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

[LLETSA]

What you think there is no future for the left? Has capitalism won?

Capitalism won the major battle of the twentieth century in 1989. Didn't anbody tell you?

There is no future for the left unless the left stops acting like it is 1975, not 2005.

 

[butchersapron]

What you think there is no future for the left? Has capitalism won?

The key relation is not the left versus the right, but the working class verus capital.

The collosall arrogance that it takes to conflate the working class with the left might explain in some measure the failure of the left over the last 100 years. You still fail to realise why though.

 

[LLETSA]

I'm prepared to admit the left in the UK is fucked (although it is still very strong in some countries in the world)

But left organisations in 'some countries in the world' seem, at best, to be able to offer only defensive actions and hope for their supporters. When elected into office they find themselves restricted in their scope and, bearing in mind the historical defeats of the left of the recent past, lack confidence.

As for revolution, even were any socialist revolution on the horizon, what do you think would happen to it in the current political climate?

This is the reality. Face it.

 

[LLETSA]

You seem to be missing the point. What has the rest of the left done since 1989 exactly?

Where have anarchist or IWCA style politics taken off? The USSR ended 14 years ago.

Going by your logic you might as well write off the entire left. Because are you saying that anyone else has "managed to become more than a gaggle of squabbling sects."

This is exactly the point. The entire Leninist left (with obvious exceptions) has spent the fourteen years since the demise of the USSR behaving as if nothing much happened rather than the defeat of the entire tradition in which they stand.

 

[LLETSA]

The key relation is not the left versus the right, but the working class verus capital.

The collosall arrogance that it takes to conflate the working class with the left might explain in some measure the failure of the left over the last 100 years. You still fail to realise why though.

Exactly. Symptoms of the left's malaise: that it adopts the agenda of the liberal establishment in order to oppose the BNP; that the liberal social agenda that the far left increasingly came to rely after its loss of confidence from the working class defeats of the 1970s onwards has been comfortably adopted by the mainstream; that it talks only to itself rather than to the working class.

The last point is central. The biggest mistake that the far left could possibly make is the one that it repeats in different guises time and time again: the search to unite elements of the far left on the basis of a political tradition that has slipped into history in terms of its relevance.

 

[audiotech]

Capitalism won the major battle of the twentieth century in 1989. Didn't anbody tell you?

There is no future for the left unless the left stops acting like it is 1975, not 2005.

According to one Tony Cliff it was Trotsky wot won it (quote: 'Stalinism is dead Trotsky smiles'). Strange the number of ex-trots amongst the neo-cons? Following a similar path to those ex-Marxists who gave advice to Mrs Thatcher during her reign.

 

[audiotech]

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.

Sounds like an advertisement for Kellogg's frosties - therrrre great!

 

[audiotech]

Lenin Historys Hidden Democrat 31m - 2003 - Pete Jackson 2nd part 12m

Frats Rmp3

Standard SWP on Lenin and the revolution. I was more interested in the second part where we heard the first questioner, who raised some interesting points on the difficulties faced by the Bolsheviks in the revolution, who it should be said, banned left parties, trade unions and a free press. The second questioner attacks Leninism by raising the point that: 'there must have been something in the Bolshevik revolution that led to Stalinism'. Further, 'the roots are in Leninism, the way it works, it's authoritarian nature and that's the model we have for socialism today'.

The SWP line - Lenin and the Bolshevik's had to preserve the revolution at all costs.

Discuss.

 

[butchersapron]

That's one way of phrasing it i suppose. I can think of others.

 

[audiotech]

That's one way of phrasing it i suppose. I can think of others.

Would that involve hyperbole by any chance?

 

[butchersapron]

Not really, maybe just asking somethng like why the only way to win the revolution was by authoritarian means? Why wider working class participation, rather than being viewed as a bonus of the wars was seen as a drag? Why rural programs drawn up by urban idiots totally ignorant of rural conditions were imposed and with very liitle or no explanation effectively alienating the peasantry within months?

Why they fucked it up so much and why they refuse to take any responsibility at all today for their actions.

Moral and political cowardice mixed together are rarely welcoming.

All of this of course after the prescribed measures lost us the revolution.

 

[ernestolynch]

It took Cde JV Stalin and the People's Will a long time to undo Trot's crimes.

 

[mk12]

The rural programme was drawn up by the SR's, a peasant party...

 

[cockneyrebel]

Anarchists, of course, have learnt so many lessons from Spain though, haven't they.....

 

[butchersapron]

The rural programme was drawn up by the SR's, a peasant party...

The Boilsheviks stole the SR's rural program despite it going directly against their previous policies. I was referring to the rural policy from the mid-late 1920s though, not the initial one - which itself was determined more by the activity of the peasants, not any pre-formed program.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Mid-late 1920s. That would be when Stalin was in power then? Oh no, I forgot, Stalin was after the Bolsheviks, so therefore they must be the same...

And anarchism in Spain led to a capitalist/Stalinist government.

So everyone's a stalinist!

QED....

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, CR everything is that nasty Stalin's fault. No need for any further discussion.

You see what you're getting into sol.

 

[mk12]

Durruti did learn from anarchist mistakes...to reorganization of the Army, we have no objection, for it ought to be remembered that we were the first to call for a single, common command . . .in the care of delegates from the various columns by way of ensuring homogeneity in the performance of them all.

 

[butchersapron]

That wasn't Durruti.

I'm not going to get into this again.

 

[mk12]

Well it was by Pablo Ruiz, member of the FoD.

 

[butchersapron]

Who wasn't Durruti. If you look in the theory/history forum you'll probably find some long thread about Spain, that might go some way to showing why i'm not getting into it again.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes, CR everything is that nasty Stalin's fault. No need for any further discussion.

And everything in Spain is the fault of the nasty CNT leadership....

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yeah the FOD called for a single common command in the Army. As well as shooting the guilty ones and disbanding anti-working class organisations....

They sure did learn the lessons of anarchism. That it's utterly utopian.

http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp001780/intro.html

 

[mk12]

Who wasn't Durruti

But as you know, anarchism doesn't elevate one person does it? Not like nasty Marxism. So only because Durruti didn't say it, doesn't mean the FoD didn't mean it. Does it?

 

[butchersapron]

What?

 

[mk12]

You said it wasn't said by Durruti. I agreed - no it wasn't.

But it was said by a leading member of his organisation...therefore it still applies

 

[butchersapron]

It wasn't his organisation at all. He was never in it.

Really, do look in the theory foum - we've have done this to absolute death already.

 

[mk12]

Sorry. Got my information from the flag.blakened website, where it says "Pablo Ruiz, FoD member."

 

[butchersapron]

No, i was referring to Durruti not Ruiz - and your claim of the FOD as being 'his' organisation - he was dead before the FOD were even formed.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The point is that the FOD wanted a central common command for the army and wanted to execute people and shut down organisations, whatever matts inaccuracies….