Hari asked:
...So let us now assume we have a socialist state, - there are none to my
point of view.
If you accept that capitalism surrounds this state, and tries to destory
it either by invasion or whatever internal subterfuge it launches:
How do you all propose it would be defended?
=================================
The issue isn't really how do states defend themselves from external
enemies. It's axiomatic that all states will restrict the rights of its
citizens to organize, assemble, and dissent in relation to how seriously
they perceive themselves to be under attack. If we had state power, we would
have an intelligence and security apparatus like everyone else, and would
equip it with powers which would allow it to be effective.
The issue is always whether the repressive legislation is so sweeping that
it can be easily used to crack down on the regime's political opponents who
are not aligned with the forces threatening to attack it. But that is a
judgement question, isn't it, decided by those in power? The political
considerations would have would not be very unlike those on listserves such
as this one, except at a much more serious level - that is, what speech is
impermissable and should be curtailed ("deviations") and whether whether
should be "unsubbed" (jailed or exiled), wither temporary or permanently, or
worse.
(Our first test would probably be over the Iran Question -whether it is a
permissable subject of discussion, or only in certain ways - and whether
Yoshie's right to speak out should be curbed in any way. :> )
I'm for the greatest latitude of discussion. I'd have to be convinced there
was a grave danger of the society or organization coming apart chaotically
and ceasing to function though the exercise of certain democratic rights.
But most everyone would agree in principle that it's better to deal with
issues politically rather than administratively, and that this usually
requires an understanding of the need to conduct debate with a measure of
self-discipline on both sides - in terms of the tone and insistence with
which issues are pushed. The problem is that this is easier said than done
when people feel, as they often do, that their issues are urgent ones, and
others feel that they are threatening group cohesion and morale and the
effective pursuit of its objectives.
It is not an easy question to answer in the abstract.
