stevead1966
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Left Unity Founding Congress Saturday 30 November 2013 – 9.00am to 5.00pm Venue: Royal National Hotel, Bedford Way, London WC1H 0DG Volunteers welcome to hand out Party Literature to delegates to Left Unity Founding Congress at the Royal National Hotel, registration begins 9.00am, congress starts 10.00am
I think Alex would be interested in David Fernbach's 1981 book 'The Spiral Path' which sees the only truly radical gender politics is that which works towards the ultimate destruction and elimination of gender.
I wrote "For the Syrian working class the best likely outcome in present circumstances from an ending of the civil war is a bourgeois capitalist liberal democracy and at worst an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy" . Reading my whole article you will conclude that the likeliest result is the barbarism of "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy". At no point do I ever consider there is a chance of socialism arising out of the debris of this war.But also remember that Assad has the upper hand in any peace conference negotiations should they take place in the future ( " If things continue as they are, the Syrian government will certainly be the party that has the major advantage in any talks, it is clear the Insurgency does not pose an existential threat to the regime'.) and some form of political liberalisation could happen and a modified capitalist liberal democracy develop out of the Baathist dictatorship. The recent events with the chemical weapons, no bombing of Syria happening, Putin as peacemaker and even Assad is seen as reasonable all demonstrate the strong position of the Assad regime.I am also "pessimistic I know but socialists need to tell the truth no matter how difficult it is to accept" and we should laways be aware that whatever state of government results; capitalist political democracy (unlikely at present) or "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy" capitalism will be run in the interests of the capitalist class and never because it cannot be in the interests of the working class. Capitalism is sharia compliant – in my article I wrote "Aleppo, the industrial and commercial hub of Syria, that the Jabhat Al-Nusra Front controlled the power plant, ran the bakeries and headed a court that applied Islamic Sharia law" which would be the foundation of "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy"The article I hope tells "the truth no matter how difficult it is to accept" of what is going on in Syria.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dmovies-tv&field-keywords=Le%20capitalLe Capital dvd can be bought from Amazon.Com above or it can be watched on line -see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=le+capital+streaming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=O3JaUtTRG8Ws0QXEl4GIDQ
“Certainly the SPGB is an anarchist party, in the sense that it calls for a society where there are no bosses and everything is done by voluntary co-operation, but its members differ from other anarchists in the rigidity of their thought.” (DR, in Freedom 8 Sept 1990)Bakunin: "Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I".Kropotkin: "After the Collectivist Revolution instead of saying 'twopence' worth of soap, we shall say 'five minutes' worth of soap." I am thinking of writing about Nestor Makhno.
Marx wrote in 1872: “All socialists understand this by Anarchy: once the aim of the proletarian movement, the abolition of classes has been attained, the state power which serves to keep the great productive majority under the yoke of an exploiting minority small in numbers, disappears, and the governmental functions are transformed into simple administrative functions”.At the conclusion of the Proudhon critique 'The Poverty of Philosophy', Marx writes: “there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society”.We are in agreement with the Anarchist Communist Peter Kropotkin and his ideas expressed in the pamphlet 'The Wages System': he refutes any concept of L TV’s: 1.it makes no sense trying to measure an individuals contribution to production when it is cooperative and social, 2. if production was still individual it would not be fair to ration a person's consumption by number of hours worked because skills being used would have been acquired and benefited from previous society and earlier generations, 3. L TV’s to regulate consumption would be to retain the wages system, 4.goods and services would have Labour Time prices and would be subject to supply and demand, inflation, devaluation, therefore it would be a monetary system. Kropotkin: “A society that has seized upon all social wealth, and has plainly announced that all have a right to this wealth, whatever maybe the part they have taken in creating it in the past, will be obliged to give up all ideas of wages, either in money or in labour notes”.Also see ALB talk Summer School 1994: http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/what-marx-should-have-said-to-kropotkin.htmlWe recommend The Conquest of Bread (1892), Fields, Factories and Workshops (1899) and, above all, Mutual Aid (1902)
A visit to the Red House in April 2012 describedhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1294-june-2012/william-morris%E2%80%99s-red-house-bexleyheath
The red flag is a signal of defiance and battle, no surrender. The origin of the 'red flag' – French Revolution – Jacobins adopted it in 1791 as symbol of martyrs blood – 50 anti-royalists killed by National Guard. June 1831 Merthyr Tydfil uprising – 7,000 to 10,000 workers. Iron workers, miners strike against redundancies, wage cuts, rising prices and bailiffs. ”headquarters at this time were at Hirwain, and there two red flags were hoisted” Army sent in to quell 2,000 people in the streets, 24 killed, later trial, transportation and hanging. see http://libcom.org/library/1831-merthyr-tydfil-uprising 1848 Revolutions – Paris – painting by Henri Felix Emmanuel Philippoteaux 'Lamartine in front of the Hotel De Ville Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848' – bourgeois republicans rejecting the workers flag – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Lar9_philippo_001z.jpg 'June Days' 1848 – workers uprising – painting by Horace Vernet – red flag at 'Battle at Soufflot barricades at Rue Soufflot on 24 June 1848', – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Horace_Vernet-Barricade_rue_Soufflot.jpg 1871 Paris Commune –“The flag of the Commune is the flag of the world’s republic,” flag of the Commune is the red flag “the old world writhed in convulsions of rage at the sight of the Red Flag.” The colour red, the red flag belongs to the working class, to socialists not to leninists, labourites and reformists who hijacked it in the 20th century. Like with May Day, we need to reappropriate what was ours in the first place.
I agree we should address an open letter to the 'Socialist Platform' of the Left Unity.org to discuss unity with ourselves based upon our own Declaration of Principles and an amended version of their own one and agree that this open letter is agreed at the next EC and submitted to them in the name of the party by email to the Left Unity website and also left on their comments box and placed prominently on our own homepage and blogs. (cc-ed to WW, Workers Power et al)
'Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald' – by lawyer Mark Lane was published in 1966, and there is a film by Emile de Antonio from 1967. The film I saw on British television in 1987. This is the book/film I knew about in the 1980s along with the fictionalised 'Executive Action' (1973), all pre Jim Marrs, Jim Garrison books and Oliver Stone. In fact I was unaware of Garrison until the Stone film.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'patsy', he was either (delete where applicable) Naval Intelligence or FBI or CIA, all three or just two he expressed 'communist views' while in the Marines (ludicrous), he learnt Russian, he was groomed by US intelligence community, he 'defected' ? to USSR and then returned to the USA ! Worked for Fair Play for Cuba group (pro Castro) which was run from a building that housed organisation training anto-castro cubans, it gets very murky. I could go on and on, there is so much. Check out Jim Marrs book 'Crossfire', Jim Garrison's 'On the trail of the Assassins' and the 1991 Oliver Stone film 'JFK'. An interesting film is 'Executive Action' from 1973. Everything that I have looked at over the last 30 years says that the Italian Martini rifle could not have killed JFK in the time frame given, and there is the 'magic bullet' mystery as well. I honestly believe Oswald was the patsy.
Went for a drink with Ian Bone and anarchists from Anarchist Federation.I think of 1994 Summer School talk at Ruskin College 'When Marx met Kropotkin'. We in the SPGB and Anarchist Commnists share the same goal of a moneyless stateless egalitarian society of communal ownership with free access to the earth's treasury. Marx wrote in 1872: “All socialists understand this by Anarchy: once the aim of the proletarian movement, the abolition of classes has been attained, the state power which serves to keep the great productive majority under the yoke of an exploiting minority small in numbers, disappears, and the governmental functions are transformed into simple administrative functions”. At the conclusion of the Proudhon critique 'The Poverty of Philosophy', Marx writes: “there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society”.
To Laurens;From Socialist Standard August 1918:The Bolshevik RevolutionIn the Western area and the Southern Oil Belt industrial towns of the usual capitalist type, have developed in late years, and contain a number of genuine proletarians or wage slaves. Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:“In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?” First the Soviet Government promised peace. They (the Soviet Government) appear to have done all that was possible in the circumstances to carry their peace proposals. The Soviet representatives at the Brest-Litovsk Conference stood firm on their original proposals to the last moment. That they had to accept hard terms in the end is no way any discredit to them, but it was a result of conditions quite beyond their control. If they had done no more than this, if they had been compelled to give up office on their return, the fact that they had negotiated a stoppage of the slaughter and maiming of millions of the working class would have been a monument to their honour, and constituted an undeniable claim to the highest approbation of the workers the world over. There is no ground whatever for supposing that they are ready or willing to accept social ownership of the land, along with the other means of production. Are the Bolsheviks prepared to try to establish something other than this? If so does it not at once flatly contradict M. Litvinoff’s claim that they are establishing Socialism? With the mass of the Russian people still lacking the knowledge necessary for the establishment of socialism, with both groups of belligerents sending armed forces into the country, with the possible combination of those groups for the purpose of restoring capitalist rule, even if not a monarchy, in Russia, matters look gloomy for the people there.
Socialist Standard August 1920:Ever since the Bolshevik minority seized the control of affairs in Russia we have beentold that their "success" had completely changed Socialist policy. These"Communists" declare that the policy of Marx and Engels is out of date. Lenin andTrotsky are worshipped as the pathfinders of a shorter and easier road to Communism.Unfortunately for these "Bolsheviks," no evidence has yet been supplied to showwherein the policy of Marx and Engels is no longer useful, and until that evidencecomes the Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to advocate the same Marxianpolicy as before. We will continue to expose and oppose the present system and all itsdefenders and apologists. We shall insist upon the necessity of the working classunderstanding Socialism and organising with a political party to obtain it.When we are told that Socialism has been obtained in Russia without the long, hardand tedious work of educating the mass of workers in Socialism we not only deny itbut refer our critics to Lenin's own confessions. His statements prove that even thougha vigorous and small minority may be able to seize power for a time, they can onlyhold it by modifying their plans to suit the ignorant majority. The minority in powerin an economically backward country are forced to adapt their program to theundeveloped conditions and make continual concessions to the capitalist world aroundthem. Offers to pay war debts to the Allies, to establish a Constituent Assembly, tocompensate capitalists for losses, to cease propaganda in other countries, and to grantexploitation rights throughout Russia to the Western capitalists all show how far alongthe capitalist road they have had to travel and how badly they need the economic helpof other countries. It shows above all that their loud and defiant challenge to thecapitalist world has been silenced by their own internal and external weaknesses as wehave so often predicted in these pages.The folly of adopting Bolshevik methods here is admitted by Lenin in his pamphletThe Chief Tasks of Our Times (p. 10). "A backward country can revolt quicker,because its opponent is rotten to the core, its middle class is not organised; but inorder to continue the revolution a backward country will require immediately morecircumspection, prudence, and endurance. In Western Europe it will be quitedifferent; there it is much more difficult to begin, but it will be much easier to go on.This cannot be otherwise because there the proletariat is better organised and moreclosely united."Those who say "Russia can fight the world", are answered by Lenin:"Only a madman can imagine that the task of dethroning International Imperialismcan be fulfilled by Russia alone."Lenin admits that "France and England have been learning for centuries what we haveonly learnt since 1905. Every class-conscious worker knows that the revolution growsbut slowly amongst the free institutions of a united bourgeoisie, and that we shall onlybe able to fight against such forces when we are able to do so in conjunction with therevolutionary proletariat of Germany, France, and England. Till then, sad and contraryto revolutionary traditions as it may be, our only possible policy is to wait, to tack,and to retreat."We have often stated that because of a large anti-Socialist peasantry and vastuntrained population, Russia was a long way from Socialism. Lenin has now to admitthis by saying: "Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; ifwe were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory forus. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, thesmall owner? How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In thetransition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the smallbourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and position" (p. 11).This reply of Lenin to the Communists of the Left (Bucharin and others) contains thefurther statement that, "To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means toestablish the control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We havein Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know she proved our superior. Ifyou would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialismwould mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmenwhose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is oursalvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would beeasy, because State Socialism is centralisation control, socialisation—in fact,everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the small bourgeoisie, which,owing to the history and economics of Russia, is the best organised class, and whichprevents us from taking the step, on which depends the success of Socialism."Here we have plain admissions of the unripeness of the great mass of Russian peoplefor Socialism and the small scale of Russian production.If we are to copy Bolshevist policy in other countries we should have to demand StateCapitalism, which is not a step to Socialism in advanced capitalist countries. The factremains, as Lenin is driven to confess, that we do not have to learn from Russia, butRussia has to learn from lands where large scale production is dominant."My statement that in order to properly understand one's task one should learnsocialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists ofthe Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want to learnfrom them." (p. 12) Thus Lenin speaks to his critics. Owing to the untrained characterof the workers and their failure to grasp the necessity of discipline and order in largescale production, Lenin has to employ "capitalist" experts to run the factories. He tellsus: "We know all about Socialism, but we do not know how to organise on a largescale, how to manage distribution, and so on. The old Bolshevik leaders have nottaught us these things, sand this is not to the credit of our party. We have yet to gothrough this course and we say: Even if a man is a scoundrel of the deepest dye, if heis a merchant, experienced in organising production and distribution on a large scale,we must learn from him; if we do not learn from these people we shall never achieveSocialism, and the revolution will never get beyond the present stage. Socialism canonly be reached by the development of State Capitalism the careful organisation offinance, control and discipline among the workers. Without this there is noSocialism." (p. 12.)That Socialism can only be reached through State Capitalism is untrue. Socialismdepends upon large-scale production, whether organised by Trusts or Governments.State capitalism may be the method used in Russia, but only because the BolshevikGovernment find their theories of doing without capitalist development unworkable—hence they are forced to retreat along the capitalist road.Lenin goes on: "The workers who base their activities on the principles of StateSocialism are the most successful. It is so in the tanning, textile, and sugar industries,where the workers, knowing their industry, and wishing to preserve and to develop it,recognise with proletarian common sense that they are unable at present to cope withsuch a task, and therefore allot one third of the places to the capitalists in order tolearn from them."This concession is another example of the conflict between Bolshevik theory andpractice, for the very argument of Lenin against Kautsky and others was that in Russiathey could go right ahead without needing the capitalist development such as it existsin other countries.The whole speech of Lenin is directed against the growing body of workers in Russiawho took Lenin at his word. These people fondly imagined that after throwing overKerensky they could usher in freedom and ignore the capitalist world around them.They thought that factory discipline, Socialist education, and intelligent skilledsupervision were simply pedantic ideas.A further quotation from Lenin will make this clear: "Naturally the difficulties oforganisation are enormous, but I do not see the least reason for despair anddespondency in the fact that the Russian Revolution, having first solved the easiertask—the overthrow of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, is now faced with themore difficult Socialist task of organising national finance and control, a task which isthe initial stage of Socialism, and is inevitable, as is fully understood by the majorityof class-conscious workers."He also says: "It is time to remonstrate when some people have worked themselves upto a state in which they consider the introduction of discipline into the ranks of theworkers as a step backwards." And he points out that "by the overthrow of thebourgeoisie and landowners we have cleared the way, we have not erected thestructure of Socialism."How far they have cleared the capitalists out of the way is uncertain, as they are along way from self-reliance. The long road ahead is admitted by Lenin in these words:"Until the workers have learned to organise on a large scale they are not Socialists,nor builders of a Socialist structure of society, and will not acquire the necessaryknowledge for the establishment of the new world order. The path of organisation is along one, and the tasks of Socialist constructive work require strenuous andcontinuous effort, with a corresponding knowledge which we do not sufficientlypossess. It is hardly to be expected that the even more developed following generationwill accomplish a complete transition into Socialism." (p. 13.)The denunciation of democracy by the Bolshevik leaders is quite understandable if werealise that only the minority in Russia are Communists. Lenin therefore deniescontrol of affairs to the majority, but he cannot escape from the compromise involvedin ruling with a minority. Not only is control of Russian affairs out of the hands of theSoviets as a whole, but not even all the members of the Communist Party are allowedto vote. Zinoviev, a leading Commissar, in his report to the First Congress of theThird International said:"Our Central Committee has decided to deprive certain categories of party membersof the right to vote at the Congress of the party. Certainly it is unheard of to limit theright voting within the party, but the entire party has approved this measure, which isto assure the homogenous unity of the Communists So that in fact, we have 500,000members who manage the entire State machine from top to bottom." (The Socialist,29.4.20. Italics not ours.)So half a million members of the Communist Party (counting even those who arerefused a vote within the party) control a society of 180 million members. It is quiteplain why other parties' papers were suppressed: obviously they could influence thegreat majority outside the Communist Party. The maintenance of power was assuredby the Bolshevik minority through its control of political power and the armed forces.
