Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> I'd like to think it's realistic to
> say that the goal of socialists is to form an opposition movement *outside
> of government* in order to build toward majoritarian support. This means
> rejecting Luxemburgist "mass strike" schemes, the Trotskyist "transitional
> program" to the left and social democratic coalitionist strategists to the
> right, which are all basically "get rich quick schemes."
This is far too vague. It isn't even clear what you mean by "outside of government." What does it mean to be "in governmentd"?
Either you are repeating pale commonplaces in weird language or you haven't thought through, _at all_, your idea of a movement. Probably the latter, because it's pretty confused, in 2010, to pause in a relatively brief post to argue with Luxemburg, Trotsky, and "social democratic coalitionist strategists ." Are you merely echoing, without digesting and making your own, the manifesto of some hole-in-the-corner sect? Who among your readers has been pushing these strategies? And since when are coalitions by definition social-democratic. The soul of the original social democracy (2d International) is _precisely_ what you advocate here: achieving a majority! That was probably one of the weaknesses in Luxemburg's thought, though as I learn more about her I find more and more to admire.
> Socialists would
> form the opposition in parliament, build organs of the class struggle and a
> counter-hegemonic movement from below, but would never assume that they can
> take hold and use the existing state (Lenin's *State and Revolution* was
> quite good on this point).
I guess you are echoing some manifesto you don't really understand yourself. This is utterly empty. Lening argued that a socialist revolution had to build its own state; he said _notthng_ one way or the other about 'using'electoral 'control' of the current state as one element in the struggle against it. Have you ever heard of dual power? That's what characterizes Venezuela: Chavez's movement 'controls' the state machinery but _not_ most of the powers of the state beccause so much remains outside its control. Cf. a partially liberated zone in which the guerillas control at night but have to flee whenever state forces near. As I suggested in an earlier post, it is an empirical question, not subject to theoretical judgment, as to whether the Chavez movement can survive until revolutions occur elsewhere. Were it to seize state power now (it only has governmental power) it couldn't hold it! Dual power pending developments in other states.
(Incidentally, "in parliament"? This doesn't apply to any western hemisphere nation except Canada. They all have divided executive and legislature. What shoudl socialists do in Mexico, the U.S., Argentina? Moreover, in parliamentary regimes, Parliament _is_ government: to participate in it _is_ to be "in" government.)
> To govern the capitalist state is to serve
> capital, whatever your intentions.
As an empirical projection, this is probably true. As a theoretical proposition intneded to hold under all condtions (and that's what it _means_ to be a theoretical proposition) it is nonsense.
I grow bored. Remainder clipped. Try to write something mroe concrete and there may be something to discuss.
Carrol