alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Left reformist Lula wins
50.8% of the vote. Bolsonaro received 49.1%.
With a tight margin of victory, will Bolsonaro supporters accept the result? We will see
I don’t wish to derail this exchange, but after following it, I am none the wiser which analysis is correct but more importantly, I find difficulty in recognising the relevance to fellow workers in these troubled times of economic uncertainty which are leading to austerity cuts and attacks upon the unions defense of members level and quality of life.
Can someone explain why it matters what Alice, Frederick, Eve, Bob and all the others do with their £100. In a way, who cares in what way the trillions of pounds moves around the money market since you and I haven’t got any of it in the real sense.
Can someone please explain how it is affecting the present cost of living crisis in the simplest of language?
Which of the explanations, Criticuffs or the SPGB, explain best what is happening globally where working people are once again paying the price with their increased poverty?
I know the media talk of inflation, and it has been referred to on this thread, but I still am not clear on either Critistcuff’s or SPGB’s answer to its cause…much less any cure.
It all remains something of an abstraction or academic to me. How does it relate to people ditching capitalism and seeking revolutionary change?
Treat me as a very typical member of the working class, who has not read Marx’s Capital from cover to cover.
1917 in Russia was indeed stirring but we have to distinguish the difference between the February and the October events.
There is no doubt that February was the start of a social revolution. There is, however more debate about October with questions about if it was a Bolshevik coup or putsch, a mere power-grab.
There are differing opinions on some issues within the SPGB. Some think Lenin and his party were genuine socialists who were inevitably bound to fail to introduce socialism because the conditions weren’t there for this and that their method of minority dictatorship was wrong. While other members believe the Bolsheviks were elitists (Jacobinists or Blanquists) determined by the whole of their past histories and ideological roots, and they could not have acted otherwise than they did. That it was inevitable they were always going to establish the rule of a new elite even though they labelled themselves socialists.
Another view is the tradition of the Bolsheviks is not based on the 2nd International but rather on the Narodnik principle of a professional revolutionary organisation. The Bolsheviks created their particular, typically Russian type of political organism.
The essence of the debate is simple, did the Bolsheviks desire the working class to control its own destiny or did it simply use the working class as stepping stones to political power and a totally different agenda from one of workers’ self-management?
Was the Bolshevik elitism a product of the decision to build state capitalism in Russia in the aftermath of the October revolution. Or was it the other way around, the decision to build state capitalism was an inevitable product of the Bolsheviks’ elitism.
Contrary to some of my comrades I do not doubt the Bolsheviks’ sincerity, only their judgement when it came to choices.
(1) To share power with bourgeois parties
(2) to entrench themselves in intransigent opposition and decline the responsibilities of power
(3) to try to seize power by force.Number 3 was the Bolshevik answer and it was ultimately a failure. It failed to produce socialism and necessarily failed to do so because even in power and ruling by diktat, the Commissars of the people, still found themselves face-to-face with hard economic reality.
But the course of history could have been very different.
It was Lenin’s April Theses that set the Bolshevik party on the road to the October insurrection but prior to Lenin’s return, the Bolshevik leadership was pursuing a policy of critical support for the Provisional government, holding the view that since the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of bringing about a bourgeois revolution, this task would have to be carried out by the proletariat supported by the peasantry, but that the revolution could not go immediately beyond the stage of establishing a bourgeois republic.
In February, the Petrograd proletariat had carried out this “bourgeois revolution” with the support of the peasant soldiers. Now that the bourgeois republic was in place, the next stage was not the immediate struggle for working-class power, but a period of bourgeois democracy.
(a) Lenin abandoned this stageist view which he had himself defended under the slogan of “the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”, and argued for no support for the Provisional Government, and for agitation for power to the Soviets. It was not inevitable that his view prevailed. The Bolshevik party might have continued its policy of critical support for and pressure on the February regime.
(b) Having steered the Party on its new course, Lenin had to fight again in October to commit the party to insurrection against the opposition of Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. It is not inconceivable that Zinoviev and Kamenev might have carried the day and there would have been no October.
(c) Even after October there was the possibility of a viable coalition Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR government, based either on the Soviets or a combination of the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets as organs of local power and administration. This opportunity foundered against the mutual intransigence of the Bolshevik hardliners on one side and the Menshevik and SR right-wing on the other. But in both camps there were conciliatory wings, the Menshevik Internationalists and some Left SRs and the Bolshevik “moderates” – Kamenev, Rykov, Nogin, etc.
A coalition government of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and SRs, having a much broader-based support than a purely Bolshevik one, would have been able to confront the White Armies more successfully, and thus shortened the ensuing civil war and reduced the destruction of the economy.
What would the SPGB have done if in such a situation?
In my view, the point of a revolutionary movement in a pre-revolutionary situation is always to ensure the growth of proletarian power and to defend that class.
The Bolsheviks failed to do so, emasculating what workers’ organisations and democratic processes that arose.
Our case is that the revolution was inevitably capitalist, and so the issue then as framed by Martov was to make it as much democratic as it could be made, something that was not possible in a scheme of a minority party seizing power.
Lenin opportunistically and temporarily favoured the soviets rather than the parliamentary system because he knew that he could achieve a majority under the former but not the latter. It was precisely because they were the best-organised and most disciplined group that the Bolsheviks finally emerged as the government of revolutionary Russia following the collapse of the Tsarist regime – and they came to power by successfully manipulating the soviets.
The takeover of political power by the Bolsheviks obliged them to adapt their programme to those undeveloped conditions and to constantly compromise and make continual concessions to the capitalist world around them.
In the absence of the world socialist revolution, there was only one road forward for semi-feudal Russia, the capitalist road, and it was the role of the Bolsheviks to develop industry and commerce through state ownership and the forced accumulation of capital.
The SPGB would classify the Russian Revolution as a bourgeoise revolution without the bourgeoisie.
The SPGB argument is that the material conditions in Russia meant the development of capitalism, which the Bolsheviks were unable to avoid. In fact, they became its agents.
The Bolsheviks, finding Russia in a very backward condition, were obliged to do what had not been fully done previously, i.e. develop capitalism. The Bolsheviks, however, thought it possible for an active minority, representing the aspirations of the workers, to gain political power before the capitalist revolution itself had been completed.
But what would happen if such a minority gained a political victory over the capitalist classes?
Briefly, in those circumstances, the minority becomes merely the tools of the capitalist class, which has not been potent enough to gain or hold power. Such a minority finds itself in the position of having to develop and run capitalism for a class unable, at the time, to do it successfully itself. In running capitalism, the minority will be compelled to use its power to keep the working class in its wage-slave position.
The SPGB argue that Lenin far from changing the course of history, it was the course of history which changed him. Lenin made a great miscalculation. He believed that the working masses of the western world were so war-weary and were ready to overthrow their governments. Unfortunately, for various reasons with the exception of these masses had neither the knowledge nor the organisation necessary for such a movement and no response was given to the call although it did appear the time was ripe.
Russia could not escape its destiny.
But as Victor Serge pointed out, the Russian Revolution had the seeds of Stalinism within it but it also had many other different seeds that could have sprouted.
We should draw a distinction between a leader-less movement and a leader-free movement.
If one wishes to show Marx’s attitude towards leaders, then it is simple enough to look at his role in the Communist League and the First International. He declined to assume any mantle of the leader nor to impose his will. His authority came from his arguments made within these organisations, not from any office he democratically held. He often acted as a mediator, even between those he opposed such as the Proudhonists, Bakuninists and the English trade unionists.
As I said, there are always going to be influential individuals.
An example is Eugene Debs, a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America in several elections.
Yet it was only at the end of his political career that he held an executive position within his Party.
If we think about the Russian Revolution. The Bolshevik “workers’ government” was composed of professional revolutionaries and members of the intelligensia ranging from the aristocratic, like Chicherin, to the bureaucratic, like Lenin and a daughter of a general, Kollontai, or one of the landed bourgeoisie (Smilga), the commercial bourgeois (Joffe) and the higher industrial bourgeois (Pyatakov). These are the sort of people who are used to being a ruling class. The only prominent worker was Shliapnikov.
This is what Marx cautioned in the quote i gave when he questioned permitting members of the bourgoisie to run the workers’ party as
To return to Eugene Debs
“I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and mis-representatives of the masses — you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.”
And another time he said:
“I am not a labor leader. I don’t want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.”An interesting article on who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/10/29/question-still-bubbles-who-blew-nordstream-pipeline
But as I say, even the most informed can only speculate.
The polite public backlash
Drivers left their cars in Harleyford Street to remove demonstrators
“We’ve asked you nicely, you are doing the wrong thing by blocking innocent people going about their business.
“Can you please move before we pick you up and move you?
“You are stopping the wrong people, I’ve got to go pick my kids up, I’ve got to get my lorry back to work. We can’t help you, go to Westminster.”
Isn’t that the truth of it? Choosing horses for courses
But it will strengthen the government’s campaign for draconian law changes on protesting
Is blaming Russia part of the UK diversionary tactic in this game of spies and sabotage?
Interestingly, the narrative has switched from the CIA and US complicity to the UK.
Is it that Russia hopes to have more Republican Trumpist friends after the American midterm elections?
Was it 007 James Bond in the Baltic Sea? It is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Did British specialists offer Ukraine satellite information and guidance for the drone attack on Russia’s fleet. Again, it is not impossible.
We just won’t know for sure.
If the Russians are, then why not produce the proof?
Of course, if they did, it leaves them with a bit of a conundrum.
If the UK was involved in this blatant act of war, Russia would have to respond directly against the UK so as not to lose face. That would mean an attack on a NATO country, the last thing they would wish to do.
They fully understand the futility of not going to the UN and the court of public opinion.
So if the UK (or any other NATO nation) is genuinely implicated, the Russians will sweep it under the rug.
But honestly, what do I know? International relations and foreign diplomacy are not on my CV. Like everybody else, i can only guess.
While eyes are elsewhere, Brazil’s election nears its climax
German media debunks Russia’s “dirty bomb” pics. I await Russian media to fact-check the debunk.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-russias-false-case-for-a-dirty-bomb-in-ukraine/a-63590306
However, we shouldn’t fall into complacency. Both sides could unintentionally trigger a radioactive disaster.
Yet another reason why peace talks should begin asap.
The question of political leadership isn’t too hard to understand. We are not denying that there are men and women who possess unique qualities in oratory, writing and organising.
The relation of “the Party,” to the masses plays a large role among the Left discussion. The importance and indispensability of the vanguard party are accepted as given. The militants who call themselves the vanguard believe they must direct the class struggle. Party leaders and the cadres of the vanguard make the case for leadership simple. Working people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for someone to dedicate their time and energies to adequately represent the people. What is needed is professional, full-time advocates for our interests. It’s only logical that the enlightened intelligentsia, understanding better the processes of power, represent us on our behalf. Too many workers don’t have the right political consciousness, and if given too much democracy they will make counter-revolutionary decisions that sabotage the revolution. The “masses” just can’t be trusted is the conclusion.
The Socialist Party do not see ourselves as yet another leadership, but merely as an instrument of the working class. We function to help generalise their experience of the class struggle, to make a total critique of their condition and of its causes, and to develop the mass revolutionary consciousness necessary if society is to be totally transformed.
We reject an organisational role. What we want people to come to is the realisation that they should take over their workplaces and communities, put themselves in a position to control all of the decisions that affect them directly, and run things themselves. There is a big difference between an organisation that produces propaganda and helps promote the popular will compared to a vanguard seeking to gain power over the masses. Revolution will be a process of self-education. Without the active participation of the mass of working class in the fight for socialism, such a society cannot even be contemplated.
The Russian Revolution did stir the workers, a fact we freely acknowledge but we suffer the scorn because we did not recognise a socialist revolution took place. revolve around personalities and “leaders.” The Left is dominated by the concept of a vanguard of “professional revolutionists.” It is the responsibility of the vanguard to guide and lead their followers. They have the appeal of being conspiratorial in nature. They stir emotions with their “grassroots” activities of organizing demonstrations and protests on any and all questions, ranging from cheaper food, lower taxes, etc., to riots, etc., that will serve the interests of China or Russia. Their concepts of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and the “Transitional Period” are reflected in what they call “Democratic Centralism.” The control of the organization is from the top, who inform the lower levels of membership of “the party line.”
We instead try to be a catalyst, the triggering agent that transforms ideas from bourgeois into revolutionary ones. We are told that we “must we have leaders to obtain our object to educate the workers politically and economically towards socialism ”
But teachers are not leaders any more than writers or speakers are leaders. Their function is to spread knowledge and understanding so that the workers, the conscious majority, may emancipate themselves. Quite different from that the claim we must have leaders (great men) to direct followers (blind supporters) into a socialist society. Socialism is not the result of blind faith in their “betters”
“…For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could do — much though we might regret it — would be publicly to declare ourselves opposed to it…”
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm
Moderator Warning
Once more I caution participants on this thread to exercise restraint in their descriptions of their antagonists.
Previously, name-calling became so prevalent I had to delete posts.
I have no wish to do so again
God is on his side
Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill said on Friday that Vladimir Putin’s reign over Russia had been mandated by God, congratulating the Kremlin chief on his 70th birthday.
“God put you in power so that you could perform a service of special importance and of great responsibility for the fate of the country and the people entrusted to your care,” the patriarch said.
The patriarch praised Putin for “transforming the image of Russia, strengthening its sovereignty and its defence capability, protecting its national interests”.
