TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
God! That is such an elemental misunderstanding of the SW position I cannot believe you were once a member. Did you never read anything that was said about the problems of Russia from SW?mattkidd12 said:
Socialists and Self Interest?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
but you should know that Lenin's opinion is a bit more complicated than the simplistic one-sided representation you gave. How does SW distinguish itself from those who see the Russian empire as the paradigm of a worker state?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
so have you read the stuff from SW which distinguishes them from those who see the Russian empire as the paradigm of a worker state?
edited to add: Oh "some of the people". So you are not talking about SW?
edited to add: Oh "some of the people". So you are not talking about SW?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
sorry, I don't understand this, it seems contradictory.mattkidd12 said:
sorry again, I thought you were alluding to SW.
You asked if I knew that the SWP analysed Russia different to, say, the Socialist Party (orthodox Trotskyists versus state-capitalists like yourself).
I said yes I did know that, but I don't see how that relates to what Lenin believed workers were capable of. In Cliff's biography of him, he doesn't argue against Lenin's views. Cliff also leaves out lots of important information and texts by Lenin, and distorts the truth a lot.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
mattkidd12 said:
I think it does relate to it.
Many people on the left do not believe that a revolution over two weeks-12 months can completely sweep away "the muck of ages". BUT "the emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved by the working classes themselves", not by a Leninist vanguard, a socialist state, or any other agent acting on their behalf. The theory of state capitalism is not just a criticism of the economics, it is a criticism of the reproduction of state CAPITALIST class relations where the "a vanguard to take power, not the class".
I agree with you that many on the left do not see communism as immediately possible straight after a revolution (from what I understand neither do anarchists), but this does not mean we or Lenin want to mimic the class relations of capitalist society. "a vanguard to take power, not the class".
edited to add.
PS. How does Tony Cliff distort what Lenin intended, instead of interpret? And if you do think he distorts it, instead of interpreting, why do you think he does this? Because he has a secret agenda to impose Vanguard class rule?
(these are genuine questions for clarity)All very well, I agree with you. But you are arguing against Lenin and Trotsky, and their actions too. Lenin thought socialism was simply state-capitalism made to serve the people.
Well, he leaves a lot out of his books which would contradict his assumptions and arguments. On Kronstadt for example, and on the "de-classing" argument in 1920-1. Another one is when he says that Lenin never supported dictatorship of the Bolsheviks before October, which simply is not true.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Again that is a contradiction. State capitalism is a reproduction of class relationships, a state that serves the people would be a workers state. Two entirely different things. The workers State accepts the necessity for a transitionary period, whilst intending to negate class rule. And so if Lenin wanted a state that serves the interests of the working class as you argue, he could not have been at the same time for state capitalism which serves the interests of the minority rather than the majority.mattkidd12 said:
You say Trotsky and Lennin delineated their commitment to state capitalism through their actions, but you must be familiar with the SW argument that the reproduction of class relations in Russia were imposed by the forces of history, rather than by intention of Lenin and Trotsky?
so as I said earlier, why? Why did Tony Cliff intentionally "destort" what Lenin was intending to say?
You see I find it very difficult to believe your interpretation that Lenin was not familiar with the central core of Karl Marx analysis, that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. I do not believe that Tony Cliff, SW or I are arguing against Lenin of Trotsky when we constantly argue that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. What Lenin, Trotsky, Tony Cliff and SW have been doing is arguing against those who believe that communist consciousness can naturally evolve, without organising to smash the class relations of today. Contradictory levels of working class consciousness do not develop in feudalism, the class relations of that society were smashed, and the new consciousness was developed under capitalism. We believe that likewise, communist consciousness will not develop under capitalism, it can only develop in a society with a different set of class relations, I worker state which is classless. I believe you can also interpret the words and deeds of Marx in this way. (Though obviously Marxism has evolved, I believe it remains true to what Marx intended.)
Lenin believed that capitalist relations, the bourgeoisie, etc could exist alongside a state apparatus which could control distribution thus "serving the people." Lenin believed the German War Economy in the First World War was a perfect example of this, and believed Russia should have copied it.
How this is equated with "socialism" I don't know. It's certainly not the "socialism" that I, or the Russian workers, or the Hungarian workers, or any other working class revolutionary movement has aimed for. The Factory Committees were intent on securing their "economic dictatorship" in october, but this was stopped by the regime so the Trade Unions could take charge.
Yes I am familiar with your argument - civil war, imperialist intervention, backward economy etc etc etc. The fact that the anti-working class measures the Bolsheviks introduced BEFORE any of this happened is completely ignored by your literature shows again that your tradition seems to be based on distortions and factual inaccuracies.
Lenin was a student of the 2nd international, agreeing with everythign Kautsky said up until he supported the war. Even then that was basically all he disagreed with him over.
All actions and most writings Lenin produced shows he did not really believe in this concept.
So what happens? If a "communist consciousness" cannot be developed within capitalism, how are we every going to overthrow it? Who will overthrow it?
darren redparty
a very bad man
Matt you are absolutely right to say that lenin was a kautskyite through and through, and further that Leninism- as it is pumped out by todays leninists and trotskyists is on the most part kautskyism.
but lenin did not break with kautsky over kautskys support of the war as kautsky opposed the war.
the break with kautsky was over firstly his refusal to see the 2nd international as dead and his critisism of the bolsheviks actions after October
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
mattkidd12 said:
we stand in the tradition of Marx and Engels Lenin and Trotsky, we do not recite them bible fashion. We do not believe they never got things wrong. I suppose we will have to disagree upon your distortion of Lenin, and Tony cliffs interpretation. 
I would stick to my original point, I think to claim I or SW INTEND to seize power and reproduce capitalist relations/state capitalism is wrong. You must have heard them say so many times "emancipation of the working-class, has to be the act of the working-class".
this is the fundamental difference between Marxist and anarchist philosophically (as far as I understand them both).
SW argues the level of class consciousness varies over the working-class, and overtime. In history the most class conscious workers have promoted methods, strategies and aims to pursue the interest of working-class people social revolution, whilst other working class people with less class consciousness have promoted anything from collaboration with the capitalist system reformism etc, to the counter revolution of fascism. I think this leadership of the most CLASS conscious working-class can promote and win the argument for amongst working-class people when the historical circumstances are right, to create a classless workers state from a period of revolution.
Historical examples always have their limits, I personally would compare this to the bourgeoisie. In England, there was a leadership of the bourgeoisie who were more aware than others of their class interests under feudalism. After the first revolution there was a period where many amongst the bourgeoisie wanted to compromise with the old system. If they had, the revolution would have been lost. The leadership had to win the argument to chop off the Kings head etc.
This is what I would argue is the period of the workers state. It is a workers state, because there is a state, which claims the monopoly right to the use of violence in taking it away from the bourgeoisie. But there will be no class relationship, because there will be no minority owning and controlling the means of production in the interests of a minority. But is also a period pregnant with the possibility of counterrevolution. And even then just like the leadership of the bourgeoisie, the leadership of the working class will have to win the arguments against immigration controls, sexism, racism, and anything that divides the working-class.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, its whether your arguments are based on facts or not.
ON LEADERSHIP: Well, to be honest, I think your ideas regarding the "leadership" is wrong. For you, the "leadership" is you. Now, you'd probably argue the Bolsheviks were "the leadership". Yet after 1917, other tendencies were more socialist than the Bolsheviks, and has mass support in the class. Whereas the Bolsheviks were reintroducing capitalist relations in factories, parties calling for more democracy and workers control were winning soviet elections. These elections were more often than not cancelled, ignored. Yet this clearly proves that this idea of a "leadership" is dodgy.
Like in the Spanish Civil War - the CNT were at the forefront of the revolution. They were the "leadership". Then they collaborated. The Friends of Durruti were the "leadership" accoridng to you.
It's a concept which I think is pointless to be honest. Views in the class are always changing. Ultimately, through experiences people will decide how best to organise themselves.
ON THE WORKERS STATE: I really don't understand this. Let's take Marx on the Paris Commune. He said it was a revolution against the state itself. After the revolution, he said all that would be left is a force that has governmental traits and statist traits, in so much as they use force to put down a class (former rulers). It's not a "state". Engels even said that they should cease to use that word. The new form of self-government (whatever you want to call it) isn't a "state" like other states, it's simply an organisation that has some features which are similar to previous states.
Paresh Chattopadhy argues it well when he says: "social ownership in Lenin (for socialism) does not mean society’s ownership that is, direct appropriation by societyitself. It is rather the state ownership where the state is by supposition working class state.17Thisidentification of state ownership with ownership by whole society is, again, absent from Marx’s texts."
But to be honest, this talk of what is a state and what isn't it irelevant.
The big issue I have with what you're saying is about minority versus majority control. You seem to think that a leadership/vanguard/"class conscious" workers must take control of the state apparatus and wield it for the benefit of the majority, against the former ruling class. Is this right?
ResistanceMP3 said:
I would stick to my original point, I think to claim I or SW INTEND to seize power and reproduce capitalist relations/state capitalism is wrong. You must have heard them say so many times "emancipation of the working-class, has to be the act of the working-class".
this is the fundamental difference between Marxist and anarchist philosophically (as far as I understand them both).
SW argues the level of class consciousness varies over the working-class, and overtime. In history the most class conscious workers have promoted methods, strategies and aims to pursue the interest of working-class people social revolution, whilst other working class people with less class consciousness have promoted anything from collaboration with the capitalist system reformism etc, to the counter revolution of fascism. I think this leadership of the most CLASS conscious working-class can promote and win the argument for amongst working-class people when the historical circumstances are right, to create a classless workers state from a period of revolution.
Historical examples always have their limits, I personally would compare this to the bourgeoisie. In England, there was a leadership of the bourgeoisie who were more aware than others of their class interests under feudalism. After the first revolution there was a period where many amongst the bourgeoisie wanted to compromise with the old system. If they had, the revolution would have been lost. The leadership had to win the argument to chop off the Kings head etc.
This is what I would argue is the period of the workers state. It is a workers state, because there is a state, which claims the monopoly right to the use of violence in taking it away from the bourgeoisie. But there will be no class relationship, because there will be no minority owning and controlling the means of production in the interests of a minority. But is also a period pregnant with the possibility of counterrevolution. And even then just like the leadership of the bourgeoisie, the leadership of the working class will have to win the arguments against immigration controls, sexism, racism, and anything that divides the working-class.
Call me pedentic MP3, but a 'classless workers state' is a contradiction in terms for marxists. All states are class dictatorships. Hence Marx's use of the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The uniqueness of this state is that it is the majority class that is in power.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
thanks, you are right of course. We will only live in a truly classless society in communism, and that is where proper "communist consciousness" will develop, which will have its roots in the workers state.junius said:
you are kind of emphasising the contradictory nature of a workers state that I was trying to get across to Matt. The problem with that period is that there still exists an antithesis. In capitalism, the working class is the antithesis of the bourgeoisie, but in a workers state period remnants of the bourgeoisie and backwards looking middle-class and even working class are an antithesis of counterrevolution to the working-class.
how do you think I could put this better?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
mattkidd12 said:
I'm sorry, but this attitude from my point of view is completely wrong. The idea that there is one truth is philosophically true, but in the real world is always debatable. This is why SW never bothers arguing with the leftists. Many don't seem able to accept diversity of thought, the fact that somebody quite honestly can look at the same facts as you, but come to a different point of view, interpretation, perspective. The idea that Tony Cliff has looked at the same facts as you, but has chose to distort them for some nefarious reason you have never yet explained even though I have asked you several times, is ludicrous. What we have here is a honest disagreement.Now let me be clear, I am not pretending that SW do not think their ideas are right, and yours are wrong. SW is no different to any other group on the left. But we do not think people who disagree with us have nefarious intentions, are run by the State, are fascists, and many other ludicrous statements that are made about SW.
No, you are missing the point I am making about leadership. Under the current circumstances, with the current levels of consciousness, even if they shift quite significantly to the left through historical forces, there will be a leadership. It does not necessarily have to be SW. It could be the fascists, who could pull a significant section of the ruling class, a big section of the middle-class, and some working-class toward counterrevolution. It could be the reformist’s, whatever, there will be a leadership. historically, because of the muck of ages etc, there has always been a leadership. Do you not agree leftists have to organise to maximise their ability to influence the working class toward social revolution, we have to be prepared to lead? Surely, if we are not prepared to lead to social revolution, others will be prepared to lead toward counterrevolution, and the opportunity will be lost?
You see, this is what I don't understand about your logic, as an X member of SW. do you not recognise that SW has a perspective that Marx Engels Lenin Trotsky Tony Cliff and SW only saw the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a means to an end, communism? the workers State is not the endgame, do you recognise this? It is only under communism that you can have a truly classless stateless society.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
This is how I understand the difference between SW and anarchist. Anarchist, please excuse me for crudely caricaturing the anarchist position. I am only trying to put in a nutshell how I understand the distinctions between SW and anarchist.
The way I understand it is this. Firstly, the philosophical disagreements between anarchist and SW is NOT over endgame. Both SW and anarchist want to achieve communism/anarchism as the endgame. A society without class or state. The difference between them is over the strategy for achieving communism/anarchism. I do not think you can have an honest discussion if you do not start from recognition that we have more in common, than divides us.
Now as far as I understand it, anarchist believe it is possible and actually a necessity to build communist consciousness here and now. Crudely, you behave like a communist, build communist democracy in your house, in your street, in your town, in your region, in your country and so on. Communism grows from within capitalism, displacing it by demonstrating its superiority. They argue this is a necessity because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, because in that process only can the working class develop consciousness.
As far as I understand it, anarchist do NOT argue that you can have a revolution, and all people's consciousness will be automatically changed to "communist consciousness". In this perspective they are the same as SW. They seem to accept, there will be a period where even in "autonomous regions"[1] there may be counterrevolutionary elements, and without those regions most definitely. They seem to accept like SW there will be a period of coexistence of "autonomous regions" and capitalist regions. But for them communist consciousness and structures will exist where people have created them.
As far as I am concerned a "autonomous region" is nearly the same as a worker state. Workers militias will claim for the working class the monopoly over the right to use violence, and will exclude from this monopoly counterrevolutionary forces by force. The "communism" of an autonomous region will be imposed on the minority, by the majority. However, as you point out above in struggle workers ideas can swing from left to right, and if for whatever reason and majority of workers swing away from social revolution in an autonomous region controlled by anarchists, the anarchists believe any gains should be given up to counterrevolutionary forces if that is what the majority want. SW believes you shouldn't, if you can manoeuvre not to. Is there within this SW belief a germ of Stalinism? In my opinion YES! Without doubt! BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION! AND THERE IS ALSO A GERM OF MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES, INCLUDING COMMUNISM!
I believe that even if a majority has control, as long as there is a minority, it is not really communism. I believe real communist consciousness will only be a germ in this period of coexistence. I believe the class consciousness we have today blah blah (I am only going to repeat really what I have already said above.)
The way I understand it is this. Firstly, the philosophical disagreements between anarchist and SW is NOT over endgame. Both SW and anarchist want to achieve communism/anarchism as the endgame. A society without class or state. The difference between them is over the strategy for achieving communism/anarchism. I do not think you can have an honest discussion if you do not start from recognition that we have more in common, than divides us.
Now as far as I understand it, anarchist believe it is possible and actually a necessity to build communist consciousness here and now. Crudely, you behave like a communist, build communist democracy in your house, in your street, in your town, in your region, in your country and so on. Communism grows from within capitalism, displacing it by demonstrating its superiority. They argue this is a necessity because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, because in that process only can the working class develop consciousness.
As far as I understand it, anarchist do NOT argue that you can have a revolution, and all people's consciousness will be automatically changed to "communist consciousness". In this perspective they are the same as SW. They seem to accept, there will be a period where even in "autonomous regions"[1] there may be counterrevolutionary elements, and without those regions most definitely. They seem to accept like SW there will be a period of coexistence of "autonomous regions" and capitalist regions. But for them communist consciousness and structures will exist where people have created them.
As far as I am concerned a "autonomous region" is nearly the same as a worker state. Workers militias will claim for the working class the monopoly over the right to use violence, and will exclude from this monopoly counterrevolutionary forces by force. The "communism" of an autonomous region will be imposed on the minority, by the majority. However, as you point out above in struggle workers ideas can swing from left to right, and if for whatever reason and majority of workers swing away from social revolution in an autonomous region controlled by anarchists, the anarchists believe any gains should be given up to counterrevolutionary forces if that is what the majority want. SW believes you shouldn't, if you can manoeuvre not to. Is there within this SW belief a germ of Stalinism? In my opinion YES! Without doubt! BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION! AND THERE IS ALSO A GERM OF MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES, INCLUDING COMMUNISM!
I believe that even if a majority has control, as long as there is a minority, it is not really communism. I believe real communist consciousness will only be a germ in this period of coexistence. I believe the class consciousness we have today blah blah (I am only going to repeat really what I have already said above.)
greenman said:Question is, would the effects of immediate introduction of direct democracy be in the self-interest of the vast majority of the working class?
Now me, being white, male and what the SWP might consider as working class, but what most of the rest of society (me being a university educated white collar worker in a 'semi-professional' job) would probably regard as lower middle class in UK terms
Now would the working class be guily of acting against their self interest if they voted for the full tbaldwin package? Or would they be guilty of 'false consciousness' in his terms, by not voting as he predicts? OR is the false consciousness what baldwin promotes backed by the cultural environment of a sensationalist and racist mass media?
Of course direct democracy will not happen, because the ruling class know that if society were reduced to the brutalised form that baldwin seems to covet, then regardless of whether they all initially embraced it, the long term effect would be working class awakening to the class nature of justice, immigration and other policies - an awareness that is shielded by the influence of liberal middle class (softening the brutality that would be imposed) - a position that came about when earlier movements of working class people combined with them to force change. Now, I am quite happy to see the liberal middle class and professionals described as a buffer, or a defensive liine to protect ruling interests from the relatively powerless - but focussing on them , and the removal of their influence as a 'route to socialism' is as misconceived as believing the ruling class would ever countenance any direct democracy unless they so controlled hearts and minds that they could bind it to their interests. It ignores the base and obsesses over the ephemera of capitalist rule - the relatively recent 'humanitarian' decorations, and the still expendable decorators.
The question is one of self-organisation, consciousness and struggle, not about some mythical middle class lefty conspiracy which is almost solely responsible for preventing social justice in Britain......regardless of the true nature of economic and political power.
Greenman, There are people who think of themselves as Socialistic who agree with most people on urban75,who think that direct democracy is a good idea if only the masses could be TRUSTED...But of course they will never TRUST the masses...They instead have a vague idea of trusting them sometime in the future and in a kind of benevolent dictatorship...Its something that unites so called dissident lefties with New Labour and the SWP.....
But some people who think of themselves as Socialists think it means the masses in control,not just sometime in the future but in the here and now.
Just to add for Greenman if i have an agenda it is primarily one of Social Justice,for a massive redistribution of wealth and power. Anti Social Crime effects poorer people much more than the rich,you could call tougher sentences for anti social criminals punitive but letting rapists and muggers off lightly has a punitive effect on many people...
On Migration the arguement against free market migration policies is plain common sense...Taking the skilled workers from developing nations is totally indefensible.
On Migration the arguement against free market migration policies is plain common sense...Taking the skilled workers from developing nations is totally indefensible.
Here's an example. Cliff argues that before October 1917, Lenin never argued for one party power, he argued for independent Soviet control.
If Cliff has read Lenin's works throughout 1917, then Cliff is an out and out liar. There are numerous instances where Lenin talked about the Bolsheviks taking power.
To ignore this RMP3, is not an "honest disagreement". It's your side ignroing facts and distorting the truth. Why? Who knows.
In all revolutionary periods, there has been a significant minority who are the most resolute advocates of socialism. In the Paris Commune, Marx said that the "most able" workingmen were elected and administered the commune.
Does that mean they "led" the rest of the people? I don't think so. As I said, those at the forefront can quickly be overtaken by events. Lenin and Trotsky always said the in 1917, the working class was more revolutionary, more leftists than the Party. How was the Party "the leadership" then? It had little control over the class movement, they were just the beneficiaries of the masses' radicalism in soviet votes.
That's very vague. You didn't answer my questions either. Do you see the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a centralised political state in the hands of a minority "vanguard"?
On the differences between Anarchism and Marxism: i'd agree with a lot of what you said - their "stateless" communes or whatever was exactly the "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx was on about. In this sense, Marxism and Anarchism only disagree on the name of the post-capitalist order
But there is a huge gulf between Anarchism and Leninism, just as their is between Marxism and Leninism.
And herein lies the problem. Yes, that is the first step to Stalinism. Basically, you believe that an elite can overrule the majority working class opinion for whatever reason - because you think it is the right thing to do. This is how Trotskyism and Stalinism are simply two sides of the same coin.
If Lenin was to say, "sorry for this state-capitalist one party totalitarian police state, it wasn't OUR intention", then i would have laughed at him.
Their is a major theoretical difference Matt between marxists and anarcho-communists.
Marxists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the private ownership of the means of production. State oppression arises because of this.
Anarcho- communists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the state, not private ownership -which they regard as a consequence of the state.
This has, as you can guess, major implications for how they view the post-capitalist order - marxists believing that the state can only be abolished when there is an end to class atangonisms, anarcho-communists believing that class antagonisms can only be ended when the state has been abolished
Their can be no blurring of the differences between marxists and anarcho-communists.
Even more when it comes to marxists versus other forms of anarchism -proudonists etc who don't believe in communism anyway.
Why do you think Marx polemicised against anarchists so frequently?
Marxists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the private ownership of the means of production. State oppression arises because of this.
Anarcho- communists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the state, not private ownership -which they regard as a consequence of the state.
This has, as you can guess, major implications for how they view the post-capitalist order - marxists believing that the state can only be abolished when there is an end to class atangonisms, anarcho-communists believing that class antagonisms can only be ended when the state has been abolished
Their can be no blurring of the differences between marxists and anarcho-communists.
Even more when it comes to marxists versus other forms of anarchism -proudonists etc who don't believe in communism anyway.
Why do you think Marx polemicised against anarchists so frequently?
from what ive read, most of Marx's attacks on the anarchists was about the strategy - whether to stand in elections, form a political party etc -
"Anarcho- communists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the state"
I'm not sure all anarchists would agree with that, from what i've read. The state isn't an independent entity, it's bound up with the particular economic system. But i'll let them answer you, if they want to.
"Anarcho- communists believe that the origin of oppression lies in the state"
I'm not sure all anarchists would agree with that, from what i've read. The state isn't an independent entity, it's bound up with the particular economic system. But i'll let them answer you, if they want to.
From the anarchist FAQ:
"As noted above, anarchists do not see in the state the root of all problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because the state is the protector of existing society and in order to transform that society we need get rid of it. Kropotkin, for example, was well aware of "the evil done by Capitalism and the State that supports it."
For what it's worth, I think Marx and Engels criticisms of anarchism were poor, and I also think Bakunin's arguments against Marx & Marxism were poor. I'm a Marxist, but not because I think anarchists see the state as the main evil.
"As noted above, anarchists do not see in the state the root of all problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because the state is the protector of existing society and in order to transform that society we need get rid of it. Kropotkin, for example, was well aware of "the evil done by Capitalism and the State that supports it."
For what it's worth, I think Marx and Engels criticisms of anarchism were poor, and I also think Bakunin's arguments against Marx & Marxism were poor. I'm a Marxist, but not because I think anarchists see the state as the main evil.
Matt, please believe me when I say I am not trying to catch you out, but please explain something to me. I made a throw-away comment about money being wasted on movies and football players wages whilst children starve in Africa. For this (mundane) observation I was attacked by you for raising an issue of no immediate concern to the (British, or maybe English) working class. And yet here you are, locked in an obscure debate about the relationship between Anarchism, Marxism and Leninism.
Also you have attacked the PR group for, amongst many other things, discussing semi-colonies and speaking in the language of 1938.
How do you square this circle? Is it that only issues of interest to Matt Kidd are worth debating or raising? You do not have state power (fortunately for the rest of us) but how would this translate if you did? In the end, for a communist, or a socialist, tolerance may be a more important trait than ruthlessness.
You've got a bee in your bonnet about me criticising your programme? Sorry if you were offended by it, I just thought it was a point worth making. I'm not debating with joe public here am I? I'm debating with RMP3, a Trotskyist, about an event which his party is based on (the Russian Revo).
Why do you think I want state power?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Whereas I'd say the asnwer was a fair bit of both.junius said:
Similar threads
- Poll
