<HTML>Joe-- I'm glad we're having this conversation.... Joe wrote: > "The seizure of state power by a minority is the logical outcome of an > attempt to establish a worker's state since the state is an organ for > the domination of the majority by a minority." David wrote: > I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this dogmatic assertion. This is the > assertion shared by Stalin, too: That a minority seizure of power was > necessary, and is necessary for all socialism to exist. Joe writes: It was shared also by Lenin & Trotsky. I explained why the above assertion is true and why a "proletarian state" is a contradiction in terms (since there is no way for the proletariat maintain control of a state) on this list several days ago. If you disagree then refute it. David wrote: If one is to look solely at Russia, then of course what you are saying is true. But the Russian revolution just happened to be the first in what could have been a global tidal wave of Revolutions. Again and again, Lenin & Trotsky wrote-- and spoke in the Congresses of Soviets--  that the revolution in Russia would be a failure if it was not followed by revolutions in the developing countries. Lenin even went so far as to write in 1922: "When we began at the time we did the international revolution, we did this not with the conviction that we could anticipate its development, but because a whole series of circumstances impelled us to begin this revolution. Our thought was: Either the international revolution will come to our aid, and in that case our victories are wholly assured, or we will do our modest revolutionary work in the consciousness that in case of defeat we have nevertheless served the cause of the revolution, and our experiment will be of help to other revolutions. It was clear to us that without the support of the international world revolution a victory of the proletarian overturn was impossible. Even before the revolution, and likewise after it, our thought was: immediately, or at any rate very quickly, a revolution will begin in the other countries, in capitalistically more developed countries-- or in the contrary case we will have to perish." "Have to perish"! How different this was-- and is-- from Stalin's claims that the Russian revolution would triumph into socialism, maintaining itself because of its "internal strength"! Thus, Stalin wrote in the fall 1924: "Have consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society." And again in 1925:"If there is not confidence in the possibility of building socialism in our country, then the party must pass over from the position of a ruling, to that of an opposition party." I.e., there must be "confidence" in the fact that socialism can exist in one country! Thus, the Russian revolution possessed the political-- but not the economic-- means of socialism. <A HREF="mailto:Dddddd0814@aol.com%3FSubject=Re:%20war%20and%20the%20state">David </A>wrote: > Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you referred to >"authoritarian > socialism" above. Did you mean actual attempts at socialism or did you > just mean the notion of socialism in the abstract? Joe: I mean the notion that socialism should be achieved by seizing control of the state and using the state to abolish capitalism and establish socialism. This can be contrasted with libertarian socialism. David: So, in other words, you *were* referring to the economically less advanced countries. Okay. But the dogmatism that socialism can be achieved by a minority is only applicable to those countries that were less advanced, where there couldn't possibly be a mass movement for socialism, because the proletariat was not in the majority. David wrote: > And what did you mean by "Marxist-Leninism"? Joe: I mean the followers of Lenin. Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists and other proponets of the Vanguard party, "dictatorship of the proletariat", etc. David: Just so you know the history of the term, "Marxist-Leninism" was a word devised by Stalinists so they could pretend, in their revisionist manner to follow the non-existent behests of both. This was a sectarian attempt to divide themselves idealogically from those they labelled "Trotskyists," i.e., those who "betrayed" the revolution by asserting that it was not possible in Russia alone. This bit was, of course, picked up by the imperialists who also agreed that "Marxist-Leninism" was the most fully-realized expression of communism. But, I think that both Marxists and Anarchists alike see the swindle in this. > Joe: > Considering that the vast majority of real-life socialist societies have > been pre-industrial I think it's pretty absurd to claim that you must > have industrialization before you can have socialism. > > David: > But, what I am saying is that there have never been any "real-life > socialist societies." The Soviet Union was basically a state-capitalist > society. I do not agree with Stalin that the Soviet Union was truly > "socialist" in any sense of the term. Lenin said, and wrote over and > over again that socialism was impossible in one country. Joe: I'm not referring to state-capitalist countries like the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. but to the many indigenous socialist societies that have existed throughout history. The Iriquois are one example. David: ....what Marx referred to as "primitive communism". The question then becomes whether or not there is a fundamental difference between primitive societies and technologically advanced ones. Can technology be used in a truly democratic manner, "for the people," or must we regress to a pre-technological society? David wrote: > Anyway, I think what I was trying to say, from a socialist perspective, > was that "authority" necessarily has a class nature to it-- i.e., it is > not a classless term. Joe: Hiererchical authority in the economic sphere = class, yes. One can have authority in other spheres as well (reproductive hierarchy, or patriarchy, is an example). To abolish classes hierarchy in the economy must be abolished. David: Now we come back to agreement, which I thought we would. Now let's work on the character of the authority that actually exists on our society. As a Marxist, I submit that the fundamental character of authority in the 21st century is a class character: authority is determined by capitalism, the bourgeoisie. Best, David</HTML>