[ALB]

The conclusion of this article from the April 1928 Socialist Standard raises some questions:

Quote:

In conclusion, it may be as well to point out that this is in no sense a condemnation of the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917. Our criticism was and, is that they claimed to be able to achieve the impossible. Certain definite tasks lay before them and have been achieved. They brought Russia out of the war, exposed the purely capitalist nature of the conflict to the workers in both camps, and hastened the building of capitalism in Russia at a time when there was no other party with sufficient experience or determination to tackle so great an administrative work. They cannot, however, by legislation solve the fundamental conflicts between contending classes in Russia. They cannot permanently make the working class content with the capitalist economic system, and it would be better that they should recognise before it is too late that if they remain in office the discontent of the workers will come to be directed against them.

I think that some Party members at the time admired Lenin for admitting that capitalism was the way forward for Russia (as of course, objectively, it was) and seemed to think that he had made a fairly good job of it. Also, the conclusion appears to be saying, that, now they've put capitalism back on the rails, they should leave "office", i.e hand over power, but to who?Of course that was never going to happen. They didn't leave office and Stalin agreed that the only alternative would be a government based on the peasants and so decided to clamp down on them (and how). It worked but was of no benefit to the workers. They got stamped on too.

[ALB]

I found the link here:http://www.whatnextjournal.org.uk/Pages/Ratner/Prematur.htmlhttp://revolutionary-history.co.uk/index.php/315-marxist-writers/harry-ratner/5496-1997-premature-and-diseased-from-infancyIt seems to have first appeared in New Interventions in 1997/8 by Harry Ratner, a dissident Trotskyist. He makes some good points but answers this question:

Quote:

So were Kautsky and the Mensheviks right to oppose the October Revolution from the start, as an attempt prematurely to go beyond the bourgeois stage of the Russian revolution? Were they right to declare a socialist working-class revolution in a backward Russia premature and doomed to failure because the conditions for socialism were not ripe – both as regards the economic base and the social and cultural level of the working class? On the face of it, subsequent history would seem to justify them.

which was essentially the position we took, by saying

Quote:

Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks and the supporters of the October Revolution could – and did – argue with some justification that the Mensheviks were looking at Russia in isolation, and ignoring the international context. The war of 1914-18 had demonstrated the terminal crisis of imperialism – the last stage of capitalism – on a world scale. Proletarian revolutions in several advanced capitalist countries were an immediate possibility; the mass slaughter of the imperialist war was driving the proletariat of the belligerent countries to revolution. Tsarist Russia was the weakest link in the chain. The October Revolution would trigger further revolutions in Europe. If these assumptions were correct, then the Bolsheviks were justified. And one must admit that in 1917-18, these assumptions seemed reasonable

The trouble is these assumptions were neither reasonable nor correct.There was one justification for overthrowing the Provisional Government and that was to stop the war on the Eastern Front, which (to its credit) the Bolshevik government did. But this is not a justification for the Bolsheviks establishing the dictatorship of their party, as this could have been done by the sort of coalition government that Ratner speculates about. Nor did it change the fact that socialism was out of the question in isolated backward Russia in 1917 and that any attempt to establish it there was doomed to fail.

[ALB]

Has he got any of these?The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. ThompsonDarwin by Adrian Desmond & James MooreKarl Marx by Francis WheenThe Swerve. How the Renaissance Began by Stephen Greenblatt.Mind you, the first two are real tomes. The second two are an easy read.

[ALB]

Aaronovitch is good (making, by coincidence in view of his other views, the same points as we would). Seymour is pathetic (he might as well still be in the SWP).

[ALB]

Here's Gilmac's classic article "Russia Puts the Clock Back" from the April 1962 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1962/no-694-june-1962/russia-puts-clock-back .

Quote:

Now, in the effort to build up Socialist parties, one supreme task has been added to the rest; the need to unveil the falsity of Russian propaganda and take the name of Socialism out of the mud in which the Russian leaders and their henchmen have immersed it. And still today the supporters of the Russian dictatorship everywhere carry out the intriguing, tortuous and hypocritical policy of their mentors.The Bolsheviks have certainly put the clock back and, in the name of Socialism, have built up one of the most ruthless Capitalist states that have ever existed. Even the forms of democracy that exist in the Western world cannot be found there.

Quote:

Hard as the road to Socialism always was, the Russians have made it harder, and have destroyed, or driven to despair, many genuine fighters for the workers' freedom from Capitalism, even if some of these have been mistaken in their methods.

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

the actions and thoughts of a person can change the way genes are expressed making the appearance of a religious gene.

Which particular gene is that?

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I'm not a neuroscientist but this is pretty easy to understand.

That you're not a neuroscientist is very easy to understand. How thoughts could create a new gene is not. In fact, if you can demonstrate this you will be a sure bet for a Nobel Prize. At the moment you are only in the running for the Junk Science Prize.In any event ,you need to decide what your argument is — whether genes determine thoughts or that thought determines genes — but you don'r seem to know what a gene is or does. Here's one definition to help you get started:

Quote:

Microscopic, yet powerful, a gene is segment of DNA, the molecule that stores the code for building living bodies.A gene is a single unit of genetic information, stored on twisting strands in every cell of every living being. In sexual reproduction, the parents' genes mix together to make the child. Although people would like to think that genes code for discrete traits, like friendliness or mathematical genius, that's not the case. Genes control the color of your eyes and the shape of your toes, not your weird personality.

In other words, genes determine how a living organism is structured and how it functions. In humans they don't — and can't — determine what ideas we have, these are derived from society.This might help too:http://kidshealth.org/en/kids/what-is-gene.html 

[ALB]

Marginally interesting but only to Trotskyist trainspotters like you and me, but hardly worth a reminder of each new issue. The title of one of the articles, though, was a reminder that this year is the anniversary of Lenin's pamphlet on Imperialism and that we should deal with this in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

[ALB]

Alan, I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Anyway, to return to the subject.

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it is supported within the scientific community that our actions and our thought patterns can turn on and off certain genes. Its called neurplactisity.

Are you sure that this is what "neoplasticity" means?  As far as I can see, it actually argues the opposite of the view that we are prisoners of our genes. The clue is in the name itself: neuroplasticity. which would suggest that the brain is "plastic", i.e. not "hardwired".  Take this passage from the wikipedia article on it:

Quote:

The adult brain is not entirely "hard-wired" with fixed neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

In any event, this is the opposite of your original claim that genes influence what we think. "Turning on and off" genes (if that's what happens) would not alter the fact that what genes govern is our anatomy and physiology, in this case that of the brain, not what sort of ideas we hold..

[ALB]

User555net wrote:

They will be speaking out on how Belarus should be more democratic, closely align with the West and promote positive reforms that benefit the public politically, socially and economically.

Any guesses as to who is stirring the pot?

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

you havn't disproved that your beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of your ancestors.

It is not up to us to disprove that view. It's up to those who advance it to do produce the evidence for it, e.g which particular gene or combinations of genes govern beliefs and where they are situated on the chromosome.  In view of what biology knows about genes and what sociology and culture know about ideas we can say that the view "our beliefs can be influenced by the genetics of our ancestors" is pretty implausible. More on this in our pamphlets Are We Prisoners of Our Genes?  It doesn't contain any adverts so should be easy to read. Here's an extract:

Quote:

… there is no argument about the principle that genes govern the physical anatomy of an organism via the instructions they transmit to the cells of which all living things are composed. An organism's basic structure and the way it is maintained is inherited even if the precise way it is expressed can vary depending on the environment. For instance, if a plant gets more of what is required for growth it will grow bigger than one, other things being equal, that gets less.All organisms react to stimuli they receive from their environment—this, in fact, is what "behaviour" means in the biological sense. This is not always an automatic, reflex or knee-jerk reaction. It is in plants, insects and bacteria and in some of the behaviour of all animals. However, those animals that have a more developed nervous system including a brain have the capacity to react—to behave—in the light of their previous experience. Such behaviour cannot be said to be governed by their genes; what is gene-governed in such cases is the capacity to react from previous experience, not the reaction itself.The extent of such non-gene-governed behaviour in a particular species depends on the level of development of its nervous system and brain. The less developed this is, the less the scope that the organisms of the species have for such behaviour. On the other hand, the more developed the brain—the more space it has for storing and retrieving experiences as memory—the greater is the scope for non-gene governed, or "acquired", behaviour.Of all animals humans have the most developed brains, which means that we have a greater capacity—a far greater capacity, in fact—for acquired behaviour than any other animal; which in turn means that human behaviour, as the reaction of members of our species to the environments in which they find themselves having to live, is able to be much more versatile than that of all other animals. This capacity of humans for adapting their behaviour to the environment that they happened to have been brought up in is what distinguishes us as an animal species—this biologically-inherited capacity must, in fact, be a key feature of any adequate definition of the term "human nature".That members of our species are able to adapt to different environments does indeed have a biological basis, in our biologically evolved and inherited brains. What genes determine in humans are the physical characteristics and mode of functioning of this brain, but not the actual behaviour and behaviour patterns these brains enable us to engage in and which we actually do engage in.

This applies even more so to the ideas we hold which have varied immensely over the time humans have existed.

[ALB]

That didn't take long to get rid of him.It's only a week since the demonstrations began.Don't forget the meeting this Sunday on "The Fall of Tsarsm" to hear more about the background:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/talk-head-office-3pm-2

[ALB]

No, Pig, that's just the sociological fact that's the "study" is trying to explain. It's the "explanation" they come up with that is the junk science. They are claiming that there are genes both for a belief in god(s) and for atheism and that because those who have the supposed gene for religion are outbreeding those who have the supposed gene for atheism it is atheism that will eventually die out.

Quote:

Atheism is as natural as religion, study suggestsIt may seem obvious that how you’re brought up will influence your worldview, but it turns out there’s a genetic base too.Those with a higher capacity to believe in a god have certain genes.The researchers of the study explain that before the 19th century, there was probably little difference in reproduction rates regardless of whether you had the genes or not.However this then changed: “By the mid-19th century, scientific discoveries had moved to a point that human reproduction was sufficiently well understood that fertility rates began to be impacted, especially in the emerging industrial countries,” the scientists explain.And just as the discovery of evolution was made, the genes that make someone more likely to be religious “gained a reproductive advantage – and were better able to spread through the population,”  The Times reports.

It's all based on the presupposition that there are genes for religion and for atheism. But this is absurd. People's ideas are not what genes govern (its anatomy and physiology). These are influenced by society and culture.If I'd been the supervisors of these "researchers" I'd have sent them away for regurgitating arguments that went out, as Dave B has pointed out, with the eugenicists and told them to start again.

[ALB]

The presentations and discussion at that panel meeting they held on the same subject in Chicago last year was dire, with the ghost of Lenin ever present:https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tz2gERLo9S4J:https://platypus1917.org/2016/07/1With Jack Conrad of the Weekly Worker (originally “The Leninist”) and now as the tba Mark Osborn of the "Alliance for Workers Liberty" as well, Lenin, with his distortion of what socialism means, is going to be hovering around at this meeting too. Fortunately, this time we'll be there.

[ALB]

This is clearer (at least on my browser):http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP110I don't suppose the media will be that interested in our "Leadership" election at Conference when we select a new one by lot.

[ALB]

Haven't you any relatives in Co Donegal or Co Monaghan? Resuming the family business is a done deal there.

[Author]

Posts