[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  

[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/ – 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/ 

[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

[robbo203]

https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/38 After a very quick perusal of this site.  it looks like it contains some interesting material that could be of use.  One comment I would make though – and maybe this is unfair of me because i havent read through all the material by any means  – is that there seems to be a paucity, if not a complete absence, of any substantive commentary on what Marx had in mind by an alternative to capitalism. This is a point that really niggles me about these left wing academics – Marxologists or whatever they call themselves    They will invest disportionately huge amounts of energy into exploring some relatively obscure subject such as the impact of hegelian dialectics on Marx's thought while more or less completely overlooking the Big Picture – the vision of a communist/socialist alternative to capitalism which, after all, is the whole point of the exercise is it not? Its as if some of these people are almost embarrassed to point out that we are talking about a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on free access to goods and voluntary cooperation.  Its as if they harbour some cringing fear of being labelled "utopian", and having their credibility questioned, by their "bourgeois" colleagures in the ivory tower of academe. The Comunist Manifesto spoke of  communists disdaining to "conceal their views and aims"; among many left wing academics  there seems to be a fad for doing precisely that, if indeed communism is their aim at all     

[robbo203]

Darren redstar wrote:

Robbo I think my argument is similar to our position toward anti fascism. As socialists we oppose all forms of capitalist rule and of course oppose fascism which is a form of capitalist class rule, but are also opposed to the ideology of anti fascism which sees fascism as uniquely horrorific and defends and alibis other forms of capitalist rule as preferable.

 Yes I understand and agree with the point you are making.  My only slight quibble (which is more semantic than anything else) is that we are still nevertheless opposed to fascism and are therefore "anti fascist" even if we dont share much common ground with many anti-fascists (who are basically pro-capitalist in the main).  Ditto the argument about Zionism and Anti-Semitism.   The Socialist position is probably quite unique in that we are able to vigorously oppose the nationalist nonsense that is Zionism without ever making ourselves vulnerable to the accusation that we are  somehow courting anti-semitic ideas.   This is becuase we oppose all nationalism.  Period.  It is the capitalist Left who favour Palestinian nationalism who find themselves in a weak position  when they try to answer the charge that they are anti-semtic by denying the right of Jews to have their own nation-state while asserting the right of Palestinians to have theirs (although to be fair I suspect most of them opt for a two state solution, not the elimination of Israel per se) That is indeed a case of double standards but it is not an accusation that can remotely be levelled against socialists.  We are not in the least interested in promoting any kind of nation state let alone apologising for one

[robbo203]

Darren redstar wrote:

I think we must distinguish between AntiZionism and opposition to the actions of the Israeli State.all socialists would oppose the murderous, racist and discriminatory policies of Israel but this should not be understood as support for the ideology of AntiZionism. AntiZionism is a procapitalist, nationalist ideology that denies the validity of one state (Israel) and advocates its destruction, but accepts and supports the existence of all other states ( and indeed wishes to replace the Israeli state with a capitalist Palestinian one).as the ideological foundation of Israel is as ‘The Jewish State’ then anti Zionism explicitly denies that the Jewish People are allowed a state of their own ( for socialists who reject the idea of all states this is unremarkable, but anti Zionism is a part of the ideology of the left and inextricably tied to the concept of rights of nations to self determination and the support of nationalisms) It is the refusal of the anti zionists to acknowledge the right of a Jewish State to exist, whilst supporting all other states that gives support to the allegation of anti Semitism ( and allows anti semites to operate within the anti Zionist organisations).

 Its a good point you raise, Darren.   Anti-Zionism can indeed be a vehicle for anti-semitic ideas.  But then again we socialists oppose Zionism – do we not? –  just as we oppose all other forms of nationalism (which is what Zionism essentially is).    So unlike some on the Left , we are surely both antizionist and against  antisemitism and regard nationalism  and racism as ideological expressions that serve the interests of capital by dividing the working class in order to more effectively rule over it

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

I am currently in a discussion about Socialism, and the person I'm talking to basically said this:Under Socialism, most people would have to work in order for society to work.However, socialists argue that work would be voluntary, and that Socialism would be a society of free access.But under Socialism, as well as under Capitalism, individual members of society contribute with very little labour. It is the total sum of all labour done that makes society function, not the labour of one specific individual.Therefore, most individuals would think "my labour isn't that important, so I can just not do it and instead to other activities that I like more, like playing football." They would be correct in their reasoning, because if just one individual stopped working, it wouldn't matter that much.This would mean that most people wouldn't work under Socialism. When I argued that the amount of labour needed in society would be diminished, and that labour could turn into a more enjoyable activity, he said that he believes that proper work can never be as enjoyable as doing something else, because there automatically exists a sense of obligation. What are your opinions on this reasoning?

 Hi Sympo I think a sense of obligation to contribute to the common good would be part of the reason why people would work but there are serveral other reasons too –  quite apart from the reasons you cite viz that work could be made enjoyable when your labour is no longer alienated labour and when the social workload would be much diminished by the elimination of all those money related occupations etc.,  There is also the question of how you acquire socal esteem and the respect of your fellows in a socialist society.   In capitalism this tends be based upon the accumulation and conspicuous consumption of material wealth.   But in a society in which wealth is freely accessible this would make no  sense.  The only way in which you can gain the respect of others is through your contribution to society , not what you take out it. 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.   Besides, socialism requires that a majority want it and understand the implications of what they are wanting.  Surely these same people who established socialsim will understand that  if everyone  adoped the pesrpective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced and no one, including the free rider, will stand to gain anything from such a perspective.  So the argument  that socialism will collapse becuase nobody wil turned to do the work can be easiyl countered with a reductio ad absurdum argument bsed on what woud nappen if that tryuly gined out to be the case.  Would indiviuals complacently contemplate the prospect of mass starvation knowing full well that they cannot physically force others to labour,?  I dont think so

[Author]

Posts