More on Socialist energy / environment measures (Defense of Mark)

Kay McVey katsummerland at yahoo.com.au
Wed Dec 4 21:44:22 MST 2002



James Daly wrote:
>
> The argument is whether the killing of human
populations (the term can be
> used of cities, but also of subcontinents) would be
justifiable
> environmental practice in a socialist society
uniting the human
> race, which
> I thought minimally involved solving even difficult
human problems without
> slaughter.


Mark Jones wrote:
James, your 'minimal' requirement of any future
socialist state--that it
eschews organised violence--means that the socialist
state of the future
will have neither an army nor a police force. This is
very laudable, but not
very practical.


Kay replies:

Who are we arming against?  WHo are we defending
ourselves from?  We are fighting for the whole world.

Perhaps this discussion is going off the rails because
we have a problem here in terminology.  I thought we
were talking about the future socialist (communist)
society.  After the withering away of the *state* -
not in the transitional period.

Even in the transitional stage we would collectively
organise in workers militias and neighbourhood
committees not armies and police forces with the
absence of accountability that entails.

I don’t think anyone is going to be offering a vision
of “The Dicatatorship of the Proletariat”as a way of
convincing/inspiring the proletariat to assume their
historic mission.

So the question remains for Mark what is your vision
of the socialist future? At the moment it seems
distinctly distopian.

In fact let’s make it easier why are you a socialist?

Comradely

Kay
Melbourne



http://www.yahoo.promo.com.au/hint/ - Yahoo! Hint Dropper
- Avoid getting hideous gifts this Christmas with Yahoo! Hint Dropper!

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list