Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks

[LLETSA]

Of course, in SWPland 'the East German workers pulling down the wall' was simply 'Great!' As somebody once pointed out on another forum, in SWPland everything is always 'Great!'

Two million marching against the war in Iraq was 'Great!' The launch of the Socialist Alliance was 'Great!' The recruitment of Galloway to the RESPECT experiment was 'Great!' The European Social Forum was 'Great!'

Life is 'Great!' and we are always moving towards 'real socialism' even when it looks like we're going in the opposite direction.

 

[Pilgrim]

If it hadn't been for Lenin and Trotsky's enthusiasm for the Cheka there would have been no Stasi.

Interesting Fact No. 1: Peters, deputy head of the Cheka at one time, was one of the men who survived the famous siege of Sidney Street, when anarchists were killed by the British police.

Interesting Fact No. 2: An alleged accomplice, albeit only present on a flying visit, was a gentleman named "Koba". "Koba" was an alias of a certain J. V. Stalin.

 

[ernestolynch]

Pilgrim + LLETSA + districtline - spot on lads, great thread, cheers.

 

[mk12]

"But it sure wasn't capitalism."

Exploitation of the majority by a minority? How is that socialism?

 

[ernestolynch]

If you think your decadent brand of liberalism and islamo-fascism is socialism then you're way off, sunshine.

 

[sevenstars]

It's a fair point that there is no 'real' socialism, but rival models of it which share some common features and history.

In this discussion I would say the East German regime is not the model of socialism I would support. The support the PDS gets for opposing the impact of free market capitalism doesnt represent a desire to live under the stasi regime either. And Stalinist dictatorships have done more to discredit socialism as an alternative to capitalism than Trotskyist fantasyland politics have.

 

[LLETSA]

It's a fair point that there is no 'real' socialism, but rival models of it which share some common features and history.

In this discussion I would say the East German regime is not the model of socialism I would support. The support the PDS gets for opposing the impact of free market capitalism doesnt represent a desire to live under the stasi regime either. And Stalinist dictatorships have done more to discredit socialism as an alternative to capitalism than Trotskyist fantasyland politics have.

Spot on sevenstars. Regarding the last point-this is only because almost nobody outside the active left has ever encountered Trotskyists, complete with their Stalinist impulses which spring from common Leninist roots.

 

[mk12]

"If you think your decadent brand of liberalism and islamo-fascism is socialism then you're way off, sunshine"

No, I believe in socialism from below. Get your head out of Stalinist books and read Marx. Completely different by the way.

 

[rednblack]

Of course, in SWPland 'the East German workers pulling down the wall' was simply 'Great!' As somebody once pointed out on another forum, in SWPland everything is always 'Great!'

Two million marching against the war in Iraq was 'Great!' The launch of the Socialist Alliance was 'Great!' The recruitment of Galloway to the RESPECT experiment was 'Great!' The European Social Forum was 'Great!'

Life is 'Great!' and we are always moving towards 'real socialism' even when it looks like we're going in the opposite direction.

not quite fair - they often say it's brilliant as well

 

[butchersapron]

"If you think your decadent brand of liberalism and islamo-fascism is socialism then you're way off, sunshine"

No, I believe in socialism from below. Get your head out of Stalinist books and read Marx. Completely different by the way.

What's completely different?

 

[mk12]

Marxism and Stalinism

 

[butchersapron]

What's Marxism?

 

[mk12]

Are you joking?

 

[butchersapron]

No.

 

[mk12]

Here you go http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

 

[butchersapron]

No, i know what Marxism is, i want you to tell me what you think it is - you must have some idea if you're able to so confidently assert what you have above. Then we can move onto seeing if Marxism and Marx are the same thing or 'completely different'.

 

[mk12]

Marxism is a political and economic analysis of society, which correctly asserts that capitalism is exploitatative.

But in relation to this discussion, Marxism asserts that

1. The working class revolution must be international in character to survive
2. The workers must control society
3. The state will wither away once the bourgeoisie is suppressed

Obviously there are many more (like the workers won't be exploited once the bourgeoisie have gone), but these are the most important. Let's see how Stalinism matches with these.

1. Stalin developed the 'theory' of socialism in one country; impossible and against Marxism
2. Stalin destroyed all remnants of workers democracy
3. Stalin centralised and expanded the state apparatus, not minimalise it.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok, now do the same type of comparison but with Marxism and Marx as the subjects.

 

[mk12]

Urm...Marx was a person and Marxism is a tool for analysing society, and a method of getting to a new one? What exactly are you trying to get out of me?

 

[butchersapron]

Marx wrote the odd thing here and there didn't he - so compare what he wrote with Marxism in the same way as you just compared Marxism and Stalinism. Stalin was 'a person' and you managed to do it with him didn't you?

 

[mk12]

No - I tried to make it clear that 'Stalinism' (socialism in one country etc) was different to traditional Marxism, and what Marx intended a socialist society to be like. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[In Bloom]

3. The state will wither away once the bourgeoisie is suppressed

Where did Marx ever write that?

 

[butchersapron]

No, this is what you actually wrote:

"Get your head out of Stalinist books and read Marx. Completely different by the way."

Now, i think that it's fair to assume that you've read some Marx from this, and so to then ask just why, if you're capable of clearly distinguishing that Marx's writings have very little, if anything to with Stalinism, you seem unable, on the basis of your reading of Marx, to clearly recognise that very little, if anything of what Marx wrote has anything to do with Marxism either.

 

[mk12]

Communist Manifesto for one -

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, that only says classes will have no material basis in a post-revolutionary society. It certainly doesn't mention any state 'withering away'...if anything he suggests it would be immediate...

 

[mk12]

Right. So you are saying that Marx and 'Marxism' are different. Could have said that an saved a lot of time. But I still disagree with you.

On the international character of the revolution, in which Stalin disagreed with. Doesn't 'workers of the world unite!' prove that Marx was an internationalist? Obviously there are more quotes, but I think this best sums his view up. For example, "United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."

 

[butchersapron]

Who's saying any different - where on earth am i denying that Marx was an internationalist or that Stalin wasn't? You're assuming rather too much about me here.

 

[mk12]

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here. You seem to be wasting time being extremely pedantic. I think you are arguing that what Marx wrote is different to what people think Marxism is. Is this correct?

 

[butchersapron]

I was replying to your incorrect assumption that i disagree that Marx was an internationalist, and that he differed from Stalin that was in your above post. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything.

 

[mk12]

"I'm not trying to 'prove' anything."

I don't mean in terms of internationalism. I mean overall.

You said earlier that "you seem unable, on the basis of your reading of Marx, to clearly recognise that very little, if anything of what Marx wrote has anything to do with Marxism either."
So is this what you are trying to get at - that Marx and Marxism are entirely different?