Subject: Re: the state redux & socialism
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:50:37 -0400 ()


     Speaking for this lurker, I did not enter what I 
considered to be an interesting debate because I thought 
the two main participants were doing excellent jobs of 
stating their respective contrasting positions.  Kudos to 
both of you.
Barkley Rosser
On Wed, 2 Oct 96 12:57:13 GMT Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com> 
wrote:


> 
> 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 ---

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu




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