[OPE-L] the state, self-defense, and power

[Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx]

>  [...] --- what are you going to do about capitalist power--

> police, army, courts, etc if you renounce the idea of taking

> power (which means taking power away from them)?

 

 

Michael L,

 

The police and army can be won over to the side of the revolution

or, if necessary,  involuntarily disarmed by the people without "seizing

state power".    There can be workers' councils (such as Soviets) which

are popularly elected and represent workers.  Perhaps, also, there

can be "autonomous zones" outside of the control of the state.

I know of no tendency on the Left that it opposed to the principles

of *self-defense* and *collective organization*.   Should the working

class be attacked, they have every right to defend themselves,

their organizations, and their autonomy.   Without the armed might

of the police and the military, whatever orders issued by the courts

lack muscle.  Indeed, if  the courts were to issue orders to the police

or military etc. which they refused to obey (for example after appeals

from workers'  organizations) then that would demonstrate to all that

they know longer can maintain power.

 

The power that the capitalist state has ultimately comes from capital.  One

doesn't have to "seize the state" to expropriate capitalist property and

power.  Workers can do it themselves and, again, if they are attacked

they can organize to defend themselves.  Similarly land reform can

happen without the initiative of the state (as it did in 1917 when the

peasants themselves,  without 'permission' from the Bolsheviks) seized

the holdings of many of the large private landowners.

 

To quibble a bit with the title of John's book:  one can take and make 

power without seizing  _state_ power.  The Zapatistas in Chiapas truly

have power even though they don't have state power, don't they?  The

Soviets had power before they were disbanded, didn't they?   Isn't the

identification of power with state power (i.e. that the only legitimate

claim to power is by the state)  the state perspective on power? 

 

In solidarity, Jerry

 

PS:

> If there are matters of theory which separate us, [Mike L and John H] 

> let's battle them out in HM where there's the opportunity to develop

> arguments rather than soundbytes.

 

Taking into consideration how quickly _HM_ can and will  print such an exchange

and allowing for a back-and-forth exchange of perhaps 3 contributions each,

there could well be either global socialism by that time or human

extinction.  In either event, that would make such an exchange moot.

Expressing the matter in less of a tongue-in-cheek fashion:  *If* you think that

these issues are important *now*,  the Internet is the best medium for such an

exchange, imo.