Good article by the SPGB 1973 Brendan Mee
- This topic has 98 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Is this what passes for political debate in the SPGB?Accusing those who argue for democratic workers' power as being Stalinists? That Stalin was a 'democrat'?This is the most effective answer to Tim Kilgallon, who asked earlier, as to why I won't be joining the SPGB in 2017.
You have said or implied that the SPGB members are 'undemocratic'. 'stalinist' 'religious', stupid, illiterate, Leninist, Against workers etc etc. So cut the crap.
LBird wrote:Is this what passes for political debate in the SPGB?Accusing those who argue for democratic workers' power as being Stalinists? That Stalin was a 'democrat'?This is the most effective answer to Tim Kilgallon, who asked earlier, as to why I won't be joining the SPGB in 2017.I also note that Lbird never mentions aprtheid: why does Lbird support Apartheid?See, Lbird, I'm using your argumentational techniques, fun, isn't it?I also note, despite the froth, that you do not expressley dissociate yourself from Stalin: why do you support stalin? When did you stop beating your wife? Why won't you condemn Mithradites VI of Pontus?The truth is, Stalin did argue for democratic workers power, as I've just demonstrated by quote: Stalin attempted to carry out science by will alone, which lead to the debacles of Lysenkoism. Now, aside from the majoritarian aspect of what you are arguing for, why should we not consider your position to be latter-day Lysenkoism? (and, please, spare any froth about epigenetics).I return to my substantive point, we are part of reality, we do not create it: and I ask, which is the more radical view, one in which human beings are part of reality which is unfurling, or that there is no reality beyond our creation? One of us divides society into two parts, and has an elite dictating what reality is: and it isn't me. Lbird's majoritarian elite would just re-produce the tragedy of soviet science.I ask, would Lbird see practicing geneticists gaoled if they continued to dispute the majority vote? Or tried to contionue writing papers and doing research against the wish of the majority?
Oh for crying out loud, can't we all just agree to disagree and move on?!
Young Master Smeet wrote:The truth is, Stalin did argue for democratic workers power…I'm beginning to think that you're unhinged.
McNeeny was debating with the International Communist Current. It was peetering out into a 0-0 draw when in the dying minutes of injury time McNeeny dummied his opponent by pointing out that it was ICC policy to introduce a 'Cheka' immediately after the revolution. The ICC contingent – about eight or nine – were visibly stunned.They must have all missed that minor detail in their programme. The ICC speaker had no reply. ICC- 0 SPGB- 1.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:The truth is, Stalin did argue for democratic workers power…I'm beginning to think that you're unhinged.
Well done, YMS. Now at least he knows what it feels like to be called a Leninist when you're not. The biter bit.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I ask, would Lbird see practicing geneticists gaoled if they continued to dispute the majority vote? Or tried to contionue writing papers and doing research against the wish of the majority?Yes I wanna know LBird's answer to that too! He never did get round to explaining what was the point in 7 billion people voting on tens of thousands of scientific theories every year or indeed how this even remotely practical, Nothing wrong with organising production on a democratic basis but democratically determining the truth value of ideas is another matter entirely!
A joker wrote:No matter what Marx says, you're not going to have workers voting about whether 'matter exists' or not, are you?Well, I never thought to get the Religious Materialists within the 2017 SPGB to openly display their support for the position that 'Stalin was a democrat'!No defence of workers' democracy, just a continued defence of 'Matter'. Not only have you lined up with Lenin on this issue, but now workers' democracy is slated as Stalinist!And robbo keeps up his elitist claim that the 'science' done by a minority outweighs the opinions of the majority of producers.Oh, I do wish it was 1973, when the SPGB apparently had thinkers who could do Marx justice. But the 20th century is over now, so it's back to the 19th, where 'democracy' in both science and politics was just where the SPGB of today would have it again!No doubt, this is what passes here for 'Historical Materialism'. 'Matter' going backwards in time!
The point is that in 1906 Stalin was an orthodox Marxist, and thus a democrat. Eg http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 What he became later is another question. The context of that 1906 Stalin article, written as a Bolshevik pamphlet, was in part a riposte to the Kropotkinists and Kropotkin himself who had accused the ‘Marxist’ of secretly desiring to introduce state capitalism if they should ever get into power. Thus;The Georgian Anarchists say the same thing only with greater aplomb. Particularly outstanding among them for the recklessness of his statements is Mr. Baton. He writes: "What is the collectivism of the Social-Democrats? Collectivism, or more correctly, state capitalism, is based on the following principle: each must work as much as he likes, or as much as the state determines, and receives in reward the value of his labour in the shape of goods. . . ." Consequently, here "there is needed a legislative assembly . . . there is needed (also) an executive power, i.e., ministers, all sorts of administrators, gendarmes and spies and, perhaps, also troops, if there are too many discontented" (see Nobati, No. 5, pp. 68-69). Such is the first "accusation " of Messieurs the Anarchists against Social-DemocracyThus, from the arguments of the Anarchists it follows that: 1. In the opinion of the Social-Democrats, socialist society is impossible without a government which, in the capacity of principal master, will hire workers and will certainly have "ministers . . . gendarmes and spies."2. In socialist society, in the opinion of the Social-Democrats, the distinction between "dirty" and "clean" work will be retained, the principle "to each according to his needs" will be rejected, and another principle will prevail, viz., "to each according to his services,"page 360 Those are the two points on which the Anarchists' "accusation" against Social-Democracy is based. Has this "accusation" advanced by Messieurs the Anarchists any foundation?Stalin lays out what the Social-Democrats meant by communism and follows it with; As you see, the above-mentioned "accusation" of the Anarchists is mere tittle-tattle devoid of all foundation.
Dave B wrote:The point is that in 1906 Stalin was … a democrat.You're not really telling me, are you, Dave, that you really think that Stalin was a democrat in 1906?Y'know, in any sense meaningful to a discussion about workers' democracy?I have to believe that you're letting your hyperbole get away with you… otherwise, you'll probably go on to claim Hitler was a socialist and an advocate of workers' power, because his party was the NSDAP.
Whether or not Stalin was personally a sincere democrat or Marxist for that matter, in 1906, is a different question. I think not. I actually think he probably didn’t even write it as such and it was probably drafted for him by the Bolsheviks intellectuals and had his name attached to it. Neutral people, even before Stalin became what he was, described him as slow and stupid. And that pamphlet wasn’t; perhaps crude exposition of something clever. Stalin was useful in the sense that he was one of the few non middle class members of the Bolshevik party. Unlike the Russian Anarchist Princes. The Georgian RSDLP, before 1917 were convinced, before Stalin was anybody, that he was part of the Tsarist Okhrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana I also think, as did the Mensheviks, that the Bolsheviks were not sincere democrats either. Stalin’s pamphlet itself is very radical more in the sense of what it denies than what it asserts. In that it appears to reject any kind of exchange whatsoever; even involving labour vouchers etc Which was subliminally swirling around even on the left of the second international at that time. When I discussed that pamphlet on Revleft with the Stalinist they said Stalin was wrong, then, as did the neo Bolsheviks.
LBird wrote:And robbo keeps up his elitist claim that the 'science' done by a minority outweighs the opinions of the majority of producers.Bollocks. I say nothing of the sort. Its you who upholds the silly idea that scientific ideas – tens of thousands of them – should be put to a democratic vote by the global population, not me, So the question of the views of some "outweighing" those of others would simply not arise in my case. In practice, if your silly idea were ever to be attempted I suspect less than 0.0001 per cent of the populace would even bother to vote on whether sting theory was true or not. Meaning a tiny minirity anyway And if you still haven't answered the question – what happens if the global population of 7 billion (or 0001 per cent of 7 billion) decided by a majority that string theory was wrong?. Would people who thought that String theory was correct be preventeted from propagating their ideas in your Brave New World? I think you are basically a Leninist, LBird, with a strong attachment for the Leninist principle of democratic centralism whilst pretending to be a democratic communist
A joker wrote:No matter what Marx says, you're not going to have workers voting about whether 'matter exists' or not, are you?robbo203 wrote:the silly idea that scientific ideas – tens of thousands of them – should be put to a democratic vote by the global population …, if your silly idea were ever to be attempted I suspect less than 0.0001 per cent of the populace would even bother to vote on whether sting theory was true or not.I agree with you, Robbo, that if the issue "Does matter (external reality) exist? Yes/No" was put to a referendum, most people would vote with their feet — in the same way that Dr Johnston did when he answered the same question by kicking a stone. And if the No side won the Brexiteers' dilemma would be nothing compared with theirs. No doubt, our joker would be there to insist that "Exiting Reality means Exiting Reality". Who could disagree with that?
Dave B wrote:I actually think he probably didn’t even write it as such and it was probably drafted for him by the Bolsheviks intellectuals and had his name attached to it.This sounds a bit like intellectual snobbery. It is true that, unlike most Bolsheviks of the time who were from the university-educated intelligentsia or (like Lenin) a petty noble, Stalin was a worker and why couldn't a worker write a pamphlet himself? The founder-members of the SPGB did, at the same time.And of course the series of articles was written in Georgian not Russian, so who would have been the ghost writer?Was he sincere or not at the time? I don't know, but why not? He didn't have to put his freedom on the line and become an anti-regime agitator under an autocracy..In any event, whoever wrote it, part III of that pamphlet contains a simple, clear definition of what socialism means..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.