MIA Archive for Gilbert McClatchie
- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The MIA have opened one for his articles and other writings here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mcclatchie/index.htm
McClatchie, or Gilmac, was one of those who did a lot to codify the Party's position on political action (as opposed to Hardy who did this for our economic theory).
In this article, from a series he wrote in 1921 on Russia:https://www.marxists.org/archive/mcclatchie/russiastands_july.htmhe quotes a translation in Sylvia Pankhurst's Workers Dreadnought of a speech Lenin gave;
Quote:Under the heading "Elections to the Constituent Assembly" the following appeared in the Workers' Dreadnought, 21.8.20:"This is a process which the representatives of the Second International have never been able to understand, namely that the proletariat can be victorious without conquering a majority of the population. To limit or condition this victory to the acquisition of a majority of votes at an electoral contest under bourgeois domination is evidence of chronic intellectual indolence, or else, quite simply, of a device to deceive the workers. In order to bring the majority over to its side, the proletariat must first overthrow the bourgeoisie and take possession of the power of government, and then, after having destroyed the old state apparatus, introduce the Soviet system, whereby the domination and authority of the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois democrats over the non-proletarian labouring masses is at once nullified. It must finally complete the destruction of the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois democrats over the majority of the non-proletarian labouring masses by satisfying their economic needs in a revolutionary manner, at the expense of the exploiters."Comparison with a more recent translation of what Lenin wrote shows that this was not an accurate translation.
Quote:The traitors, blockheads and pedants of the Second International could never understand such dialectics; the proletariat cannot achieve victory if it does not win the majority of the population to its side. But to limit that winning to polling a majority of votes in an election under the rule of the bourgeoisie, or to make it the condition for it, is crass stupidity, or else sheer deception of the workers. In order to win the majority of the population to its side the proletariat must, in the first place, overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power; secondly, it must introduce Soviet power and complete]y smash the old state apparatus, whereby it immediately undermines the rule, prestige and influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the non-proletarian working people. Thirdly, it must entirely destroy the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the majority of the non-proletarian masses by satisfying their economic needs in a revolutionary way at the expense of the exploiters.This is from here :https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/dec/16.htmSo, Lenin was not saying that socialism could be established without a majority wanting and understanding it, but the lesser error of saying that no such majority can emerge as long as the capitalist class retain political power and that a socialist minority therefore has to overthrow capitalist rule and then educate a majority into wanting socialism. Of course this didn't work, and was never going to work, and led to the minority evolving into a new privileged, ruling class themselves. Others supported this mistaken view from Blanqui in the 19th century to Marcuse, Castro and Che Guevara last century.
ALB wrote:So, Lenin was not saying that socialism could be established without a majority wanting and understanding it, but the lesser error of saying that no such majority can emerge as long as the capitalist class retain political power and that a socialist minority therefore has to overthrow capitalist rule and then educate a majority into wanting socialism. Of course this didn't work, and was never going to work, and led to the minority evolving into a new privileged, ruling class themselves.[my bold]Whilst I agree with what ALB and the SPGB say here, I'm never quite sure why they don't apply the same political analysis to 'science', but instead, in effect, in relation to the political power of 'science', adopt Lenin's method.This political method assumes, of course, that an elite minority of specialists have an ability, prior to the proletariat, to know something that the proletariat can know only after a political revolution, then being taught by the 'revolutionary elite'.That is, 'science' is not a socio-political activity that the proletariat must school itself to be able to take power over, but is an activity that must be left to specialists.This is clearly an anti-democratic political method.Why can't the SPGB answer this political criticism of their 'science ideology' (even if it's not yet an openly declared party 'science policy')?
Quote:23 June, 2018: Added to the Gilbert McClatchie Internet Archive:Where Russia Stands. Our Attitude Supported by Latest Literature, May 1921 Where Russia Stands, June 1921 Where Russia Stands, July 1921 Where Russia Stands, October 1921This series of articles is very impressive, dating as it does from 1921. It's all there. In Russia it was the dicttorship of the vanguard party not of the proletariat, conditions weren't ripe either economically or politcally for socialism, the regime there was not like the Paris Commune, with quotes from Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin. It was in fact making the same analysis as Martov was at the same time but unbeknown to us till his became available in English in 1939. No wonder Party members liked his pamphlet.I don't understand why the Party never seems to have promoted this series, to show that we were on to what was happening in Bolshevik Russia straightaway, in the way that we promoted the original August 1918 article. The series is just as impressive.Click on title to read.
Some articles on the Party’s history as well as two on the Party’s theory have been added to the Gilbert McClatchie Internet Archive:
Commodity Struggle or Class Struggle?, November 1920
The Founding of the Socialist Party, September/October 1931
The ‘Transition Period’, January 1946
Notes on Solo Trumpet by T. A. Jackson, August 1953
Notes on Party History: The Trade Union Question, July 1954
The Socialist Standard in War Time, September 1954
Members in the Great War, September 1964
“Whilst I agree with what ALB and the SPGB say here, I’m never quite sure why they don’t apply the same political analysis to ‘science’, but instead, in effect, in relation to the political power of ‘science’, adopt Lenin’s method.This political method assumes, of course, that an elite minority of specialists have an ability, prior to the proletariat, to know something that the proletariat can know only after a political revolution, then being taught by the ‘revolutionary elite’.That is, ‘science’ is not a socio-political activity that the proletariat must school itself to be able to take power over, but is an activity that must be left to specialists. This is clearly an anti-democratic political method. Why can’t the SPGB answer this political criticism of their ‘science ideology’ (even if it’s not yet an openly declared party ‘science policy’)?”
To become a competent molecular biologist takes years of study. Of necessity that involves specialisation. Is LBird seriously suggesting here we should all become trained molecular biologists before we can have socialism? And what of those who are trained in molecular biology? How many of them are, say, competent mechanical engineers as well? Though they may be specialists in their own field, in relation to mechanical engineering their position as no different from that of any other worker – they are non specialists. How does their specialist knowledge of molecular biology give them any more power over their fellow workers than a mechanical engineer skilled in that branch of science but lacking in knowledge of molecular biology?
LBird’s position is completely indefensible. Either he is saying that all workers should become competent scientist in every conceivable branch of science, which is obviously absurd, or he is saying no one should become specialists in anything which equally absurd. The development of science requires specialisation in the sense of some people having to spend years of the lives devoted to mastering a particular branch of science.
You can call those who have undergone the necessary training in this particular branch of science a technical “elite” if you so wish. But you cannot transpose this understanding of the term “elite” to the idea of a political elite or vanguard to which the SPGB is opposed. These two things signify quite different things. The latter implies an asymmetrical power relationship; the former does not
Oh dear, Robbo, what have you done? By posting this comment here, presumably by mistake, you have risked polluting this information thread. Is there anyway of transferring this to the thread where it was meant?
Sorry about that ALB. I just read the comments and responded. But I would be quite happy for the Mods to transfer my comments and the comments to which I responded to some other thread with a suitable title. I have no idea how to do that myself – or even how to delete my own post!
Additions here including where he explains the Marxian theory of value and the materialist conception of history (MCH) in easy-to-follow terms:
The wise captain of industry is Mr. Selfridge.
Added to the Gilbert McClatchie Internet Archive:
- Irish Notes, April 1917
- Irish Notes, May 1917
- A brief exposition of socialist theory: Class Struggle, July 1920
- A brief exposition of socialist theory: Political Action, October 1920
- A brief exposition of socialist theory: Value, December 1920
- The “Wisdom” of a “Captain of Industry”, September 1921
- A brief exposition of socialist theory: Value, November 1921
- How “Ability” directs, April 1922
- Co-operation—A hopeless experiment, July 1923
- The staging of another pantomime, July 1923
- Prosperity and “dividing-up”, February 1926
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
Three more articles from the Socialist Standard added:
The Class Struggle, March 1925
Henry Ford or Karl Marx?, August 1926
The Mirage in Spain, April 1934Another article, from 1932, added to the MIA Gilbert McClatchie archive. At the end it sets out our view of what workers and socialists should do in countries where workers don’t have the vote or not enough of them do:
“Workers in India, therefore, should unite on a basis of Socialist principles and organise for the establishment of Socialism. They should take what steps are necessary to secure a franchise for this purpose, but they should not unite with any other parties or give adherence to any other bodies, even those masquerading as pure and simple franchise organisations, as by so doing they would lose independence.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mcclatchie/1932/backward_countries.htm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.