ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Luxemburg was another socialist from the same period and area who held that a socialist party should advocate reforms within capitalism as well as advocating socialism. It is not holding this position that means you are necessarily a reformist and not a socialist. Our view is that for a socialist party to do this means that it is likely to attract non-socialist support and eventually become a reformist party.
In the conditions of tsarist Russia the struggle for “bourgeois democracy” (and basic labour legislation and universal education that it would bring) was justified. That was the immediate aim of all sections of the Russian Social Democratic Party before WW1 including Lenin’s. The argument amongst them was over what tactics to adopt to get there. Many think that Luxemburg’s pamphlet on the Mass Strike was advocating this to get socialism; in fact in that pamphlet she was advocating it to get political democracy in Russia.
Yes he did want socialism but he was still a Social Democrat and so favoured campaigning for a minimum programme of reforms to be achieved under capitalism as well as the maximum programme of the capture of political power to establish socialism.
His main contribution, as far as we are concerned, is his analysis of the Russian Revolution and his demonstration that the Bolsheviks distorted Marx. In this he reached much the same conclusion as we did, as this review in 1940 in the Socialist Standard of an English translation of some of his writings (which we republished in 2017 (still available for £4 including post and package) pointed out:
This article from 1932 discusses the views of the Mensheviks and the party’s attitude towards them. Our view was that they had a better understanding of Marx’s views than the Bolsheviks. Apart from that, they were like the inter-war Continental Social Democratic Parties which still retained some link to Marx but whose practice was reformist.
The Programme of the Russian Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries
I think the more likely result is that they will vote against Biden’s party on the grounds that they blame him for getting into a war “half a world away” that has increased their cost of living. People tend to vote on bread and butter issues not foreign policy which they see, rightly or wrongly, as of no relevance to them in their daily life.
I wouldn’t have thought Ukraine is paying. Probably the US is, but it is clear who is benefitting — the merchants of death:
“WASHINGTON, April 12 (Reuters) – The Pentagon will host leaders from the top eight U.S. weapons manufacturers on Wednesday to discuss the industry’s capacity to meet Ukraine’s weapons needs if the war with Russia lasts years, two people familiar with the meeting said on Tuesday.
Demand for weapons has shot up after Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24 spurred U.S. and allied weapons transfers to Ukraine. Resupplying as well as planning for a longer war is expected to be discussed at the meeting, the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.”https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-asks-top-8-us-arms-makers-meet-ukraine-sources-2022-04-12/
The context in which he made this diplomatic gaffe is interesting. He was at a factory that produced ethanol, to announce that he was allowing this to be added to petrol (“gas” in American) to reduce its price.
He told the workers and others:
“Your family budget, your ability to fill up your tank, none of it should hinge on whether a dictator declares war and commits genocide half a world away.”
And blamed the rise in the cost of living on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling it “Putin’s price hike”. Actually, the cost of living was rising anyway and the further increase is due to the sanctions imposed by the politicians in charge of the West’s governments as a price they consider worth paying by workers as their contribution to NATO’s war effort. The workers will give their verdict in the November mid-term elections.
Here’s what the doddering old fool said:
President Joe Biden says Russia’s war in Ukraine amounts to “genocide,” accusing President Vladimir Putin of trying to “wipe out the idea of even being a Ukrainian.”
Here’s a photo of the leader of the opposition in “democratic” Ukraine;
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/12/kyiv-says-captures-fugitive-ukrainian-putin-ally-a77331
Here’s the official result (scroll down):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_French_presidential_election
I see there was a second Trotskyist who finished second bottom.
There were also 543,638 blank votes which will represent a conscious decision not to vote for any of the candidates.
Although it wasn’t the main issue or the main reason why people will have voted the way hey did, some 55% voted for candidates who were opposed to NATO (the two right wing extremists, Mélenchon, the Communist Party and the two Trotskyists). That would mean that they wanted to put Butter before Guns, i.e were not prepared to pay the price in terms of an increased cost of living to support NATO’s proxy war against Russia.
It looks like a reference to this article:
https://emj.bmj.com/content/39/3/168
“For every 82 admitted patients whose time to inpatient bed transfer is delayed beyond 6 to 8 hours from time of arrival at the ED, there is one extra death.”
The figure of 5,800 seems to be a calculation made by the Sunday Times on the basis of this.
Article here on the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia, also about a quarter of the population:
Latvia has a Russian-speaking minority of nearly 25 percent, i.e. a quarter of the population. I wonder how long before they ban the parties that the Russian-speakers vote for like they have done in Ukraine.
Forgot to add that when we returned to Head Office we had a visitor from someone who said she was a member of a group called Red Fightback. We said we had never heard of it. She said it only had 5 members. We assumed it was another Trot group but in looking them up we saw it was Maoist.
Here’s their site for anyone interested:
Despite only being 5 they still seek to lead the working class. Even so, they still say they want the sane sort of society as us, even if in the dim and distant future:
“Red Fightback believes in, and ultimately struggles towards communism—a society in which the means of production are social property, and where each citizen works towards the communal goals of society according to their ability and receives resources from society according to their need.”
