ZJW
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hermann Lueer, apparently a voracious reader (and — who knows, maybe a speed-reader as well) has now published a review of the (500-page) Tony Smith book. After praise at the start, what he goes on to say will not be too unexpected. But again, as with his review of the Sutterlütti and Meretz book ‘Make Capitalism History’, perhaps it can be gleaned from it to what degree this book is of interest from an SPGB point of view.
Left-communist dissatisfaction with the CWO/ICT position also from the Fredo Corvo group :
Commenting (full comment below) on the the ICT’s ‘May Day 2026: No Sacrifices for this System – Against War and All Forms of Nationalism!’, he they wrote:
‘Although the ICT has dropped its pet thesis of a permanent crisis from the basic positions of its NWBTCW [No War but the Class War] committees, it begins its May 1 statement with “The capitalist crisis only gets worse and worse, with world war becoming an increasing reality. This crisis of a lack of sufficient surplus value is extending the competition between capitalists into a contest between states.”
However, reality shows that the history of the 1930s crisis is not repeating itself; that crisis led to World War II. Now, it is the Iran-U.S./Israel conflict and massive rearmament that are leading to the end of the economic boom, with the first signs of crisis emerging. This is exactly the opposite of what the ICT claims.
The ‘common banner’ under which we are supposed to rally, according to the ICT, thus obscures clarity about the situation in the world. ‘
Another point of difference with the ICT is its Neo-Leninism. For example, the ICT talks about the ‘spontaneity’ of the working class, contrasting this with the leading role of the Party. As Trotsky noted regarding the February Revolution of 1917, speaking of ‘spontaneity’ obscures the actual discussions within the working class and the Bolsheviks’ activity therein that preceded February.
These two differences alone demonstrate the need for revolutionaries to cooperate on certain issues in the struggle against war while retaining the right and duty to act independently on other essential matters. However, the ICT does not even acknowledge the existence of many dissenters among those who refer to the communist left. [This ‘refer to’ is an often seen mistranslation of what in English should be ‘identify with’ or ‘claim to be of’. Cf French ‘se réclamer de’ — ZJW]
Instead, the ICT speaks of ‘wallowing in criticism and squabbles that lack purpose or direction’, a statement comparable to that of the Spanish Stalinists during the Spanish Civil War of 1936.’
ALB wrote:
‘[…] or “revolutionary defeatism” (ie hope that the other side wins),[…]’.
Speaking of which, here are leftcoms (the ICC) against the notion:
Having just re-read his long and excellent book review titled ‘More FALC: The Walmart hypothesis’, I nominate Pik Smeet to review the Tony Smith book.
ALB wrote:
‘The author knows us having visited our street stall in Cardiff and also written a couple of letters to the Socialist Standard.’I only see one letter from him, the one here: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2023/no-1428-august-2023/letters-moysan-graham-morris/
I remember that letter well enough, but I did not remember his name.
If there is another letter from him, please give the url.
No, Erwan Moysan is not a Cliffite. See this book review by him of ‘State Capitalism and Development in East Asia since 1945’ .
Correct link for Moysan’s bibliography: click ‘Preview PDF’ here: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003727491/marxist-analysis-soviet-economy-erwan-moysan?context=ubx&refId=c642c825-63f0-4447-9851-d68791d02105
(but I’ve now already fixed the post up above)
and when the PDF appears, scroll downward, last item in the Preview.
ALB wrote:
‘ despite, in his view, a “proletarian revolution” having taken place there (but doomed to fail since no world revolution took place).’
He’s a … left-communist, or what? Not another Cliffite, I hope.
To see the Moysan book’s very impressive bibliography, click ‘Preview PDF’ here:
[corrected link:]
Curious thing is that Paresh Chattopadhyay is there, and even the always neglected Neil Fernandez, but there is no Buick & Crump. Though there *is* ‘Buick, A. , 2020. Saving Graces, Review of ‘The Science and Passion of Communism. Selected Writings of Amadeo Bordiga’. Socialist Standard, No 1394 (October), p. 20.’
(Well, the SPGB, for its part, did not neglect Fernandez. His book was reviewed here:
Unrelated to the Calculation Question a Neurath-Horkheimer dispute was mentioned in the interview, For anyone who may be interested, here is, by O’Neil and Thomas Uebel, ‘Horkheimer and Neurath: Restarting a Disrupted Debate:
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/horkheimer-neurath.pdf(Korsch’s name does not come up in this paper, though it did in the interview (as being on Neurath’s, side).
This same Jacob Blumenfeld is also the author of this concisely written article ‘The Socialization Debate:
Revolutionary Confusion after the German Revolution of 1918’: https://philpapers.org/archive/BLUTSD-2.pdfRe O’Neil:
In the book by Tony Smith that I attempted to draw attention to at https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/socialist-planning-beyond-capitalism/page/2/#post-262661 , there is this paragraph :
‘In contemporary social theory the two most well-known and influential proposals for a better, more coherent, republicanism are PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY and MARKET SOCIALISM. Both are understood here as variants of what will here be termed SOCIAL REPUBLICANISM.21 Both reject ‘state socialism’ on grounds like those given above. And both claim to overcome the incoherence of liberal democratic republicanism by rejecting the capitalist property and production relationships that undermine core principles of liberal democracy and social democracy alike. NONETHELESS, SOCIAL REPUBLICANISM ALSO DOES NOT OFFER A SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALIST MARKET SOCIETIES.’
That footnote 21 reads:
‘Defences of property-owning democracy are found in Rawls 2001 and O’Neill and Thad Williamson 2014. For arguments for market socialism by prominent contemporary social theorists see Honneth 2017 and Piketty 2021.’
(The book referenced is: O’Neill, John, and Thad Williamson 2014, ‘Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond’,
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.)I don’t know whether to take that to mean O’Neil (/Williamson) therein themselves expressed support for so-called Property-Owning Democracy; or, if they only cited arguments in favor of it.
From the current issue of Jacobin magazine:
“But Cohen believed that rank-and-file socialists who think the LTV is obvious are moved by something other than Marx’s technical claims about value. Instead, what moves them is something like a “labor theory of things that have value,” which is very obviously true! Regardless of what value is, no commodity that has value has ever been the product of anything except some combination of (a) the nonhuman natural world and (b) human labor.”
https://jacobin.com/2022/06/karl-marx-labor-theory-of-value-ga-cohen-economics/
Later, Andrew Kliman argued against both the GA Cohen argument, and what he considered even worse, the version given by Ben Burgis: https://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economics/marx-systematically-exploited-by-burgis-marxs-exploitation-theory-vs-g-a-cohens-plain-argument.html
Here is a book, published last year, that ought to be reviewed from an SPGB point-of-view: Tony Smith’s “A Socialism for the Twenty-First Century: Towards the ‘Full and Free Development of Every Individual’”:https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/22322_a-socialism-for-the-twenty-first-century-towards-the-full-and-free-development-of-every-individual-by-tony-smith-reviewed-by-stephen-darling/
