[WS:] I think we have very different concepts of "democracy." To me, what matters is not conception, but execution. That is, it does not matter how the government comes to power, but how well it provides for individual and collective needs of the great majority of the population. That means that a hereditary monarchy can conceivably be more democratic than an elected parliament. From that point of view, electioneering in itself is a rather meaningless ritual desinged to create an illusion of legitimacy - and it does not matter much if it does not translate into conrete policies that create good material living conditions for the great majority of the population.
In other words, I would not think twice to give up my right to vote for universal health care and a generous welfare system. The so called 'freedom of choice" is a ruse, smoke and mirror devised by bourgeois propagandists to rob the working class of tangible goods and give them intangible "benefits" in return. Not much different than "salvation" offered to the wretched of the earth by the priestly class.
>From that point of view, you need a strong instituion that can enforce
redistributive policies as well as rights (i.e positive rights, as there is
no such thing as a negative right such as "freedom from" - it is always the
"capacity to".) Afaik, the state is only institution that is capable of
doing that. Without such an instituion any society, no matter how
egalitarian, would almost certainly quickly be hijacked by warlords,
profiteers, priests and assorted demagogues manipulating the masses to their
own benefit (Hobbes had this one right.) Of course, there is no gurantee
that the state can always prevent such hijacking, but at least it creates a
possibility. Without a state no such possibility exists.
Otoh, if you do not care that much about material benefits and prefer instead intangible one, such as "freedom" or the right to sleep under the bridge (was it Churchill who equated democracy with that right?) - then of course the state will always be represented by a policeman who by definition denies you that that right or that "fredom" (whatever that is.)
But then, our discussion is like one between a priest (you) and a sibarite (me) who does not give a flying fuck about immaterial rewards in the afterlife and kindred nonsense, and who prefers good life - meaning good food, safe shelter, friendly people around, absence of pain and physical comfort here and now to all abstractions that the human mind can possibly create.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
> Wojtek writes:,
>
> I have some difficulty following your argument. On the one hand, you seem
>> to recognize the crucial importance of political institutions, esp. th
>> estate in shaping class relations, but on th eother hand you seem to fall
>> into the old leftist fallacy of the state being the key factor, if not the
>> source of the class society.
>>
>
> I subscribe to the historical materialist view that the state arises out of
> class society and that it's character has evolved in conjuction with
> changes
> in the underlying system of class relations rather than the other way
> round.
> This doesn't preclude the state from necessarily exercising some autonomy
> from the ruling class in order to maintain the cohesion and authority of
> the
> latter. In periods of rapid change and great social turbulence, it can be
> called upon to exercise a high degree of autonomy, the fascist and
> Stalinist
> states being outstanding contemporary examples. But ultimately the state
> acts as the instrument, the executive committee, of the ruling class.
>
> I think that this anti-statism of a large segment of the left is the main
>> source of its political marginalization and irrelevance. They just do not
>> get it how important the state is for their cause.
>>
>
> The anarchists are proudly anti-statist and some leftist intellectuals and
> activists don't appreciate how much in common they have with that
> tradition.
>
> ...the state is
>> a moderator of those relations that makes it possible, under certain
>> conditions, for the subordinate class to have some power vis a vis the
>> upper
>> class. Or putting it differently, the stronger the state, the more power
>> the subordinate class has (or perhaps can have) vis a vis the upper class,
>> the weaker the state the more power the upper class has and the greater
>> opportunity to directly exploit the subordinate class.
>>
>
> This turns things on their head. Strong states are, by definition, those
> where democratic rights don't exist and social movements and dissenting
> individuals are surpressed and forced underground, where they are required
> to struggle for the establishment or restoration of those rights. The logic
> of the position you express is that the left in the advanced capitalist
> countries should fight for the abolition of democratic rights and
> institutions on grounds that "the stronger the state, the more power the
> subordinate class has (or perhaps can have) vis a vis the upper class." You
> surely don't beleive that.
>
> Of course, there has been exceptions, such as the fascist state of
>> Germany...
>>
>
> The rule, not the exception. See above.
>
> but it is also worth pointing out that fascism-like rule was more
>> prevalent
>> in countries where state was relatively weak vis a vis the upper classes,
>> especially landowners, cf. Spain, Italy, Chile or Argentina.
>>
>
> The fascist state was created by the Spanish, Italian, Chilean, and
> Argentinian landowners and capitalists, who correctly perceived that the
> parliamentary democratic form was too weak to protect their interests
> against rapidly developing mass movements from below.
>
> Otoh, Sweden,
>
>> the paragon of social democracy and arguably the closest thing to real
>> socialism that we ever had, had a strong monarchy and thereafter the state
>> and a weak upper class.
>>
>
> "Socialism" means different things to different people - an advanced
> welfare
> capitalist state to some, the replacement of the capitalist state to
> others - which has influenced how much historical significance each has
> attached to Sweden and social democratic parties as agents of change.
>
> To reiterate - a strong state is the only hope of achieving social
>> democracy
>> (if not socialism), whereas a weak state means more power to bourgeoisie
>> and
>> more opportunity to directly exploit the working class.
>>
>
> Sorry, Woj. I insist you've got it ass backwards.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>