[ALB]

Militant have just published a pamphlet-length reply to Kliman here:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17458/20-09-2013/the-causes-of-capitalist-crisis-reply-to-andrew-klimanIt's hilarious in parts, just trotting out moth-eaten Trotskyist dogmas about "degenerate workers state", "transitional programme", "nationalise the monopolies", "vanguard party", etc.. At one point Kliman is accused of being like us::

Quote:

Kliman scathingly dismisses the idea of a fighting transitional programme for workers, which is clearly spelt out in the last chapter of his book entitled 'What is to be Undone'.He writes: "The notion that socialism will come about by means of a party that captures state power and nationalizes the means of production is fundamentally misguided". [The Failure of Capitalist Production (TFoCP), p204] Bruce Wallace is at present a member of a party and an international organisation which defends the notion that the working class through its own party will need to fight for the idea of taking power through the nationalisation of the big monopolies – the means of production – on a national and an international scale.This is a precondition for taking economic and state power out of the hands of capitalism and putting it into the hands of the working class, laying the basis for the democratic socialist planning of society.What is Kliman's alternative to this? : "We can have a modern society that operates without the laws of capitalist production being in control". [TFoCP, p206] Just how this can be achieved, remains a mystery.Kliman merely suggests: "There needs to be a new relation of theory to practice, so that regular people are not just the muscle that brings down the old power, but become fully equipped, theoretically and intellectually, to govern society themselves."Nothing short of this can prevent power from being handed over to an elite." This is followed by the sentence: "It seems very utopian". [TFoCP, p206] You can say that again! This is not a fighting programme and perspectives in the Marxist sense but is akin to astronomy where events will develop almost automatically. 'Educate' the working class in the 'fundamentals' and, like rotten fruit, capitalism will collapse of its own accord and socialism will be born!Insofar that this means anything, it is that the working class must be 'theoretically' educated – presumably by Kliman and Bruce Wallace – to prepare them for socialism.This sounds familiar. It echoes the arguments of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) – not our party, the Socialist Party of England and Wales, but the tiny organisation – that seeks the road to socialism, which by definition must be long and protracted, through abstractly 'educating' working people on the realities of money and demanding its immediate abolition, and the same with classes, the law of value, etc.

Thanks for the compliment.Other gems are:

Quote:

He unapologetically shares a 'state capitalist' analysis with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Britain, although he is not a member of their 'international', the International Socialist Tendency (IST).In fact, he dedicates his book to one of the SWP's theoreticians, the late Chris Harman, who shared his approach to the rate of profit issue.Bruce Wallace may try to pretend that this has no bearing on his economic analysis. But it is the experience of ourselves and many workers in Britain with the SWP and others who adhere to a state capitalist analysis of the former Soviet Union – it was a state capitalist regime not a degenerated workers' state, they argue – that it leads them to a mistaken approach on virtually all political questions both of an historical and contemporary character.

You wouldn't think that Militant was in an electoral alliance with the SWP in TUSC.They defend the old USSR as "progressive":

Quote:

We have explained on many occasions that the collapse of Stalinism not only ended the rule of the monstrous bureaucracy that dominated these societies; it also led to the collapse of the planned economy, which in the past was relatively progressive compared to capitalism.(…) For Kliman, like his SWP cousins, the collapse of Stalinism did not represent an historic defeat for the working class.

Kliman is criticised for arguing (we do too) that for Marx there was no "transitional society" between capitalism and communism (= socialism):

Quote:

In passing, he criticises the transitional method and programme elaborated by the Bolsheviks and developed by Trotsky.In the American online journal marxisthumanistinitiative.org, he attacks various political opponents, who "ignore the fact that the Critique of the Gotha Programme [by Marx] states – twice – that the first phase of communist society emerges from capitalist society – one is transformed into the other, directly."There is nothing in between, not in Marx's statement.

They answer Kliman's criticism of their current reformist programme:

Quote:

We have argued in a transitional manner for an increase in government expenditure in order to boost housing, education, workers' share of income, etc. We have also demanded nationalisation of the banks and the finance sector. Yet Kliman opposes this. He writes: "Some leftist economists called for state control or nationalization of the financial system, rather than just regulation, of the financial system… But there cannot be socialism in one country. What results when you try to have socialism in one country is state-capitalism, a state-run system that is still embedded in the global capitalist economy, and which is still locked into a competitive battle with capitals elsewhere in the world. A state-run bank is still a bank." [TFoCP, pp194-5]

To be fair, the only point Militant seem to score is when they say Kliman is a "one club golfer" when he argues that the falling rate of profit is the cause of all crises.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel !

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Peak oil is not just "accurate science" but basic science: oil is a finite resource. The opposite argues that it is an infinite resource.

The argument is not about whether oil is or is not an "infinite" resource. Of course it isn't. It's about whether "peak oil" has been reached or is likely be in the near future. To argue that peak oil has not yet been reached or won't be for many years is not to argue that oil is an infinite resource. You yourself recognise this when you write later:

ralfy wrote:

we need to differentiate between peak oil not taking place and peak oil not taking place during a certain period. The first implies that oil is an infinite resource, and that's not the case given the standpoint of a human race that cannot wait for millions of years before more supplies are made available.The second does not in any way confirm the first. We can use unconventional oil in place of crude oil, nuclear power, etc., but the physical limitations remain, and not just for materials needed to obtain, store, and use energy but even for other matters, such as phosphorus needed for agriculture, fossil fuels needed for petrochemicals and shipping transport, etc.

Personally, I think you are exaggerating here, just as the Club of Rome did in the 1970s.Thanks for indicating what you think must be done about it, as here:.

ralfy wrote:

As I explained earlier, there is no solution to peak oil, which is a predicament. The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament by lowering oil demand while maximizing oil and gas production, and moving to renewable energy.

ralfy wrote:

That adjustment will basically take the form of decreasing resource consumption and energy.

As I said, there is no chance of these adjustments taking place under capitalism, at least not in a rational and timely way. The only framework within which this could take place is world socialism. as explained in this article:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-996-august-1987/one-green-world

[ALB]

I wonder if he's a redhead:http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtmlIf so, maybe he should join this group so he can associate with people sharing some of the same genes as him (easier to tell at first glance than blood group):http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/redheads-rally-for-ginger-pride-in-edinburgh-1-3040091Oh, I forgot, on his theory, he would already have naturally gravitated towards them.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

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?

We should probably create another thread for that topic.

Ok, there's already a thread on this here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/global-warmingSo let's continue this point there.

ralfy wrote:

The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament, and that means using fewer resources and localize.

The chances of "using fewer resources and localize" happening within capitalism are nil. The only framework within which this could be implemented would be a society where the Earth's natural and industrial resources had become the common heritage of all. Because only on that basis would humans be in a position to choose what to do without being subject to the economic laws and profit considerations that capitalism imposes.Such a society would not only be free to eliminate the huge waste of resources under capitalism but also to develop other, at present unprofitable, sources of energy. We could have a world in which everybody's needs could be met without having to wear hair shirts or abandon entirely living in towns and cities or the worldwide productive network that has developed.

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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 Brotherhood

I don't know how accurate this report is but I wouldn't be surprised.

[ALB]

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".

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

you go psycho at even a moderate slight

Can that be a demeaning reference to people with psychological problems?

[Author]

Posts