Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Permanent Revolution

Donna Ferentes said:
I think you may be asking more of that comparison than it'll stand.
Click to expand...

So the things you deem unworthy can be denounced, but the things you like we get criticised for denouncing.

Your posts on the McDonnell thread can easily be reposted here. FWIW I agree with you here, but you need to be consistent.
 
On 27 September Permanent Revolution had the second part of its founding conference. Around 40 comrades attended, including observers from Chile, Austria and Germany.
Click to expand...

Why around 40? how hard can it be to do a headcount? ;)

It's one thing say around 10,000, but this just plain lazy :p
 
articul8 said:
there ARE important aspects? :confused:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

you obviously missed this bit:

"Does the world economy show an upward trend? - 2005

At the 2000 Congress of the LRCI we reviewed the evidence of the economic developments of the 1990s and stated that:

"The LRCI accepts the conception of "the curve of capitalist development" as it was fundamentally developed by Trotsky in his analysis in the Comintern in the early 1920s."
 
:o I cant believe I missed that momentus decision of the LCRI.

[edit - what IS stupid is taking so long to draw the conclusion that capitalism isn't on an inexorable downslope (and wasn't Trotsky convinced by the late 30's that capitalism couldn't survive the war?]
 
In Bloom said:
Somebody better tell Anarchists Against the Wall then, they'll be well shocked.

Either that or you're some kind of many fingered mutant.
Click to expand...

So how many Lebanese and Palestinian anarchists are there then?

Anarchists against the Wall are Israelis arent they?:confused: how many members do they have?
 
belboid said:
yeah, cos trying to actually analyse the world & the economy etc is really stupid isn't it?
Click to expand...

do you think anyone cares what decision the lcri took in 2000? and surprise surprise, they look back to someone who was writing in the 1920s to determine their analysis for them.
 
mk12 said:
do you think anyone cares what decision the lcri took in 2000? and surprise surprise, they look back to someone who was writing in the 1920s to determine their analysis for them.
Click to expand...
well, as most people reading their material will most likely have had some connection/familiarity with the LRCI then it isn't that unreasonable to take a starting point that they will be familiar with. Also, it is only sensible, indeed it is the correct scientific approach when trying to work out 'where it all went wrong' to go back over previous documents and discussions to see where the error(s) was (were) made. The alternative, that you seem to have accepted, is to reject everything and start all over again. Even though many of the analyses you will be attempting have already been done. That's a bit of a waste of time really. No?

By simply choosing to reject something because it originated with someone whose philosophy you have chosen to reject en masse, you miss the point that some of the things they said were perfectly valid. Rejecting something because Trostky said it is as stupid as accepting something because Trotsky said it. Look at what was actually said, at the facts and predictions made, and analyse why they were or were not correct. That is how you can make sense of the world, and by doing so, begin to find a way to change it.

In fact that article is one of the most interesting on the website (even if it is too long really for an internet article). It attempts to look at how capitalism is developing around the world and what effects that is likely to have upon the possibilities for radical movements around the world. It goes against much of what has been claimed by the trot movement in particular over recent years and challenges the assumptins they made. Surely such a task is a key area for any serious radical? Otherwise you are just a passive propagandist (at best) waiting to see what happens.
 
cockneyrebel said:
Fair enough you think that method of socialism has failed. We'll have to agree to disagree, we're not gonna convince each other on a web board!



I agree with that. To be fair I think PR pretty much has. Obviously we were gonna make some initial comments and say what we think went wrong but our last journal didn't mention anything about it (unlike WP I would hasten to add who have once again dedicated a large part of their latest paper and journal to dragging over the details).

I totally agree that left groups shouldn't concentrate on other left groups, it's a waste of time.

Maybe I have got it all wrong, I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. Whatever method can bring the working class to power, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...


I think a web board can and should make people think again....Something like dialectics isnt it?????

I know ive taken the piss re WP etc but i also know that most people attrcated to Left groups do want a better world. But i do think there genuinelly confused how to bring it about.....
A group like the SWP use the phrase "Socialism from Below" but they and other Trot groups toatlly reject it in practice.

A Socialist group that rejected the old elitist and orthodox left approach and instead respected the views and aspirations of ordinary people could be very successful.

Obviously thats not your view at the moment....But views change with experience and influence..

There are tens of thousands of x members of left groups who joined those groups for a good reason and left them for even better ones.
 
articul8 said:
what IS stupid is taking so long to draw the conclusion that capitalism isn't on an inexorable downslope (and wasn't Trotsky convinced by the late 30's that capitalism couldn't survive the war?
Click to expand...
he was, which led some daft american sect to say the war hadn't finished even in the fifties cos capitalism hadn't collapsed!

But it wasn't really that daft and idea then, dont forget capitalism was still pretty new across most of the world at that point and the extent to which counter-veiling tendencies could overcome the tendency for the rate of profit to fall (one of the keys to marx's critique of capitalism) hadn't been fully realised then, not by a long chalk. Even now, the argument is still put that capital has run out of new markets to expand into and exploit, and so must be in its fnal stages. And its not a completely stupid argument (even if wrong) as eventually it must run out of new markets, at which point the class struggle will necessarily be massivley heightened as capital has no choice but to massively increase the exploitatin rate of workers across the globe if it is to remain profitable.
 
Belboid - the German economist who came up with the idea of the tornado effect to describe the maturation of new technology industries also argued that at the end of cap there will be effectively one company that is made up of governments, competing elements within etc and that this will be the caps final phase - that at the moment of most absolute control it's also the end of cap as a system.
 
have read it all now - bit one-sided, but welcome in comparison with the frankly fairly daft idea we are already experiencing a pre-revolutionary situation.

There has indeed been an upward growth curve in world capitalism since the mid 80's, (I find it shocking how reluctant some parts of the left have been ito face this),

BUT(/AND) it has been built on the shifting sands of massive consumer debt, unsustainably low oil prices, china's historically free-hand in buying up US bonds etc which could well all go belly up and impact adversely in the medium term.

I think the serious capitalist commentators are well aware of the this.
 
Can I just ask why economic analysis by lefty economists is going to be any more accurate in it's predictions of where the world economy is gonna go then capitalist economists?
 
a part of the left has had a great problem with it because they can't work out how the stalinist states 'becoming' capitalist affected things. Also mush of the world economy was still in crisis at the time, and the onslaugts on the w-c carrying on apace. Why would that be necessary if the economy was booming? (not that the article takes that one up).

I think you're being a bit generous to the serious capitalist economists, they still seem rather confused - notably about how long the Chinese boom will last.
 
kyser_soze said:
Can I just ask why economic analysis by lefty economists is going to be any more accurate in it's predictions of where the world economy is gonna go then capitalist economists?
Click to expand...
no definite reason at all. Many cap commentators now accept many of the features marxists had all to their own before (esp around the rate of profit). They do tend to veer towards the wildly optimistic tho, and dont get that the w-c won't just sit back and go 'oh, okay, increase the rate of my exploitation then, I know it's good for me in the long run'. Plenty of them get caught up in the latest trends and don't really take a long-term analysis as well.
 
...and dont get that the w-c won't just sit back and go 'oh, okay, increase the rate of my exploitation then, I know it's good for me in the long run'.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...maybe they are taking it as read that, with a couple of specific periods in the C20th excepted, that's exactly what the w/c of the industrialised world HAS done as, for the majority of people, living standards have improved beyond anything even some people's grandparents wouldn't have dreamed about...
 
kyser_soze said:
Hmmm...maybe they are taking it as read that, with a couple of specific periods in the C20th excepted, that's exactly what the w/c of the industrialised world HAS done as, for the majority of people, living standards have improved beyond anything even some people's grandparents wouldn't have dreamed about...
Click to expand...

I think quality of life for the Western working class peaked in the 60's. Its all downhill from here.
 
A couple of peoploe have said that the fight for workers' democracy/ socialism etc has failed and failed and failed... well, should we all just give up... should Ethiopian trade unioinsts just say shit democracy and socialism have failed we'll give up, shoot us if you like?

Obviously not... have you never heard of tenacity? It sometimes pisses me off people who just think right we can't do anything because we haven't been successful yet- what's the point of living with that attitude? The whoile of human endeavour and creativity is astruggle against that sort of defeatism in my opinion
 
"A couple of peoploe have said that the fight for workers' democracy/ socialism etc has failed and failed and "

I didn't say that at all. I said the method/strategy/tactics you use (leninist organisation) has failed and failed and failed. (whether they want "workers democracy" anyway is another discussion)
 
belboid said:
a part of the left has had a great problem with it because they can't work out how the stalinist states 'becoming' capitalist affected things. Also mush of the world economy was still in crisis at the time, and the onslaugts on the w-c carrying on apace. Why would that be necessary if the economy was booming? (not that the article takes that one up).

I think you're being a bit generous to the serious capitalist economists, they still seem rather confused - notably about how long the Chinese boom will last.
Click to expand...

your only posting that here because you know a certain someone won't reply to you. you're free over here. ;) :)
 
mk12 said:
it's failed and failed and failed and failed and failed. But this time, comrades, this party will lead us to socialism. (and historically false ;))
Click to expand...

it's is quite ambiguous- what else has succeeded in taking us forward to democracy and workers' rights? Ntohing. so- the it's is celarly everything so far has failed as in no revolution has yet succeeded. So back to my orginal question what should we do? Give up? Roll over and die?

it's a life and death choice for many workers in the world- what advice would you give to Ethipionian trade unionists, for example?

All I'm saying is the idea that socialism hasn't succeeded so we should give is a non-starter.
 
"it's is quite ambiguous- what else has succeeded in taking us forward to democracy and workers' rights? Ntohing"

I think independent working class organisation has led to localised instances of workers control/management in many places throughout history. Your method of organising has, where it took power, played a large role in destroying that independent initiative. So it's been done, it failed, let's not do it again!

All I'm saying is the idea that socialism hasn't succeeded so we should give is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are understanding what i'm saying. I haven't ever said that I think we should give up on the idea of socialism, i'm specifically talking about methods of getting there (wherever it is). Tactics, strategy, organisation etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
199
Views
9K
seventh bullet
seventh bullet
I
Petition requesting an urgent review of the LTN evaluation process
Replies
7
Views
148
edj
E
brogdale
The far-right's "Raise the colours" campaign, part 2
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
314
Views
10K
keybored
keybored
ATOMIC SUPLEX
You Gov poll says if there was an election tomorrow Reform would win.
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
282
Views
6K
chilango
chilango
tim
  • Poll Poll
Who will replace Keir Starmer as Prime Minister and Labour leader?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
6K
Elpenor
Elpenor
Back
Top Bottom