An open question to all SWP members on u75

[butchersapron]

"You're either being dishonest here or you don't understand what christianity is"

Point zero reached already.

 

[butchersapron]

the only thing that doesn't fit in is Marxist economic crisis theory
afai it seems to suggest capitalism with competing private firms will HAVE to be replaced with something

Don't quite follow you mate....

 

[butchersapron]

You're either being dishonest here or you don't understand what Leninism is. This definition is not only common to all marxists, it is also equally applicable to virtually all anarchist organisations.

What makes Leninism distinct is how you "counter this". Anarchists hold that you do it through 'winning the battle of ideas'. Leninists hold that you also do it by winning the leadership positions. In practice, the fight for positions always wins out over the fight for ideas - it's easier.

All marxists? I think not - not by a very long shot. Council communists and (for want of a better term) 'autonomists' - i full expect you to define them away as 'not-marxists' anyway...

That second para is 100% dishonest btw

 

[fanciful]

ooh touchy. much better of course to have refused to take power - the working class would have been massacred, but at least it wouldn't have been the bolsheviks fault. doing nothing is of course always an option. you seem happy to promote it.
so you were referring to taylorism - huh? you said the problem with bolshevism was the belief that centralised planning was efficent. no mention of taylorism there. you might find that when embarking on an argument its usually necessary to have at least a passing acquaintence with the subject concerned. but don't let the facts bother you, it doesn't seem to have been a problem so far.

 

[butchersapron]

Yep, dead end here.

 

[gurrier]

Point zero reached already.

I don't follow - please explain.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't follow - please explain.

We get to point where leninists say - 'Look, Lenin was perfectly aware of this and wrote..." and anarchists tear their hair out in frustration at self-confesed 'marxists' taking such a fundamenatlly idealist position whilst professing to have a uniqure insight into the laws of history. The point where you can't go any further.

So, the other bloke, not you.

 

[gurrier]

so you were referring to taylorism - huh? you said the problem with bolshevism was the belief that centralised planning was efficent. no mention of taylorism there.

Did you read the rest of the post? Go back and read it now and you'll see where Taylorism comes in. The point is that a belief in the efficacy of centralised planning in all circumstances is a defining characteristic of leninism, which is a consequence of the fact that Lenin's theoretical works were written at a time when taylorism was in vogue. The reduction of Lenin's writings to dogma by his followers meant that they stuck to this notion long after the rest of the world had abandoned it.

 

[sihhi]

Don't quite follow you mate....

I don't get it myself but it's called crisis theory-

how eventually booms + busts will just keep on getting bigger and bigger until one really huge bust = capitalism destroyed

 

[butchersapron]

I don't get it myself but it's called crisis theory-

how eventually booms + busts will just keep on getting bigger and bigger until one really huge bust = capitalism destroyed

Oh i get that - Zusammenbruchstheorie - just don't quite follow what point you meant in relation to the marxist theory of law.

 

[gurrier]

encouraging the development of class consciousness primarily through promoting the self-activity of the working class; the working class will produce its own leaders most of whom it is considered will pull potential revolutionary movements towards reformism, compromise and defeat. The role of the vanguard party is to counter this.

I don't see how my response to this was in any way dishonest. With a couple of minor changes to this (to edit out the funny distinction between the class and the vanguard) it would be a relatively uncontroversial statement about anarchists:

"The role of the anarchist organisation is to encourage the development of class consciousness primarily through promoting the self-activity of the working class; various reformists wanna-be leaders will emerge who will try to pull revolutionary movements towards reformism, compromises and defeat. The role of the anarchist organisation is to counter this."

To cut a long story short, this is not a description of leninism, it is a description of the role of virtually all revolutionary organisations. It completely leaves out the bits that differentiate leninism from other strands (which is a theory and practice of capturing key positions of power).

Incidentally, I didn't include autonomism in this as I'd consider it to be an intellectual current rather than something that produces revolutionary organisations. I also consider it to be trapped in a rigid intellectual framework of the past (1920's germany here) but that's another story and I'm sure you won't want me to go into it here

 

[sihhi]

Oh i get that - Zusammenbruchstheorie - just don't quite follow what point you meant in relation to the marxist theory of law.

Sorry I've gotten my wires a little crossed
about what teleology meant

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry I've gotten my wires a little crossed
about what teleology meant

That's what they want you to do!

 

[Idris2002]

Don't think so, Marx saw the potential for communism to exist - only the vulgar orthodox marxists elevated this to the level of a teleology - helped, i must admit by some really crass stuff by Marx - esp the 'preface to'... but totally outwieghed by his other stuff.

OK. . . but he still assumed it was a possible future because of the apparent precedent of 'primitive communism'.

Which was only apparent, I'm afraid.

 

[butchersapron]

OK. . . but he still assumed it was a possible future because of the apparent precedent of 'primitive communism'.

Which was only apparent, I'm afraid.

But not an assumption that kills his larger argument.And i do 100% take your word on the non-existence of PC. I kow that he (and Engels esp) relied on material that's simply not accepted anymore.

 

[Idris2002]

It may not 'kill' his larger argument, but it does make it look a bit more iffy than it might have done otherwise.

ADDS:

Look, I was born a middle class reformist and I'll die a middle class reformist.

Maybe, possibly, humanity will one day build a communist society. For the moment, I think it's wiser to concentrate on goals which have a greater chance of achievability.

 

[butchersapron]

Only if it was based on the faulty premise - and it wasn't. It covered less than 0.5% of his output - it was peripheral at best. Engels, on the other hand...

 

[Idris2002]

Hmmm. Not sure about the discontinuity between Marx and Engels.

Engels was after all, Karl's best mate, and given that they never had a falling out, I'd say the Fred Engels interpretation of what Marx wrote had at least his tacit endorsement.

And of course they were both working in a nineteenth century that had a very strong faith in science, and which still believed that you could have a science of society equivalent to that of the natural world.

 

[butchersapron]

Hmmm. Not sure about the discontinuity between Marx and Engels.

Engels was after all, Karl's best mate, and given that they never had a falling out, I'd say the Fred Engels interpretation of what Marx wrote had at least his tacit endorsement.

And of course they were both working in a nineteenth century that had a very strong faith in science, and which still believed that you could have a science of society equivalent to that of the natural world.

Of course, but i (and others) do think that there was a serious breach between the two - most clearly over Engels whole hearted embrace of positivism (see esp the extension of dialectics to nature that he proposed) - and post-marxs death his editing of the notebooks to reflect this.

There's a very good book called Engels contra Marx (can't remember author just now) that goes into great detail on this - as does Colletti's introduction to one of the volumes of Marxs writings or anything by Maxillmilien Rubel. I'm not saying that they were in complete disagreement all the time - just that there were very serious differences that are rarely brought up.

And i'm not after an untarnished marx either, with his sins put on others - bloke was a cock.

 

[Idris2002]

Overheard a wee girl of about 17 at one of the Belfast Stop the War demos say 'have you ever read about Marx? He behaved like an arsehole'.

How about we say that Marx (who after all never finished all planned 6 volumes of Capital) left behind not a perfect, finished system (which is certainly what Engels presented in the Anti-Duhring) but an unfinished life's work, which contains somethings that were plain wrong, others that are outdated and obsolete, but also some genuine insights that are still true today?

 

[butchersapron]

That sounds about 100% right to me

(and also applies to Bakunin, and every other bugger)

 

[Idris2002]

How did Bakunin's arsehole-ism present itself?

I've just been reading Woodcock's Anarchism and he seems to write about it as if it's a case of poor, trusting, Bakunin led astray by the nasty Nechayev. . . I assume there's more to it than that?

 

[Red Cat]

You're either being dishonest here or you don't understand what Leninism is. This definition is not only common to all marxists, it is also equally applicable to virtually all anarchist organisations.

Why on earth would I be dishonest? I was talking about the SWP. Quite frankly I don't give a shit about what Leninism is.

 

[rebel warrior]

Idris - That sounds about 100% wrong for me - Marx created the coherant method of understanding the world, a profoundly important analysis of capitalism etc, and anarchists have simply been able to, at best, add valuable insights to marx's model. As they have no coherant subsitute of their own to replace Marx with - Bakunin? no chance - they end up refering to Marx all the time. Quite funny.

At worst, of course, the anarchist tradition has historically had a lot of sand in its eyes. But best ask butchers to explain more about that - I'm off now.

 

[butchersapron]

How did Bakunin's arsehole-ism present itself?

I've just been reading Woodcock's Anarchism and he seems to write about it as if it's a case of poor, trusting, Bakunin led astray by the nasty Nechayev. . . I assume there's more to it than that?

Anti-semitism, secret cabals, personal authoritarianism, bads hygiene, supprted Man u - Anthony Masters bio is good on this i recall.

The Nechyavev episode came about through N. recoiginsing these failings and exploiting them really.

 

[Idris2002]

To RW:

Any method that assumes that it is the coherent method of understanding the world will, inevitably, be unable to understand the world in whole or in part.

 

[butchersapron]

At worst, of course, the anarchist tradition has historically had a lot of sand in its eyes. But best ask butchers to explain more about that - I'm off now.

Run away!run away!

 

[rebel warrior]

Run away!run away!

As Arnie once said, 'I'll be back'.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh

 

[Idris2002]

Surely you mean 'D'oh'?