Tankie critiques of the SPGB
- This topic has 40 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ive been engaging in a protracted debate with various people on the "Socialist Economics" FB group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/553809051489835/permalink/796198147250923/
and have come across various critiques of the SPGB emerging from the undergrowth of that strange and rather curious world of tankiedom
Im sure there are plenty more lurking around in the undergrowthrobbo203 wrote:Ive been engaging in a protracted debate with various people on the "Socialist Economics" FB grouphttps://www.facebook.com/groups/553809051489835/permalink/796198147250923/and have come across various critiques of the SPGB emerging from the undergrowth of that strange and rather curious world of tankiedomhttps://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/marx-and-lenin-contrasted-2/https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/Quite an achievement for the Party to get so many mentions with links given to the website and to specific articles. As a matter of interest the so-called 'Socialist Economics' FB group was set up by one Babbu Patel, a regular contributor to the 'Ultras vs Tankies' FB group.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1060132960785805/
gnome wrote:Quite an achievement for the Party to get so many mentions with links given to the website and to specific articles. As a matter of interest the so-called 'Socialist Economics' FB group was set up by one Babbu Patel, a regular contributor to the 'Ultras vs Tankies' FB group.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1060132960785805/The Socialist Economics website itself is pretty dire. steeped as it is in the usual tankie BS. Im not too sure how much longer I will stick it out but some of the posts and links have collected a few likes
In response to one of the critiques above provided by Cameron Woodford – https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/ – I posted this on the Socialist Economics forum (slightly amded to remove grammatical errors). I wondered if folk here can add any further observations. To me the evdience seems pretty overwhelming that Lenin did identity socialism as a form of state capitalism but why are the Tankies so embarrassed by having this pointed out to them? Cameron Woodford I read your blog peice and with the greatest of respect I think you are talking crap. There is no “dishonest distortion” in saying Lenin equated socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly. It is there in black and white and there is no way of getting around that except by dishonestly distorting Lenin yourself. As he put it, “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people” How is that NOT equating socialism with a form of state capitalism. eh?Yes I know Lenin also referred to another kind of state capitalism- what you might call the "non-socialist "version of state capitalism from a Leninist standpoint – the kind you referred to in your blog which had profit making capitalists and “operated primarily through lease concessions to foreign industrialists, made by the proletarian state” according to you. Sort of like Germany's state capitalist model which so impressed Lenin that he wanted Russia to imitate it . When Lenin differentiated between “socialism “and state capitalism he was talking about this form of state capitalism. He was NOT saying that socialism was not ALSO a form of state capitalism – how could he when we have the above quote stating in a black and white that “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people”?It is YOU who have misunderstood Lenin , not your critics, who have you also misunderstood. We know very well that Lenin had two different notions of state capitalism in mind equating one with socialism and a so called proletarian state, and the other with a capitalist state. He said as much in 1921: “But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it”.If there is any doubt on what Lenin imagined socialism would look like consider these words : "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).Again in State and Revolution Lenin talked of socialism in terms of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state"So according to Lenin “socialism” would consist of banks, wage labour, and the state. This has absolutely nothing to do, and is completely at variance, with the Marxian concept of socialismIn fact Lenin was a complete muddleheaded and very poor theorist. The excerpt from Left Wing Childishness which you quote to try to prove your point that Lenin distinguished between state capitalism and socialism (when what it was really between one form of state capitalism and another form he dubbed “socialism”) ironically demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt what a muddlehead Lenin was. According to him the various socio-economic structures that existed in Russia at the time were:"1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain)
) private capitalism;4) state capitalism;5) socialism.”So pray do tell – if socialism denotes the common or social ownership of all the means of production – the Marxian conception of socialism – how in god’s name can it coexist with forms of ownership that are sectional and class based? The one thing of necessity precludes the other robbo203 wrote:In response to one of the critiques above provided by Cameron Woodford – https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/ – I posted this on the Socialist Economics forum (slightly amded to remove grammatical errors). I wondered if folk here can add any further observations. To me the evdience seems pretty overwhelming that Lenin did identity socialism as a form of state capitalism but why are the Tankies so embarrassed by having this pointed out to them?I would add further observations but you appear to have covered the subject pretty well. Of course, I couldn't possibly hope to match your erudition.Yes, I remember Cameron Woodford (nasty piece of work); he and his henchmen had Marco Procaccino and others tankie opponents, including myself, banned from another FB group, the name of which escapes me for the moment. They didn't like being referred to as goose-stepping, boss worshippers, etc. You'll probably remember, though.
gnome wrote:Yes, I remember Cameron Woodford (nasty piece of work); he and his henchmen had Marco Procaccino and others tankie opponents, including myself, banned from another FB group, the name of which escapes me for the moment. They didn't like being referred to as goose-stepping, boss worshippers, etc. You'll probably remember, though.I too vaguely remember him. This was the guy who sneeringly suggested ""Never try arguing with an SPGBot" in a bid to portray SPGBers as inflexible dogmatists. When I then challenged his claims about Lenin and socialism (in the form of above post) he then had the nerve to say " I refer you to my earlier comment in the thread. I have no intention of banging my head against a wall. Good day to you, sir". Talk about inflexible dogmatism! Tankies have developed that down to a fine art.
A good succinct argument against Tankies (such as the long-winded article at 'Socialist Musings') in respect of Leninism is that 'actions speak louder than words'.Trots (who may be less stupid than Tankies) will accept that what Lenin instituted was not socialism, but seek to soft-soap it as 'done under conditions of civil war', a tacit admission that it was, in fact, capitalism.Contrarian Trots like Ticktin double-down, in a way Tankies shy away from, with Ticktin arguing capitalist forms of exchange did not exist, something no one (not least anyone who lived there) takes seriously.In particular reference to Socialist Musings,Socialist Musings are misrepresenting Montague (and Marx) by claiming reference to Critique of the Gotha Program (1875) advice to communist society (to call for 'from each according to his ability …') is advice to workers under capitalism when in fact Marx's advice to workers under capitalism is in Value, Price and Profit (1865) to call for 'abolition of the wages system'
Quote:the proletariat, being a class constituting a vast majority (almost the entirety of the population), turns the state from an organ of class repression by a minority class to an organ of class repression of the small but powerful bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionaries. Hence, the state as such ceases to be the state but continues to exist even in a socialist society.This is just argument by assertion, and this wasn't a Classical Marxist conception.I pity the reader to read at the bottom 'To be continued'
The Spart article might be worse in terms of mendaciousnessIt quotes Lenin 'No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. 'I'm pretty sure the SPGB were denying this before Lenin published.
The latest tankie Group to emerge are a group known as "Socialist Realism" A meeting was held recently by the entire membership of the new group (3 people) in a clapped out Lada in a layby on the the A24. The venue was chosen unanimously because of its position close to Leatherhead and thereby invoking the glorious drivers of T34 tanks during the Great Patriotic War.The group began proceedings by reciting a eulogy to Harry Pollitt and then declared that all three would constitute the Central Committee of the new revolutionary party (motion passed 3-0).Voting for chair (leader) of the Central Committee took place after the election of the committee, all three members gave speeches varying in length from 3 – 4 hours, outlining the glorious deeds of the October Revolution and how Cde Stalin had bravely defended the glorious Socialist Motherland from Fascist aggression by personally leading the proletariat into battle. Each speaker then outlined why they personally represented the finest qualities of leadership as demonstrated by the late Cde Stalin and why they were the perfect candidate to lead the new party (and by default the entire working class).At the end of the speeches the first speaker (Cde Weak-Bladder) got out of the Lada to relieve himself behind a nearby tree. In his absence the two remaining members of the Party (Cde Psychopath and Cde Narcissist) both agreed that Cde Weak-Bladder was a counter revolutionary careerist and fortunately discovered letters indicating that Cde Weak Bladder had been a fascist spy since 1914. On his return to the Lada Cde Weak-Bladder was arrested and shot.An emergency report to the Central Committee was then received outlining the current state of the Party, the report detailed a recent 33% drop in membership in the Party and the fact that the Party's Head Office (a 1985 Lada) had been left by the traitor Weak Bladder to his wife and that the Party had no effective head office.It was agreed that this represented a "New phase of the Struggle" and that the role of revolutionaries was to be at the heart of the radical movement rather than split the workers. In line with this policy of not forming a separate party, which it was agreed was completely in line with previously policy of forming a separate party both comrades agreed to speak the holy words which negate any contradicition, holding hands they both stated solemnly "It's the dialectic Comrade". In line with this consistent Part Line it was agreed that membership of the group representing the most advanced elements of the Working Class should be sought, it was agreed that both Cdes should complete membership forms for the Leatherhead and District Rotarians as a matter of urgency.Meeting closed.
Everything you ever wanted to know about tankies, but were afraid to ask https://libcom.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-tankies-were-afraid-ask-08032018
This is somewhat off-topic but I personally think it might be a good idea for the SPGB Twitter account to upload pictures of Lenin with his quotes about State Capitalism (with sources of course).I don't think a lot of leninists have read those quotes and it might make them rethink their views a bit
Sympo wrote:This is somewhat off-topic but I personally think it might be a good idea for the SPGB Twitter account to upload pictures of Lenin with his quotes about State Capitalism (with sources of course).I don't think a lot of leninists have read those quotes and it might make them rethink their views a bitYou may well have a point Sympo. Particularly the Lenin quote on big banks "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917). Given the current animus towards banks and bankers by the Left – the industrial capitalists dont seem too bad by comparsion according to them – this quote might well raise a few eyebrows
Perhaps the time has come for a special issue of the Standard on the theme of "Trots and Tankies" looking in detail at their arguments and misconceptions. Come to think of it, why not a new pamphlet? This is another issue which is not going to fade away from the political scene all that soon
robbo203 wrote:Perhaps the time has come for a special issue of the Standard on the theme of "Trots and Tankies" looking in detail at their arguments and misconceptions. Come to think of it, why not a new pamphlet? This is another issue which is not going to fade away from the political scene all that soonGreat idea, Robin. Catchy title too for the new pamphlet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.