Fellow travellers?
- This topic has 49 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Came across these folk who appear to share and overlap with ourselves on the road towards socialism in many regards.
http://newdemocracyworld.org/revolution/Thinking.pdf
We could mail them a selection of our pamphlets and books…if we can afford the postage, that is…A bit more comradely and fraternal than just website links.
Mail: New Democracy, P.O. Box 300860, Boston, MA 02130 USA
alanjjohnstone wrote:Came across these folk who appear to share and overlap with ourselves on the road towards socialism in many regards.http://newdemocracyworld.org/revolution/Thinking.pdfhttp://newdemocracyworld.org/We could mail them a selection of our pamphlets and books…if we can afford the postage, that is…A bit more comradely and fraternal than just website links.I've had a look at their sites recently and found a lot of interesting stuff there. It's definitely a surprise when you stumble on similar minded folk. We have to bear in mind that the word 'socialism' in itself is much more abused than used correctly and that US attitudes are shaped very differently from UK or European ones. Many shy away from using the term even. Anyway, I too would call these fellow travellers and it seems like a good idea from Alan to send them some things from the SPGB – a goodie bag. Maybe with a request for feedback. They, too, are trying hard to spread the word – there's a lot to delve into on their sites.I also notice that they are now being picked up and reposted by other sites – Countercurrents etc
You're right. There is some good stuff in the first document on "Thinking About Revolution" and we should try and make contact with them again.I say again because some of us met David Stratman when he was in England in 1996 (I think) to promote his book We Can Strange the World. The Real Meaning of Everyday Life. Steve Coleman was so impressed by him that he agreed that the Party should take copies of his book. Stan Parker and me who had actually read the book knew that the Party would not be able to endorse it (because it was critical of Marx arguing that Marx did lead to Lenin and that there "the Soviet Union and other Communist societies represent not a betrayal of Marxism but its fulfillment"). It was a bit embarrassing as the (free) books arrived but we couldn't distribute them (they may still be in a box somewhere in Head Office).Stan wrote a review of the book that appeared in the September 1996 Socialist Standard. One of the points he made was:
Quote:Stratman talks about a "revolutionary party", yet he is very vague about what a revolutionary democratic world will actually be like, other than that it won't be capitalism. Will it be a world in which the means of wealth production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically controlled? Will it be a world in which there are no nation states, no armies and police forces, no buying and selling, no money?It looks as if in the meantime Stratman has come round to answering "yes". See the "Summary of Proposals for a New Society" on page 2 of the document :
Quote:We propose a democratic revolution to sweep away the elite power and class domination that so distort our present world. We propose a new society in which:• All who contribute to society, or who are not obligated to do so because they are children, elderly or otherwise unable to work, have free and equal access to its goods and services, which are shared according to need, not bought and sold. Money is not used. There are no rich and no poor people.• All the things that people use to produce goods, such as factories and mines and large tracts of land, belong to all the people. These things are like the air we breathe and the sunshine that warms us—a common treasure for all of society, not the property of a few.Isn't it the case that the party can only give away material that is the party case, but can sell books that are not party case?
We did make them available for members and sympathisers to buy and no doubt sold a few but we didn't endorse it as "Party literature". That's how I got my copy.
I think i would have uncovered a box of new books in my constant rummaging at HO (i put Tristan's pet ferret to shame with my ferreting around the dusty nooks and crannies on my visits.)But if they do turn up, yes they can be placed on the ground-floor shelves with the rest of the 2nd hand books and music tapes for sale. Or better still offered to members to buy.I see no great schism in suggesting that Marx may not have been perfect and could have contributed to elements of Leninism. I think we sometimes absolve him of his organisational flaws, as well as Engels for his light-touch criticism of the 2nd International and the SPD. I do not consider it as a difference in socialist principles to hold contrary opinions to the worth of Marx and Engels contributions in the field of workers' political parties. I am however talking from the disadvantage of not knowing his reasons for linking Marx with Lenin and if he is accepting Lenin's claims of what Marx said too readily rather than Lenin misquoted and distorted Marx. Thats simple to show and remedy. Stratman can still hold his opinion that Marx had flaws if it is not prejudicial to the fundamental economic and materialist arguments of Marxism. Engels believed there was something scientific in the study of bumps on a persons head ! It would be useful to re-establish contact since as we all know , this " thin red line" is not getting any bigger very quickly. As i suggested we should send over free books, hopefully for them to review, as a gesture of our good-will – non – party published stuff , as well. We should also comradely offer a standing invitation if either Stratman or Spriztler ever visit the UK again to address party members in a Question and Answer forum. Yes, i know this is almost like providing them with a platform but it is going to get a better reception than a challenge to a formal debate especially if its about splitting theoretical hairs on what Marx said and what Lenin said and who's translations to depend upon. I found reading their material an echo of the American SLP because of the frequent mention to the United States in some of their articles so not too sure of their position as world socialists.
It is also a great pity that they appear to ascribe to ( or at least publicise) many conspiracy theories, taking Marx's maxim "doubt everything" to absurd levels. It is a shame they clutter their website with such links.But even within our own party members hold private personal beliefs of a similar nature…i recall one comrade not too far away from this thread casting doubts on the scientific evidence of the dangers of passive smoking
I think his criticism of Marx was that Marx saw capitalism being replaced by a working class forced to do so by impersonal economic and historical forces rather than by their own free will and choice, i.e that Marx was some sort of economic determinist. He liked Lenin (and Mao) because they emphasised rather "revolutionary will", i.e were by contrast voluntarists (my guess is that he's an ex-Maoist). This doesn't mean that he liked what they achieved. Here's how he concluded his chapter entitled "From Marx to Lenin":
Quote:However great Lenin's achievement, it consolidated the dehumanized view of workers fundamental to the Marxist paradigm, and gave further impetus to the tradition, already well-established in Marxisn, of seeing middle-class intellectuals as the source and guiding force of revolutionary consciousness. It has led to revolutions which are technocratic and dehumanized, and has resulted finally in the widespread discrediting of the idea of revolution itself — until the Marxist paradigm of history is finally overthrown.This is the sort of criticism of Marx put out by the old Solidarity Group of ex-Trotskyists in the 1960s and 70s when they published translations of articles by "Paul Cardan" (Castoriadis) e.g. History and Revolution: A Revolutionary Critique of Historical Materialism. But this probably says more about how they were taught to interpret Marx when they were members of their previous political group.I do agree, though, that having a different interpretation of Marx is not entirely beyond the pale as long as you agree on what socialism is and how to get there (but I imagine a branch or the membership applications committee would have a dilemma if an applicant did take up Stratman's position).Also, Stratman argued against using the word "socialism" or "communism" to describe the sort of post-capitalist society aimed at, using instead "revolutionary democracy". Once again, not beyond the pale or the end of the world, as we too have discussed this. Stan Parker pointed out in his review that the words "revolutionary" and "democracy" have been just as much dragged through the mud as "socialism" or "communism".But I think there were (and maybe still are) other, more fundamental differences as over whether a revolutionary party should advocate reforms within capitalism as well as revolution or should itself get involved in campaigns for reforms.Still, it's good to see that "thin red line" of those advocating genuine socialism (whatever they call it) has got wider than it has been for years.
Quote:Lenin assigned the dominant role in Marxist revolution to the revolutionary party. Leninism has had disastrous results in the modern history of revolution. But what does this say of Marxism itself?Marx and Engels had declared that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties" and that "the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself." Just two years after the publication of What Is To Be Done?, Rosa Luxemburg, a revolutionary leader of German Social Democracy, wrote a scathing attack on Lenin's view of the party, later published under the English title, Leninism or Marxism? A number of present-day Marxists see Leninism as a fundamental distortion of Marxism. In their view, Marxism has not failed; it simply has never been tried.My purpose in this chapter is to show that Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism, is not a distortion of Marxism, but follows from the Marxist paradigm of history. Leninism is a consistent development of the internal logic of Marxism, adapting it for practical use. If "there has been no serious and lasting non-Leninist Marxist challenge to Leninism," it is not because there are no elements of Marxism which contradict Leninism; it is because the particular development of Marxism which Leninism represents is necessary to operationalize Marxism as a theory of revolution. The Soviet Union and other Communist societies represent not a betrayal of Marxism but its fulfillment.http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Revolution/WCCTW-Ch8.htm
ALB wrote:Also, Stratman argued against using the word "socialism" or "communism" to describe the sort of post-capitalist society aimed at, using instead "revolutionary democracy". Once again, not beyond the pale or the end of the world, as we too have discussed this. Stan Parker pointed out in his review that the words "revolutionary" and "democracy" have been just as much dragged through the mud as "socialism" or "communism".Still, it's good to see that "thin red line" of those advocating genuine socialism (whatever they call it) has got wider than it has been for years.It's so important to try and interpret/understand how different nationalities or groups perceive the various terms. In the US socialism and communism are much dirtier words than in the UK because that's how they've long been portrayed by the governing elites to suit their purpose. I'm not trying to teach granddads to suck eggs here – it's that sometimes we have to spend so much time and effort trying to put others straight about what the terms don't mean rather than promoting the core principles and just wish we could get on with spreading the ideas without having to stick labels on them.Another point, I don't recall seeing anything that reveals what/who the 'movement' has as followers/members/advocates. Have I missed something here or is it just these two guys?
They declare it is not a membership organization. If you open the speakers link you will find that there is also Susan Ohanian, a teacher who has written on education and Carol Doherty, another teacher by profession. There is People for Democratic Revolution blog which doesn’t look too popular visited but is very new. Spritzlers personal blog is much more substantial but last entry is Dec 2011. But as you point out , their articles have been picked up by Countercurrents that is widely visited. Someone on Facebook can check to see how many friends they have. As i have found with many political groups i have come across in America it appears very localised, in this case centred in the Boston/Massachusetts region. I definitely think high-lighting various conspiracy theories (from Lockerbie to HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and, of course, 9/11) to attack capitalism as a system of deceit is on the wrong track. There are plenty of lies that are indisputable out there to draw attention to this. They will eventually end up with the reputation of the anarcho-Posadaists with beliefs in flying saucers! My initial enthusiasm about this group is now slightly more realistic. When a political group is so dependent upon one or two individuals they do tend to inherit those individuals eccentricities in their political outlook. They lack a more detatched objective approach but are influenced by personality qualities, for better or for worse.
I have now read Thinking About Revolution properly (was not prepared to read 30 pages on a screen) and I see what you mean, Alan, about them going in for conspiraloon ideas as p. 5 says they "believe that the official story about 9/11 is a lie and that overwhelming evidence suggests that 9/11 was an inside job". This rather spoils the pamphlet which otherwise is an easy-to-read manifesto for a democratic revolution to establish a classless, stateless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic, even if a bit too "anarchist" for us with its emphasis of decentralisation and its rejection of any contesting of elections (as well as its rejection of Marxism)..I liked their definition of a revolutionary which echoes what we have always said: that the most revolutionary, subversive activity in capitalist society today is undermining the ideas that sustain it:
Quote:Another obstacle is the false conception of what it means to be a "revolutionary.'" In the period before the movement reaches critical mass, a revolutionary is a person who spreads revolutionary ideas and helps people gain the confidence and clarity to act upon them where they work and live, not somebody who picks up a gun. Even when the revolutionary movement reaches critical mass, spreading revolutionary ideas remains the most critical activity.The image of a revolutionary that popular American culture offers people is one such as Che Guevara, a man who foolishly thought he could overthrow the U.S.-backed ruling elite of South America with a small band of armed men. When Che was famously captured and executed by CIA-assisted Bolivian soldiers, millions of people concluded that revolutionaries might be brave but they are also crazy and doomed to defeat and engaged in activities that have nothing to do with the lives of ordinary people like us.Contrary to this popular image, however, the most important revolutionary activity is something that people do every day: talk with each other about the things they believe are important.ALB wrote:…and I see what you mean, Alan, about them going in for conspiraloon ideas as p. 5 says they "believe that the official story about 9/11 is a lie and that overwhelming evidence suggests that 9/11 was an inside job".The capitalist system may not itself be a conspiracy but conspiracies do occur within capitalism from time to time. We should be very cautious, therefore, about dismissing an alternative version of a particular event simply because it doesn't accord with the 'official' explanation.Our analyses should always be based upon sound evidence however unpalatable that occasionally might be.
Of course 9/11 was a conspiracy — by fanatical Islamists mainly from Saudi Arabia. And Neil Armstrong did land on the moon in 1969.
…….and President Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Gnome is right we shouldn't dismiss something just because it's dubbed a conspiracy theory. All we can do is analyze the evidence we have and draw our own conclusions from it. The main thing is that whether Kennedy was shot by Oswald or the CIA or the mafia or Marilyn Monroe or alien time traveling pirates from Pluto it doesn't really change anything. Same with 9/11 if it was proven an inside job nothing would drastically change, capitalism would still continue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.