Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 22:13:25 +0100
From: Tim Willets <tim-AT-willets.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: "Democracy"


In article <yUJnkNAHBKVzEwbA-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>, Lew
<Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk> writes
>>        It is true that class consciousness is the crucial factor, then
>>alternately there is no point in using the the machinery of the state once
>>a majority has been won over to socialism. At that time the only sensible
>>thing to do will be to dispose of that machinery.
>
>It demonstrates the majority viewpoint, it establishes legitimacy

Bourgeois legitimacy only. I do not see why socialism should seek
"legitimacy" under the rule set by capitalism any more than Oliver
Cromwell not being born the heir of Charles I failed to show legitimacy
for capitalism - after all the leader of the bourgeois revolution did
not seek to come to power by demonstrating he had a claim through
inheritance to the feudal throne. 

> for
>that viewpoint and through control of the state machine renders counter-
>revolution unlikely.

Chile, 1973. 

> The prospect of violent resistance is minimised,
>but is by no means impossible (we are not pacifists), and the majority
>would defend themselves against the anti-democratic minority in that
>situation. Against that we have the prospect of a guerilla war by people
>who have not shown they have popular support, fighting other workers and
>a state with all the force it needs. If you think the state will crush a
>growing democratic demand for socialism, just think how much easier it
>would wipe away a violent threat.

A (now deceased) comrade of mine always used to say that he looked
forward to the opening of the first Parliament following the election of
a governement bent on overthrowing capitalism. As you probably know, the
Queen opens each session of parliament by reading out a speech, written
for her by the prime minister but couched to look like it is her own
words, outlining the policy intentions of the government for the year
ahead. 

"In the forthcoming session one's Loyal Ministers will implement the
mandate of the working classes to institute the dictatorship of the
proletatiat. 

Legislation will be introduced to achieve the following aims:

The expropriation from the expropriaters of all they have expropriated.
All major industry and the banks will be taken into ownership by the
working class forthwith; there will be no compensation payments to
shareholders.
Membership of both NATO and the EU will be terminated.
Other measures will be introduced as and when considered necessary.

Finally, one is pleased to say that one sits here for what will be the
last time. As the dictatorship of the proletariat necesitates the
institution of a republic, my husband and I will work out our one month
period of notice, and, following the confiscation of our assets, we will
retire to a much longed-for and welcome retirement living on a local-
authority housing estate and drawing on no other income than an ordinary
citizen's state pension. One's children and their descendants will
henceforth be seeking useful employment, which will be a welcome change
for them after all these years living in the lap of luxury on other
people's money.

Thank you, and good-bye."

>After all, which is the more plausible scenario: that workers are going
>to throw up barricades in Time Square and Piccadilly Circus as a prelude
>to a generalised insurrection, or that workers will - because they are
>the vast majority of the population - establish the dictatorship of the
>proletariat through the ballot box?

In terms of plausability, the first - only not as a prelude to, but as a
part of, revolution. I doubt they'd have a choice in the matter anyway.
Electing a governement intent on establishing socialism would produce
such a violent counter-revolutionary reaction from the ruling class that
the workers would need those barricades. Not to say that socialism could
never be won through the ballot box - perhaps it could, if e.g.
Montserrat or Andorra was the last capitalist country, with the writing
clearly on the wall for the ruling class then an election may be all
that's needed. In major capitalist states however I doubt it very much.
The ruling class likes to hang on to what it has far too much to just
quietly climb into the dustbin of history because the workers
"inconveniently" voted the "wrong way".

Parliamentary/electoral work has a role to play. What that role is is a
tactical question. As a means of overthrowing capitalism it would leave
much to be desired, and almost certainly lead to a massacre and defeat.

Tim Willets



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---