I think "building socialism" is an inappropriate term for the goal of a socialist movement; as Luxemburg pointed out, the final goal which makes sense of the movement is the precondition for _any_ future society, the seizure of state power. And, leaving aside wars of national liberation, so far the hallmark of _all_ successful seizures of state power has been the refusal of police and/or army units to fire on a mass demonstration.
And of course, Charlie is quite correct in the distinction he makes below. State power will never be achieved through an election, though elections may be, and probably will be, part of the process leading to state power for the working class. And (again citing Luxemburg) that may never come; we may continue indefinitely the sinking into barbarism of the last century. Another suggestion: the obsession with judging correctly the internal affairs of distant nations is a wonderful distraction from our primary task of creating a serious left movement in the U.S. Carrol -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Greece as Rashomon | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Maxim L. wrote: "So give us an overview of how - in a country with a *tradition of parliamentary democracy* - a political mo[ve]ment would 'build socialism' without getting its leaders elected into parliament?" As a follow-up, the question confuses two things, 1) electing representatives to parliament, versus 2) accepting the top post of government. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
