[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? 

 The short answer is NO THEY DONT.  All we have ever had from you is a  dreary repetition of the same old endlessly repeated and continually unsupported, dogma of yours about some supposed "irreconcilable contradiction"  between communism and the communist principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs '.  That, along with your own puffed-up sense of your importance and your all too obvious contempt for anyone who dares criticise you as "silly" and "immature" is probably why most folk here doubtless think there is  little point in trying engage in rational discussion with you.  Just saying, mind.

[robbo203]

Wez wrote:

There's no reason to believe that Leninists are any closer to socialist consciousness than your average liberal or conservative.

 Indeed,  Wez,  On the aforementioned FB forum – Socialist Economics – in response to a point I made  that Marx's conception of the "lower phase of communist society" did not possess " those fundamental structural features that pertain to capitalism and class society in general – such as wage labour, class property and the existence of a state",  one of their leading lights, a Leninist, blurted out  "Literally utopianism. Will not happen".   This same individual was enthusiastically endorsing the price mechanism as the best way of registering human wants You have to wonder why do these individuals even bother to pay lip service to the idea of a communist society at all

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Tankies (CPGB) peaked at 50,000 in the 1950s.Trots (SWP) peaked at 10,000 in the mid 1990s.The tankies suffered the most dramatic fall off in 1988 but both are irreversibly downhill.CPB claimed 1,000 a decade or so ago, but its likely they are closer to us now (<500), likewise the SWP since the Delta scandal in 2011.

 What about other tankies outside of what was the CPGB? Any ideas? What groups comprise the tankie movement in the UK?  Also what about the US?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Not sure about that at least as far as the tankies are concerned.Those are the battles of yesterday and we won. More than ever before, it's now accepted that Marx's views and Lenin's were not the same. What's the point in flogging a dead horse except perhaps for training or amusement. 

  I am not too sure to what extent the tankies are a spent force though,  Adam, even if the view is gaining ground that Marx's views and Lenin's were not the same. What in your opinionwould be a rough figure for the size of the movement in the UK for example, juat out of interest?  That aside,  there are certain commonalities between trots and tankies that need addressing not necessarily with anything Marx might have said in mind but in their own right as questionable ideas  (we dont ourselves agree with everything Marx wrote anyway) Yes Dave "Trots and Tankies" is a catchy title for a pamphlet.   This is just an idea that popped into my head but I will have to put it to the Publications Committee first.  Potentially it could be quite a popular little publication particularly with a bit of humour thrown in for good measure

[robbo203]

Perhaps the time has come for a special issue of the Standard on the theme of "Trots and Tankies" looking in detail at their arguments and misconceptions.  Come to think of it, why not a new pamphlet? This is another issue which is not going to fade away from the political scene all that soon

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but I personally think it might be a good idea for the SPGB Twitter account to upload pictures of Lenin with his quotes about State Capitalism (with sources of course).I don't think a lot of leninists have read those quotes and it might make them rethink their views a bit

 You may well have a point Sympo.  Particularly the Lenin quote on big banks "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).  Given the current animus towards banks and bankers by the Left – the industrial capitalists dont seem too bad by comparsion according to  them – this quote might well raise a few eyebrows

[robbo203]

Everything you ever wanted to know about tankies, but were afraid to ask  https://libcom.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-tankies-were-afraid-ask-08032018 &nbsp;

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Yes, I remember Cameron Woodford (nasty piece of work); he and his henchmen had Marco Procaccino and others tankie opponents, including myself, banned from another FB group, the name of which escapes me for the moment.  They didn't like being referred to as goose-stepping, boss worshippers, etc.  You'll probably remember, though.

 I too vaguely remember him.  This was the guy who sneeringly suggested ""Never try arguing with an SPGBot" in a bid to portray SPGBers as inflexible dogmatists.  When I then challenged his claims about Lenin and socialism  (in the form of above post) he then had the nerve to say " I refer you to my earlier comment in the thread. I have no intention of banging my head against a wall. Good day to you, sir".   Talk about inflexible dogmatism! Tankies have developed that down to a fine art.  

[robbo203]

In response to one of the critiques above provided by Cameron Woodford  –  https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/ &#8211; I posted this on the Socialist Economics forum   (slightly amded to remove grammatical errors).   I wondered if folk here can add any further observations.   To me the evdience seems pretty overwhelming that Lenin did identity socialism as a form of state capitalism but why are the Tankies so embarrassed by having this pointed out to them?  Cameron Woodford I read your blog peice and with the greatest of respect I think you are talking crap. There is no “dishonest distortion” in saying Lenin equated socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly. It is there in black and white and there is no way of getting around that except by dishonestly distorting Lenin yourself. As he put it, “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people” How is that NOT equating socialism with a form of state capitalism. eh?Yes I know Lenin also referred to another kind of state capitalism- what you might call the "non-socialist "version of state capitalism from a Leninist standpoint – the kind you referred to in your blog which had profit making capitalists and “operated primarily through lease concessions to foreign industrialists, made by the proletarian state” according to you. Sort of like Germany's state capitalist model which so impressed Lenin that he wanted Russia to imitate it . When Lenin differentiated between “socialism “and state capitalism he was talking about this form of state capitalism. He was NOT saying that socialism was not ALSO a form of state capitalism – how could he when we have the above quote stating in a black and white that “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people”?It is YOU who have misunderstood Lenin , not your critics, who have you also misunderstood. We know very well that Lenin had two different notions of state capitalism in mind equating one with socialism and a so called proletarian state, and the other with a capitalist state. He said as much in 1921: “But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it”.If there is any doubt on what Lenin imagined socialism would look like consider these words : "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).Again in State and Revolution Lenin talked of socialism in terms of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state"So according to Lenin “socialism” would consist of banks, wage labour, and the state. This has absolutely nothing to do, and is completely at variance, with the Marxian concept of socialismIn fact Lenin was a complete muddleheaded and very poor theorist. The excerpt from Left Wing Childishness which you quote to try to prove your point that Lenin distinguished between state capitalism and socialism (when what it was really between one form of state capitalism and another form he dubbed “socialism”) ironically demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt what a muddlehead Lenin was. According to him the various socio-economic structures that existed in Russia at the time were:"1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain)) private capitalism;4) state capitalism;5) socialism.”So pray do tell – if socialism denotes the common or social ownership of all the means of production – the Marxian conception of socialism – how in god’s name can it coexist with forms of ownership that are sectional and class based? The one thing of necessity precludes the other 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 Quite an achievement for the Party to get so many mentions with links given to the website and to specific articles.  As a matter of interest the so-called 'Socialist Economics' FB group was set up by one Babbu Patel, a regular contributor to the 'Ultras vs Tankies' FB group.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1060132960785805/

 The Socialist Economics website itself is pretty dire. steeped as it is in the usual tankie BS.  Im not too sure how much longer I will stick it out but some of the posts and links have collected a few likes

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The US could soon recognise the disputed Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory, a senior minister in the country has suggested.Intelligence minister Israel Katz said that the subject was “topping the agenda” in talks with the Trump administration.He suggested that such a move would bolster US efforts to confront Iran, “The most painful response you can give the Iranians is to recognise Israel’s Golan sovereignty – with an American statement, a presidential proclamation”, Mr Katz said.Adding to the push, an Israeli legislator wrote to America’s ambassador to Israel requesting that America recognise Israel’s claim to the disputed area, according to the Jerusalem Post.100,000 Syrian refugees fled as a result of the war. Israel has not allowed former residents to return, citing security reasons.In 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, that extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law effectively annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out the formal annexation. The area has since been administered as Golan sub-district part of Israel's Northern District. The Golan Heights Law is not recognized internationally.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-golan-heights-sovereignty-trump-administration-syria-iran-a8366451.html

 It would be interesting to how the American regime might try to square recognition of the annexed territory of the Golan Heights by Israel with its condemanation of Russia's "amnnexation" of the Crimea

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I am crap at language and always have been.

I don't think that's true. I just think most foreign language teaching is bad. Have a look at the Language Transfer Spanish course in the link I posted above. They use a very effective method, one that you wont really come across in other places. It's an entirely free, voluntary project ran by a guy that is now living in Barcelona. Here's a video of him teach Spaniards English: https://www.facebook.com/languagetransfer/videos/10153047250840431/

Thanks DJP.   I'll give it a go although Im not too optimistic about the chances of a significant breakthrough.  Mind you if it does work the missus will be pleased.  She's Spanish and has had to put up with Spanish subtitles for films on the telly all these years.  Her english is a lot better than my spanish even though she's not quite fluent in it

[robbo203]

I think different people are wired up differently and that while age may very well be a factor in acquiring language skills it is not the only factor.   I am crap at language and always have been.  I failed in Afrikaans in my matriculation exams in South Africa and had to do a resit while doing military conscripition.  Its only becuase the lengua franca of the South African army was mainly Afrikaans that I managed to acquire a few more words and scrape a pass. Another example.  I moved to Spain in 2004 but still cant speak the lingo fluently despite having a Spanish wife! Bloody embarrassing!

[robbo203]

Interesting you should mention sleeping on the pavement.  The Homeless were cleared off the streets so it would not cause offence https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/420594261751350/&nbsp;

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

"At the end of the day  I dont see this as being a problem at all.  As I keep on pointing out – even today under capitalism most work is unpaid and falls completely outside of the monetised sector.  "He said that useful work (i.e. the stuff people do at their jobs) can never be as enjoyable as doing any other activity because of an inherent sense of obligation to do the work and the time required to do it. This, he claims, would lead to people always preferring to play tennis and write poetry instead of doing real work, which means society collapses.

 Well I guess the flipant answer to that is that if society collapses becuase of people not wanting to work then those same people are sure as hell not going to be able to play tennis or write poetry  Its not rocket science to see that the one kind of activity depends on the other and people will surely see this.   After all , these same people would have elected to bring about a socialist society in the first place and so would be aware of what that implies.   As the saying goes  "Nature ahbors a vacuum" and so does society.   In socialism if you cant force people to labour as you can in a class-based society people will willy-nilly step in to do what is necessary – some admittedly sooner than others as  we all have different tolerance thresholds  – as they already do in a voluntary capacity even under capitalism.   Whats more, doing  something for the common good  (as well as one's own) would earn the praise of others and the more needed the work the stronger the praise it would presumably earn.  In a sense the simple law of supply and demand would solve the problem you refer to

Sympo wrote:

 "Surely these same people who established socialism will understand that if everyone  adopted the perspective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced"He would reply by saying that society consists of individuals, and that it makes sense to not work if your personal input doesn't affect much.I.e. he's arguing that the inherent selfishness of individuals (which the SPGB doesn't claim will have to go away before Socialism can be possible) is in conflict with what's good for a socialist society.

 But your self-interest as an individual is bound up with the interest of others in a socialist society.  You advance your own interests by advancing theirs.   That aside, human beings are not just driven by the motive of self interest alone.  Altruism is as much a part of the human psyche as egoism  – the dual self model of the person There is also the highly questionable assumption in his argument that not working makes sense from the perspective of the self interested individual.   Does it though?  Try not working or simply doing something useful like painting your flat or weeding your vegetable patch for a long stretch of time and you will soon enough find yourself bored out of your mind .  People have been known to end their own lives because they  had lost all sense of purpose by losing the possibility of work.  And that is work tainted by capitalism!  Imagine how  different it would be under socialism  when work will be a real pleasure. To pass up on the opportunity to engage in such work would if anything be a negation of self interest to my way of thinking

[Author]

Posts