It only becomes "formulaic deterministic nonsense" if you take this one act of abolishing the state in isolation of all that has gone previously. Perhaps you have not read the posts covering the 'revolutionary process', where I and others have explained that the workers will be planning and preparing for the revolutionary transformation of political power well before it actually happens. In fact the planning and preparation is taking place right now within the SPGB and the libertarian tradition.
And obviously, we are quite aware that the abolishment of capitalism will not in its self be sufficient to bring an end to the idea of capitalism. But lets face facts those who wish to turn back the clock will be at a historical disadvantage when you consider that they will be up against the first conscious revolution in the history of social evolution. That fact alone will give them food for thought.
don't really have a problem with any of this. [and yes, I haven't read your earliest stuff, on the 'revolutionary process']
Neither do we want to repeat the mistakes of the Paris Commune which is the reason why we have taken on board the idea held by Marx "..... the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose." The key word here is 'simply' for it is implying the state machinery must be converted or refashioned into an agent of emancipation otherwise it will still be used by the ruling class.
You previously posted an excellent text on the dynamics of class consciousness and how this impacted on the course of class struggle. So lets put those ideas to the test, in relation to the question you pose above. An invasion from countries who have not had a socialist revolution is of course a possibility but not a probability for when you take into account that the workers of those countries contemplating an invasion, have been affected by a socialist revolution occurring in another country. And lets not forget that more than likely they will also be near in gaining a majority.
don't really have a problem with that ^.
Indeed, it only becomes a probability if the socialist revolution was in isolation of a global class consciousness. Which is just not possible, for class consciousness and the class struggle is a global phenomenon. So it would be foolish to think that the workers in those countries contemplating an invasion would be assisting an invasion in any way.
in the main I have no problem with that, but,,,,,,, it is difficult to make hard and fast predictions about the consciousness of populations still under the control of capitalism.
The state machinery is there to serve the interests of the ruling minority and as such it is not a neutral institution. To ignore this fact is not just asking for trouble but IMO also looking for trouble. Why do you think it is necessary to go down that road of possible civil war when the 'simple' solution is to cut the feet away from the capitalists by abolishing their instrument of coercion and oppression?
SW doesn't really disagree with the main thrust of your arguments above re 1917. Add to that, it is now 2010. The numerical balance of class forces, is radically different today. Will we still require a generation or two for the muck of ages to wither away?
But I think your over emphasising state in workers state. And are misinformed about an intention to
Marx "........no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
The state, in the workers state, is only a recognition, that there MAYBE a period of transition. A period where the workers may have to impose their interests not only upon the capitalists. That's all. SW is NOT "implying the [capitalist] state machinery must be converted or refashioned into an agent of emancipation".
The socialist argument is not the same as the anarchists. We differ from them on many issues but the main differences are over the need for an 'organised' working class politically conscious of their class position. The anarchists see no need for the working class to be democratically organised and are opposed to any planning and preparation for a revolutionary change in the social relationships. Presumably they think it is just going to happen out of thin air.
lol, I compare their methods to the born again Christians, "each and everyone must find our own path to god/anarchism."
Although spreading the word is very important that in its self will not be sufficient to bring about a socialist revolution. But we have to be realistic that until the workers start withdrawing their support for capitalism all a small number of socialists can do is spread the word.
like I have said, unlike the U75 anarchists, your argument does have a logic. However, it is not one I agree with.
