File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0102, message 73


Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:06:01 -0800 (PST)
From: commie zero zero <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: the state ... Re: AUT: Re: SPGB's parliamentary cretinism


> Chris, I agree totally with what you've said below,
> but I do wonder about the nature of the transition
> when it is stated quite as baldly as that. It seems
> to me that some sort of trans-national quasi-state
> is required in order to fight against the
> counter-revolution?

in my mind a state must be necessarily, internally
hierarchical. even a "quasi-state". 

that is: class societies create hierarchical social
relations, which become institutionalized. these have
culminated in the state. that is: the state is based
on, an intrisically connected to, these social
relations.

so even trying to redfine the word state (or using
words like "quasi-state") carries with it serious
repercussions because most people equate state with
hierarchy (even if unconsciously). 

organizing against the counter-revolution now and
forever is a necessity. but using this as an excuse to
re-create the capitalist (class society) social
relation of institutionalized hierarchy is itself
counter revolutionary (this is why the bolsheviks were
counter revolutionary from the get go... and let's not
forget that lenin openly admited that he was building
state capitalism). 

in my mind "workers' (quasi-)state" is an oxymoron for
this reason. 

as for marx: he stopped using the term "state" after a
certain point, and discribed the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" (in _the civil war in frace_) as being
made up of everyone in revolutionaries communities,
who would send their instantly recallable, strictly
mandated delegates to council meetings (for practical
reasons). that is: that all decision making power
rested with each person equally and directly... that
the general assembly must be the decision making
body.. and that delegates were there simply to make
the process faster. 

it was engels who re-introduced the term "state", and
defended it, after marx's death. 

so, for the "transition", i feel it must consist of
generalized communization as quickly as possible.
which means: not only the end of private property and
the market, but also institutionalized hierarchy. we
have to organize against the counter-revolution, but
the best way i've heard of is the via councils, which
have hisotrically been non-hierarchical, until
betrayed by groups like the bolsheviks. 

thus: defending against the counter revolution must
also consist of defending against leninists and other
statists. 

also: we also have to be careful not to fetisize the
council form (as many council communists have) because
with the releasing of creativity there's no telling
what we'll come up with which meat the criteria of
revolution. 

etc. etc.

hope this makes sense...

====commie00
---------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/commie00
---------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005