alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What actual assets in the shape of cash and property do the SWP possess? Does anyone know the facts? With all the splits etc how does the CC guarantee they remain in control of premises, publications etc.? A few occasions in the past there has been a struggle over such things ie Morning Star Seems there could be an argument to stay in the party and fight for control of those tangible benefits if they are substantial.
a better link http://archive.org/details/socialismrevolut00devirich
Not sure if its been quoted yet but it seems very apt.Cyril Smith in his Marx at the Millennium, in a footnote cites Don Cuckson's three principles of democratic centralism – 1. Father knows best;2. Not in front of the children;3. Keep it in the familyThe Libcom summary of the SWP split is worthwhile read. http://libcom.org/blog/swp-crisis-some-analysis-some-thoughts-13032013
Just to blow our own trumpet rather than credit the CPGB our blog SOYMB wrote"Contrary to some claims made by Leftists, from the very outset of his populist rule Chavez has pursued a mostly heterodox political "revolution". While at times the government has allowed for so-called "participatory democracy", such measures have more often than not been cancelled out by centralising tendencies at the top and the perils of charismatic leadership. Chavez has only gone so far with his "Bolivarian Revolution"."The blog also quotes a member of the Socialist Tide ""Roberto Lopez, a member of the leftist Marea Socialista (Socialist Tide) current of Venezuela’s ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela writes :"The means of avoiding this will always be through the strength of the popular movement led by a truly revolutionary program. This cannot rely on small and tiny groups or tendencies that exist within or outside the PSUV…we must try out all means for exercising democracy and achieving the broadest possible consensus for allowing unity of action throughout the country."What is interesting is that he confirms the Socialist Party case that one of the things needed for a successful transformation of society is the necessity for majority support.http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/03/chavez-succumbs-to-his-cancer.html
A straight answer? If those above mentioned individuals applied to the branch I was in, I would be asking if they still held to their KNOWN previous political positions. In the case of an ex-SWPer applying, our differences of politics and organisation would be pointed out to ensure he understood we were not alike so he knew fully in advance of joining. As for the written application we have no other method of ascertaining the sincerity of the answers to the questions but to accept them. Only from the new member's activities and statements would we tell if they retain non-socialist, no I go further in the case of leadership and nationalism, anti-socialist, ideas. Did I understand 100% every aspect of the socialist case when I joined? No, just the basics and formal and informal discussions and reading more and more of the party literature formed my education. In regards to ex-SWPers joining there is a question on other parties and if they stand for socialism. If the applicant said he thought some were socialist such as the SWP then of course it would lead to further correspondence before membership is granted or refused. Can I have differences with other members over interpretations of various issues such as Lenin. I think so. I regard him as a victim of circumstances as I do Chavez. As I do Luxemburg. Do I regard non-party members such as Mattick and Bookchin as socialists? Yes. Would I accept their membership forms if they still held to all their political opinions – No. Are there religious socialists. Yes. Would I accept someone with religious views as a member. No. My whole approach is based upon my own somewhat heretical view that the SPGB will not be the main vehicle to socialism but simply a contributory organisation to some future mass movement that cannot be defined except in the broadest fashion. Those we do not allow as members may still remain comrades in the struggle for socialism. Socialists are not clones but there is a kinship…why else was the SLP called political cousins
From reading about this dispute what has struck me is the multi-tier membership structure of the SWP, with constant reference to its student and younger members, its full-time workers, and old-timer IS veterans. Even Richard Seymour appears to accept this as taken.( BTW to me he is a student albeit phd, or has he now completed it and now Dr. Seymour and he is also a youngster to boot)
Yes in Venezuela workers gained from Chavez and that has not been overlooked, even some workers in the USA received direct benefits from Chavez in the shape of heating oil, but do we simply ignore the diplomatic and moral support he offered to dictators?. (he may have wished to extend his terms as president but he put the constitutional change to a fair vote and I would not call him a dictator) Our responsibility as world socialists is not to defend sectional or national interests of some workers but to promote the interests of the workers of the world. At times that will be pissing into the wind but won't be the first or last time that the WSM argues an unpopular proposition and takes a principled stand. We stand with Iranian workers, we stand with Libyan workers against their avowed enemies and supposed allies. Chavez offered succour to tyrants. It is indeed a difficult task to highlight this to people sympathetic to his anti-poverty programmes and his anti-imperialism. At least, in Chavez's favour, he never gave those dictators troops and armaments as far as i know something our own political leaders have repeatedly done. Hopefully, in my opinion , his legacy as Ed and Janet has pointed out will be the confidence that Venezuelan workers have acquired under Chavez to resist these gains being rescinded.
There is no doubt that in domestic politics he was an earnest reformer bringing many benefits to Venezuelans but on the international stage he has to be viewed as a reactionary supporter of dictatorships. I have mentioned his support for Gadaffi (during Qaddafi's visit to Venezuela in 2009 Chavez said "What Símon Bolívar is to the Venezuelan people, Qaddafi is to the Libyan people," awarding him the "Order of the Liberator" medal) and Assad (“How can I not support Assad?”.) Chávez, however, also gave his support for Mugabe. And for Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko.Even the supportive Zcom published an appeal from Iranian Leftists.http://www.zcommunications.org/open-letter-to-the-workers-of-venezuela-on-hugo-ch-and-aacute-vezs-support-for-ahmadinejad-by-maziar-raziOn Chavez and Iran seehttps://nacla.org/article/problematic-brothers-iranian-reaction-ch%C3%A1vez-and-ahmadinejad
I would qualify your use of the word "instigated". In all those countries there existed a genuine democracy/workers movement but of course I accept that their political enemies took advantage to turn them into their favour by militarising them and directing aid to particular exile groups. We also have the shameful experience of the Bahrain protests being ignored since it is a West ally. But it is the same as Iran does in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, channel support to its proxies. Most physical support for the Syrian rebel army comes from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their agenda may appear the same as the west but they also have their own, being monarchies against Ba-ath republicans in Syria and Sunni Arabs against non-Arab Persian Shi-tes in Iran.Chavez had a choice of supporting workers or supporting their repression, he chose the latter for "real politik" purposes. He accepted the maxim, my enemies enemy is my friend instead of taking an independent third way of extending his support for Venezuelan workers democracy to the international arena.As for Hezbullah its importance is now determined by its domestic Lebanese political position and its anti-Israeli stance is now merely a cover for maintaining a military to exert pressure on Beirut. The justification for it is the occupation of about 10 square miles of Lebanon territory by Israel, Sheebaa Farms, which in their unique custom, Israel interprets under their version of international law, to be part of Syria.So the same can be said for Iran's support for Hezbullah "bent on shaping the world in their own interest."As we say, one person's anti-imperialist is another's imperialist.
To offer a more sympathetic obituary to Dick Donnelly's I posted this on Socialist Courier. A quick re-edit summary of comments from here.http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/03/where-now-venezuela.htmlI am treating Tariq Ali's version of what Chavez said as more or less accurate even if second hand. I also have big reservations about HRW impartiality but the fact is that Chavez did place a judge in jail for making a legal decision that went against him and I believe Amnesty International has the judge on their list of political prisoners.Several obituaries often pro-Chavez reminds us that he was an army officer with the same authoritarian personality and expected to be obeyed.Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky reckoned he was a genuine guy and all round good egg rather than a revolutionary poser and sloganeer but how can we (and they) forget the support he has offered to Gaddaffi, the Ayatollahs, Hezbullah and Assad.
"I don’t believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don’t accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don’t think so. But if I’m told that because of that reality you can’t do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labour – and never forget that some of it was slave labour – then I say: ‘We part company.’ I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don’t even like paying taxes. That’s one reason they hate me. We said: ‘You must pay your taxes.’ I believe it’s better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing … That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse … Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it’s only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias."http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/07/hugo-chavez-and-me/
Apologies for resurrecting a moribund thread but I thought this may be of interest.http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdfWith every generation you (nearly) double your number of ancestors because every individual has two parents – going back just 10 generations (200-300 years) you are likely to have around a thousand ancestors."When genetics researchers talk about common ancestry between people they usually mean that they are tracing the inheritance of particular sections of DNA or genes.And we know that different sections of our DNA have different patterns of genetic ancestry. This means that researchers can get very different estimates of how recently we share ancestors, depending on what they are looking at……look at mtDNA to follow ancestry passed along the female line. For mtDNA, everyone alive today shares a common ancestor who lived between 160,000 and 200,000 years ago…….look at Y chromosome DNA to follow ancestry through the male line, the most recent estimate is of a common ancestor who lived between 240,000 and 580,000 years ago…""If, however, you look for the most recent person that everyone alive today is descended from, the best current estimate is that the individual lived only 3,500 years ago"(as the Scots say, We are all Jock Tamsons bairns)"Genetic ancestry testing presents a simplified view of the world where everyone belongs to a group with a label, such as ‘Viking’ or ‘Zulu’. But people’s genetics don’t reflect discrete groups. Even strong cultural boundaries, such as between the Germanic and Romance language groups in Europe, do not have very noticeable genetic differences. The more remote and less-populated parts of the UK, such as the Scottish Highlands, do have some genetic differences from the bulk of the population, but they are not big. There is no such thing as a ‘Scottish gene’. Instead groups show a story of gradual genetic change and mixing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21687013Prof Steve Jones, from University College London and author of some of the seminal books on genetics and evolution, said: "On a long trudge through history – two parents, four great-grandparents, and so on – very soon everyone runs out of ancestors and has to share them. "As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy."
I think even the SOYMB post couldn't have been more jaundiced in its obituary than this one."Chavez invested Venezuela's oil wealth into social programs including state-run food markets, cash benefits for poor families, free health clinics and education programs. But those gains were meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world's tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=173521347That's right…Chavez would have been better investing oil revenue in skyscrapers and museums rather than schools and hospitals for the poor !!In blog comment i said he was anti-American…i should retract that as it makes him out as a bit of a racist. I meant anti- American government. It should be recalled that he sent cheap heating oil to help poor Americans and offered humanitarian assistance when Hurricane Katrina hit (which help was declined) He also provided funds for various charities in America, including homeless shelters.
There might be a logic to this… start a re-appraisal of Leninism to centre your own strand of Leninism in the milieu and then you need to go back to the roots of What is to be Done which takes you to a study of Kautsky and discover that some of his writings are still not available in English hence a good "business" opportunity to re-publish since he isn't under copyright. Similar to there Zinoniev (sp) and Martov reprint of their debate. Linh Binh (sp) had to re-evaluate Kautsky, didn't he, when he did his Lenin's WTBD book? I haven't really read Kautsky enough… a primer beginners guide would be handy for me. Trouble is, his career was a very long one and changed emphasis with events.Maybe we should do reprint of a classic of 19thc Marxist who has been forgotten about and/or not been translated into English. I'm sure there will be plenty to choose from if we search archives and libraries and journals.
