Public meeting - Why the Socialist Party is not socialist

[Idris2002]

I notice that website has section in Ukrainian. My mum's Ukrainian and almost everyone I know who is Ukrainian is more violently anti-socialist than me and that's saying something.

You're having a fucking laugh if you think the Ukrainians are going to subscribe to some kind of neo-Bolshevism.

Just out of interest, Kenny, are these eastern or western Ukrainians?

And isn't it also the case that Ukraine not only still has a Communist party, but two socialist parties and that they get enough votes to make them political players?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

You're having a fucking laugh if you think the Ukrainians are going to subscribe to some kind of neo-Bolshevism.

As against people in London, who're going to be queueing up to join?

 

[rauscher]

Perhaps I need to be more provocative. For example, one time, Jim Robertson, at the end of an evening drinking called out to a female member, 'I have a color TV, central heating and a bottle of whisky, come with me.' Her husband was in the room at the time. Robertson is a disgusting pig.

The IBT have lots of examples like this but are too timid to print the truth about the sexually abusive Spartacist League.

 

[Tokyo]

I notice that website has section in Ukrainian. My mum's Ukrainian and almost everyone I know who is Ukrainian is more violently anti-socialist than me and that's saying something.

You're having a fucking laugh if you think the Ukrainians are going to subscribe to some kind of neo-Bolshevism.

I suspect that the material on their website was translated into Ukrainian by fraudsters claiming to be sympathisers of the group - in exchange for financial support for their "campaign". See Wikipedia for more information.

Calling yourself Bolshevik in Ukraine might appeal primarily to a constituency of industrial workers who have done badly under capitalism and as a result have relatively fond memories of the previous period, despite the lack of democracy, political freedom, etc.

However, a significant number of people around the world are proud to call themselves Bolshevik because for them it describes the achievements of the October Revolution under Lenin and Trotsky. Of course, the situation even then was far from ideal (big civil war going on), but I hope you recognise that things were very different then to Stalin's regime.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Just out of interest, Kenny, are these eastern or western Ukrainians?

And isn't it also the case that Ukraine not only still has a Communist party, but two socialist parties and that they get enough votes to make them political players?

Western, of course.

But this isn't about that, it's about the fact that socialism is an evil which much be vanquished given all the destruction, death and suffering it has caused.

 

[nightbreed]

Western, of course.

But this isn't about that, it's about the fact that socialism is an evil which much be vanquished given all the destruction, death and suffering it has caused.

Just a small point, but that doesnt say much for capitalism then does it. What about the death, destruction despair caused by capitalism?
I suppose your argument is to put up with it?

Wasnt it capitalist who dropped two atom boms in 1945?

Please think about what you are saying kenny.

Also we havent really had real socialism in the way Marx explained it. We have had capitalism for a while now.
Most of the world lives in extreme poverty . A small minority lives in absolute luxury. Is that a system that works?

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Just a small point, but that doesnt say much for capitalism then does it. What about the death, destruction despair caused by capitalism?
I suppose your argument is to put up with it?

Wasnt it capitalist who dropped two atom boms in 1945?

Please think about what you are saying kenny.

Also we havent really had real socialism in the way Marx explained it. We have had capitalism for a while now.
Most of the world lives in extreme poverty . A small minority lives in absolute luxury. Is that a system that works?

I know exactly what I am saying.

Capitalism isn't a system the way socialism is. No one said: "I drop this bomb in the name of capitalism." What socialists call capitalism, but what I prefer to call liberal democracy, is the organic product of hundreds of years of history and human progress.

Whereas collectivization, the red terror, the show trials, the obliteration of civil society, the slaughter of millions of innocent people in death camps, the subjugation of every aspect of life to the cause - all that was done in the name of socialism.

What offends me the most about socialism is that it denies human beings the opportunity to pursue their own goals, to hold their own values. It rejects the idea that each person is an end in himself; instead it asks that each person supplant their aspirations with those of the socialist state. In a socialist society how can I pursue my own goals, conceived of by me, if they are incompatible with the rest of society? The answer is I cannot. That is why socialist governments resorted to coercing their populations, to terrorising them, to beating them into submission with threats of violence and incarceration, so as to fit them into the social straightjacket.

Furthermore, to say most of the world lives in extreme poverty is patently rubbish.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Furthermore, to say most of the world lives in extreme poverty is patently rubbish.

lol

It's a third of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day, and 2/3s of the world's population living in slums. Real wages have declined steadily since the 1970's pretty much everywhere in the world, and in sub-saharan Africa that decline has been up to 30%.

I won't go on; but saying that the majority of the world's population don't live in extreme poverty is patently rubbish.

 

[Blagsta]

Capitalism isn't a system the way socialism is.

Pffffffffffft

 

[Spion]

I know exactly what I am saying.

Capitalism isn't a system the way socialism is. No one said: "I drop this bomb in the name of capitalism." .

Judging something or someone by what they call themselves is a surefire road to a crap analysis of anything. No psychopath ever killed anyone in the name of their illness but it's still the cause.

Capitalism has killed hundreds of millions - when empires have fought each other, when empires have suppressed colonial and economically weaker nations. Not to mention the millions who die long slow deaths in poverty.

 

[nightbreed]

I know exactly what I am saying.

Capitalism isn't a system the way socialism is. No one said: "I drop this bomb in the name of capitalism." What socialists call capitalism, but what I prefer to call liberal democracy, is the organic product of hundreds of years of history and human progress.

Whereas collectivization, the red terror, the show trials, the obliteration of civil society, the slaughter of millions of innocent people in death camps, the subjugation of every aspect of life to the cause - all that was done in the name of socialism.

What offends me the most about socialism is that it denies human beings the opportunity to pursue their own goals, to hold their own values. It rejects the idea that each person is an end in himself; instead it asks that each person supplant their aspirations with those of the socialist state. In a socialist society how can I pursue my own goals, conceived of by me, if they are incompatible with the rest of society? The answer is I cannot. That is why socialist governments resorted to coercing their populations, to terrorising them, to beating them into submission with threats of violence and incarceration, so as to fit them into the social straightjacket.
Furthermore, to say most of the world lives in extreme poverty is patently rubbish.

What you lack is a real sence of reality.

'What offends me the most about socialism is that it denies human beings the opportunity to pursue their own goals, to hold their own values.'

Do you pursue that philosophy within your own family?

Also if a socialist government does all the things you say it does then it is not a socialist government

 

[Nigel]

Perhaps I need to be more provocative. For example, one time, Jim Robertson, at the end of an evening drinking called out to a female member, 'I have a color TV, central heating and a bottle of whisky, come with me.' Her husband was in the room at the time. Robertson is a disgusting pig.

The IBT have lots of examples like this but are too timid to print the truth about the sexually abusive Spartacist League.

The best attempt I saw last year at Socialism was the SPGB advertising its conference at the Quaker Meeting House and getting stragglers to go to their meeting. It took me about five minutes to work out that it was'nt an SP meeting

Is there a Harem of available attractive women in the Sparts/IBT to harras, or use 'sexually provocative bodily language' towards.

Interesting on the line up of non-SP speakers is Dot Gibson, speaking on behalf of Rights For Pensioners.

Dot quite literally held together and 'ran' (although she would be too modest to say so) trhe Workers' Aid Convoys to Ex-Yugoslavia and Kosovo. One of the best political organisers that I've come across in Britain.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Fucking hell, what the fuck is this? How can anyone call themselves a Bolshevik given what happened in Russia and the Soviet Union, given all the death and suffering inflicted on millions of people in the name of Bolshevism?

How depressing is all this? When's the revolution going to be guys? Well, I suppose if it going to be truly Bolshevik, we really should call it a seizure of power carried out by a cabal of sociopaths.

actually spot on

If only there were more like you kenny.

 

[Nigel]

Unlike Makno, or Kissinger who were'nt 'bloodthirsty' at all.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

What socialists call capitalism, but what I prefer to call liberal democracy

Well, this raises a few points.

One is that capitalism and liberal democracy are not the same thing. One is an ecomnomic system and one is a political system. Often they co-exist, but that, as I say, is not the same thing.

Another is that liberal democracy didn't just appear, it was struggled and fought for, and very often it was fought for against the supporters of capitalism and the capitalists themselves.

A third is that people who cvlaim that capitalism and liberal democracy are basically the same will, almost without exception, choose the former rather than the latter where there is tension between the two. Supporters of capitalism are awfully good at supporting military coups and military (or fascist) governments whenever they feel like it. Governments in liberal democracies are also very keen indeed to work with and support dictatorships in poorer countries.

Many capitaist countries ae liberal democrcies, but there is a hierarchy there, with capitalism far more important than the other two terms. It is odd how many people choose not to see this.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

What offends me the most about socialism is that it denies human beings the opportunity to pursue their own goals, to hold their own values.

Well, sometimes it does, but it need not do so any more than any property-based system. Capitalist states, too, demand of us that we subordinate ourselves to the needs of society, except that they do not use the term "society" so readily. They employ concepts of nation or race or order: they are perfectly capable of discouraging our individualality in all sorts of ways.

That's not to say there isn't a good argument that our personal development and freedom has something to do with our ability to have, use and sipose of our own stuff. I think it does. Some people may be able to live in conditions of complete common ownership: good luck to them. But for the rest of us, a greater private and personal sphere is probably necessary. But that's not the same as a giant scheme - and it is a scheme - of corporations and competition and mutual distrust and loathing, which has little to do with personal development and a lot more to do with fulfilling the life-aims (and speaking to the fears and paranoia) of a small minority.

 

[Wilf]

Bolshevik has a great u75 history - lots of posts about kittens, heaps of stuff in the footie forum, late nite off-yer face posts in drugs... its all there

 

[Nigel]

Counter Revolutionary Revisionists!!!!!

Are these groups for real or is it just some hobby.
I think they should all wear different uniforms and re-enact crucial political debates in the RSDLP.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Unlike Makno, or Kissinger who were'nt 'bloodthirsty' at all.

its not zero sum game, comrade nige - if you thumped in the mouth, and iu said ''that nige thumped me'' it wouldn't be saying ''...and therefore Mike Tyson has never hit anyone''.

More than one person can be bloodthisrty at a time

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Bolshevik has a great u75 history - lots of posts about kittens, heaps of stuff in the footie forum, late nite off-yer face posts in drugs... its all there

4thwrite u cock i actually looked

 

[Groucho]

It's not, but it does hold a max of 50 if you've chairs and people squeeze in standing at the back.

Well I'm not coming then if I have to stand at the back.

 

[Wilf]

4thwrite u cock i actually looked

This is one of my favourites from that diverse body of work:

IBT statement on split in the League for the Fifth International

(from www.bolshevik.org)

Falling out among confusionists

While it is too early to make a definitive judgment on all the issues in the recent split in the League for the Fifth International (L5I—the leading section of which is the British Workers Power group) a few things seem clear.

The rejection by the expelled minority (which includes much of the group’s older cadres, writers and trade unionists) of the notion that we are currently in a global “pre-revolutionary” period is correct enough, but hardly unique. We discussed the politically liquidationist impulses that were rationalized by this false perspective in "Fifth Wheel Internationalists" 1917 No. 26, 2004. The minority also correctly criticizes the majority’s absurd enthusiasm for the Socialist Party’s stillborn “Campaign for a New Workers’ Party”—an issue we addressed a few months ago in a letter to Workers Power entitled “Revolutionary Principles vs. Cynical Manoeuvres.”

The minority is now publishing a journal entitled Permanent Revolution. This was the name of Workers Power’s theoretical journal in the 1980s and presumably signals a return to a more “Trotskyist” posture than the eclectic, anti-globalizing Kautskyism of the past few years. It is hardly surprising that this seems to include the auto-Labourism that is the default setting for most ostensibly Trotskyist groups in Britain. We discussed the L5I’s recent zig-zags on voting for Tony Blair and New Labour in “Workers Power’s Labourite Reflex – What’s Bred in the Bone” (1917 No. 28, 2005).

The dust has not yet settled, but so far there is little indication that either wing of this split has broken from Workers Power’s tendency to be consistent only in its capacity for combining sometimes abstractly correct criticisms of the revisionist deviations of others with the pursuit of its own grossly opportunist appetites.

Sorry IBT, but you could hang around enought to defend your posts rather than just posting stuff

 

[Nigel]

Are The Ibt Trots Or Not?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

but so far there is little indication that either wing of this split has broken from Workers Power's tendency to be consistent only in its capacity for combining sometimes abstractly correct criticisms of the revisionist deviations of others with the pursuit of its own grossly opportunist appetites.

This is magnificent.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Are The Ibt Trots Or Not?

They describe themselves as Trotskyists. I wouldn't personally use that label to describe them.

 

[haggy]

this is the funniest thread i've read for a long while.

please don't stop... hehehe

 

[rauscher]

this is the funniest thread i've read for a long while.

please don't stop... hehehe

The other threads must be pretty dull or at least lacking in wit, humor and the joy to be alive. Unlike this one.

Is there a Harem of available attractive women in the Sparts/IBT to harras, or use 'sexually provocative bodily language' towards.

I'm really not sure what this means. But I can tell you that the Sparts emerged from the womb of the SWP in the 1960's and the 'free sex' bullshit of that decade is alive and well and deposited in Robertson's aging crotch.

On one level it's absurd, ridiculous and laughable. On another it's sad, disgusting and abusive.

The real truth about the Sparts has nothing to do with this or that political position and everything to do with sexual positions and Robertson's abuse of them. The Sparts have provided Robertson with an income and an endless supply of willing/damaged young women.

This is the real truth about the Spartacist League. Forget all the rest.

 

[Nigel]

Oink! Oink!

Yeah, but are they attractive, or not something you would go near unless you drank about 12 pints????

 

[mk12]

The other threads must be pretty dull or at least lacking in wit, humor and the joy to be alive. Unlike this one.



I'm really not sure what this means. But I can tell you that the Sparts emerged from the womb of the SWP in the 1960's and the 'free sex' bullshit of that decade is alive and well and deposited in Robertson's aging crotch.

On one level it's absurd, ridiculous and laughable. On another it's sad, disgusting and abusive.

The real truth about the Sparts has nothing to do with this or that political position and everything to do with sexual positions and Robertson's abuse of them. The Sparts have provided Robertson with an income and an endless supply of willing/damaged young women.

This is the real truth about the Spartacist League. Forget all the rest.

is this common on the left? [honest question, it wasn't the case in the swp]

 

[Idris2002]

SWP here means the US party not the UK one, but I suppose you know that.

Given that the slagging between the UK sects rarely sticks to queensbury rules, I'd say the fact that sexual abuse isn't an allegation you see (at least I've never seen it E2A: except in relation to Gerry Healey and Co.) says something.