alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I'm guessing you are still wading through the extensive reading list provided to you from others and myself .Trotsky and Permanent Revolution was specifically discussed more fully at this blog-post http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/trotting-after-trotsky.html "…Marx advocated 'permanent revolution' as the proletarian strategy of maintaining organisational independence along class lines, and a consistently militant series of political demands and tactics. It will be noted that at no stage does Marx make the central claim with which Trotsky's conception of “permanent revolution" is concerned – i.e. that it is possible for a country to pass directly from the dominance of the semi-feudal aristocrats, who held political power in Russia in the early part of the 19th Century, to the dominance of the working class, without an interceding period of dominance by the bourgeois. On the contrary, Marx's statements in his March 1850 Address explicitly contradict such a view, assuming a “period of petty-bourgeois predominance over the classes which have been overthrown and over the proletariat”… …Trotsky's version of the theory represents both a different development and a contradiction of the expressed opinions of Marx…" Trotsky's theory was dropped by the Russians when their dreams of a European revolution faded, a serious miscalculation and misinterpretation of the post-war working class militancy for revolutionary consciousness, the Bolsheviks were forced to pursue a more realistic policy. Trotsky fell from power because his theory of continued revolutionary agitation abroad would have cut off all aid from the Western world, and so made any attempt at industrial development more difficult in Russia. Also well worth adding to the reading list is the blog article Myth of the Transition Society – .ie. the Workers Statehttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/myth-of-transitional-society.html
"Once the Soviet Union had achieved advanced capitalism, it could assist other revolutions, like an international vangaurd." (my emphasis) Is that what you intended to type, Celtic?
To avoid being confused with a utopian and reformist i think i should let Marx and Engels reply: As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.This in fact was Marx’s conception of “the workers’ party”. He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite. A revolution to vanquish capitalism and establish socialism can only happen through the active agency of the working class; it cannot be carried out by a vanguard party on its behalf.Many political groups fancy themselves as "revolutionary vanguards" of the working class.1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared:“When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”Engels again in 1895 "Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]”
In regards to the Russian Revolution, we been through it before. It was a doomed socialist revolution if the majority of people did not desire or understand socialism, and if it took place in isolation of the rest of the world. Even the Bolsheviks and Lenin and Trotsky accepted the second proposition and why the transitional non-socialist workers state was supposedly created as a stop-gap measure until the capitalist countries had their own revolutions for socialism. With reference to leaders and delegates – these are simply not the same thing. A leader decides issues as he chooses while a delegate carries out instructions. There are administrative situations where not everybody can participate in the decision making even with the availablility of new technology so communities will select spokespersons to relay their wishes. I find it difficult to view such people as leaders. We should not confuse delegatory democracy with hierarchial authority. "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person…I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." – Bakuninhttp://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-what-is-authority
The Noam Chomsky interview on Syria that has upset a lot of Chomskyites since it is being viewed as an endorsement of the rebels and a heresy!! http://www.zcommunications.org/interview-on-the-syrian-revolution-by-noam-chomsky For an expert in linguistics i find this phrase of his rather confusing. [Assad’s use of chemical weapons] “it’s a possibility that will inevitably come true in the future.” How can a possibility be inevitable?? I disagree with his view on the early stages of the non-violent resistance to Assad that it failed and that militarisation of it was the logical next step . It was never going to be a quick victory and set-backs were going to happen. Acknowleding a defeat and licking ones wounds is not surrender as Chomsky appears to say, but the choice of continuing peaceful tactics were taken out of the hands of the majority of the participants. I cannot recognise his analogy with Vietnam as very valid. There are many more appropriate ones if that is the argument he wants to use. He says what happens in Syria is up to the Syrians but the FSA was created by political exiles and foreign powers. Armed resistance was sporadic until then.
Risking criticism of quoting another iconic figure this is what the anarchist Kropotkin says about global organisation.You said "globalism has forms of hierachy and thus this always leads to corruption. How would your sort of idea of delegates be any different to this oligarchy which we have at the present day" Kropotkin said "…The Postal Union did not elect an international postal parliament in order to make laws for all postal organizations adherent to the Union. The railways of Europe did not elect an international railway parliament in order to regulate the running of the trains and the partition of the income of international traffic; and the Meteorological and Geological Societies of Europe did not elect either meteorological or geological parliaments to plan polar stations, or to establish a uniform subdivision of geological formations and uniform coloration of geological maps. They proceeded by means of agreement. To agree together they resorted to congresses; but while sending delegates to their congresses, they did not elect MPs bons a tout faire; they did not say to them, `Vote about everything you like — we shall obey.' They put questions and discussed them first themselves; then they sent delegates acquainted with the special question to be discussed at the congress, and they sent delegates — not rulers. Their delegates returned from the congress with no laws in their pockets, but with proposals of agreements…"http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/kropotki/sp000875.html He appeared to understand that globalisation doesn't necessary mean oppression. So next time you send a letter to your friend in Australia, consider the global co-operation by mutual agreement required in achieving from post-box to letter-box. Local communities are unable to create their local internet, the equipment , the cables, the electronics are a collective endeavour of world wide production from the plastics to the metals to the silicon chips, the mining of the ores, the drilling of the oil, to the manufacturing processes. It is a collaborative venture, not some village handicraft where you make a modem out of some wood, some nails and a hammer!! Also consider if people do not leave the local community and new members arrive the gene pool shrinks and in-breeding grows. Men and women have always been migrants.
Remove the large union contributions to Labour Party then the previous but failed proposals to limit financial contributions and instead provide state funding of political parties become more of a possibility. There may be consequences for the likes of ourselves if it happens.
If it is impossible for any society that involves groups much larger than a village or small town to be a free society then it would make the socialist proposal of a world of free federations of towns, cities and countryside impossible. Such federations are obviously a form of mass society/civilisation. Indeed, localism can be self-sustaining but at what level of technology? We can easily return to Amish-type communities. But at what cost? Perhaps we could give up television and radio, computers and the internet and mobile phones since the parts for such consist of rare elements only available in a few parts of the world. But can we do without life-support systems or insulin for diabetes and a host of other necessities for our well-being which cannot be produced locally. However, socialism will not be shaped by a small minority in the SPGB nor according to the vision of any one individual or particular section of the population. I am a world socialist. I am an urban dweller.
What is local? What is its boundaries? Why should geography define a individual rather than common affinities of interests and culture as suggested by twc. How does one local community access needs that are not produced locally? Just take your example of nurses and doctors. What about the sugical and medical equipment they require? What about the pharmaceuticals they dispense? Can all local communities produce these. And even if it was possible , is it desirable, rather than use economy of scale and centralise some forms of production for efficiency to avoid duplication of effort and research. How does the local engage with the wider world in the democratic process of deciding what, where, when and how much to produce. I think Adam gave the answer. Society will be a mix of overlapping local, regional and global as it is more or less structured now. Experience and practicalities will simply re-order the priorities and As a resident i will be a member of the neighbourhood commune, the parish, perhaps, which will be affiliated to the city commune which will in turn be federated with neighbouring communes and in turn with world-wide communes. As a producer , i will be a member of the workers council, which will send delegates to the regional workers council which will liaise with the world congress of workers councils. As a patient, i will have a local health adviser at a local clinic or what used to be called a cottage hospital in the countryside but for specialised treatment i may have to go to a regional hospital or perhaps for ground-breaking procedures to a medical centre someplace far away.I'm a world citizen. I am a nomad.
The other side of the argument – the anti-conspiracists are the conspiracists.http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/
“… we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters…..conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma…. conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations………..We argue that in fact, anomaly hunting, or a fixation on errant data, is a manifestation of the way conspiracism is structured as a worldview. In general, conspiracy belief is not based around specific theories of how events transpire, though these may exist as well. Instead, conspiracism is rooted in several higher-order beliefs such as an abiding mistrust of authority, the conviction that nothing is quite as it seems, and the belief that most of what we are told is a lie. Apparent anomalies in official accounts seem to support this, even if they do not point to a specific, well-defined alternative. For many conspiracists, there are two worlds: one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and evidence against the latter is evidence for the former.” Full article at http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full#h3
Syrian rebels said the assassination of one of their top commanders by al Qaeda-linked militants was tantamount to a declaration of war. with funding from Gulf-based individuals, Islamist brigades have taken a leading role in rebel-held regions of Syria, filling the vacuum of power by setting up religious courts and governance bodies.The FSA — a mixture of loosely-affiliated brigades — is accused by locals of looting and has not been able to present a unified front to sideline hardline units who favor an Islamic caliphate over pluralist democracy.Some frustrated FSA fighters say they have joined Islamist groups and moderate and hardline fighters sometimes buy and sell weapons from each other.http://news.yahoo.com/front-opens-syria-rebels-al-qaeda-attack-means-082038413.html
