Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state redux & socialism



I am aware that during a revolution the ethics of something like just war
and not the normal rules of democracy apply. But Tony collapses into this
revolutionary situation the more normal political processes of the
postrevolutionary workers' state, generally identified as the government
under socialism. That is something I think will last for generations if
indeed it can ever be dispensed with: in fact; I have argued that
somethimg like it cannot be dispensed with even under communism, if a
situation can be called communist where there is a state. But set the
issue of the transition from socialism to communism aside for a moment.

Tony and some others, like Adam, seem to think that the defense of the
revolution after it has been achieved requires the destruction of liberal
democracy, in fact the destruction of what is normall called democracy
period. What indeed do you call a society where undefined sectors of the
population have been deprived of all rights, including the right to vote,
on the basis of vague determinations about their membership in
no-longer-existing social groups? Not a democratic one, for sure. But this
is a guarantee that the society will come to be ruled by a police
bureaucracy that claims to act in the name of the workers. The alternative
solution, to have a real democracy with the institutions of liberal
democratic rule and fair laws prohibiting individuyals from precisely
defined acts of violent terrorism is far preferable.

Tony repeats the tired on myth that Lenin replaced liberal democracy with
a soviet democracy. That's rubbish. Despite protestations that soviet
democraccy was his aim, Lenin replaced an extremely stunted and limited
hint at liberal democracy with the dictatorship of a single party. AT least
he, unlike Tony, was quite honest about this. What resulted was only
"democratic" in comparison to  what came after in the totalitarianism of
Stalin. It was not workers' rule; Lenin in fact crushed any attempts of
the Soviets to act as independent institutions. It was not democratic.
Whether it was necessary during the civil war or not, Lenin took no steps
away from it after the end of the war. Although I do not believe that
Leninism leads inevitability to Stalinism, Lenin's policies in powers
certainly set the stage for Stalinism and made its ascension easier. Even
if it had not it would not have been acceptable after the war emergency.

As to communism, that's a different story. I do not believe in thre
possibility of a stateless, totally nonmarket society, so I guess I am not
a communist in that sense. But I have argued that even in a totally
planned society classless society where abundance obtains we will still
need a state. 

--Justin

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Hartin, Tony wrote:

> This discussion seems to be going around in circles. On one hand Justin says 
> he just talking about the period of communism, i.e. after the transitional 
> workers state period. On the other hand Justin seems to be saying that it is 
> the worker's state itself that will make communism impossible because of the 
> undemocratic measures (in terms of the dispossed bourgeoisie) that will be 
> necessary.
> 
> I suspect the latter is Justin's position, so I suggest he stop pretending 
> he is talking about Communism, or make himself clearer.
> 
> As Marx pointed out, a revolution is just about the most undemocratic event 
> that can happen. And it won't be a matter of a 24 hour uprising and then 
> back to liberal democracy, this time without capitalism. Justin, the workers 
> state period will probably last at least a generation after workers have 
> taken power internationally.
> 
> A nice liberal democracy is not possible until the bullies and monsters 
> (read ruling class) are rendered powerless without the possibility of 
> seizing back control. Not all ends are achieved with the same means. A harsh 
> situation will require some harsh measures, like imprisonment, censorship or 
> even executions.
> 
> Soon after the October revolution the bolsheviks decided to ignore the 
> democratically elected constituent assembly (or whatever it was called) in 
> favour of the Soviets, and they were right to do so. Liberal Democracy is 
> not some IDEA that can be applied regardless of the reality of the 
> situation.
> 
> Tony hartin 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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