ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Marx did say apparently that ‘the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party’. (D. McLellan, The Thought of Karl Marx, London 1971, p. 177.)
I think that what he meant by this was that the working class "party" was the the working class self-organised to win political control, i.e that he wasn't drawing a distinction between "party" and the "class for itself". What we refer to in clause 6 of our Declaration of Principles as "the working class … organise[d] consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government". Rather different from Lenin's idea of a "vanguard" party, a minority distinct from and above the rest of the working class and seeking lead them and to rule on behalf of the class.
mcolome1 wrote:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1128-august-1998/anti-imperialist-delusionThis is another important element of Leninism that we have never supported and it was developed by Lenin in 1914The concept of Imperialism was also developed by Nikolai Bukharin and Lenin wrote the preface of his book.https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/I think Bukharin's book on imperialism is better than Lenin's, if only because he discusses the idea and development of state capitalism. Here's the review in the Socialist Standard when it first came out in English.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1930/no-310-june-1930/book-review-imperialism-and-world-economyActually, it was only after the Bolsheviks had seized power (and required outside support to protect their rule from being overthrown) that Lenin added the bits about a section of the workers in the "imperialist" countries living in part off the proceeds of colonial exploitation and that nationalist, anti-imperialist movements should be supported as a way of making the workers in the imperialist countries revolutionary. This wasn't in the original 1916 version. It was only added in the 1920 Preface to the French and German editions. It wasm't in Lenin's 1915 preface to Bukharin's book either. Nor, as the review in the Socialist Standard points out (and as noted by Bukharin's Stalinist critics) in Bukharin's book.This is the passage in the 1920 Preface where he introduces the idea that a section of workers in the imperialist countries shares in imperialist exploitation:
Quote:Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, is the principal prop of the Second International, and in our days, the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie. For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. In the civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie they inevitably, and in no small numbers. take the side of the bourgeoisie, the “Versaillese” against the “Communards”Quite wrong of course both in theory and reality. Even so, of the three works of Lenin we're discussing here the one on Imperialism, without the 1920 Preface, is the least objectionable.
What is Leninism (contrasted with Marx's views)? I suggest there are three basic positions that are not found in Marx.1. The theory of the need for a top-down, hierarchical vanguard party to lead the workers and seize power supposedly on their behalf.2. The distinction bewtween "socialism" and "communism" where "socialism" is defined as a society where everybody is an employee of the State and where money, markets, banks, wages, production for sale, etc continue to exist, i.e that state capitalism is"socialism" and a necessary step on the way to socialism/communism.3. The theory that a section of the workers in the "imperialist" countries are given a share in the super-profits of imperialist exploitation and that this is why they aren't revolutionary; and that support should therefore be given to anti-imperialist movements as, if successful, this will deprive workers in the imperialist countries of their share of super-profits and so make them amenable to following the lead of the vanguard party.We, in the Socialist Party, have always opposed these three positions (both as wrong in themselves and as not representing Marx's view either) and so are anti-Leninist. OK, Lenin accepted the Labour Theory of Value and the Materialist Conception of History and we do too, but if that makes us Leninists it would make a lot of others too. But it's the logic fallacy of A is x, B is x, therefore B is A.
Young Master Smeet wrote:To be fair to Lenin: in his 'What is to be done' he did propose a society of shared work, democratic production, with every cook an accountant, etc. And in his later essays, such as "Better Fewer but Better" he suggested that the role of his government was to raise the culture of the workers: so I don't think he envisaged technical dictatorship forever, any more than Marx did.Actually, YMS, it wasn't in What Is To Be Done that Lenin put forward these ideas but in State and Revolution. As Marcos has just pointed out, in the former he puts forward his notorious view of the need for a vanguard party to bring socialist ideas to the workers considered incapable on their own of developing beyond a trade union consciousness.Here is an article from the Socialist Standard in April 1970 (the centenary of his birth) which discusses Lenin's last articles including the one you quote from. It shows a different Lenin, or at least a more realistic one in the circumstances:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat
jondwhite wrote:Also mcolome1 recommends Franz Mehring herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/new-trojan-horse-elf-lacan-left#comment-36394Wasn't Mehring a Leninist?No, I wouldn't say so.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_MehringHe'd be more of a "Luxemburgist" if anything. At the end of his life he was a member of the Spartakist League which in 1919 changed its name to Communist Party of Germany. However, it had a rather different approach than Leninism. Here's an extract from its manifesto (drafted by Luxemburg):
Quote:The Spartacus League will never take over governmental power except in response to the clear, unambiguous will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of all of Germany, never except by the proletariat’s conscious affirmation of the views, aims, and methods of struggle of the Spartacus League.jondwhite wrote:These are good articles but one is 15 years old and the other 26 years old, so what has prompted their reposting?What's wrong with posting old articles?http://bestofsocialiststandard.blogspot.co.uk/
Thanks, Rob. Meanwhile, a Green Party leaflet has dropped through my letter box. They are not standing a candidate, explaining:
Quote:to reduce the possibility of splitting the votes for the progressive parties and letting in a regressive winner, we are not standing a candidate in this by-election. Despite this, we urge you to vote with conviction;Reading between the lines they are saying vote for the LibDem candidate. They can't say this openly because, under election law, the cost of their leaflet would have to be part of the LibDem's election spending which is likely to be the maximum from their own spending (they are pouring money and campaigners into the constituency).They also say:
Quote:We are actively supporting a Progressive Alliance of political parties for the next General Election. Once elected progressive parties will bring in Proportional Representation (PR) for Parliamentary and local government elections … By not standing in this election the Green Party aims to be a catalyst for change, successfully building alliances with other local parties to create a fairer voting system.They will be expecting something in return for not standing against the LibDems: an election pact with them under which in some constituencies the parties will not stand against each other. For local elections, this will be easier as many wards elect 2 or 3 councillors so a carve-up can be arranged. We will see
Reading the Sun yesterday evening while I waited for my pizza to be done I read that, among the organisations, allowed to intervene before the Supreme Court when it hears the government's appeal against a lower court's ruling that it must consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, was what they called "a left wing union for migrant workers", the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain.Not regarding the Sun as a reliable source of information I checked and it's true:http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/interventions-in-brexit-appeal.htmlThey have been allowed to intervene as representing the interests of EU workers in Britain. Since they are a breakaway from the IWW (see: https://iwgb.org.uk/how-we-began/ ), I wonder if the judges knew what they were doing and also how they'll present their case. Having said that, their objects do not include the IWW's "abolition of the wages system". They are projecting themselves as an ordinary trade union. Maybe they are:https://iwgbunion.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/iwgb_constitution-28-march-2016.pdfIn any event, it's a coup for them.
Forgot to add that one of the comrades took some leaflets and Socialist Standards to cover this student demonstration in central London later that day:http://londonstudent.coop/news/2016/11/19/nus-nov19-demo/Also, in the meantime I've read the leaflets those I said were LibDems were handing out and in fact they (and the flagpole) were supporters of the Vote for Europe campaign group calling for a tactical vote for the LibDem candidate "to stop Brexit in its tracks". They claim to be "a non-party pressure group dedicated to endorsing just one person in every seat".
robbo203 wrote:I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated.That was the point of view ADM delegates took and the EC endorsed, though actually Vin was not "permanently suspended" but "suspended for an indefinite period". Personally, I'm against that too. If someone is going to be suspended it should be for a definite period.Vin would have been "reinstated", i.e his suspension been lifted, if only he had had the patience to wait till the EC Minutes came out (10 days). Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks.And of course he hasn't really been fully suspended as he has been allowed to continue to post through the "lindanesocialist" account..
Six of us braved the cold for a couple of hours this morning. The other parties were there too. The Christian Peoples Alliance were outside the station (their candidate is a local "pastor") alongside the LibDems with a flagpole flying the Union Jack and an EU flag (with the EU one on top).Near to us in the Square were the supporters of Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP whose resignation in protest against the government decision to expand Heathrow Airport provoked the by-election, standing as an Independent. As we were so many (more than them) we were able to cover all approaches. Later LibDem leafletters telling passers-by that their candidate was "a lovely lady" appeared. Maybe she is and maybe Zac's a good guy., but so what? Groups of rugger buggers were milling around up for the game between England and Fiji, down the road at "Twickers". Probably all Tories.We distributed most of the leaflets we had. Quite a few who stopped to comment said they agreed that "the problem is not the Tories… it's capitalism". It turned out that, although Richmond politics hasn't emerged from the 19th century (it's still Liberals and Conservatives taking turns) we were surprised how many supported neither and were sympathic to those opposed to both. One postal worker told us he had voted Brexit "from a socialist position". Someone else told us he used to vote Labour but had given up long ago. A Labour supporter asked where was the Labour Party stall. We said we didn't know.We haven't decided whether or not to do it again next Saturday. The weather will be a factor and we've only got a hundred or so leaflets left. Anyway, what we have shown is that we can intervene in a by-election without a candidate as during one people expect to be leafletted for a few weeks. One drawback this time is that the journalists on the local paper are on strike, so nobody including can use that to get across their ideas on the election. But good luck to the NUJ strikers.
It's a good thing that we did wait for the EC Minutes. I had guessed that what the EC had done was to lift Vin's suspension on condition that he undertook to abide by the forum's rules. It now turns out that he had already given such an undertaking and that this was one factor in the EC's decision to left the ban (my bold):
Quote:i. Re Motion 2 (“This EC upholds the suspension from the Forum of Cde V. Maratty and requests the Internet Committee to forward a copy of the offending emails of March 2016.”)In connection with this item the agenda for the meeting included:a. A number of documents containing communications by and between the Internet Committee and Cde Maratty (“the one post that immediately preceded his Spintcom suspension (for personal attacks) the three posts that immediately preceded his spopen suspension (for using the list to air complaints about his other suspensions), and some posts relating to his Web forum suspension”) and an offer to provide “on request a full record of his… posting history for March 2016, as well as his e-mail correspondence with the IC, though this could run to several hundred pages”;b. E-mail from Cde Maratty via the Acting General Secretary (29–30/10/16): Being his “request to have his suspension from the Party Forums lifted.” Cde Maratty stated that “The 'Act of Contrition' read out at ADM by Cde Browne was not meant for the EC, it was a sarcastic and humorous attempt to reply to the forum moderators request for an 'Act of Contrition' to the EC.” It further explained that last month he had submitted but subsequently withdrawn the following request to the EC:“I request that the EC lift my ban and reinstate my account. I undertake to abide by the rules of the forum. May I also ask that the EC reconsiders my nomination as a member of the AV committee as I feel I have something to contribute to the party and our movement? Please see … video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production”. The video was viewed by the EC during the meeting;c. ADM Floor Resolution arising f rom x23 (Report of Internet Committee), Cdes Kilgallon (North East Regional) & Whitehead (Manchester): “This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”, reported as being agreed by a vote of 8–2–3.A discussion took place regarding the items on the agenda. Taking into account the content of the emails from Cde Maratty (b, above), the views of delegates expressed at ADM, and the fact that the suspension had now exceeded seven months, several EC members suggested that the Internet Committee should be asked to end the suspension. Others took a contrary view, that there was no evidence to support lifting the suspension and that delegates at ADM may not have been fully aware of the circumstances.MOTION 3 (Browne/Thomas): “That we thank the Comrades of the Internet Committee for their reply to our request of October, and endorse their actions i n the circumstances. We note that Cde Vincent Maratty has, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore we lift his suspension and enjoin Cde Maratty to work together with the Comrades of the Internet Committee for our common aim.” AGREED 4-2-1 [Division: For – Browne, Foster, McLellan, Thomas; Against – Scholey, Skelly; Abstain – Cox].So, Vin undertook twice to abide by the rules of the forum yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.I would say that that amounts to the end of his third chance that the ADM delegates voted to give him and that the least messy way out of this would be for Vin fo follow Alan's example and withdraw completely from this forum.
Vin, you are right. There is no right of appeal to the EC in the rules of this forum. This is because it is a forum composed of non-members as well as members. It was deliberately decided not to allow forum members to appeal to the EC as forum members as this could lead to malicious and time-wasting appeals by non-member trolls and troublemakers just to clog up the work of the EC. Your 'right' to 'appeal' to the EC derives from elsewhere : your status as a party member, as any party member is able to appeal to the EC against a decision of one of its subcommittees. This doesn't just apply to members suspended on this forum but also, for example, to a member who has had an article turned down by the Socialist Standard editorial committee.
