Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 09:45:40 GMT
Subject: Re: the state redux & socialism



Justin,

Sarcasm is all very well. But you defended liberal democracy.
I pointed out that as far as I was concerned, liberal democracy 
is a particular mechanism for depriving workers of their rights,
in fact the most advanced of such mechanisms, the one which deprives
workers of their rights the most effectively.

I argued that a state is essentially armed bodies of men, and that
the purpose of a state is to enforce the rights of one class precisely
by taking away the rights of another class.

A capitalist state, liberal democratic or not, defends the right of the
capitalist to make profits by taking away our right to strike, by busing
in scabs etc etc.

A workers state only makes sense as a set of institutions which exist in
order to take away the rights of the capitalists. As far as it succeeds,
it undermines its reason for existence. A workers state will take away
capitalists' "civil rights" so that workers can have "civil rights".

To talk as if "civil rights" should apply to anyone, whether they are
cleaner or a newspaper owner, is an abstract mystification. But not
only this, it is precisely the ideological cover that the capitalists
will use in a revolutionary situation. They're not going to say "we
need a counter revolution in order to restore bourgeois dictatoship,
democratic or not". They're going to say "changes should be made which
guarantee our civil rights". 

It seems you are either going to be consistent, and agree with them, or be
inconsistent, and disagree. Which you do is up to you. But the ideas you
put forward at the moment are of no use in dealing with the situations
which have arisen and will arise again.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


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