AUT: Re: Re: SPGB's parliamentary cretinism

["Chris Wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed a bit bald.  I can't help but think that the military question gets
treated too lightly in many conceptions, and yet, the issue is not taking
power or smashing the state as if it were some object or instrument that
could be smashed.  I don't have a good answer, except to say that a workers'
state in the sense used by post-Marx Marxism isn't what we should be talking
about.  We have to go back to the Paris Commune and other revolutionary
uphevals and start over.  Maybe the problem is that we lack examples because
failed revolutions necessarily revert to capitalist power and capitalist
states.

I don;t claim to have an answer and i don;t think we will have one.  I do
think that the notion of 'taking state power' or building a workers' state
in the old sense of the term have to be scrapped.  Hmm...

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: 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?
> Tahir
>
> >>> cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 02/13 6:49 AM >>>
> Ah, but exactly what most of the people on this list disagree with is the
> idea of taking over the state.  That assumes the state is a neutral
> instrument that can be wielded by the working class.  The state is as much
a
> social relation as capital is, a specific product of the capital-labor
> relation which has no existence separate from capitalist exploitation.  as
> such, taking over the state equals some statist form of capitalism, not
> communism, and logically leads to counterrevolution.
>
> My two bits,
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Watkins" <stuart_pauluk@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:41 AM
> Subject: AUT: SPGB's parliamentary cretinism
>
>
> > Hello all, esp Neil,
> >
> > Although it would be true to say that some/many
> > members of the SPGB have taken the view that socialism
> > will come "through parliament" ie a majority of MPs,
> > passing legislation, etc, the organisation itself is
> > only committed (to quote its declaration of
> > principles) to organising consciously and politically
> > for the conquest of the powers of government.
> >
> > I tend to agree that this could just as well be
> > achieved through soviets, etc. It's just a practical
> > question, depending on circumstances, not one of
> > principle.
> >
> > Comradely,
> > Stuart
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> > a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> >      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---