Apology to Chris W. for outburst

["Jose G. Perez" <jose_g_perez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote in a previous post to Chris W.:

> The short answer to your question about why anarchists and so on... is
that
> you are a petty-bourgeois state-worshipping philistine

Having dashed this off this morning on perhaps a little less sleep than I
should get, I would like to apologize to Chris W. and those who agree with
him for this bit of uncalled for vituperation.

I do consider Chris to be espousing a petite-bourgeois position on this one
point; however that is no reason to descend to ad-hominem attack, which cuts
across the possibility of having a reasoned discussion, however deeply felt
the positions might be on either side.

Jose

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose G. Perez" <jose_g_perez@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Chris "Tory concept of voluntary elections"


> >>we compel people to wear seat belts, pay taxes, do jury service, have
> licences, not smoke, not sell drugs, not bring live animals into
quarantine
> areas, return library books, use passports, and to participate in
elections.
> Why is it the bourgeoisie want compulsory law, police, taxes, conscription
> but voluntary elections??
>
> >>Why do anarchists want voluntary elections even under states with
> compulsory traffic and compulsory public health laws?? <<
>
> The short answer to your question about why anarchists and so on... is
that
> you are a petty-bourgeois state-worshipping philistine and thus are unable
> to understand that the fundamental attitude of revolutionary Marxism and
of
> anarchism towards the bourgeois state in imperialist countries IS THE
SAME.
>
> The ONLY fundamental difference is that, AFTER smashing the bourgeois
state,
> Marxists understand that the proletariat must create ITS OWN state. The
> essence of the new proletarian state, like all states before it,  is to
> repress and hold down the enemy classes. Except that this time it will be
> the majority holding down a minority.
>
> "We" most definitely do NOT "compel" people "to wear seat belts, pay
taxes,
> do jury services, have licenses, not smoke, not sell drugs," etc. It is
the
> bourgeoisie that does this,  through repressive forces of THEIR State.
Even
> behind the most innocuous and common-sensical traffic rule stands the
state
> monopoly of violence, which is exercised permanently against working
people,
> and which is so structured as to be an instrument of class rule,
oppression
> and exploitation, and only incidentally and by accident does it serve as
an
> instrument for maintaining civility in society.
>
> You think it isn't possible for a "democratic State" to perdure forever
> without compulsory voting. I would go further: it is impossible for there
to
> be ANY democracy FOR THE EXPLOITED MAJORITY under capitalism. Democracy,
> like everything else, is a class question. Democracy in ancient Greece was
> democracy FOR THE SLAVEOWNERS. For the slaves, it was the dictatorship of
> the slaveowners. Modern bourgeois democracy is democracy for the
> bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of capital for the masses.
>
> But even beyond that, it is impossible for there to be true freedom AS
LONG
> AS the state exists. The purpose of the State is NOT to provide freedom,
but
> repression, including the proletarian state. As long as the proletariat
> needs a state, it is an indication that it has not yet fulfilled its
> historic destiny as a class, which is the abolition of all classes and
class
> antagonisms, and the state these give rise to.
>
> Your quip about us anti-statists going to some anarchist list is entirely
> misdirected. I suggest you take a look at Lenin's "State and Revolution"
or
> Marx and Engels's "Critique of the Gotha Program" and try to explain how
> support for bourgeois compulsion and repression --which is in reality what
> you are advocating-- fits in with the positions expressed there.
>
> José
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <abc170@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 10:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Chris "Tory concept of voluntary elections"
>
>
> >
> > There may be some misconception here.
> >
> > Firstly as I explained Australia does not have compulsory voting - all
you
> need to do is have your name crossed off a roll by a number of methods I
> indicated.
> >
> > If you don't get your name crossed off you are liable to a small fine.
> You don't get fined for not returning your paper, though once you are in
the
> booth everyone does.
> >
> > People who want to bring in limited voting oe qualified voting or
> voluntary voting try to create political space for their destructive urges
> by using bourgeois scare words like "compulsion".
> >
> > I do not look at the issue on the basis of any dichotomy between
voluntary
> (soft and nice) and compulsion (hard and nasty).  These techniques are
used
> by, for example, the CIA to disrupt discussion and are based on CIA
research
> work done on the so called "semantic differential' by Charles Osgood.
> >
> > By using such language people actually try to coerce readers into an
> arbitary position.
> >
> > The point is not therefore gratuitous questions about whether I support
> any step to compel people?  This is irrelevant, and leads on and on into
all
> sorts of tangles - we compel people to wear seat belts, pay taxes, do jury
> service, have licences, not smoke, not sell drugs, not bring live animals
> into quarantine areas, return library books, use passports, and to
> participate in elections.  Why is it the bourgeoisie want compulsory law,
> police, taxes, conscription but voluntary elections??  Why do anarchists
> want voluntary elections even under states with compulsory traffic and
> compulsory public health laws??
> >
> > I cannot follow their logic.
> >
> > I think Bertold Brecht said it nicely - "wouldn't it be easier for the
> parliament to dismiss the people and elect another".
> >
> > Non-voluntary elections by themselves also need other structural
elements
> (secret ballot, no qualification, paid representatives and etc).  The
actual
> ballot is only one element.
> >
> > It is possible for a democratic State to exist for a period wherein
> voluntary elections may suffice, but not in the long run.  I wouldn't be
too
> blinded by any supposed success in Cuba - things do change, and I have sat
> in meetings in Belgrade and Moscow hearing LCY and CPSU telling how they
> were dealing with this ot that problem, and look what happened.  If it is
> true that Cuban's have stated what Paul claims, I would like to see the
> evidence.
> >
> > So if someone dares to imply that I think it is ok to compel workers to
> the ballot box - they had better review their own statements.
> >
> > It would be good too if those pushing this voluntary Tory-anarchist
line,
> tried to provide some basis in Marxism.
> >
> > Otherwise they should be posting on some other list.
> >
> > Chris W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Thu, 10 February 2000, Paul.Benedek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > X-Server-Uuid: ec6a4942-7915-11d2-af8e-00a0c956ef42
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > Sender: owner-marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Delivered-To: cswebmail.com%abc170@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Received: (cpmta 22585 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2000
16:59:15 -0800
> > > from dont.panix.com (166.84.0.211)
> > > by smtp.c014.sfo.cp.net with SMTP; 10 Feb 2000 16:59:15 -0800
> > > from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
> > > by dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.6) id TAA20801
> > > for marxism-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:32:45 -0500 (EST)
> > > from aupozx665.btal.com.au (firewall-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [203.10.111.3])
> > > by dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.6) with ESMTP id TAA20796
> > > for <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:32:42 -0500 (EST)
> > > by aupozx665.btal.com.au; id LAA22351; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:27:02 +1100
> (EST)
> > > from aupoza424.btal.btco.com(160.83.234.36) by aupozx665.btal.com.au
via
> smap (V4.2)
> > > id xma022256; Fri, 11 Feb 00 11:26:19 +1100
> > > from 160.83.224.253 by aupoza424.btal.btco.com with ESMTP (
> > > WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v3.2 SR1); Fri, 11 Feb 00 11:26:18
> > > +1100
> > > by aupoza440.btal.btco.com with Internet Mail Service (
> > > 5.5.2448.0) id <13RB43MM>; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:26:18 +1100
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > charset=iso-8859-1
> > > Content-Length: 8989
> > > X-Received: 11 Feb 2000 00:59:15 GMT
> > > Precedence: bulk
> > > Subject: RE: Chris "Tory concept of voluntary elections"
> > > From: Paul.Benedek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Return-Path: <owner-marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > X-WSS-Id: 14BD88A0489371-01-02
> > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:26:15 +1100
> > > Message-Id:
> <F882D2CD86DED211BD1900805F8B329C035CBA52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
> > >
> > > Chris has an interesting position here:
> > > He totally opposes voluntary elections (because they lead us away from
> universal suffrage); yet he believes we should not counterpose voluntary
> elections with compulsory voting.
> > >
> > > So, concretely, what is his position? Does he OPPOSE ANY STATE MEASURE
> TO COMPEL people (on pain of penalty, fine, etc) to vote?
> > >
> > > It appears not, for Chris implies agreement with the Australian system
> of "The requirement is for every citizen to deal with their right to vote
so
> noone else can impersonate them."
> > >
> > > Thus Chris seems to think some compulsion is OK - its OK to force
> working people to the ballot box, but not to make them vote for anyone (as
> stated previously, AUstralian laws, while allowing millions to be spent on
> encouraging working people to vote for this or that tyrant to rule over
> them, DISALLOWS people to CAMPAIGN for an informal vote. Thus, while
> dissillussionment with elections is very high, probably similar to the US,
> relatively few people cast an informal vote).
> > >
> > > The 'requirement' that Chris supports (it is actually compulsion, as
> those failing to do so face fines and more) has NOTHING TO DO WITH
> preventing people from being impersonated - electoral security is terribly
> weak because no-one gets very excited about such a sham event - voters
need
> not show any ID or anything, they just need to know a name.
> > >
> > > No, the idea that electoral security is what compulsory voting is
about
> is a bourgoise lie. (As an aside, such a system IS COMPULSORY VOTING, even
> if blank ballots are allowed - returning a folded blank paper IS a vote, a
> vote for no candidate - totally legitimate). In reality, this compulsion
is
> used to FORCE, to ADMINISTRATIVELY INSURE a pretence of "universal
> suffrage", of genuine "democracy", masking the reality (which CANNOT BE
> MASKED IN A PLACE LIKE THE USA) that most people are totally
disenfranchised
> by this democratic show.
> > >
> > > Chris believes voluntary voting in Cuba is a fatal flaw. The Cuban
> revolutionaries, unlike Chris, do not believe that ADMINISTRATIVE,
> COMPULSORY measures should substitute for POLITICALLY convincing the Cuban
> people, raising the political consciousness, and providing the material
> benefit (ie the Cuban people SEE IN PRACTICE that their vote means
> something - they see their representatives work and put the decisions that
> the majority determine - if their rep doesn't do that, they can be
recalled,
> because they are accountable). Having voluntary elections means that the
> Cuban leadership can test the politicisation of the people - if elections
> were compulsory the leadership would not get any indication.
> > >
> > > Chris wants modern Marxism to "recognise and strucually implement true
> Universal suffrage"
> > > So do I. The only problem here is that we DO NOT LIVE UNDER a modern
> Marxist state in Aust., the USA, Argentine, etc. We live under bourgoise
> states, and we sure as hell shouldn't give them the right to compel us,
and
> all working people, to vote in THEIR elections.
> > >
> > > comradely,
> > > Paul
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: abc170@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:abc170@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday,10 February 2000 17:04
> > > To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: Chris "Tory concept of voluntary elections"
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________
> > The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
> >  Better!  Faster! More Powerful!
> >  250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
> >  http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com