ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Luxemburg's assessment of the Russian Revolution, writen in 1918, can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htmYou can see that, while she fully supported the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, she was critical of many of their policies, insisting that "the dictatorship of the proletariat" had to be the dictatorship of the whole working class using democratic methods not the dictatorship of a party.It's a tragedy that she was murdered in January 1919 as, had she survived, she would surely have been more critical of what the Bolsheviks were doing and could have been a prestigious voice that could have prevented so many workers getting sidetracked into Leninism whose pernicious influence still, unfortunately, survives today..Actually, the copy I have of her 1906 article that Ed mentions is a pamphlet brought out by the old ILP who gave it the appropriate title of Leninism or Marxism? Actually, just checked and this is another of her articles, dating from 1904, which can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm
alanjjohnstone wrote:Gnome asks why would they want to infiltrate us? What would be in it, literally, for them? I can think of two reasons , the control of a healthy bank balance and prestigious premises.That wasn't what I had in mind. They may be (are, in fact) unscrupulous political operators but they are not common crooks (besides, they seem to have plenty of money of their own, from their leaders' private fortunes). I was thinking more of a political raid to see if they could pick up some of our then members who might have doubts about our policy, say, on parliament or reforms.
The "CPGB" are not Trotskyists of course but "Leninists" even "post-Stalinists". They seem to be applying Lenin's dictum concerning the leaders of the Labour Party — support "like a rope supports a hanged man" — to all other organisations. I'm sure that if we were bigger we would have to find ways of keeping them out. Be interesting to see what both the "Socialist Platform" and the new "Left Unity" party do about them.The Lenin quote comes from his 1920 polemic Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
It appears that the most non-jihadist "moderate" rebels are members of …. the Muslim Brotherhood:
Quote:Syria, where the main component of the opposition is the Muslim BrotherhoodI don't know how accurate this report is but I wouldn't be surprised.
More "CPGB" celebration of their wrecking of the "Socialist Platform" by "Leninising" it and showing internal disruption:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/978/socialist-platform-leaders-headlong-collapse-into-politics-of-the-labour-bureaucracyAlso here:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/978/cpgb-debating-left-unity-alternativesI know some comrades like the Weekly Worker because it will always publish letters from us (as in this issue, it so happens) but in my opinion they are the most despicable of all Leninist groups What they have done here is a classic application of their (and the trotskyists') tactic of entering another group, trying to take it over, and then withdrawing having picked up a few new members. In fact, in the second article above Mike McNair openly exposes this dishonest and unprincipled approach:
Quote:He concluded that, although Left Unity is a project which is going nowhere, is obsessed with political correctness and is politically insubstantial, the CPGB nonetheless ought to go through this experience and attempt to win people over.What happened at the meeting illustrates what is likely to happen at the Left Party's founding conference on 30 November and after as the various Leninist entryist groups follow this tactic and slog it out amongst each other (not the call at this meeting by the "CPGB" to exclude another, rival group). I must confess, though, that I didn't think this would happen so soon. It seems I underestimated the machiavellism of the "CPGB".
I think you must be referring to this passage from the article in the January 1969 Socialist Standard:
Quote:Revisionists such as Bernstein, Otto Bauer and Hilferding did so because, in this way, they sought to justify and strengthen the reformist tendencies within the social-democratic parties. This accounts for the gusto with which Bauer and Hilferding (and Pannekoek—but for different reasons) attempted to refute the arguments in Luxemburg's Accumulation of Capital. To them it seemed that if it could be demonstrated that capitalism would not break down, then this would he ample justification for abandoning revolution altogether and for simply concentrating on modifying the harsher injustices of capitalist society. Of course, they did not put it as blatantly as this and still clung to the face-saving formula that gradually the expropriators would be expropriated But, arguing theoretically, they were quite prepared to suggest that capitalism could maintain itself indefinitely by adopting what today we would call a state-capitalist form. Thus Otto Bauer wrote in his Finance Capital (Der Kampf, June 1910):"The entire capitalistic society would be consciously controlled by a single tribunal, by which the extent of production in all departments would be determined, and by, which by means of a scale of prices, the product of labour would be divided between the cartel magnates on the one hand, and the whole mass of the other members of society on the other, The anarchy of production at present prevailing would thus be brought to an end: we should have a consciously regulated society in an antagonistic form."I agree that it is wrong to call Bauer and Hilfreding "revisionists" as they did not advocate abandoning the basic tenets of Marxism as did Bernstein, the classic "revisionist", at the turn of the century. They could, however, be labelled "reformists". After all, after WW1, Bauer was Austrian Foreign Minister and Hilferding twice German Finance Minister !How the post WW1 Social Democrats reconciled their commitment to Marxism with administering capitalism is a mystery. They seem to have taken the view that, as long as the working class did not want socialism, all a Social Democratic party could do is to try to obtain reforms within capitalism of benefit to the working class and that this could sometimes best be done by participating in a government of capitalism. They also seem to have taken the view that, as long as capitalism lasts, any government had to respect its economic laws or risk provoking an economic crisis. In any event, during his two spells as German Finance Minister Hilferding pursued a "prudent" financial policy.There is clearly a huge gap between this position and that of the SPGB. We are completely opposed to the participation of socialists in running capitalism as we know that this will inevitably involve conflict with the working class as capitalism cannot be made to work in their interest but is a profit-making system that can only work in the interest of the profit-taking capitalist class.Having said this Hilferding did write, as you point out, a good refutation of the Austrian school economist Boehm-Bawerk. And also a book on Finance Capital which was reviewed in the Socialist Standard in July 1985:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1985/no-971-july-1985/markets-monopoly-and-warI don't really understand the link between Rosa Luxemburg and Austro-Marxists except perhaps on the National Question, on which both opposed national independence movements. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled over people speaking many different languages (German, Hungarian, Czech, Polish, Rumanian, Ukrainian, Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, etc). Faced with this situation the Austrian Social Democrats envisaged not the break-up into independent States but "cultural autonomy", i.e. each language group to have autonomy over education, etc, based on a person's language not where they lived. An interesting solution, which could well be applied in socialism.Bauer was a sort of German-speaker nationalist and argued that the "nation" was the natural unit for socialism. Anton Pannekoek, the Dutch socialist, intervened in this debate within the Austrian Social Democratic party with a pamphlet in 1912 arguing that, on the contrary, the world was the only framework for socialism. His pamphlet can be found here:http://libcom.org/history/class-struggle-nation-anton-pannekoekI don't think we could have put it better ourselves.
Is this to what you are referring:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jZ86CbBRYQIt looks quite good (with Captain Picard playing Lenin). Lenin addressed the woman you are asking about as "Comrade Zasulitch". She is Vera Zasulitch. More details about her here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Zasulich
Hrothgar wrote:it's worth noting that you are not repaying my general civility in kind, which implies you have no response to my arguments.If I'd have been you, instead of posting long cringe-worthy self-justifications, I'd have simply said touché and moved on.As to your self-proclaimed "general civility" I remind you of your derogatory remark laughing at people who you said were going to have "mixed race" grandchildren, without considering that there will be such people on this forum as well as people you don't want them or yourself to mix with.As to your argument, it seems to have boiled down, in the course of the exchanges here, to the claim that humans have a "tribal instinct" and are able to recognise others with a similar genetic make-up to theirs (what you call "race") but without reference to their skin colour.Since humans are social animals they may well have something akin to your "tribal instinct" but it would be a general "instinct" to associate with fellow humans, in our complex modern society with different humans for different purposes; which is what happens. You have not shown that it can only take the form you want it to take. In fact, the fact that you have to propagandise for your preference and try to create a "racial consciousness" shows that it is not "natural" as, if it was, it would manifest itself spontaneously. But it doesn't. And hasn't. Quite the opposite. There's been what you call "race mixing" for tens of thousands of years.
Hrothgar wrote:you instead try and turn the tables on me.Rather successfully, I thought. You stand exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite on this point. Better you stick to simple "racialism" instead of trying to be a feather plucker.
Hrothgar wrote:you go psycho at even a moderate slightCan that be a demeaning reference to people with psychological problems?
Report on the meeting by those who drew up the "Socialist Platform" here:http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2470What unscrupulous political operators the so-called "CPGB" are. True Leninists !
Ok, forget "peak oil" or agree to disagree on it and move on to global warming. I agree with you that this is happening, so how do you think that problem could be solved or at least mitigated?I must confess that I am beginning to think that your refusal to commit yourself on solutions is disguising the fact that you don't think there is one and think we are all doomed and thst the best an individual can do is to stock up on food and a gun and take to the hills to await the impending collapse of capitalism and/or civilisation.
Isn't Praxis simply the German word for practice? So Marx would simply have meant what we mean by practice. Giving it some other meaning seems to go back to Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party in the 1920s and 30s, or at least to those who have interpreted him. In a footnote to an article he wrote on Gramsci in 2007 Chris Harman (SWP) pointed out:
Quote:In this and other passages Gramsci used the Italian word ‘prassi’, which is translated in English‑Italian dictionaries as ‘practice’. Some people translate it as ‘praxis’, believing that gives it some deeper, almost mystical meaning. In fact, in Germany every medical doctor has a ‘praxis’.ralfy wrote:What you are asking for is beyond the scope of this thread given the thread title. Put simply, the question, "Whatever happened to 'peak oil'?" implies that there is no problem concerning peak oil, and since there is no problem, then there is no need to seek a solution. This makes your request illogical, unless you are now acknowledging that the question is irrelevant and that peak oil should be taken seriously. If so, then I suggest that you create a new thread where you mention that peak oil is a major issue and ask for solutions.This seems a bit pedantic. I would have thought that it made sense to discuss all aspects of "peak oil" on one thread.
ralfy wrote:I also do not understand why you argue, "even assuming you are right," as this makes me feel that I am wasting my time, i.e., having to give a solution to a problem that you argue does not exist.This is not just a dialogue between you and me. I may have started this thread but there are others on this forum who probably won't take the same position as me (in fact I was assuming some won't) and will be interested in hearing your solution to the problem you and they perceive.
ralfy wrote:Finally, I never believed that "the present world capitalist system" will solve the problem of peak oil. If any, I explained that the same system will fall apart because of such a problem.Well, at least that confirms that you are not a lobbyist for some rival source of energy to drive capitalist industry, e.g nuclearpower but it still leaves open the question of how you propose to deal with the problem. Are we to just sit around and wait for the capitalist system to fall apart? Or should we take to the hills, as the doomsters advise?
