"The stuggle against fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism" as they say. CR, you are pushing for a system of total slavery, a system that we have bloody good reason to beleive would breed another Stalin (except this time he'd have much more intrusive ways of keeping tabs on us, and more efficient ways of killing us).
An open question to all SWP members on u75
- Thread starter Flavour
- Start date
cockneyrebel
New Member
Do you disagree that "workers should have a say in how their work is used"?
Obviously....
As for me "pushing for a system of total slavery". If you say so. At best you could see me as misguided as my end goal is the same as yours I expect. I think anarchist ideas will fail the revolution and put everyone back into the barbarism of capitalism. That doens't mean I think that's what you want.....
Obviously....
As for me "pushing for a system of total slavery". If you say so. At best you could see me as misguided as my end goal is the same as yours I expect. I think anarchist ideas will fail the revolution and put everyone back into the barbarism of capitalism. That doens't mean I think that's what you want.....
cockneyrebel
New Member
That was meant to say obviously not! But I would say that local workers shouldn't always have the final say as there may be collective bigger picture that is correct.....this comes round again as to where power lies, and how much.....
cockneyrebel
New Member
“The stuggle against fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism”
Do you really believe this? It’s as bad as the Stalinists in Germany who fought against he social democrats….
You seriously think that the fight against the BNP begins with the fight against the SWP, SP, WP etc??
Do you really believe this? It’s as bad as the Stalinists in Germany who fought against he social democrats….
You seriously think that the fight against the BNP begins with the fight against the SWP, SP, WP etc??
cockneyrebel
New Member
I think workers can coerce other workers, and sanctions are one way this can be done. Just as states coerce other states through sanctions, I think federations could do the same.
So do you think the fight against the BNP starts with revolutionary socialists?!
So do you think the fight against the BNP starts with revolutionary socialists?!
cockneyrebel said:
Cockney Rebel is no sort of socialist.
First, he refuses to send me all his money, even though I have told him that this is the only thing that can save the revolution in the 25th millenium. Obviously he doesn't care about the future of the revolution.
But as if that wasn't bad enough, now he is wantonly and ruthlessly oppressing me, by coercively refusing to send me all of his possessions.
What I wouldn't give right now for a tribune of the oppressed...
cockneyrebel
New Member
As said if you don't think collective sanctions can be coercive fair enough I do.
Smashing the capitalists is coercive, that doesn't mean it's wrong!
Ray you can make your silly comments, but were the sanctions of Iraq coercive?
Smashing the capitalists is coercive, that doesn't mean it's wrong!
Ray you can make your silly comments, but were the sanctions of Iraq coercive?
cockneyrebel said:
When sanctions were placed on Iraq, it was not simply a matter of the US saying "We will not deal with Iraq any more", they also said "Nobody is allowed deal with Iraq any more". They weren't just making a decision for themselves, they were forcing other people to comply.
Its the difference between not going into a shop to buy something, and preventing anyone else from going into the shop. Are you seriously arguing that the first case is coercive?
cockneyrebel
New Member
It wouldn’t be as simplistic as you say. If the majority of federation refused to trade with the minority of federations this may lead to them having them severe shortages, putting pressure on them to change their minds…..that could be coercive….
And on Iraq even if everyone wasn't forced to comply, if enough capitalist countries went along with voluntarily would that not become coercive?
On the other issue would you not say it was ok to take over factories if guns were badly needed and that’s the only way it could happen?
And do you think it would have been wrong for the FOD to have an armed uprising against the CNT leadership?
And on Iraq even if everyone wasn't forced to comply, if enough capitalist countries went along with voluntarily would that not become coercive?
On the other issue would you not say it was ok to take over factories if guns were badly needed and that’s the only way it could happen?
And do you think it would have been wrong for the FOD to have an armed uprising against the CNT leadership?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coerce
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
You'll notice that "refuse to give things to people you disagree with" isn't listed as a definition.
Think about it for a second. There are literally billions of people who would like for you to send them all your money. There are thousands of causes - parties, charities, NGOs - that would like you to support them. Are you seriously suggesting that you are coercing all of these people and organisations by not giving them any money?
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
You'll notice that "refuse to give things to people you disagree with" isn't listed as a definition.
Think about it for a second. There are literally billions of people who would like for you to send them all your money. There are thousands of causes - parties, charities, NGOs - that would like you to support them. Are you seriously suggesting that you are coercing all of these people and organisations by not giving them any money?
cockneyrebel said:
If you were cutting off food, water, or basic medical supplies to an area that needed them, then you might have a point. But I suggested cutting off supplies of steel to a factory. If you think that's the same thing you are out of your mind.
cockneyrebel said:
Give it a rest. This is getting to be like the Black Knight in The Holy Grail.
don't know how to use the quote things, so i'll just pop em in if i attribute something to the wrong person pull me up on it, but i'm not answering based on someone's internal arguemnt but the arguments and facts.
"You see there are many concrete practices which can hide behind Cockney's simplistic refrain about centralisation. The version presented by these trots, of autonomous federations each doing their own thing, only makes sense if you think that people are so stupid that they will never see the use in co-operating with each other on a voluntary basis in pursuit of collective goals. "
but what if they don't? the peasants didn't want to trade grain because there were no industrial products worth speaking of, very few inputs and those inputs needed to be concentrated into arms production. Sorry, when you need 10 units of food and you can swap that for 10 units of arms and 10 units of tractors, and you only have 10 units of inputs, then you have to choose between arms and tractors, ie what you trade for food. That's a simple example. There were more resources available, unfortunately it was on the black market which the Bolsheviks punitive policies (like shooting people coming in from the countryside with more than x units of grain) were meant to stop - but it was trying to stopper a holey bucket. Anarchists couldn't have done better, Makno was lucky that he organised peasasnts, made no political demands on them, didn't have to feed cities - and the 21 boxcars of grain he sent to moscow wouldn't have fed the city for a week. Sorry tiny exemplary actions are no good in defending a revolution that is threatened hour by hour.
The FoD programme was remarkably similar to that of the Bolsheviks in the early days, which any account of the revolution will tell you was extremely workers-control and elected-officers based. As the situation got worse reality set in and they were forced to retreat. It was the worknig class - all parties took part in this - were forced to find some way of managing a national economy, and the factory committees ignored the small anarcho-syndicalists and added their voice to their demand for nationalisation and economic supervision. in april 1918 a compromise was reached, bodies running factories and sectors would have one-third of the workers from the factories, one-third from the unions, and one third from the economic council. One man management didn't come in for the majority of factories till 1920 and the situation had totally melted down. So much for the big bad bolsheviks holding a gun to everyone's head from day 1 with their evil plans for domination.
What the anarchists argue for is the workers of each factory have an autonomous commune where they can do what they like with "their" factory, ie they act as a collective capitalist - instead of working class control. These debates are well documented in SA smith on red petrograd and many other articles on it by bourgeous academics.
"In describing the anarchist position, I'll try to apply it to the question of food supply to the cities in russia. Now, I realise that by doing this I'm sort of falling for the cheap trick of the trots and allowing them to take the thread off the topic. They can't defend the bolsheviks and their record or their fixation with centralisation so they resort to attacking another set of ideas instead."
no, you want to criticise, you put forward your alternative. we wouldn't dream of criticising the failures of anarchism in spain without doing the alternative.
But Ray, gurrier, pickmans m - you all agreee with FoD that the stalinists in spain the PSUC should have been bannedd - but the mensheviks were exactly the same were they not?? weasle out of that one.
"Now the question that Kropotkin posed was not "how can the anarchists solve this", as the trots put it - revealing their trademark managerial arrogant mindsets. It was, "how can the working class solve this... Now, I'm not going to go into the fine details of his proposed solution, but I will give you a rough idea of what it would have entailed i..."
find you a bit patronising Gurrier, the working class and the soviet government tried exhortation (sent delegations into the countryside), voluntary trade etc but these voluntarist measures didn't work and neither did the meagre things they had to trade. sorry you've not answered the question, just taken your abstract chapter from kropotkin and waved your magic wand to make the russian revolution all better, if only the anarchists had been in charge you sigh. sorry, if we tried that shit in a debate about the spanish civil war we'd be rightly laughed off the bulletin boards! Just by writing this you show how ignorant your are, not being insulting, really dont patronise us like we know fuck all. try reading orlando figes (about as rightwing as you get) on the ukraine for the failures of the Bolshevik grain policy - doesn't admit it but it is clear they did the best they could. Read the left opposition on how they intended to once again organise the poor peasants in collective communes vs the rich peasants.
Interesting to you, like the SRs, teh peasants are just a homogenous community that you dont classify as petty-bourgeous, like many of the anarchists. Is this true?
"This has been answered in plenty of detail by other posters, so I'll only add that Joe's first post on this subject actually did implicitly answer this question, by pointing out that the Bolsheviks refused to allow soviets and villages to arrange things for themselves. "
why should local soviets in a better position to get grain be allowed to take advantage of it while the cetnres of working class organisation starved?? you need a national plan for the worknig class as a whole. this is totally utopian.
"Quote the whole paragraph. I said "I think the simplest way of answering it is to say that I think the decisions made by the delegates should be binding, but there must be limits on how they are enforced. If a particular factory would rather make frdges than guns the delegate council can decide that no, they have to make guns. But they can't appoint a manager, order troops in, or ship everyone off to the gulag to enforce their will."
well we disagree on the limits of centralism then - but you accept the principle, which is not anarchist. so your a left bolshevik, congrats. we'll have equal rights within the party, which was much more democrat than the CNT, to decide which way forward, comrade!
"You say "Right, you guys want to make fridges. But the steel factory wants you to make guns, the power plant wants you to make guns, and the plastics supplier wants you to make guns. And they're not going to supply you with any more materials, until you start making guns"
no then they take apart their machines, sell them on the black market, or get inputs off the black market and sell goods on the black market - and vote menshevik inthe local soviets.
"Pickmans it’s not about how a meeting would work, what I am saying is that a delegate conference of 1000s could not meet on a very regular basis, therefore, I think we’re agreed that a smaller body would be needed to make decisions quickly on a national/international basis for certain things...."
exactly how barmy in the middle of a civil war they could just have a permanent conference of...all teh people who were key to runing the war effort and economy on the ground.
"if soviets decided to elect mensheviks, that's the soviets' prerogative. what would you do, bayonets to the fore and up the jaxi till they elected someone else?"
what would you do to the PSUC in the spanish civil war?
what would you do if the peasants didn't give the grain?
what would you do if some workers said their factory belonged to them, or railway line, and you needed it pronto?
ps from ignorant to trot students ...hm a bit of backhanded compliment there G?
"You see there are many concrete practices which can hide behind Cockney's simplistic refrain about centralisation. The version presented by these trots, of autonomous federations each doing their own thing, only makes sense if you think that people are so stupid that they will never see the use in co-operating with each other on a voluntary basis in pursuit of collective goals. "
but what if they don't? the peasants didn't want to trade grain because there were no industrial products worth speaking of, very few inputs and those inputs needed to be concentrated into arms production. Sorry, when you need 10 units of food and you can swap that for 10 units of arms and 10 units of tractors, and you only have 10 units of inputs, then you have to choose between arms and tractors, ie what you trade for food. That's a simple example. There were more resources available, unfortunately it was on the black market which the Bolsheviks punitive policies (like shooting people coming in from the countryside with more than x units of grain) were meant to stop - but it was trying to stopper a holey bucket. Anarchists couldn't have done better, Makno was lucky that he organised peasasnts, made no political demands on them, didn't have to feed cities - and the 21 boxcars of grain he sent to moscow wouldn't have fed the city for a week. Sorry tiny exemplary actions are no good in defending a revolution that is threatened hour by hour.
The FoD programme was remarkably similar to that of the Bolsheviks in the early days, which any account of the revolution will tell you was extremely workers-control and elected-officers based. As the situation got worse reality set in and they were forced to retreat. It was the worknig class - all parties took part in this - were forced to find some way of managing a national economy, and the factory committees ignored the small anarcho-syndicalists and added their voice to their demand for nationalisation and economic supervision. in april 1918 a compromise was reached, bodies running factories and sectors would have one-third of the workers from the factories, one-third from the unions, and one third from the economic council. One man management didn't come in for the majority of factories till 1920 and the situation had totally melted down. So much for the big bad bolsheviks holding a gun to everyone's head from day 1 with their evil plans for domination.
What the anarchists argue for is the workers of each factory have an autonomous commune where they can do what they like with "their" factory, ie they act as a collective capitalist - instead of working class control. These debates are well documented in SA smith on red petrograd and many other articles on it by bourgeous academics.
"In describing the anarchist position, I'll try to apply it to the question of food supply to the cities in russia. Now, I realise that by doing this I'm sort of falling for the cheap trick of the trots and allowing them to take the thread off the topic. They can't defend the bolsheviks and their record or their fixation with centralisation so they resort to attacking another set of ideas instead."
no, you want to criticise, you put forward your alternative. we wouldn't dream of criticising the failures of anarchism in spain without doing the alternative.
But Ray, gurrier, pickmans m - you all agreee with FoD that the stalinists in spain the PSUC should have been bannedd - but the mensheviks were exactly the same were they not?? weasle out of that one.
"Now the question that Kropotkin posed was not "how can the anarchists solve this", as the trots put it - revealing their trademark managerial arrogant mindsets. It was, "how can the working class solve this... Now, I'm not going to go into the fine details of his proposed solution, but I will give you a rough idea of what it would have entailed i..."
find you a bit patronising Gurrier, the working class and the soviet government tried exhortation (sent delegations into the countryside), voluntary trade etc but these voluntarist measures didn't work and neither did the meagre things they had to trade. sorry you've not answered the question, just taken your abstract chapter from kropotkin and waved your magic wand to make the russian revolution all better, if only the anarchists had been in charge you sigh. sorry, if we tried that shit in a debate about the spanish civil war we'd be rightly laughed off the bulletin boards! Just by writing this you show how ignorant your are, not being insulting, really dont patronise us like we know fuck all. try reading orlando figes (about as rightwing as you get) on the ukraine for the failures of the Bolshevik grain policy - doesn't admit it but it is clear they did the best they could. Read the left opposition on how they intended to once again organise the poor peasants in collective communes vs the rich peasants.
Interesting to you, like the SRs, teh peasants are just a homogenous community that you dont classify as petty-bourgeous, like many of the anarchists. Is this true?
"This has been answered in plenty of detail by other posters, so I'll only add that Joe's first post on this subject actually did implicitly answer this question, by pointing out that the Bolsheviks refused to allow soviets and villages to arrange things for themselves. "
why should local soviets in a better position to get grain be allowed to take advantage of it while the cetnres of working class organisation starved?? you need a national plan for the worknig class as a whole. this is totally utopian.
"Quote the whole paragraph. I said "I think the simplest way of answering it is to say that I think the decisions made by the delegates should be binding, but there must be limits on how they are enforced. If a particular factory would rather make frdges than guns the delegate council can decide that no, they have to make guns. But they can't appoint a manager, order troops in, or ship everyone off to the gulag to enforce their will."
well we disagree on the limits of centralism then - but you accept the principle, which is not anarchist. so your a left bolshevik, congrats. we'll have equal rights within the party, which was much more democrat than the CNT, to decide which way forward, comrade!
"You say "Right, you guys want to make fridges. But the steel factory wants you to make guns, the power plant wants you to make guns, and the plastics supplier wants you to make guns. And they're not going to supply you with any more materials, until you start making guns"
no then they take apart their machines, sell them on the black market, or get inputs off the black market and sell goods on the black market - and vote menshevik inthe local soviets.
"Pickmans it’s not about how a meeting would work, what I am saying is that a delegate conference of 1000s could not meet on a very regular basis, therefore, I think we’re agreed that a smaller body would be needed to make decisions quickly on a national/international basis for certain things...."
exactly how barmy in the middle of a civil war they could just have a permanent conference of...all teh people who were key to runing the war effort and economy on the ground.
"if soviets decided to elect mensheviks, that's the soviets' prerogative. what would you do, bayonets to the fore and up the jaxi till they elected someone else?"
what would you do to the PSUC in the spanish civil war?
what would you do if the peasants didn't give the grain?
what would you do if some workers said their factory belonged to them, or railway line, and you needed it pronto?
ps from ignorant to trot students ...hm a bit of backhanded compliment there G?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Not in and of itself no. But if all the federations got together and put sanctions on the a federation that is a threat to its very livelihood. It’s different than on an individual level.
If all the capitalist countries voluntarily put sanctions on a workers state or anarchist federation, that could be coercive and undermine their very existence…..
It’s like when the IMF says you can only have a loan if you accept all these conditions. A country is so desperate they take it. That is also coercion in my book.
And yes steel could be absolutely vital, if just to make weapons for self defence....
If all the capitalist countries voluntarily put sanctions on a workers state or anarchist federation, that could be coercive and undermine their very existence…..
It’s like when the IMF says you can only have a loan if you accept all these conditions. A country is so desperate they take it. That is also coercion in my book.
And yes steel could be absolutely vital, if just to make weapons for self defence....
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
And Cockney Rebel has done this repeatedly in thread after threadkropotkin said:
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
This is totally dishonest- you spend a great deal of time arguing with us anarchists on this board, and then you say you haven't really been seriously addressing yourself to the questions raised. Anyone could use this piss-poor excuse when they start losing the argument.cockneyrebel said:
Equally we could say the same thing about you as a member of Workers Power "who represent absolutely no-one outside 70 or so people".
These are the reasons Butchers and me, (and pretty soon I Imagine, Joe, Ray and Gurrier) don't bother debating seriously with you anymore. In the process, by the way, you just make yourself look like a clown.
cockneyrebel said:
And if everyone in Dublin decides not to drink in a particular pub, that pub is going to go under soon enough. Which still doesn't make it coercion.
Its very simple. I go into work every day, and produce a load of steel. There's a revolution going on, and it needs steel, so that's what I produce. The delegates I send off to federation meetings, not to mention the letters back from the front, say that the revolution also needs guns. I agree. So when I make up a load of steel, which trucks do I put it on? The ones going to the fridge factory, or the ones going to the gun factory.
You are seriously suggesting that because I make the free choice to decide to send the products of my labour to the place where I think (and all the rest of the federation thinks) it would do most good, I am therefore coercing people. I'm not holding any guns to anyone's head. I'm not starving anybody, or throwing anybody in prison. I'm sending steel to the gun factory instead of the fridge factory. And that's coercive.
But when I get off work, and decide to go for a drink in Dwyer's instead of Grogan's, that isn't coercive.
Okey-dokey.
cockneyrebel said:
Are you suggesting that all the capitalist countries are complete democracies, and that every decision made by a capitalist state reflects the will of the workers in that state?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Good post aw go on.....
Whatever Charles, your silly abuse is just petty. I am at work and shouldn't be on here, therefore I have to debate very quickly. To be honest it's a crap way of debating and I probably shouldn't do it, but hardly dishonest.
As for lying in thread after thread, don't be ridiculous, this is just cheap smears by you. Why would I bother lying on U75 ffs? I might not have understood, or taken something in or whatever, but that's very different....but some people seem to attach some great importance to U75. As said, get out more.....
Whatever Charles, your silly abuse is just petty. I am at work and shouldn't be on here, therefore I have to debate very quickly. To be honest it's a crap way of debating and I probably shouldn't do it, but hardly dishonest.
As for lying in thread after thread, don't be ridiculous, this is just cheap smears by you. Why would I bother lying on U75 ffs? I might not have understood, or taken something in or whatever, but that's very different....but some people seem to attach some great importance to U75. As said, get out more.....
cockneyrebel
New Member
Ray we can agree to disagree on what is coercion, not having more of your ridiculous straw men. And if you wouldn't want to use other coercion on a federation no matter how much their actions were affecing the revolution, fair enough. Why don’t you try coming back to aw go on (whose knowledge I openly admit is far better than mine)?
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
I get out plenty, chum. Anyway, whatever. Be seeing you, you clown! 
cockneyrebel
New Member
Oh no he called me a clown.....what will I do? It's like some pathetic public school debating society....
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Ignoring the dishonest CR, I've written an article on the peasantry in Russia during the Revolution which should be in the next Organise! It will deal with the grain requisitions, the unnecesary antagonisation of the peasants, the politics and demands of various peasant movement including the Makhnovists, the Antonov movement in the Tambov region, Maslakov in West Siberia etc. It throws some light on the relationship of the Bolshevik Party towards the peasantry.
danno_at_work
ASBO fodder
charlie mowbray said:
cant wait
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So being capable of writing an article makes you a 'Professor' now does it? I knew the levels of political education amongst most trot group was at an all time low, but fucking hell, if they're in such a state that they think writing an article is some gigantic intellectual feat then it's worse than i had previoulsy imagined.
Solidarnosc
"movement parasite" - BB
This should be an interesting copy of Organise! - how do I get hold of a copy?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Solidarnosc said:
Subscription details
Should also be stocked in any left/radical bookshops in Mancs - are there any left?
Similar threads
