JimW
支那暗杀团
Yep, that was the point.
Swappies: what's the point?
- Thread starter AnnO'Neemus
- Start date
Yep, that was the point.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
An excellent post James. I'd probably agree with 90 per cent of it, including most of the criticisms of 'Bolshevism' OR Stalinism. What's more, it naturally progresses our discussion of anarchism. But to start, just need to put to bed, this issue which has held up the conversation.
There was a whole swathe of Marxist historians who used to talk about the chartist movement as, "the first flowering of working class consciousness". This was not movement that had a single truth about the future, it didn't have the single truth even about how to take the struggle forward. The movement itself was divided over "physical force~" or "moral force''.
Even before Chartism, there had been many working class struggles. The working class had created trade unions. But Chartism is described as the first flowering of working class consciousness, because it was the first time in world history the working class set its own agenda, for its own ends, and acted collectively in the interest of the whole class [instead of just groups within the class, like cotton spinners.] It was the first time it became conscious of itself as a player in its destiny.
Whether there is in fact a truth that can be revealed, is another debate. It is a perfectly worthwhile debate. But it doesn't deterministicly flow from the idea of consciousness, for Marxist. It depends on context, but often it means no more than a discussion about
Now I'm going to leave that issue there. I would only say, if anarchist keep imposing their interpretation of consciousness, on Marxists use of the word, they are stifling honest discussion. Setting up nothing more than strawman discussions. [btw. This is not a criticism of you. At least you have been prepared to talk through the issue,,,, HONESTLY]
That response to longer than I thought. I will come back to the much I agree with in your post, in a while.
It is fully acceptable for anarchist to argue "consciousness, says there is a truth about there, and all takes is that it be revealed etc." BUT you cannot impose that meaning of the word upon how I use it, or Marxists. That is not on how I/we use the word.
There was a whole swathe of Marxist historians who used to talk about the chartist movement as, "the first flowering of working class consciousness". This was not movement that had a single truth about the future, it didn't have the single truth even about how to take the struggle forward. The movement itself was divided over "physical force~" or "moral force''.
Even before Chartism, there had been many working class struggles. The working class had created trade unions. But Chartism is described as the first flowering of working class consciousness, because it was the first time in world history the working class set its own agenda, for its own ends, and acted collectively in the interest of the whole class [instead of just groups within the class, like cotton spinners.] It was the first time it became conscious of itself as a player in its destiny.
Whether there is in fact a truth that can be revealed, is another debate. It is a perfectly worthwhile debate. But it doesn't deterministicly flow from the idea of consciousness, for Marxist. It depends on context, but often it means no more than a discussion about
Even in trotsky's analysis, that butcher's referred to earlier, he does not talk about "winning workers" through revalation.
Now I'm going to leave that issue there. I would only say, if anarchist keep imposing their interpretation of consciousness, on Marxists use of the word, they are stifling honest discussion. Setting up nothing more than strawman discussions. [btw. This is not a criticism of you. At least you have been prepared to talk through the issue,,,, HONESTLY]
That response to longer than I thought. I will come back to the much I agree with in your post, in a while.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I have taken the entire middle section from http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9544070&postcount=471, deleted half a sentence, and changed one word. Having done that, I don't know anybody in SW who would disagree with the essentials of what has been said.
Does that surprise you? That SW, Leninist Bolshevik party, would agree with the essentials of that?
However, I noticed the post from spion and you, I'd like to disagree with had and come back on that.
Again, I don't know anybody in SW who would disagree with the essentials of what has been said.
these last three sentences are excellent. Agree with the criticism of some froms of anarchism. And that the "values"methods have to be part of masses changing social relationships.
Does that surprise you? That SW, Leninist Bolshevik party, would agree with the essentials of that?
However, I noticed the post from spion and you, I'd like to disagree with had and come back on that.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Yep, that was the point.[/QUOTE] it seems to me the issue of wages comes under the
some people in socialist worker believe that in communism we will live in a moneyless society, others such as myself believe that though essentials of food clothing and shelter will almost certainly be free, there may still be some forms of value representation, money. BUT the collective response is always the above, we don't know, that will be a decision for the communists.
However, what is essential, is a change in the workers relationship to the means of production.
I don't know of any society, where those who have controlled the means of production, haven't controlled society. This is the essential change. The workers have to have control of the means of production. And history has shown this is possible. It is from the Paris commune, through to almost every major social upheaval that is challenged the powers that be, that workers' councils can be the means through which the workers control the means of production. This is bolshevism. This is the communism the Bolsheviks wanted to create. What was described above by James, was Stalinism.
That obviously brings us to a question about the workers state, and another question about anarchism. Isn't it the case, that what you've said about the means being inextricably linked to the ends, meant that in the Spanish civil war, even if the anarchist could have been gifted complete power, where there were still contradictory levels of consciousness amongst the masses of the population, the anarchist would have to refuse power?
ps. In my opinion, because in the "weird and unstable things that grew out of the defeat of the Russian revolution, plus Maoist China etc" the means of production remained in control of a minority, and not in the control of the workers, they were state capitalist.
northernhord
Active Member
An annoying bunch of Pot Noodle Marxists who end up earning 100k a year when the rebel inside calms down as they hit 30.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
from that politicaly 'insightfull' contribution I assume you are an anarchist.
No.
The very fact that the SWP CC promote a vanguardist approach reveals them to have no ambition whatsoever to promote the idea of a "classless society", but rather a society with fewer strata, perhaps merely a nomenklatura and a proleteriat. Complete control, at least until the inevitable counter-revolution!
[/QUOTE]Are you another one who agrees with violent panda?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
h
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
hn
Riklet
procrastinación
In my pretty limited experience of occupations, protests, social movements and anti cuts stuff.... I have seen the SWP logo more than any other, stuck on hordes of posters and papers and various other crap, like some failing marketing company from the 50s has vomited them out.
Never seen any evidence of the SWP members being remotely close to launching 'revolution', instead bickering over minor issues like control of facebook groups (at an anti cuts meeting) has been way more frequent. Just petty, divisive shit that puts most people off and achieves sod all, aside from ego-wankery and continuation of their weird war with the socialist party where they arrange everything to clash with their dates.
Pretty fucking depressing at points... they are literally the antithesis of reasonable negotiation and productive action. All this is without the urban horror stories too, hah...
Never seen any evidence of the SWP members being remotely close to launching 'revolution', instead bickering over minor issues like control of facebook groups (at an anti cuts meeting) has been way more frequent. Just petty, divisive shit that puts most people off and achieves sod all, aside from ego-wankery and continuation of their weird war with the socialist party where they arrange everything to clash with their dates.
Pretty fucking depressing at points... they are literally the antithesis of reasonable negotiation and productive action. All this is without the urban horror stories too, hah...
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
heh. tis true.
i actually dont have the same hatred towards the swp a lot of others do , i havent really "seen them in action" so much though. besides i can only really hate a few annoying parties at a time, like the greens.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Who are actually doing any action now? When I was last in the UK the SWP was a joke, and that was ten years ago.
Is there still a "left" for students? Or even a "left" for the working class?
Well this is the only true vanguard of the Workers Movement & Left!
http://proletariandemocracy.wordpress.com/tag/workers-girder/
But if you cannot handle the revolutionary discipline the Socialist Party(CWI)will have to do!
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/
Revolutionary discipline?
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/splits-and-socialist-party.html
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/splits-and-socialist-party.html
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Once you get past the jibes and carping and the far from charitable tone (which are only to be expected when you remember that the author is a turncoat) that's a reasonably insightful piece on a number of counts. It's hostile, but it does identify quite a lot of what is different and/or unusual about the SP on the British left, in both a positive and negative sense.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
mis quoted and misrepresented as usual.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
it's not rocket science, my posts were in 2011. Penny dropped?
Similar threads
- Poll
