Suggestion for Discussion
Chris Faatz
to working on an FAQ, we try and get a *real* discussion going about some
stuff, such as the historical program of the FI.
I'd propose some of the following:
* What is the state of Trotskyism today in the United States? Why is it
in that state? What are some of the possible solutions to the problems
faced by people interested in revolutionary solutions to social problems?
* What constitutes a vanguard party? A vanguard organization? Is there,
or should there be, a difference between the way we approached such a
question in 1919 and the present?
* What role should revolutionary socialists play in the mass movements?
What about electorally?
* What about the transitional program? The transitional method? Is there
a difference between the two?
That's just for starters, and is admittedly quite broad. I'd also like to
suggest: no flaming, just comradely discourse; ignoring red-baiting and
provocations; an openness to listen to the experiences of the people
taking part in this discussion (should it actually pan out).
Chris
--
cfa...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
Chris Faatz
: I'm not sure what you mean by granting full civil rights to all political
: minorities. If the revolution is to be successful, the capitalists must
: immediately be repressed. All their bank accounts must be destroyed, much
: of their property must be confiscated, and they must be made to work like
: everyone else. Certainly they will see this as a violation of their rights,
: whereas the rest of the population will see this as justice being served
: (if they have been educated).
I'd say that as long as erstwhile capitalists operate within the constraints
imposed by socialist legality, then they are as free to organize and to
propagandize for their ideas as anyone else. It's when they resort to
subterfuge and out-and-out military resistance that the people should
respond in accordance.
I hate to quote from "sacred scripture," but this newsgroup's sent me back
to some of my favorite books. This is from Cannon's _Socialism on
Trial_:
Q: Define the term "dictatorship of the proletariat."
A: "DotP" is Marx's definition of the state that will be in operation in the
transition period between the overthrow of capitalism and the instititution
of the socialist society. That is, the workers' and farmers' government will,
in the opinion of the Marxists, be a class dictatorship in that it will
frankly represent the workers and farmers, and will not even pretend to
represent the economic interests of the capitalists.
Q: What form will that dictatorship take with reference to the capitalist
class?
A: Well, you mean, what would be the attitude toward the dispossessed
capitalists?
Q: Yes, how will it exercise its dictatorship over the capitalist class?
A: That depends on a number of conditions. There is no fixed rule. It
depends on a number of conditions, the most important of which is the wealth
and resources of the given country where the revolution takes place; and
the second is the attitude of the capitalist class, whether the capitalists
reconcile themselves to the new regime or take up an armed struggle against
it.
Q: What is the difference between the scientific definition of dotp and the
ordinary use of the word dictatorship?
A: Well, the popular impression of dictatorship is a one-man rule, an
absolutism. I think that is the popular understanding of the word
dictatorship. This is not contemplated at all in the Marxian term dotp.
This means the dictatorship of a class.
Q: And how will the dotp operate insofar as democratic rights are concerned?
A: We think it will be the most democratic government from the point of
view of the great masses of the people that has ever existed, far more
democratic, in the real essence of the matter, than the present bourgeois
democracy in the United States.
Q: What about freedom of speech and all the freedoms that we generally
associate with democratic government?
A: *I think in the United States you can say with absolute certainty that
the freedoms of speech, press, assemblage, religion, will be written in
the program of the victorious revolution.*
[My emphasis]
I see no contradictioin between that line and the one that you put forth.
Bob John
> This trotskyism discussion is pretty pathetic. How about if, in addition
> to working on an FAQ, we try and get a *real* discussion going about some
> stuff, such as the historical program of the FI.
This seems a good idea. I was beginning to think I should forget this newsgroup.
>
> I'd propose some of the following:
>
> * What is the state of Trotskyism today in the United States? Why is it
> in that state? What are some of the possible solutions to the problems
> faced by people interested in revolutionary solutions to social problems?
>
I'd be interested in reading this but as a British Trotskyist I would also like the discussion to open up a bit which makes your suggestions that follow more relevant.
> * What constitutes a vanguard party? A vanguard organization? Is there,
> or should there be, a difference between the way we approached such a
> question in 1919 and the present?
>
> * What role should revolutionary socialists play in the mass movements?
> What about electorally?
This debate is very apparent in Britain and splits the revolutionary groupings. The SWP, Militant and others all work outside the LAbour Party and Socialist Appeal, Socialist Outlook and others are active inside.
Nik Sydor Estable
I guess that, so long as luxury was kept in extreme moderation and
regulation, nothing much would come of someone trying to purchase the labour
of another with their luxuries so long as they could not obtain the means
of production. Also, if people were to be educated to find exploitation and
inequality abhorrent, maybe they wouldn't accept the luxury offered them by
a potential exploiter.
Nik Sydor Estable
can have access to in the way of luxuries. This is why I propose some
sort of a points system, with everyone getting the same number of non-
transferable points with which to gain access to luxuries.
Should anyone be found not fulfilling their duties to the society
(ex. not working to the best of their ability), then their luxuries could
be (or their right to the use of non-essential items) could be withdrawn,
expropriated.
Which brings up another point, what are we to do with those who will not
perform their duties to society? (Lenin did propose that socialism would
breed a new type of person, more socially responsible and not greedy, but
there are exceptions to every rule.) I would have to say some sort of
re-education camp would be the solution, where those who refused to work
could be taught the value of hard work through hands on experience
(ex. they are given wheat seeds and instruction on how to grow wheat and
make bread, as well as all the necessary implements, and are told that they
are now on their own so far as obtaining food goes. I think this would
probably teach them very well the value of hard work, and also help them
to adopt a more fraternal, collective attitude towards life.)
Anyways, this is what I propose. Any difference of opinion will be welcomed.
Nik Sydor Estable
collective would be enough to encourage someone to fulfill their duties
to society. But if someone is bent on leeching from the society, something
must be done. The collective could stop providing for the potential leecher,
and certainly this would encourage them to fulfill their duties.
One cannot expect everyone to accept socialism. Especially among the
bourgeoisie, there will be strong opposition to socialism. Therefore, if
the majority of people support, for example, the collectivization of labour
in factories, and the minority of the people (the bourgeoisie) opposes it,
as they will lose much of their power, then one _must_ use the proletarian
state apparatus to _force_ these people to relinquish their posts of authority,
in effect _forcing_ socialism upon them. If these people then refuse to do
their part for society, as they probably will, then something must be done
about this.
Nik Sydor Estable
Let me then refrase my question: how does one deal with criminals? And
this is where, I beleive, the education camps, etc. come in.
Scott Solomon
Chris Faatz <cfa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Nik Sydor Estable (bk...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: You write that they must be dealt with as the criminals they are.
>: Let me then refrase my question: how does one deal with criminals? And
>: this is where, I beleive, the education camps, etc. come in.
>
>Okay, Nik, say you're right (and I don't necessarily do so, as you've
>probably guessed). How, then, does such an "education camp" run? Who
>determines policy? Who controls what happens there? Is it truly for
>education, or is it simply an expedient means to remove dissenters from
>the streets?
>
>Anyone else care to jump into this fracas?
>
>Chris
Promoting the idea of 'reeducation camps' I can't agree with, especially
given the history of this 'term'.
Any socialist government (esp. if it were to take power in an advance
capitalist country) would have to be judged on very pragmatic terms.
Meaning . . . it would have to reduce the number of people in the
prison system (esp. in the U.S.). Also, prison conditions would have
to be vastly improved.