Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The state (authoritarianism)


Justin's quotes from de Tocqueville are, of course, very
appropriate. Anyone who has lived in a small town (or belonged to
an organization that operated by "consensus") understands "the
tyranny of the majority." What is at issue here is not whether we
seek a future society which is democratic and recognizes the
inevitable differences of interest and opinion in any complex
society, but whether it is possible to abolish "the state" as a
long-term project. I believe that it is.

(I should say in passing that I disagree with Adam Rose that "the
state = a body of armed men". The key to whether bodies of armed
men [or women] are the foundation of a state is the degree to
which they are autonomous from society as a whole and directed
>from above. This is the heart of the whole debate around the
standing army and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
in which James Madison was so closely involved. Alexander
Hamilton and others wanted the strongest possible state. Patrick
Henry et al. wanted the weakest possible state. Madison [dragging
Hamilton in his wake] argued for a state strong enough to conduct
wars but "outgunned" by the armed citizenry. I don't read French
with any competence, but I understand from H. Goldberg's
biography that Jean Jaures maintained a similar position in
France.)

At the same time, I want to share a little gem of how *not* to
approach this problem, one which I believe illustrates the
convergence between utopianism and authoritarianism which Justin
fears. I'd commend this to all of you who think differences of
opinion will naturally disappear in a communist society. Think
hard about how your opinions differ from the ones below.

This is from the August 21, 1996, issue of _Challenge_, the
newspaper of the Progressive Labor Party. I can explain more
about PL in a separate post if people (particularly those from
outside the U.S.) are curious. In brief, it was founded in the
early 1960s as a left split from the Communist Party U.S.A., with
its base mainly among union activists. During the 1960s it played
a prominent role in the anti-war and student movements. Because
they were rooted in marxist-leninist "deviations" which predated
the Sino-Soviet split, PL was successfully baited for being
insufficiently sycophantic toward the Chinese and Vietnamese
leaderships, black nationalism, etc. Over the past 25 years, the
party has more and more turned into a classic communist sect of
the pre-marxist variety. Their paper is prone to headlines like
"Workers Want Communism", and they are explicitly opposed to any
transitional state of "socialism" on the road to communism. They
are, I think, actually recruiting and growing, although I suspect
the turnover rate is very high.

This excerpt also, of course, gives a clue into PL's internal
processes.

*****

HOW WE CHOOSE LEADERS

In communist society there won't be elections to choose leaders.
There will be only one party, because workers everywhere (unlike
the bosses) all have a common interest. This party will make and
carry out all policy decisions collectively, in a centralized
way. The choice of leaders -- both individuals and collectives --
will be made the same way it is in the Progressive Labor Party
today.

Like all decisions, assignments to leadership positions will be
made on the basis of politics, not popularity or chance. Everyone
is not the same: there is uneven development here, as everywhere
else. There are many different tasks involved in building the
Party today. These will expand as the movement grows, and
especially after we take power. Not everyone will carry out all
of these tasks, but everyone will be encouraged to contribute as
best they can, according to their commitment to communism.

Leadership decisions will be based primarily on demonstrated
commitment and political skill, taking into account particular
strengths and weaknesses and the needs of the Party as a whole.
Who will decide these things? The existing leadership, based on
their own observations of the comrades in question, and on the
opinions of others who have worked with them.

Under capitalism and other forms of class society, those who
spend more years in school and who do better there are considered
to have greater "leadership potential." With few exceptions, this
generally means people who come from wealthier families to begin
with.

Communists, in contrast, pay special attention to bringing
workers into leadership positions. Experience in the class
struggle, lifelong familiarity with the needs of the working
class, is far more important for those who would serve the people
than any amount of book-learning. Those workers most oppressed by
capitalism, black, latin and women workers, are especially chosen
to be developed as leaders because they bring with them the
experience of super-exploitation.

Communist leadership does not bring with it privilege and
prestige, as it does in capitalist and socialist societies. It
brings added responsibility. The responsibility of leading the
Party to put the needs of the working class, the fight for
communism, above all else.

(from _Challenge_, August 21, 1996)



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---