Greetings fellow socialists, please support me as I try to spread socialism to the youth.
- This topic has 91 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am a sixteen year old Trotsykist, and I have made a youtube channel that is attempting to influence people of my generation to the ideas of socialism.
If you don't mind, please check it out and perhaps subscribe to me! Thanks very much.
Greetings. Are you based in London? Would you like to come along to our public meeting in South London on the Russian Revolution at 3pm on Sunday 21st July? Given your age, you can bring along an adult or friends and we can show you round our head office if you arrive early.
Jon advises "Given your age, you can bring along an adult or friends and we can show you round our head office if you arrive early."Just to clarify, the SPGB has no youth wing nor a minimum age for membership. If you can demonstrate an understanding of the socialist case as argued by the Socialist Party , you join as a full member, with the exact same democratic standing as a 60 or 70 yr old who has been a member for numerous years.
Having watched your video, which is certainly well made and presented, being from Ohio, you should contact our companion party in America. Further details athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_StatesYou will however find that we will have to discuss and debate our differing perspectives. The WSPUS is not a Trotskyist organisation but comes from a much earlier tradition.
Can you elaborate on, a much earlier tradition? I believe that socialism is an international objective, and I support proleterian internationalism. I am sure we can agree on that. I am for the democratic planning of the government, and support democratic socialism. Thanks for watching my video alanjjohnstone.
The SPGB and our companion parties in the WSMclaims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.claims that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no "transition period" or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).claims that there can be no state in a socialist society.claims that there can be no classes in a socialist society.promotes only socialism, and as an immediate goal.claims that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism.claims that there is one working class, worldwide.lays out the fundamentals of what a socialist society must be, but does not presume to tell the future socialist society how to go about its business.promotes an historical materialist approach—real understanding.claims that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding.seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.claims that Leninism is a distortion of Marxian analysis.opposes all war and claims that socialism will inherently end war, including the "war" between classes.noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had earlier, long noted that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution.was the first to recognize that the former USSR, China, Cuba and other so-called "socialist countries" were not socialist, but instead, state capitalist.claims a very accurate, consistent analysis since 1904 when the first Companion Party was founded.To summarize our position in contrast to other organizations that claim to be socialist:Socialism will be a wageless, moneyless, free-access society.Very few agree with this.Most support a market system. Some suggest that a non-capitalist market is possible. These suggestions show a lack of understanding of market economics. While non-capitalist market systems have existed, they are impractical in a modern world. If a "non-capitalist" market system was established it would eventually become a capitalist market system.Leaders are inherently undemocratic; socialists oppose leadership.All support leadership.Socialists shouldn't work for reforms to capitalism, because only a movement for socialism itself can establish socialism.Those which work for reforms hold either that reforms to capitalism will eventually result in socialism, or that supporting reforms is an appropriate way to convince workers to support socialism.Some put forward a reasonable analysis of capitalism, but then work to give capitalism a "human face". Some claim that they want to end capitalism. Their bottom line is, however, just capitalism with reforms. Democratic Socialists of America is a good example of this.Socialism will be a cooperative, world wide system, and it has clearly not yet been established.Most, perhaps all, of them support nationalism, which is closely akin to racism (which they explicitly claim to oppose), and in any case hinders worldwide working class solidarity. Nationalism is a concept only useful to separate people, and is therefore anti-working class.A scientific approach and understanding by the working class are necessary to establish socialism.Generally support emotionalistic campaigns, in which logic and rational analysis are ignored.Any group which wants people to follow their leadership is unlikely to promote real understanding. What needs to be understood if one is just following the leader and doing what one is told?Democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections is the safest, surest method for the working class to enable itself to establish socialism.Most seem to support this, parliamentary, approach at some level. But their commitment varies so that some support both parliamentarism and anti-parliamentarism at the same time.For more information on Trotskyists, read Trotsky: The Prophet Debunked.
Erm, celticnachos you do realise that the WSM is against Trotskyism due to the fact that the core belief of Trotskyism is putting a vanguard party before a people's democracy. Surely if you call yourself a socialist then you can't be a Trotskyist, as Trotskyism is state capitalism and is an ideology that believes that the minority of people in Central Government are entitled to control everything, kind of contradicting with the idea of "permanent revolution" as since the status quo in Trotskyism is state capitalism then how the hell can they have a "permanent revolution."Anyway, I am not criticising but it is just that Trotskyism is up there as one of the most hypocritical ideologies in history and, if you really call yourself a socialist, then you would no longer be a Trotskyist and support the ideas of democratic socialism. Though this is your choice mate, as you decide what ideology you want to support.
Alex Woodrow wrote:…Anyway, I am not criticising but it is just that Trotskyism is up there as one of the most hypocritical ideologies in history and, if you really call yourself a socialist, then you would no longer be a Trotskyist and support the ideas of democratic socialism. …Well if that is not a criticism I don't what is. It could have been a bit more constructive too. HH
A vangaurd party is somtimes necessary under certain material conditions, in Lenin's State and Revolution he says that over a period of time everyone will participate in running the state, eventually leading to no state. That's why I believe in socialist internationalism, one of the core tenets of trotskyism, and he is the one Marxist theoretician that critiqued socialism in one country. Although, if material conditions are too scarce, complete democratic planning is impossible, because there wouldn't be enough resources to provide for all. Trotskyism is not hypocrtical.
celticnachos wrote:"Can you elaborate on, a much earlier tradition?"The SPGB was formed in 1904 from a breakaway from the Socialist Democratic Federation. Its founding members were influenced greatly by the Socialist League which had William Morris and Marx's daughter, Eleanor, as members. The main issue that led to the split was one that you touched upon in your video, raising demands for reforms. The SDF had a programme of immediate reforms, as Trotskyists do these days. The SPGB argue that this places the demand for socialism on to the back-burner because those who wished reforms would dominate the party and make reforms the priority which would mean standing for election and becoming the government on a platform of reforms and relegating the socialist objective to the far-off future while running capitalism in the meantime and growing more and more pro-capitalist because of that. A look at history seems to prove our case, doesn't it? It was not a matter of leaders betrayal that Trotsky often blames it upon but a consequence of their principles, similar policies to Trotsky's own. The SPGB ideas spread first to Canada and then on to the USA during World War One and the WSPUS formed before any Trotskyist party or a distinct tendency had emerged , they still being part of the general Bolsheviks. The WSPUS did not support the Socialist Labor Party position on industrial unionism but many of their other ideas now over-lap with our own. The Proletarian Party of America was another organisation that agreed much with the WSPUS but differences over the interpretation of the Russian Revolution led to a parting of ways. Personally, i am also a great admirer of the Socialist Party of America Eugene Debs speeches and articles, as you can see from my posts sign-off . This is what i mean by an earlier tradition…the SPGB roots go back to a strand of 19th century Marxism, Trotskyism sprung from the events of the 20th century Russian Revolution.
Thanks for the reply man! I should probably research more about these parties histories. Eugene Debs is certainly an interesting man, yet you critique reform. Eugene Debs was a pacifist, I thought he supported a reformist approach to socialism, am I wrong? I thought he condemned the violent Russian Revolution.
I just noticed your latest comment. State and Revolution was written pre-October 1917. Judge Lenin on his actions after he took politiical power . I recommend you read a 4 – part article on this bloghttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/lenin-and-russian-revolution-part-1.htmlhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/lenin-and-russian-revolution-part-2.htmlhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/lenin-and-russian-revolution-part-3.htmlhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/lenin-and-russian-revolution-part-4.html And this blog post specifically on Trotsky http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/trotting-after-trotsky.html I think we can justifiably accuse Trotsky of hypocrisy when he could still describe Stalin's Russia as a "workers state" – albeit degenerate – when workers possessed no control or power or influence whatsoever, a process originally begun with himself when he attempted to deprive the trade unions of their independence much to the displeasure of the Workers Opposition of Kollontai and others.
On Debs i qualified my remark with the caveat that it was my personal attitude. You are perfectly right that Debs was a reformist. Not everybody is perfect!!He explains "There is but one issue that appeals to this army the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class. To be sure this cannot be achieved in a day and in the meantime the party enforces to the extent of its power its immediate demands and presses steadily onward toward the goal. It has its constructive program by means of which it develops its power and its capacity, step by step, seizing upon every bit of vantage to advance and strengthen its position, but never for a moment mistaking reform for revolution and never losing sight of the ultimate goal. Socialist reform must not be confounded with so-called capitalist reform. The latter is shrewdly designed to buttress capitalism; the former to overthrow it. Socialist reform vitalizes and promotes the social revolution." http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1912/1912-appeal.htm Very different purpose from the aim of Trotsky's transitional demands that are frequently unachievable which of course is the purpose of them. Our attitude is that we do not oppose particular reforms that possibly produce benefits but we do not advocate a policy of pursuing them preferring instead to concentrate on publicising socialism as the immediate objective However he was not quite the pacifist you believe him to be. He was more in line with our own approach…"peacefully if possible, forcefully if necessary" See this Debs articlehttp://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1906/arouse.htm In regards to Russia he was sympathetic and supportive of it but he wisely did not consider the Bolshevik tactics could be transferred to American conditions nor should they be replicated in the US. See this Debs arrticlehttp://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1922/0622-debs-theunitedfront.pdf
Maybe I should have been a bit more constructive, however my point is still right that Trotskyism is not socialism.
What!When have material resources ever been scarce?We, as human beings, have always been more than capable of creating an abundance of resources to provide enough for all. For example, we have enough arable farmland to produce enough crops to feed that twelve times the size of the world population. So material resources are hardly scarce celticnachos. Saying things such as "although, if material conditions are too scarce, complete democratic planning is impossible, because there wouldn't be enough resources to provide for all" this is exactly what a capitalist would say, as if you asked a capitalist a question such as why is capitalism so great if there is so much dire poverty around the world, this would be their exact answer. Also, if Trotskyism isn't hypocritical, then how is it Trotskyists claim to believe in permanent revolution though always want a corrupt Central Government to be running things? I am sorry but can you please explain this to me because I really don't understand.Anyway, below is a link to this you tube video which I think you need to see mate, called capitalism and other kids stuff.Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88f6QF3R_vo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.