Comments on: The Civil War in Bolivia http://blog.voyou.org/2008/09/25/civil-war-bolivia/ Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:32:41 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2008/09/25/civil-war-bolivia/comment-page-1/#comment-32321 voyou Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:19:57 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=340#comment-32321 Lenin is pretty clear (at least in <em>The State and Revolution</em>) about the alienated character of the state, and therefore the (maybe only tendential, rather than actual) difference between proleterain and bourgeois rule. Without that clarity, I think using Weber's definition can be misleading, because it minimizes the way in which "seizeure of power" must mean "constructing new forms of power," rather than "seizing the state." And if I read moll right, she is in favor of Morales using violence to crush the revolution's enemies, she's just worried that, by taking over rather than transforming state power, Morales might have put himself in a position where the realpolitik considerations of being a state prevent him from doing so effectively, while also limiting the kind of revolutionary transformations are possible. I don't think that's a silly concern, indeed, it's not a million miles away from your own concerns about the right vs the left wings of Chavez's government. Though it might be better to frame the question not, as moll does, as one about whether or not Morales is doing the right thing, but rather as being about political struggle within the movement around Morales. Lenin is pretty clear (at least in The State and Revolution) about the alienated character of the state, and therefore the (maybe only tendential, rather than actual) difference between proleterain and bourgeois rule. Without that clarity, I think using Weber’s definition can be misleading, because it minimizes the way in which “seizeure of power” must mean “constructing new forms of power,” rather than “seizing the state.”

And if I read moll right, she is in favor of Morales using violence to crush the revolution’s enemies, she’s just worried that, by taking over rather than transforming state power, Morales might have put himself in a position where the realpolitik considerations of being a state prevent him from doing so effectively, while also limiting the kind of revolutionary transformations are possible.

I don’t think that’s a silly concern, indeed, it’s not a million miles away from your own concerns about the right vs the left wings of Chavez’s government. Though it might be better to frame the question not, as moll does, as one about whether or not Morales is doing the right thing, but rather as being about political struggle within the movement around Morales.

]]> By: geo http://blog.voyou.org/2008/09/25/civil-war-bolivia/comment-page-1/#comment-32320 geo Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:38:21 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=340#comment-32320 for lenin, this is still a state, however necessary. he adopts the weberian definition to help illustrate the withering away of the state: the proletarian state (or "semi-state") is a state because it's a (necessary) instrument of class repression. such instruments will become less and less necessary as the revolution progresses and classes are eliminated. this silly moll person shows what funny things happen when anarchists see real revolutions (read: seizures of power by the poor). lenin saw this perfectly in State and Revolution, arguing that anarchists will ultimately become enemies of the people through their failure to act when necessary. for lenin, this is still a state, however necessary. he adopts the weberian definition to help illustrate the withering away of the state: the proletarian state (or “semi-state”) is a state because it’s a (necessary) instrument of class repression. such instruments will become less and less necessary as the revolution progresses and classes are eliminated.

this silly moll person shows what funny things happen when anarchists see real revolutions (read: seizures of power by the poor). lenin saw this perfectly in State and Revolution, arguing that anarchists will ultimately become enemies of the people through their failure to act when necessary.

]]>