>
>At 1:05 PM +0000 27/9/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >He,a nd all the withering-away-of-the-state Marxists (obviously he's not
>one of them) are mistaken about socialsim being able to dispense with law
>and the state, but that is another story. jks
>
>The state is indispensable to class society, but by the same token it is
>incompatible with a classless society. This is not to support the concept
>of the state withering away under socialism though, socialism is a
>class-less society, so the existence of a political state demonstrates
>conclusively that the society is not socialist.
>
>Socialism is not anarchy, socialism is government of the economy by the
>people, for the people. As distinct from political government - government
>of the people (by the people, for the people in its democratic
>manifestation.) In a capitalist society political government is associated
>with economic anarchy, a socialist society OTOH is exactly the opposite -
>economic government, political anarchy.
>
>What few people seem to be able to grasp about socialism is that economic
>democracy necessitates freedom from political government. It is a crucial
>foundation, not an optional extra.
>
>Universal, unconditional personal economic security is absolute vital for
>an economic democracy to function. Each member of society needs to be able
>to speak with absolute freedom, without fear of political, or especially
>economic, repercussions. All people need to be able to engage freely and
>voluntarily in the socialised means of production. So long as there is the
>slightest possibility of some people gaining power over others, such a
>society would be corrupted. Many will be afraid to speak out freely about
>problems, for fear of offending those in power. Those who have power would
>inevitably seek to use economic means to coerce others to support this or
>that political decision. By definition, political government is about
>controlling people. People subject to the control of others cannot at the
>same time be considered autonomous citizens in a democracy.
>
>Those who have political power over the means of production must logically
>be considered a separate economic class to the people who do not have such
>power and would inevitably be the subjects of those who control their
>livelihood and thus their votes.
>
>In short, power corrupts. Those who have class power have never and will
>never voluntarily relinquish it. To assert that it would "wither away" is
>laughably optimistic.
>
>Those who advocate political socialism, on the other hand, proclaim the
>possibility a form of class society which retains a ruling political class.
>It makes no sense at all if you look at it closely, in fact it is apparent
>that both of these concepts amount to the same thing in practice. The only
>difference is that the "wither away" crowd are making the false promise
>that it might only be temporary. The political socialists are having none
>of that, they insist that the political elite could and should will rule us
>forever.
>
>Capitalism is preferable to either of these forms of "socialism". Ecomonic
>anarchy under capitalism at least preserves us from totalitarianism.
>Mostly.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com