Tankie critiques of the SPGB

In response to one of the critiques above provided by Cameron Woodford  –  https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/ – I posted this on the Socialist Economics forum   (slightly amded to remove grammatical errors).   I wondered if folk here can add any further observations.   To me the evdience seems pretty overwhelming that Lenin did identity socialism as a form of state capitalism but why are the Tankies so embarrassed by having this pointed out to them?  Cameron Woodford I read your blog peice and with the greatest of respect I think you are talking crap. There is no “dishonest distortion” in saying Lenin equated socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly. It is there in black and white and there is no way of getting around that except by dishonestly distorting Lenin yourself. As he put it, “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people” How is that NOT equating socialism with a form of state capitalism. eh?Yes I know Lenin also referred to another kind of state capitalism- what you might call the "non-socialist "version of state capitalism from a Leninist standpoint – the kind you referred to in your blog which had profit making capitalists and “operated primarily through lease concessions to foreign industrialists, made by the proletarian state” according to you. Sort of like Germany's state capitalist model which so impressed Lenin that he wanted Russia to imitate it . When Lenin differentiated between “socialism “and state capitalism he was talking about this form of state capitalism. He was NOT saying that socialism was not ALSO a form of state capitalism – how could he when we have the above quote stating in a black and white that “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people”?It is YOU who have misunderstood Lenin , not your critics, who have you also misunderstood. We know very well that Lenin had two different notions of state capitalism in mind equating one with socialism and a so called proletarian state, and the other with a capitalist state. He said as much in 1921: “But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it”.If there is any doubt on what Lenin imagined socialism would look like consider these words : "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).Again in State and Revolution Lenin talked of socialism in terms of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state"So according to Lenin “socialism” would consist of banks, wage labour, and the state. This has absolutely nothing to do, and is completely at variance, with the Marxian concept of socialismIn fact Lenin was a complete muddleheaded and very poor theorist. The excerpt from Left Wing Childishness which you quote to try to prove your point that Lenin distinguished between state capitalism and socialism (when what it was really between one form of state capitalism and another form he dubbed “socialism”) ironically demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt what a muddlehead Lenin was. According to him the various socio-economic structures that existed in Russia at the time were:"1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain)) private capitalism;4) state capitalism;5) socialism.”So pray do tell – if socialism denotes the common or social ownership of all the means of production – the Marxian conception of socialism – how in god’s name can it coexist with forms of ownership that are sectional and class based? The one thing of necessity precludes the other 

 I too vaguely remember him.  This was the guy who sneeringly suggested ""Never try arguing with an SPGBot" in a bid to portray SPGBers as inflexible dogmatists.  When I then challenged his claims about Lenin and socialism  (in the form of above post) he then had the nerve to say " I refer you to my earlier comment in the thread. I have no intention of banging my head against a wall. Good day to you, sir".   Talk about inflexible dogmatism! Tankies have developed that down to a fine art.  

Everything you ever wanted to know about tankies, but were afraid to ask  https://libcom.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-tankies-were-afraid-ask-08032018  

 You may well have a point Sympo.  Particularly the Lenin quote on big banks "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).  Given the current animus towards banks and bankers by the Left – the industrial capitalists dont seem too bad by comparsion according to  them – this quote might well raise a few eyebrows