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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005