[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm

[ALB]

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/

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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".

[ALB]

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..

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

I think Drop the Bomb has just  identified hisself.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

There was a revealing front page headline in yesterday's Times:

Quote:

95% OF NEW WORKERS ARE FOREIGNERS.

Commenting that "Employment levels in Britain are at an all-time high", the article went on:

Quote:

The number of people in work increased by 454,000 between July and September last year and the same period this year. Workers born overseas made up nearly 95 per cent of the increase — just over 430,000.

This underlines that Capital needs Labour to expand, that no new new useful things can be made or new services provided without people working. If the workers to expand capitalist production can't be found in Britain then they will have to be drawn in from outside. To restrict this would slow down  this expansion (which is what capitalism is all about) down. As Jonathan Portes, a fellow of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research was quoted as saying:

Quote:

The figures once again illustrate that with unemployment at very low levels most of the growth in the labour force — and hence of the economy as a whole — relies on foreign-born workers. Of course, the implication of this is that substantial reductions in immigration, resulting from Brexit or from the government's efforts to cut immigration, will hit growth and tax receipts.

Will the government insist on restricting the immigration of workers at the cost of slowing capitalist growth? Will they listen the xenophobic populists or will they put the interests of UK capitalism first?

[ALB]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Can I suggest a way forward would be for the Mods to reinstate Vin, as soon the EC minutes are published. For the Mods to issue a warning to Vin re the use of duel accounts. For Vin to accept this warning and undertake not to use a duel account again. For the "Machiavelli" account to be closed. For  Vin to publicly withdraw the comments made on the Machiavelli account. For Vin to abide by the rules as they currently stand and thus we free up the Mods time to get on with amending the rules.

As a majority of delegates voted, rightly or wrongly, to give Vin a third chance, this seems a way forward. Going back to the EC would just prolong the disruption of this forum. I take it that "duel" is a (perhaps deliberate) misprint for "dual" and that it means that Vin's second account which he has been allowed to use since his suspension will be closed and that Vin understands this.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

the alleged sock-puppet account was not opened until 9 November, no doubt foolishly,

It wasn't just foolish. It was framed as a nasty attack on the party as if it had come from an opponent:

Quote:

I'm afraid the SPGB doesn't know the 'truth' even when it is democratically decided! An 'elite' decides the 'truth' even today never mind in socialism!

In fact it is unbelievable that such a thing could have been written by a party member. Party procedures may be slow and cumbersome but they are still democratic. ADM floor resolutions are not self-enforcing but recommendations to the EC which decides if and how they are to be implemented, so the moderators could not simply act on the one in question but had to wait for what the EC decided and instructed them to do. For all they know (and we know) there might be conditions attached to lifting the suspension.And it wasn't an "alleged" sock-puppet but an open and shut case of one, a textbook example.

[ALB]

In the review of the book by Micah White on The End of Protest we said we would say how he did in his bid to become Mayor of Nehalem in rural Oregan. Here it is:http://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=770He got 36 votes (20%). The election was won by his Republican Party rival with 138 votes. His election programme was revolutionary but parish pump stuff.More on the election here.

[Author]

Posts