Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nice of you to speak for him CR. I'm not doing this with you again.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I very much doubted you would.
The board sighs in relief.....
The board sighs in relief.....
cockneyrebel
New Member
what were the points in summary?
Crisis of confidence?
What's this? Do you regard it as a hobby or a game or summat? That's like saying, 'Why should you care if this football club goes to the wall, you don't even support us?' I thought Leninism was still supposed to be a set of ideas for world transformation. You know-designed to impact on more or less everybody's life in one way or another. Funny how none of you seem prapared to have anything but the same old in-house debates, discussed in the same antiquated jargon. These debates are mostly of only academic interest now.
I was active in one of the Trot groups before the fall of the USSR etc. I am intrigued, nay alarmed my good sir, at the fact that the Leninists are still going round having exactly the same kind of debates, spouting the same hackneyed dogma and generally acting as if nowt's happened.
Funnily enough, on the rare occasions I bump into old comrades, they are as reluctant to have a debate on the continued relevance of Leninism as the Leninists on here. Meanwhile, some of their new recruits have struck me as startlingly apolitical in essence.
Go on-admit it: you know deep down, don't you?
fanciful said:
What's this? Do you regard it as a hobby or a game or summat? That's like saying, 'Why should you care if this football club goes to the wall, you don't even support us?' I thought Leninism was still supposed to be a set of ideas for world transformation. You know-designed to impact on more or less everybody's life in one way or another. Funny how none of you seem prapared to have anything but the same old in-house debates, discussed in the same antiquated jargon. These debates are mostly of only academic interest now.
I was active in one of the Trot groups before the fall of the USSR etc. I am intrigued, nay alarmed my good sir, at the fact that the Leninists are still going round having exactly the same kind of debates, spouting the same hackneyed dogma and generally acting as if nowt's happened.
Funnily enough, on the rare occasions I bump into old comrades, they are as reluctant to have a debate on the continued relevance of Leninism as the Leninists on here. Meanwhile, some of their new recruits have struck me as startlingly apolitical in essence.
Go on-admit it: you know deep down, don't you?
cockneyrebel
New Member
I can’t be bothered to go back and read the numbered posts you mention. So what are these Leninist principles that are dead? His theory of imperialism? The evidence suggests otherwise? Democratic centralism or the need for a revolutionary party? I’d like to see the evidence of how this can be shown to be “dead”. Or some other aspect?
What are you actually getting at? And what group were you in? If it was the SWP are you really surprised that their new members are apolitical considering their membership policy?
What are you actually getting at? And what group were you in? If it was the SWP are you really surprised that their new members are apolitical considering their membership policy?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Here's those principles again this time spell checked so that RW can't just walk away:
At one time I would have said that Leninism had the four following characteristics:
• up holding the essential leading role of the vanguard party preceding and during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;
• a belief in the necessarily uneven development of capitalism allowing the possibility of revolutions occurring in one or a few states;
• the adoption of democratic centralism as an organisational tool and political principle of the vanguard party;
• adherence to the necessity of proletarian internationalism if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be defended, extended and transformed into a communist society.
Fortunately I don't talk like that anymore.
Cheers - Louis Mac
p.s. points one and three seem to jar with Marx to a significant degree.
At one time I would have said that Leninism had the four following characteristics:
• up holding the essential leading role of the vanguard party preceding and during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;
• a belief in the necessarily uneven development of capitalism allowing the possibility of revolutions occurring in one or a few states;
• the adoption of democratic centralism as an organisational tool and political principle of the vanguard party;
• adherence to the necessity of proletarian internationalism if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be defended, extended and transformed into a communist society.
Fortunately I don't talk like that anymore.
Cheers - Louis Mac
p.s. points one and three seem to jar with Marx to a significant degree.
Im not a new recruit.
• up holding the essential leading role of the vanguard party preceding and during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;
Yep, agree with this point. Even if the party is simply an organisation of the most class-conscious revolutionaries, carrying out propaganda and arguing for revolutionary politics. They are the 'vanguard' because they are more politically advanced than the majority of the working class. Their aim is to argue within the class for revolutionary change, and is especially essential during the revolutionary period. Personally, I am against the idea of a revolutionary party after the revolution.
• a belief in the necessarily uneven development of capitalism allowing the possibility of revolutions occurring in one or a few states
Lenin, and Marx, believed Russia could become socialist but only if there was an international revolution, or at least revolution in an industrialised country. That's why he relied heavily on the German revolution succeeding. But socialism cannot be built in one country, which Marx and Lenin always said.
• the adoption of democratic centralism as an organisational tool and political principle of the vanguard party;
Democratic decision making, everyone has a say. When the policies have been decided and set in stone, then every member abides by these policies.
• adherence to the necessity of proletarian internationalism if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be defended, extended and transformed into a communist society.
As above.
• up holding the essential leading role of the vanguard party preceding and during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat;
Yep, agree with this point. Even if the party is simply an organisation of the most class-conscious revolutionaries, carrying out propaganda and arguing for revolutionary politics. They are the 'vanguard' because they are more politically advanced than the majority of the working class. Their aim is to argue within the class for revolutionary change, and is especially essential during the revolutionary period. Personally, I am against the idea of a revolutionary party after the revolution.
• a belief in the necessarily uneven development of capitalism allowing the possibility of revolutions occurring in one or a few states
Lenin, and Marx, believed Russia could become socialist but only if there was an international revolution, or at least revolution in an industrialised country. That's why he relied heavily on the German revolution succeeding. But socialism cannot be built in one country, which Marx and Lenin always said.
• the adoption of democratic centralism as an organisational tool and political principle of the vanguard party;
Democratic decision making, everyone has a say. When the policies have been decided and set in stone, then every member abides by these policies.
• adherence to the necessity of proletarian internationalism if the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be defended, extended and transformed into a communist society.
As above.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i bet you think the nep was only a temporary measure in lenin's eyes, too.
lenin was no more socialist than you are, just another tsar in waiting.
lenin was no more socialist than you are, just another tsar in waiting.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
lenin's entire career was aimed at one thing, and one thing only - his achievement of supreme power. there was nothing socialist about him - he clad himself in socialist trappings to aid him in his quest for power. what did lenin ever do for the russian workers? he was a paid german agent, and he certainly earned his money.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
d'you deny it?mattkidd12 said:he was a paid german agent
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
mattkidd12 said:
Matt read number one again - we're back with the difference between revolution as an event and as a process which you didn't seem to get to grips with last time. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat isn't the ten days that shook the world; it is the ongoing transformation of society. The question then arises what is the role of the vanguard party in this process?
As for your take on democratic centralism, it takes no account of the realtionship between the leading and subordinate bodies in a democratic centralist party; in particular regarding the ability of the leading bodies to set the parametres of debate/policy making and as a result also the potential grounds for identifying and disciplining 'dissident' party members. You might also want to reconsider the notion of policies being set in stone; given that Marxism is premised on the notion of the neccessity of change, this seems a rather odd phrase to use.
Both of these characteristics run counter to Marx's conception of the transformation of society being a class act.
Cheers - Louis Mac
we're back with the difference between revolution as an event and as a process which you didn't seem to get to grips with last time
I understand what you mean now.
Democratic Centralism - But things like general administration of the Party etc needs to be done; I don't think you would disagree. But if a decision is taken by the leading body/CC and the members don't like it, then a conference could be called, or discussed at the next conference.
In terms of discipline, I don't think the leading body should be able to dismiss members without the whole membership deciding at conference. But if a decision is made in between the conferences, then it could be reviewed when all the members are together.
policies being set in stone
If the congress/conference votes and decides to support one policy, I think all members should uphold and support this policy until the next conference. Obviously if something happens that may affect that policy, then 'Extraodinary congresses' may be held, as they called it in Russia.
I am taking democratic centralism as a principle for the inner workings of a party. In terms of society post-revolution, I think there should be parties that aren't anti-working class (ban capitalist groups for example). They should choose how to conduct their own internal organisation. In terms of society, the councils would be made up of the local community, workers etc etc. When a policy is decided, then shouldn't this policy be abided by?
I understand what you mean now.
Democratic Centralism - But things like general administration of the Party etc needs to be done; I don't think you would disagree. But if a decision is taken by the leading body/CC and the members don't like it, then a conference could be called, or discussed at the next conference.
In terms of discipline, I don't think the leading body should be able to dismiss members without the whole membership deciding at conference. But if a decision is made in between the conferences, then it could be reviewed when all the members are together.
policies being set in stone
If the congress/conference votes and decides to support one policy, I think all members should uphold and support this policy until the next conference. Obviously if something happens that may affect that policy, then 'Extraodinary congresses' may be held, as they called it in Russia.
I am taking democratic centralism as a principle for the inner workings of a party. In terms of society post-revolution, I think there should be parties that aren't anti-working class (ban capitalist groups for example). They should choose how to conduct their own internal organisation. In terms of society, the councils would be made up of the local community, workers etc etc. When a policy is decided, then shouldn't this policy be abided by?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
mattkidd12 said:
So what about the leading role of the party in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat?
And what about the abiility of the party's leading bodies to appoint people to its lower bodies and control internal party communications.
You might also want to think about all the 'advanced workers' who haven't joined the ranks of the party (unless you take their lack of party membership as proof of their backwardness); what is their role in the revolutionary process and in particular their relationship to the vanguard party?
Similarly you might want to consider the differential class consciousness within the membership of the vanguard party (unless again you are taking party membership as the measure of class consciouness); haven't those members who have proved their advanced credentials by the effectiveness of their work within the party's higher bodies, earned the right to be listened to more closely/taken more notice off than their newly signed up comrades?
Cheers - Louis Mac
cockneyrebel said:
You can't be bothered to go back and read the numbered posts because you, like most other Leninists on here it seems, don't really want to have a debate. Throughout much of this thread I've tried to provoke people into discussing the relevance of Leninism to the situation we find ourselves in today, pointing out that whatever discussion there is is usually 'in house', ie conducted between the rival splinters of the Leninist left, in the stilted jargon of a century ago. So behold! What response do we get in the thread other than the trotting out of the same old formulas expressed in the stilted jargon of a century ago?
One question is relevant above all in this debate: is it really conceivable that the working class in one or more advanced capitalist society will, even in conditions of crisis, one day flock to a party essentially organised, no matter what modern slant is put on it, along the lines conceived by Lenin in the circumstances of Tsarist Russia over a hundred years ago? Do you really see this as a possibilty when all such parties are seen by all but the dwindling number of adherents to the model as having failed and having been consigned to history? When no working class in any western country opted en masse for the Leninist party even when the ideas of the master had not been discredited to anywhere near the extent that they have today? (A discrediting that has been given extra impetus by the input of a great many of the very people who, having good reason to, believe themselves to have lived under the very system to which his ideas inevitably lead, including many one-time 'true believers'.) When no working class of any western country opted for the Leninist party when socialist ideas in general had not taken anything like the hammering they have over the last thirty years or so? When none did so in conditions of industrial unrest the like of which we might never see again? When none did so in social crises far deeper than anything we see on the horizon now?
Taking all of this into account what makes you think that the working class will flock to the Leninist party at any time in the future?
And it wasn't, by the way, the SWP that I was once a member of. It does sometimes appear, however, that a lot of new recruits to no matter which of the Trot groups are the type of people who are simply prepared to swallow the dogma of the 'party' gurus whole, when they really should be chewing. You get the same sort of process going on in New Age cults, as well as on the far right.
As someone with no history on the Left (and therefore no sectarian axe to grind) I can’t help but feel it’s significant that, rather than answer the points LLETSA has made, they are just ignored and attempts then made to sidetrack the debate.
What relevance is it to the discussion what organisation he was a member of?
What relevance is it to the discussion what organisation he was a member of?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Notice also the demand to know his organisational past/present are deployed so that debate can then be shifted onto attacking those groups rather than the points LLETSA has actually made - rather than look at what someone says, they're stuck in the rut of asking who's said it as almsot the entirety of their political response. This itself is more evidence of the utter lack of perpsective or use of 'the left'.
fanciful said:
How is LETTSA bitter and twisted fancival? I don't recall him saying theat being in a Leninist group fucked up his life and he still bears the scars, the beatings the horror, the horror of it all etc. How are his views 'twisted'? What is twisted about a left without Lenin?
cockneyrebel
New Member
But what is LLETSAs point, that because Leninism has failed in the past and is not adhered to by many workers now, then it is dead? Well what ideology on the left can that not be applied to? What ideology whether it’s trotskyism, Leninism, class struggle anarchism and various other brands of revolutionary socialism and anarchism are not seen, by the vast majority of people as irrelevant, failed ideologies? Why do LLETSAs points just apply to Leninism.
And if he is correct about the whole of revolutionary socialism and anarchism being failed and fucked, where do we go from there? I mean what have we got in the UK? Miniscule irrelevant groups like RESPECT and the IWCA. Rather than just say "this is shit", surely an alternative should be presented....
And if he is correct about the whole of revolutionary socialism and anarchism being failed and fucked, where do we go from there? I mean what have we got in the UK? Miniscule irrelevant groups like RESPECT and the IWCA. Rather than just say "this is shit", surely an alternative should be presented....
Similar threads
