Date: Wed, 2 Oct 96 12:57:13 GMT
Subject: Re: the state redux & socialism



Justin writes:
>
> I had no hope of persuading the religious, but I was hoping that, as
> happened sometimes in the market socialism discussion, either someone
> would make some good objections that would make me think, or the
> discussion would draw in some others, as well as illuminating concerns for
> lurkers who didn't want to participate. Well, maybe it did the last, but
> for the rest, it didn't happen.
> 
> Signing off this thread.
> 

As far as I am concerned, there is no more important debate than State
+ Revolution. It is the "mother of all debates" , to coin a phrase.
Everything is subordinate to this debate. The ultimate test, the only
important test, of revolutionary individuals, ideas, and parties, is
how they measure up to the test of the revolution itself.

[ To take one example, if you think that a state is necessary because
there will still be rapists under communism, this must logically be
linked to seeing the cause of rape + women's oppression as being
something other than class society, which  has consequences for the
way you choose to organise against women's oppression here + now.
Or, the view that a workers state consists of something other than
a workers councils etc is usually linked to the idea that the USSR
etc are/ were in some way workers states, simply because they
nationalised property, which is linked to a certain softness and
confusion re:nationalisation and reformism in the West].


So it IS curious that so few others joined in the debate.

I deduce from the silence that most people on the list don't feel
happy with what I consider to be the classical Marxist position
on this ( ie the one stated by Marx and then restated by Lenin ),
but nor do they feel happy with Justin's open attack on that
classical Marxist tradition. Am I right ?


Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---