sees all other change as 'evolutionary and adaptive': social, cultural, ideological, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.I think that this is a massive underestimation of the 'revolutionary and creative' that will take place in all human activities.Perhaps we're now getting to the root of the reason why my arguments for 'the democratic control of truth production' are causing so much heartache.It seems that the SPGB really does see 'revolution' as only a narrowly political act, and so can satisfy itself with the 'taking of parliament'.And physics and maths (as two examples only) will remain outside of any 'revolutionary' change, because, apparently, neither physics nor maths are political.Needless to say, this 'evolutionary and adaptive' approach to social activity in all its forms, is, to me, entirely unrevolutionary.

It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again.  The SPGB is the vehicle for the revolutionary process with the only purpose to capture political power on behalf of the class conscious workers.  Once this is achieved we will have become redundant.  And what happens next is up to the class not us.Of course we expect the changes you mention above to come about otherwise it won't be a revolutionary process will it?  But our part in this process is going to be miniscular in comparison to what happens next!Nevertheless, its been mentioned here and on other threads, that the necessary preparation and planning will have already taken place before the actual capture of political power so there will be very few suprises in store for the class, or the party.  The "revolutionary and creative" will obviously be occurring before, during and after the capture of political power.  In short, unlike the Leninists, socialists fully understand what are the consequences and implications of the workers becoming a class for itself.Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours!  But give it time and no doubt you will.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again….Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours!

I can only go by the answers given on this site, Brian.'Evolutionary and adaptive' is not 'revolutionary and creative'.FWIW, your post seems much closer to what I have identified as the "Workers' Councils" position, than ALB's.

Brian wrote:

But give it time and no doubt you will.

Whilst there is such a lack of clarity between, for example, yours and ALB's posts, I doubt that I will 'figure this out'. If anything, the longer I remain here, the more mystified I become about the politics of the SPGB.It all seems to be a bit of a mish-mash.

[Anonymous]

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' ?  

[alanjjohnstone]

i think Hud expresses it accurately enough…we aren't re-creating the health service, for example, but placing in under another administration and control…which capitalism is constantly been doing and which for all we know maybe even mean socialists reverting back to "elected" but wasn't it more "delegated" health boards and adapting those to involve communties and all health workers. Vin, we have always had a policy of parallel "economic organisation" so termed because it was meant to encompass an analyses and criticisms of the SLP SIUs, IWW's IUs, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism and Workers Councilism

Quote:

This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament

Correctly, our policy is not one of determinism, advocating specific structures without regard to the conditions and situations. Even the theories of workers councils and of the syndicalists and of the IWW has changed quite fundamentally since their original appearance, discarding their "workerism" of the" work-place" and involving the wider the community in decision-making which was our primary observation of their weaknesses…as cited in our quote…"coal to the  miners, trains to the railwaymen and dust to the dustmen"…or something like that…but we recognised very early not to demand sectional control but place society as a whole in charge. 

[Anonymous]

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. 

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again….Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours!

I can only go by the answers given on this site, Brian.'Evolutionary and adaptive' is not 'revolutionary and creative'.FWIW, your post seems much closer to what I have identified as the "Workers' Councils" position, than ALB's.

Brian wrote:

But give it time and no doubt you will.

Whilst there is such a lack of clarity between, for example, yours and ALB's posts, I doubt that I will 'figure this out'. If anything, the longer I remain here, the more mystified I become about the politics of the SPGB.It all seems to be a bit of a mish-mash.

OK to try and explain and provide some clarity.  All revolutionary processes are determined by their circumstances and the tools at hand and readily available, (to paraphrase Marx).  On top of this we also have to take into account the baggage of the past, what Marx referred to as the 'incabus'.  In short, people are conservative when it comes to change and only come to accept that change is inevitable when they understand and agree that the change is in their better interests.  Which in effect means that generally speaking although the revolutionary process is already occurring, with the mass of people being generalists and not specialists they will only accept those changes that they can work with and understand.  If they of the opinion they are unable to work with them then the revolution is not inevitable.Hence, generally the masses take an evolutionary and adaptive approach to the revolutionary process in respect to any adminstrative changes.  Which is a sensible route to take. And on which me and ALB concur.However has and when the pace of the revolutionary process picks up these evolutionary and adaptive changes become more and more revolutionary in character and in their effect on society at large.  The breaking point with the past occurs with the capture of political power and although the revolutionary process itself will only be completed after this has occurred – especially in respect of the massive changes in production methods – the necessary administrative changes will already been worked out well in advance of the capture of political power. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the massive changes in the method of production will also have further implications on the administration.  But bear in mind that this will only occur after the capture of political power.  And how that works out will depend on how much we need to restructure the I.T; etc during the necessary preparation and planning.  Which is the point Hud picked up on.The problem here is that many if not all computer systems dealing with: standards, performance, efficiency, regulation, process and procedures are linked or locked into the profit system.  And Huds argument is its not worth the effort to disentangle these computer systems and far easier to recast them so they respond to the new methods of production.On the other hand ALB and myself are saying adapt them where we can so the revolutionary process proceeds smoothly and efficiently and if they are not adaptable leave them until after the capture of politcal power.

[Author]

Posts