tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post8332287289307242494..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Legality and Class ConsciousnessPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-20902122271290002522009-01-05T20:03:00.000+00:002009-01-05T20:03:00.000+00:00I don't think the workers of Paris had any choice....I don't think the workers of Paris had any choice. If they made any mistake it was not suppressing Theirs and his army soon enough.<BR/><BR/>"And to resolve the contradiction either the state stops being a state, or it stops representing the working class."<BR/><BR/>Because the working class a category ceases to exist. Marx's conception is in the last analysis anti-state, he just recognised there was one last revolutionary use for it, keeping capitalism down.Adam Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155314207452345741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-23832113340541709512009-01-05T19:14:00.000+00:002009-01-05T19:14:00.000+00:00"No state uses indiscriminate terror...the state i..."No state uses indiscriminate terror...the state is never indistriminate in its violence"<BR/><BR/>I was using 'indiscriminate' to mean 'not targeting specific individuals known to have done a certain thing, or those who present an immediate threat'. Dropping a bomb into the middle of a crowded street in Gaza city is 'indiscriminate'. Rounding up arbitrarily selected members of a certain class and hanging them is 'indiscriminate'. That seems like the most common meaning to me. <BR/><BR/>I imagine we have different understandings of what qualifies as a 'state'. I would say that the state character of the soviets themselves was not yet fixed - a state emerged with the bolshevik council of commissars, secret police, etc. As you say that's not really the question, but may clarify. <BR/><BR/>"A working class state is a living contradiction."<BR/><BR/>And to resolve the contradiction either the state stops being a state, or it stops representing the working class. My feeling is that its preference will usually be very much to prefer the latter, and that this preference will be backed up with its equipment for 'securing the suppression of all others'. So I don't think we should aim to set up this living contradiction. <BR/><BR/>Of course I may be wrong, and this hardly an unprecedented dispute we're having.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-64444313945583435582009-01-05T18:24:00.000+00:002009-01-05T18:24:00.000+00:00One problem I have with your 'take' on Lukacs here...One problem I have with your 'take' on Lukacs here is the idea that he is 'privileging ideological struggle'. The adoption, or non-adoption of legalistic methods may (on some level) be an ideological question but is also one with direct material results. Over the past year I've become pretty interested in this particular questinon and the way in which you can read Lukacs, I'm tempted to say that even if his own concern is with 'ideology' we don't have to read it this way.<BR/><BR/>Briefly, I've been reading Lukacs in conjunction with Pashukanis to the effect that whilst the content of legal struggle can be progressive, the very fact that it is a 'legal' struggle gives this content definite material limits. As such, the strategy suggested by Lukacs is very useful, as it attempts to take advantage of the progressive potential of legal content, without falling foul of the problems of form.<BR/><BR/>I also think that a Gramscian approach to these questions, which Roobin seems to be alluding to, is woefully inadequate, as I argue <A HREF="http://pashukanis.blogspot.com/2008/01/gramsci-and-law-some-scattered.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08570084990430000647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-28934860881158122742009-01-05T13:10:00.000+00:002009-01-05T13:10:00.000+00:00"and because of this the logic of statism mandates..."and because of this the logic of statism mandates indiscriminate terror".<BR/><BR/>No, that's a bit... um. No state uses indiscriminate terror. No ruling class.<BR/><BR/>"I don't think it's likely that such a state will then simply 'dissolve' or give away its power when it has successfully crushed all opposition to itself".<BR/><BR/>That's not what was said. A working class state is a living contradiction. Contradiction because, by definition you cannot work and rule. Living because it has actually existed. Certainly it existed in Paris in 1871. It certainly existed in European Russia at the end of 1917. I would argue it existed in straightened circumstances across the Soviet Union until 1928. I would even argue it existed in unacknowleged form in Spain 1936 and Hungary 1956.<BR/><BR/>But that's not the question. The state exists in class society to secure the rule of one group and the suppression/aquiesence of all others, which is why the state is never indistriminate in its violence. <BR/><BR/>In order for the working class to maintain its power it must undermine its own existence as a class (and all other classes) through redistribution of the wealth.Adam Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155314207452345741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-2108288519508902692009-01-05T12:25:00.000+00:002009-01-05T12:25:00.000+00:00"If the Marxist theory of the state is correct"I t..."If the Marxist theory of the state is correct"<BR/><BR/>I tend to think it's not, and that this is the key issue here. <BR/><BR/>When you say "Any government is based on a combination of force and consent...This is very difficult to apply to a civil war" you're right, and because of this the logic of statism mandates indiscriminate terror, militarisation of labour, suppression of dissent, and so forth, in any situation like that which a revolution is likely to produce. <BR/><BR/>Now, I don't think it's likely that such a state will then simply 'dissolve' or give away its power when it has successfully crushed all opposition to itself, on its own side as well as the other side. If I'm right, then going into a revolution with statist ideas is a recipe for repeating the Russian experience (although I do recognise the role played by the specific circumstances of Russia).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-46551457228766404562009-01-05T09:28:00.000+00:002009-01-05T09:28:00.000+00:00"More constructively, I guess what I'm saying is t..."More constructively, I guess what I'm saying is that if the flipside of law is that it restricts the government as well as the people..."<BR/><BR/>I see what you're saying. The trouble comes when we consider what practical situation we are faced with. Any government is based on a combination of force and consent. In order to put this into code, i.e. a constitution, you need a stable situation (truly post-revolutionary). <BR/><BR/>This is very difficult to apply to a civil war, which is a lawless war because neither side, by definition, recognises the other. If the Marxist theory of the state is correct it's also difficult to apply post-civil war, because you have a power which is slowly dissolving itself, along with class differences.Adam Markshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155314207452345741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87489202563233037992009-01-04T20:41:00.000+00:002009-01-04T20:41:00.000+00:00That sounds a little like 'the more people we mass...That sounds a little like 'the more people we massacre, the harder it is to convince people that we represent their best interests.' As in, true enough, but perhaps missing the point.<BR/><BR/>More constructively, I guess what I'm saying is that if the flipside of law is that it restricts the government as well as the people (even if governments try to break the law, they are forced to abide by most of its requirements in order to preserve that sense of 'naturalism'), the rule of law would mean the socialist government restricting itself in order to not just get more support from the masses, but better deserve that support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-7708870396770442192009-01-03T23:28:00.000+00:002009-01-03T23:28:00.000+00:00A lot I suppose depends on the balance of forces. ...A lot I suppose depends on the balance of forces. The more a socialist government has to meet the counterrevolution with violence, the greater difficulty there is of co-opting the naturalistic aura of the rule of law to its cause. At least that's what I think Lukacs would argue.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-67467075856454204292009-01-03T19:29:00.000+00:002009-01-03T19:29:00.000+00:00It's a good point that privileging illegality just...It's a good point that privileging illegality just reinforces the importance of legality. However, I wasn't quite sure what was meant by "seize the weapon of legality to legitimate itself". Is this something that a new government can fail to do? <BR/><BR/>I'm just wondering what forms of post-revolutionary activity would involve claiming legality and which wouldn't. When I think of 'the rule of law' what springs to mind is things like the Red Terror, i.e. can the executive simply give the instruction 'round up some random middle-class people and hang them', or does there have to be a procedure of charge, trial, etc. ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-17153247876472338052009-01-02T22:25:00.000+00:002009-01-02T22:25:00.000+00:00Here's the previous posts on History and Class Con...Here's the previous posts on History and Class Consciousness:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/lukacs-and-orthodox-marxism.html" REL="nofollow">Lukacs and Orthodox Marxism</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/luxemburg-revisionism-and-revolution.html" REL="nofollow">Luxemburg, Revisionism and Revolution</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/09/class-consciousness-and-false.html" REL="nofollow">Class Consciousness and False Consciousness</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/11/commodities-and-reification.html" REL="nofollow">Commodities and Reification</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/12/structure-of-bourgeois-philosophy.html" REL="nofollow">Structure of Bourgeois Philosophy</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/12/overcoming-reification.html" REL="nofollow">Overcoming Reification</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/12/capitalism-and-historical-materialism.html" REL="nofollow">Capitalism and Historical Materialism</A>Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.com