Socialists and Self Interest?

[TremulousTetra]

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.

right okay, now you are talking about something specific. Go on then, send me some information in a p.m. with some specifics about which you are talking. Some links to what has been said in the many Internet Lenin archives, and the book and page for Tony Cliff would be useful please.

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.

you do seem to be getting in a lather about the word leadership. Marx organised to influence/lead in a direction the working-class. The Bolsheviks organised to influence/lead in a direction the working class. The fascists organise to influence/lead in a direction the working-class. Does this word influence suit you better than lead?

Yes sometimes revolutionaries do lag behind the working-class, so what? I knew arguing the working-class are always right? What should the position of a revolutionary be to say the working-class when it goes on strike in support of Enoch Powell? To just lag behind it like some on here argue, or should we try to connect with those workers, and pull them to the left like a vanguard? You and several others seem to see a vanguard is something detached, away from the working class, shouting at it. Rather than something organically linked to the class, part of the class, working-class.

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.

I was basically just trying to say regarding-“germ” etc; “It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?” . I honestly thought you would pick up on my use of the word germ, sorry.

I see the dictatorship of the proletariat as a worker state/autonomous zone with centralised control by the majority, imposing their will on the minority (bourgeoisie, some middle classes, and possibly even working classes) who want to return to capitalism/fascism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

but that is pie in the sky. You cannot have a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth under the current class relations, the bourgeoisie will not allow it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why do you think I want state power?

do you think I want state power?

 

[mk12]

Does this word influence suit you better than lead?

Well, no. Marx praised the Paris Commune like there was no tomorrow. Was the Paris Commune made up of only 1st internationalists? No. It showed how Marx thought of the role of an organisation - influence, a battle of ideas, but not necessarily having to take control and direct the movement. Marx scoffed at these ideas in his interview with Landor from New York.

Lenin and Bolsheviks on the other hand weren't just interested in influencing and spreading ideas - their goal was the win control of soviets so as to put their party in power. Lenin said the soviets were useless after the July Days, because they had refused to take power. So he didn't see anything in the soviets except a route to put the Boslheviks in power. Trotsky admitted this right before the revolution, that soviets "do not yet solve the problem", that the "party must give the soviets the programme" - which can be used to justify party control and obedient soviets.

You and several others seem to see a vanguard is something detached, away from the working class, shouting at it. Rather than something organically linked to the class, part of the class, working-class.

There's a difference between a "vanguard" of a class and a "vanguard party." In theory, the "party unites the most able workers." I would say that's only happened in short periods of time. In 1917 Russia, the "most able" workers (in the sense that they wanted socialism) were resisting th Bolsheviks almost immediately. So Bolsheviks were the "vanguard" for about 2 months.

I see the dictatorship of the proletariat as a worker state/autonomous zone with centralised control by the majority, imposing their will on the minority (bourgeoisie, some middle classes, and possibly even working classes) who want to return to capitalism/fascism.

Yes - but that contradicts what you said about a central, minoritarian clique overruling a decision by the majority.

I honestly thought you would pick up on my use of the word germ, sorry.

We've all heard the Serge quote. The germ of Stalinism is in Bolshevism. As soon as the Bolsheviks took power, this germ was unleashed - closing soviets, introducing martial law, taking power out of the hands of democratic assemblies etc. This is all before the civil war.

If this germ has come to life before, why do you continue to argue for Bolshevism as a method of organising?

 

[tbaldwin]

but that is pie in the sky. You cannot have a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth under the current class relations, the bourgeoisie will not allow it.

RMP3...Weird arguement? I dont want to keep the current class relations......I am for an extension of democracy and doing away with the class system,the judiciary,private and higher education as it stands.

 

[poster342002]

Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs

Yes, it was a rather filthy outfit, wasn't it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

If this germ has come to life before, why do you continue to argue for Bolshevism as a method of organising?

why did serge in that quote, who was actually there and saw what was going on?

PS. I you going to p.m. the stuff?

 

[tbaldwin]

Vanguards and Socialism......
To an extent i believe that Vanguards could be a healthy thing....I could never be an Anarchist cos from what ive seen they have some good criticisms of Vanguard Socialist???? Groups but nothing to put in there place....Decisions reached by so called concensus seem very dodgy to me.

The trouble with vanguard groups like the SWP however is they are not remotely representative of ordinary peoples views or aspirations... They appeal largely to a very narrow section of University educated Liberals....

On issues like Crime and Migration they have a very clear CLASS position....A anti working class position.

 

[mk12]

On Cliff and distortion:

"to start with Lenin spoke of the proletariat, the class - not the Bolshevik Party - assuming state power." (In the third volume of his biography of Lenin)

SEPT 1917: article by Lenin titled "The Bolsheviks must assume power"

OCT 1st 1917: "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone? I have already had occasion, at the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, to answer this question in the affirmative in no uncertain manner "

Trotsky says that Lenin said these things in "On Lenin: Notes towards a biography" - it's not "true to say that no party exists which is ready to assume power; such a party exists: this is our party"

Trotsky had to persuade Lenin to combine the uprising with the Congress of Soviets - Lenin said - "Oh, all right, one can proceed in this fashion as well, provided we seize power"

why did serge in that quote, who was actually there and saw what was going on?

There are quotes from people who were there which are remarkably different to Serge's views.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Depends how self interest is defined really. Under capitalism self interest is taken to mean grab as much as possible and get as rich as possible regardless of the consequences. Self interest can be driven by more enlightened motivations. For instance i would argue that is in many peoples self interest to rid ourselves of capitalistic social relations as they do no benefit the majority of people. It is in most peoples interest to live as free a life as possible which is impossible under the constrictions of capitalism and the state.

 

[tbaldwin]

Depends how self interest is defined really. Under capitalism self interest is taken to mean grab as much as possible and get as rich as possible regardless of the consequences. Self interest can be driven by more enlightened motivations. For instance i would argue that is in many peoples self interest to rid ourselves of capitalistic social relations as they do no benefit the majority of people. It is in most peoples interest to live as free a life as possible which is impossible under the constrictions of capitalism and the state.

I think that Self Interest is an issue the Left have been shockingly bad on....A major reason is the Class of the people who lead and influence the Left....
For them it is more about an academic theory rather than something in their self interest...
The right win politcally when there arguements are so badly opposed....A lot of Left wing people seem to see Self Interest as a bad thing.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Thats a fair comment. The success of thatcher and the tories was based on their articulation of self interest and portraying themselves as the best party to look after the self interest of thelower middle class and skilled working class people who voted tory all those years. My point is that we shouldn't be afraid of using the self interest argument when making the case for moving beyond capitalism as for too long the right have been allowed to define what self interest represents.

 

[tbaldwin]

Thats a fair comment. The success of thatcher and the tories was based on their articulation of self interest and portraying themselves as the best party to look after the self interest of thelower middle class and skilled working class people who voted tory all those years. My point is that we shouldn't be afraid of using the self interest argument when making the case for moving beyond capitalism as for too long the right have been allowed to define what self interest represents.

EXACTLY..

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3...Weird arguement? I dont want to keep the current class relations......I am for an extension of democracy and doing away with the class system,the judiciary,private and higher education as it stands.

sorry then, I have misunderstood your arguments for the past six months.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think that Self Interest is an issue the Left have been shockingly bad on....A major reason is the Class of the people who lead and influence the Left....
For them it is more about an academic theory rather than something in their self interest...
The right win politcally when there arguements are so badly opposed....A lot of Left wing people seem to see Self Interest as a bad thing.

what Hawkeye said, is similar to what I said earlier in the thread wasn't it? I don't think your argument is right about SW, it is all about material gains.

For example, many people on the attack "greedy workers". SW has always argued that the best paid workers, who have for the best terms conditions and wages, are the most Socialist workers.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

The problem lies however in how to move beyond trade union struggles for higher wages and better conditions to actually creating an alternative to the system itself. From 1945 to about 1970 there was improvements in working conditions and the position of trade union leaders was a far better one than had previously been achieved. Hence some social democrats were able to argue that the system could be permanently reformed. What actually happened was that the highest paid workers particularly in the south east of britain took up with thatcher as a result of the failure to articulate a left wing case when it really mattered and of course the collossal betrayls of labour in the 1970's.
I believe that this debate is crucial to future and the building of any movement that hopes to radically change society. How to demonstrate that it actually is in the interests of the majority of people to do away with the current system. I have to say that not many on the left seem to making that case at the moment, at least not very effectively.

 

[tbaldwin]

sorry then, I have misunderstood your arguments for the past six months.

But why??????
I am a Socialist who wants to see a massive redistribution of wealth and power and an end to the CLASS SYSTEM....

You seem to think that if i criticise the Liberal Left or the SWP that it somehow means i am right wing????? But none of my views would be thought of as Right wing by any Rational person.

 

[TremulousTetra]

On Cliff and distortion:

"to start with Lenin spoke of the proletariat, the class - not the Bolshevik Party - assuming state power." (In the third volume of his biography of Lenin)

SEPT 1917: article by Lenin titled "The Bolsheviks must assume power"

OCT 1st 1917: "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone? I have already had occasion, at the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, to answer this question in the affirmative in no uncertain manner "

Trotsky says that Lenin said these things in "On Lenin: Notes towards a biography" - it's not "true to say that no party exists which is ready to assume power; such a party exists: this is our party"

Trotsky had to persuade Lenin to combine the uprising with the Congress of Soviets - Lenin said - "Oh, all right, one can proceed in this fashion as well, provided we seize power"



There are quotes from people who were there which are remarkably different to Serge's views.

PRECISELY!! That's my point. They observed exactly the same "facts" as Victor, but came to a different interpretation. Are you saying Victor intentionally distorted things as well?

now I acknowledge there is an anomaly which you point out with Cliff and Lenin. I don't know the answer of the top of my head, I will look into it. I don't have a copy of Cliff's book. I will borrow one.

 

[mk12]

So what do you make of those Lenin quotes? It proves Cliff was wrong to say what he said.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But why??????
I am a Socialist who wants to see a massive redistribution of wealth and power and an end to the CLASS SYSTEM....

You seem to think that if i criticise the Liberal Left or the SWP that it somehow means i am right wing????? But none of my views would be thought of as Right wing by any Rational person.

I haven't thought you were right wing honestly.


I do not know anybody who is Liberal in SW.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So what do you make of those Lenin quotes? It proves Cliff was wrong to say what he said.

Calm down Matthew, I have already said:
now I acknowledge there is an anomaly which you point out with Cliff and Lenin. I don't know the answer of the top of my head, I will look into it. I don't have a copy of Cliff's book. I will borrow one.

 

[mk12]

if you need a copy, pm me. i'll even highlight the bits for you.

 

[tbaldwin]

I haven't thought you were right wing honestly.


I do not know anybody who is Liberal in SW.

I fundamentally disagree with SWP on Education,Migration,Crime and Islam.....On all those issues the SWP seems to have a Liberal view....

The contradiction is that working class people effected by high crime,the poxy education system,mass migration are supposedly your target readers and joiners......
The SWP has been on the side of reactionary elements who wanted to see more money for Higher Education.
On Crime and Migration they have adopted totally Liberal views....
On Islam they have really put their foot in it and distanced themselves even from other Liberals.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I fundamentally disagree with SWP on Education,Migration,Crime and Islam.....On all those issues the SWP seems to have a Liberal view....

The contradiction is that working class people effected by high crime,the poxy education system,mass migration are supposedly your target readers and joiners......
The SWP has been on the side of reactionary elements who wanted to see more money for Higher Education.
On Crime and Migration they have adopted totally Liberal views....
On Islam they have really put their foot in it and distanced themselves even from other Liberals.

please don't insult me, I am not a Liberal.

were the working-class trade unionists who went on strike in support of Enoch Powell right?

 

[rauscher]

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).

But PR and WP (for example) are not addressing joe public in their propaganda. They have a conception (or did, I guess it's still the same) of the fighting propaganda group. I think this originally comes from Trotsky (or maybe Cannon, can't remember) whereby a tiny group aims its propaganda (many ideas) at an already politicised audience (in practice the left). WP took the idea from the Sparts in the 1970's. The Sparts operated on the basis of an explicit 'regroupment perspective' ie an attempt to split factions and individuals from their closest political rivals. WP (now PR) were not quite so cut and dried about it but basically they operate(d) with same idea. Where they do trade union work they used to (probably still do) put in bulletins/leaflets that are more agitational (few ideas to many) and do not talk about semi-colonies, surplus value, the imperialist epoch and all the rest of the 1938 stuff (as you put it).

Their main aim is to win people like those you are debating with on these boards. And that is also who their website is aimed at.

This is not a defence of their position, simply an explanation. It's not so far from what you are doing (methodologically) although of course your politics are different.

But I still don't understand what you hope to gain from your debates with SWPers etc. As far as I know you are not trying to build an organisation. So what is your aim?

Why do you think I want state power?

You are a marxist - isn't that the objective.

 

[tbaldwin]

please don't insult me, I am not a Liberal.

were the working-class trade unionists who went on strike in support of Enoch Powell right?

Well if your offended by the term Liberal im sorry but that is essentially how i see your politics....

The trade unionists who went on strike saying they were supporting Enoch Powell were right to go on strike if thats how they felt.....
People in the UK have never had the chance to say whether they agreed with migration or not......
I think that people should have been consulted,what do you think?

 

[rauscher]

The trade unionists who went on strike saying they were supporting Enoch Powell were right to go on strike if thats how they felt.....

The dockers who struck in support of Enoch Powell had the right to strike, and should have had the right to strike, as they saw fit. However that does not mean they were right to support Enoch Powell, a vicious racist, old school, imperialist Tory politician who, in the 1950's toured the ex-colonies encouraging black workers to come to Britain and do the dirty, low paid jobs the British working class (rightly) did not want to do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well if your offended by the term Liberal im sorry but that is essentially how i see your politics....

IF? You mean nobody has mentioned to you before how much that wind people? ROFL you little liar Tommy.

The trade unionists who went on strike saying they were supporting Enoch Powell were right to go on strike if thats how they felt.....
People in the UK have never had the chance to say whether they agreed with migration or not......
I think that people should have been consulted,what do you think?

WOW!

Working-class people who support the monarchy are politically right?

is there any widely held view by a significant portion of the working-class a that you think' politically dodgy?

 

[tbaldwin]

RMP3..... I would far rather put my faith in the will of the majority than on any benevolent minority.....
Loads of people would probably vote to abolish the monarchy...Id like to see them given the chance....
I think the views of Liberals are generally far more dodgy than Populist views.

 

[mk12]

come back to other stuff when im less tired

You are a marxist - isn't that the objective.

No - the working class in power is the objective. Read any Marx to find that out.