Doctrinaire

[jondwhite]

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

Engels on his Principles of Communism he wrongly called communism a doctrine, and then the opportunist Lenin continued using the same exression. Only religion can be called a doctrine

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

Engels on his Principles of Communism he wrongly called communism a doctrine, and then the opportunist Lenin continued using the same expression. Only religion can be called a doctrine

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

Engels on his Principles of Communism he wrongly called communism a doctrine, and then the opportunist Lenin continued using the same exression. Only religion can be called a doctrine

Why only religion? And what was Attlee getting at?

[rodmanlewis]

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

Yawn… He probably wouldn't have known what socialism is even if he'd put it in his pipe and smoked it.

[Dave B]

I think actually Lenin was ‘theoretically’ principled and he knew what communism was. And I still think this is one of the best one side of a post card definitions of communism around.  V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New   Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;  it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.  But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm  He also knew you couldn’t go from feudalism to communism without going through capitalism. And so didn’t, and introduced state capitalism, calling a spade a spade to give him credit. And flat footing Kautsky who had advocated, albeit democratic, imaginary gold money state capitalism, but daren’t call it by its less than sweet scented name.  The only thing Lenin went against what he had formerly said was when he went into a provisional revolutionary government to run capitalism. The Bolshevik regime was just the last provisional revolutionary government that just dragged on for a bit. V. I.  LeninThe Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry[2  This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated. For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme. Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm  Background was that the Mensheviks in 1905 were against going into a transitional revolutionary government and running capitalism before elections for the inevitably capitalist orientated constituent assembly. The Bolsheviks were up for it. The Mensheviks said that the Bolsheviks had a power mad psychological problem and once they got into power they would like it to much and end up running capitalism and ‘disgracing’ themselves, The Menshevik Fydor Dan (who in the 1930’s became a theoretical Trotskyist) remembered it well enough and quoted it He translated Lenin as disgrace rather than discredit as we have it.

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

I think actually Lenin was ‘theoretically’ principled and he knew what communism was. And I still think this is one of the best one side of a post card definitions of communism around.  V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New   Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;  it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.  But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm  He also knew you couldn’t go from feudalism to communism without going through capitalism. And so didn’t, and introduced state capitalism, calling a spade a spade to give him credit. And flat footing Kautsky who had advocated, albeit democratic, imaginary gold money state capitalism, but daren’t call it by its less than sweet scented name.  The only thing Lenin went against what he had formerly said was when he went into a provisional revolutionary government to run capitalism. The Bolshevik regime was just the last provisional revolutionary government that just dragged on for a bit. V. I.  LeninThe Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry[2  This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated. For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme. Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm  Background was that the Mensheviks in 1905 were against going into a transitional revolutionary government and running capitalism before elections for the inevitably capitalist orientated constituent assembly. The Bolsheviks were up for it. The Mensheviks said that the Bolsheviks had a power mad psychological problem and once they got into power they would like it to much and end up running capitalism and ‘disgracing’ themselves, The Menshevik Fydor Dan (who in the 1930’s became a theoretical Trotskyist) remembered it well enough and quoted it He translated Lenin as disgrace rather than discredit as we have it.

 Stalin knew what socialism should have been, or what socialism really is, and he supported Leninism, and state capitalism.If Lenin knew what  socialism is, why did he create the vanguard party conception ?  What did he create the division between socialism and communism ? Why did he support a so called socialist state ?  Why did he support the so called permanent revolution ?  Why did he support the so called transitional society ?  Why did he support state capitalism and said that it was beneficial for the majority of the workers ? Why did they  want to continue and create the wage slavery system in larger scale ? 

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

When exactly did he say this? That will have some importance as to what he meant.

[Dave B]

The conservatives accused the labour government of doctrinaire socialism in 1951; so perhaps it was a response to that. I really don’t know. 

Dave B wrote:

The attempt to impose a doctrinaire Socialism upon an Island which has grown great and famous by free enterprise has inflicted serious injury upon our strength and prosperity. Nationalisation has proved itself a failure which has resulted in heavy losses to the taxpayer or the consumer, or both. It has not given general satisfaction to the wage-earners in the nationalised industries. It has impaired the relations of the Trade Unions with their members. In more than one nationalised industry the wage-earners are ill-content with the change from the private employers, with whom they could negotiate on equal terms through the Trade Unions, to the all-powerful and remote officials in Whitehall.

 http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1951/1951-conservative-manifesto.shtml

[Dave B]

it worked !I will never remember that

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I heard recently that Attlee spoke out against what he called "doctrinaire socialists". Is this a simple Labour misrepresentation or is there more to this?

Engels on his Principles of Communism he wrongly called communism a doctrine, and then the opportunist Lenin continued using the same expression. Only religion can be called a doctrine

Why only religion? And what was Attlee getting at?

Well, doctrine means: Creed, believe, dogma, and doctrinaire is indoctrination, or imposition. Socialism is a social critique theory that is not based on dogmas, believe, or indoctrination. Marx himself said that everything must be questioned.Religion does have those prior elements mentioned. I do not know anything about Atlee, but I do know that he is wrong,  because socialists do not support any doctrine, even more, we are against all ideologies.Those were the conception spread by the Western capitalists in regard to the Soviet Union and they wanted  workers to believe that socialism is based in indoctrination.We are the ones indoctrinated by the capitalist since we are born, they want us to believe that their system is the best one, and it is going to be eternal

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

it worked !I will never remember that

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/forum-moderation?page=3#comment-33094

[ALB]

Looks more like Attlee getting a taste of his own medicine. He criticises (presumably) those who criticise him for accommodating to capitalism when he was prime minister as "doctrinaire socialists" only to be criticised by the Tories as one himself. But, again, when he make the alleged statement?

[Anonymous]

I can not  see a socialist movement detached from the working class movement.  Engels himself wrote on his book: From utopian socialism to scientific socialism, that socialism is a product of the working class.Doctrinaire socialism is one of the thousands of confusing terms and conceptions created by the left wingers. Those terms keep them sitting in their high horseThere is a new term that is re-emerging now known as: Lumpen-bourgeois, it is propagated by the nationalist leftists masked  as socialists, the thing that they do not understand  that colonialism was replaced by capitalism, and they still continue talking about colonialism

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

The conservatives accused the labour government of doctrinaire socialism in 1951; so perhaps it was a response to that. I really don’t know. 

Dave B wrote:

The attempt to impose a doctrinaire Socialism upon an Island which has grown great and famous by free enterprise has inflicted serious injury upon our strength and prosperity. Nationalisation has proved itself a failure which has resulted in heavy losses to the taxpayer or the consumer, or both. It has not given general satisfaction to the wage-earners in the nationalised industries. It has impaired the relations of the Trade Unions with their members. In more than one nationalised industry the wage-earners are ill-content with the change from the private employers, with whom they could negotiate on equal terms through the Trade Unions, to the all-powerful and remote officials in Whitehall.

 http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1951/1951-conservative-manifesto.shtml

Conservative is a nice word used to avoid calling them reactionaries, and pro-capitalist, or defender of the parties of poverty. Some workers called themselves capitalists because they defend the capitalist system, but in reality they do not even own a lot in the cemetery

[Author]

Posts