Tristan

Togliatti's practice shows the problems with the approach you suggest. From 1943 onwards the liberation forces in Italy dug the grave of Mussolini and had the chance, nay the historical duty, to take power in Northern Italy. That they did not was due to Togliatti, who, on return from a long period in Moscow, actually got the liberation forces to swear allegiance to the king. He got one Ministry from memory.

Refoundation is the modern day example of that disaster. They too entered Government with the best intentions. They then voted for example for the invasion of Afghanistan.

This on-going sell out is not because the people involved are bad or stupid or whatever. It is in my view because the project itself is fundamentally flawed. Workers cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state; they have to smash it. (Guess who?)

To use Gramsci's analysis to justify the failures of the PCI is in my opinion not appropriate. His strategies and arguments were aimed at revolution, not reform.

I'll come back to the Jacobins if I have time. And energy.

There's another article on Marxism: Revolutiona dn the State. It might be worth reading too, tristan. i find it intersting and informative.
It too can be found in the same edition of Socialist Alternative as Mick Armstrong's article. The link is:

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1660&Itemid=125

Tristan

I disagree that the parliamentary path is peaceful. The ruling class will not surrender its power without a fight, unless it faces an overwhelming force which it knows it cannot defeat.

Chile in 1973 is one example. For the ruling class democracy is less important than profit. So they will overturn democracy (in fact democracy won in the main by the struggle of working people) to retain the profit system and their place in it.

As Rosa Luxemburg wrote "people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal". It was the "peaceful" labor party types who murdered her in defence of the profit system. (The SPD was the Party who voted for the German ruling class and their war in 1914, overturning years and years of internationalist and anti-war rhetoric. Why? Becuase the parliamentary road and its logic sees them accept the profit system as the basis for running society.)

Passy,

I think the bridge we need to cross right now is not the argument about whether or not socialism can be achieved through parliamentary reform. It is not even about whether or not socialism is better than capitalism, rather it is about whether or not, as a society, we are entitled, through our elected governments, to impose any constraints whatsoever upon market forces or to provide necessary social services and a social safety net.

It seems to me that virtually all of the Australian far left went missing in action on that question since at least before the downfall of the Whitlam Government.

In my view, this made it far easier for the neo-liberal counter-revolution to achieve its sociopathic goals in manners not altogether dissimilar to what has been described in parts of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" (e.g. the subversion of parliamentary democracy Bolivia in 1985 under the guidance of shock doctor Jeffrey Sachs).

If, instead, the left had vigorously defended the worthwhile achievements of the Whitlam era and the institutions of Parliamentary democracy that have been largely gutted by successive neo-liberal governments of both the Labor and Liberal variety (read "Silencing Dissent"(2007) edited by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison), then we might well stopped the neo-liberal counter-revolution in its tracks and the discussion that you wish to conduct now might not seem so academic and abstract.

Dear Passy; other friends and readers,

It seems like you have me at an advatage - as I am no expert on Italian history...

But I think it was Billy Bragg who said "You can borrow ideas, but you cannot borrow situations"...

It was Lenin-in State and Revolution-who said 'the state must be smashed'...

The state Lenin faced, though, was of a different order to the forms of state apparatus facing socialists and social democrats today...

And even in Russia, it was divisions within the state apparatus- within the armed forces-which helped provide a situation of 'dual power'-upon which the Bolshevik seizure of power rested...

In Russia,it was years of horrific trench warfare that tore down the legitimacy of the state apparatus-and caused it to divide against itself...

Modern liberal democracies are even more complex. The legitimacy of the state can rest upon its democratic liberalism. Surely Chile was a disaster-but we have other stories also:the rise of socialist parties in Holland and Germany;social democratic hegemony in the Nordic countries...

Of course, unless the social base of the armed forces is broad - then there may be situations in which the state apparatus could divide - and we could be left with the kind of phenomena as fascist Spain...

So - ingraining liberal democratic values in the very internal culture of the armed forces - is essential...

Then there is the whole question of class rule... Marx saw all history as "the history of class struggles"... But history is really more complex than this...There is the question of ethnicity and religion; of nationalism and ideology...

Class struggle is one 'engine' which propels the process of history...
But often there is no single, undivided 'ruling class' - as relates of ownership of capital - about ethnicity, nation, culture, religion, ideology...

So the process of change is much more complex - and there can be all manner of alliances between various social, economic and cultural forces - in building a Popular Front - in which social democratic forces will exert leverage for real change....

Thanks Tristan. I understand the point about complexity. I understand Russia in 1917 had different social, economic and political realities. But in a sense a working class revolution in a backward peasant based society is more difficult than in and advanced Western country.

As to complexity, on 13 May 1968 (40 years ago tomorrow, ie Tuesday) ten million French workers went on strike and challenged the rule of capital. that they were not successful was because of their political immaturity and the objective role of the French Communist Party being the retailer of labour to capital. In other words the PCF had a material interest in the continuation of capitalism and the mass strikes threatened it as much as it threatened de Gaulle (who fled for a day to West Germany.)

See for example an article of mine on this: http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1671&Itemid=125

I too am no expert on Italian politics. But sites like www.marxists.org.au, www.sa.org.au, www.socialistworker.org.uk and so on have lots of useful information and texts one can borrow from.

I agree too with Billy Bragg. many years ago I went to one of his concerts where he praised the accord - yes it was many years ago, and I booed him. Anyway a piece of irrelevance.

Aren't Holland and the Nordic countries that you mention as examples of something to emulate now ruled be neo-liberals (perhaps in coalition in Holland with extreme right wingers? Not sure.) Is that the heritage we want?

Anyway, I agree we might differ on the way forward but we can as different currents on the left work together for common immediate goals.

Not sure about Popular Fronts since they bring in forces that are in fact antithetical to workers' interests (and generally give control of the campaign to those forces on the basis of compromise to keep them in the fight/action/campaign.) It would depend on the circumstances.

Daggett, I think Tristan was talking about reforms, but reforms which began a process of challenging the rule of capital. Or have I misread you Tristan?

Holland is no socialist utopia - but alongside Denmark and the Nordic countries - there is a virtual consensus that a substanial welfare state and social wage must be preserved.

And countries like Denmark and Finland are also accepted as economic 'success stories' - refuting absolutely the lie that social democracy (real social democoracy - not the 'Third Way)- must lead to economic 'failure'. Also - even in such countries - where the relative Right is brought to power - the social democratic hegemony is such that they can only 'chip away' at it slowly.

This is not socialism in the Marxist sense - but it is a great step forward from the neo-liberal consensus in much if the 'Anglosphere'.

Finally, the Left - sometimes in coalition with Green parties - is increasingly holding mainstream social democracy to account...

In Holland the "Green Left", Labour and Socialist parties - together held a sizable portion of the vote...The numbers aren't there yet - but there is a substantial support base for truly radical politics...

Similarly - the Social Democrats depend on the Greens and Left parties in their quest for re-election - but even out of government - Sweden: with somewhere in the vicinity of 85% union membership - will not tolerate conservative and neo-liberal social and economic policies... Even when out of power - the hegemony of the Left is such that it determines the broad poltical framework...

Briefly - I'm not sure you should have booed Billy...The Accord could have been the herald of good things - if only it had followed the Swedish path that Carmicheal, Kelty etc wanted...Unions should have held firm and demanded it...

Finally - re: challenging capitalism...I've made clear I want a compromise between markets and planning...And I also make clear that I want economic democracy - and a storng public sector.

Ideally I would like economic power to be so broadly held that we could no longer speak of a 'ruling class' - in the sense Marxists usually talke of the bourgeoisie