SPGB

[TremulousTetra]

So for the benefit of those of us who havent seen this supposed bollocking of the theory of state capitalism perhaps you might care to elaborate? I personally cannot see how it is wrong to suggest that capitalism can be run via the state rather than private concerns. Afterall , your group - SPEW - advocates state run capitalism doesnt it? It calls for widespread nationalisation of industry, doesnt it? How is this not state capitalism since the basic features of capitalism such as generalised wage labour remain intact in your scenario?

He's lying.

 

[TremulousTetra]

From their pov, yes I think so.

A bit like the anarchist's then?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Has for equating me with butchers, no thanks.

Sorry. Your way ahead of butchers in most things, but it is just this one phenomena. This delusion there is A truth, that only you possess.

 

[Proper Tidy]

A bit like the anarchist's then?

There are similarities between the Squeegees' brand of Authentic Socialism and anarchist theory, yes; although IME anarchists, or at least proper anarchists rather than the trendy 'I've read Chomsky' types, have a much more realistic and less utopian approach than the Squeegees.

IMO you need to stop getting your knickers in a knot about the anarchists on here. A lot of the people you regularly argue with talk a lot of sense you know. I fundamentally disagree with them on some stuff but even so, they're not by and large a sectarian bunch and they speak a lot of value.

 

[Gravediggers]

Sorry. Your way ahead of butchers in most things, but it is just this one phenomena. This delusion there is A truth, that only you possess.

Its not my truth I'm just paraphrasing what others have written.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There are similarities between the Squeegees' brand of Authentic Socialism and anarchist theory, yes; although IME anarchists, or at least proper anarchists rather than the trendy 'I've read Chomsky' types, have a much more realistic and less utopian approach than the Squeegees.

how so, less utopian. to me they are the exact opposite, whilst still being utopian.

I fundamentally disagree with them on some stuff but even so

how do you disagree.

ps. I quite like chomsky.

 

[Proper Tidy]

how so, less utopian. to me they are the exact opposite, whilst still being utopian.

how do you disagree.

ps. I quite like chomsky.

Fucking hell, do you want an essay?

How do you think a Trot might disagree with an anarchist?

Sometimes I wonder if you have any clue about any of this Mr 3.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Its not my truth I'm just paraphrasing what others have written.

let me put it this way, is there any possibillity, you could be wrong.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Fucking hell, do you want an essay?

How do you think a Trot might disagree with an anarchist?

Sometimes I wonder if you have any clue about any of this Mr 3.

we're both trots. but you clearly don't disagree in the way i do.

plus you have put much wordage into delineating your differences with trots, than with anarchists.

 

[Proper Tidy]

we're both trots. but you clearly don't disagree in the way i do.

plus you have put much wordage into delineating your differences with trots, than with anarchists.

Wordage lol.

By trots I assume you mean the cult of the SWP.

Most people on here will already understand the difference between a Trotskyist and an Anarchist. What would be the point in 'delineating the differences' again and again?

 

[Gravediggers]

let me put it this way, is there any possibillity, you could be wrong.

Of course there is a possibility that I could or maybe wrong. But if I am the history of Leninism never occurred - its all a bloody nightmare. It did occur and it was a bloody nightmare! History records Lenin formulated the theory of a vanguardist party in 1905 in, 'What is to be done?' He then had the opportunity of putting this theory into practice during the events in Russia from 1917 onwards.

The theory of a vanguardist party is based entirely on the supposition that the workers were incapable of raising themselves above a trade union consciousness. When this theory was put to the test with calls and demands for more democracy and less control by the party bosses, from the Soviets, the Workers Opposition and the sailors at Kronstradt they were all ruthlessly suppressed. What this meant in reality was that the workers had turned out not to be stupid - and not to be held in contempt by the vanguardists - after all. And in fact, on the contrary they were quite aware of, 'What is to be done' by starting to think for themselves.

For they were actually saying, 'Look we don't need your party bosses, your dicktats or your useless bureaucratic nightmare, to tell us what to do and how to do it. We are quite capable of organising for ourselves, we know what needs to be done, just let us get on with the job.' This political, economic and social reality meant if he had given in to these opposing forces his whole theory on the need for a vanguardist party would have gone down the swannee.

Finding himself captured by his own dogma he had no alternative but deny the workers the freedom to organise for themselves. He knew he had might on his side because he was in control of the state machinery. And he used the might of the state machinery with all the urgency the situation demanded, even if it meant killing thousands of workers in the process.

That is the truth of the matter.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course there is a possibility that I could or maybe wrong. But if I am the history of Leninism never occurred - its all a bloody nightmare. It did occur and it was a bloody nightmare! History records Lenin formulated the theory of a vanguardist party in 1905 in, 'What is to be done?' He then had the opportunity of putting this theory into practice during the events in Russia from 1917 onwards.

The theory of a vanguardist party is based entirely on the supposition that the workers were incapable of raising themselves above a trade union consciousness. When this theory was put to the test with calls and demands for more democracy and less control by the party bosses, from the Soviets, the Workers Opposition and the sailors at Kronstradt they were all ruthlessly suppressed. What this meant in reality was that the workers had turned out not to be stupid - and not to be held in contempt by the vanguardists - after all. And in fact, on the contrary they were quite aware of, 'What is to be done' by starting to think for themselves.

For they were actually saying, 'Look we don't need your party bosses, your dicktats or your useless bureaucratic nightmare, to tell us what to do and how to do it. We are quite capable of organising for ourselves, we know what needs to be done, just let us get on with the job.' This political, economic and social reality meant if he had given in to these opposing forces his whole theory on the need for a vanguardist party would have gone down the swannee.

Finding himself captured by his own dogma he had no alternative but deny the workers the freedom to organise for themselves. He knew he had might on his side because he was in control of the state machinery. And he used the might of the state machinery with all the urgency the situation demanded, even if it meant killing thousands of workers in the process.

That is the truth of the matter.

And the SWP's 'truth' is,,,,,,,,,,,,?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Wordage lol.

By trots I assume you mean the cult of the SWP.

Most people on here will already understand the difference between a Trotskyist and an Anarchist. What would be the point in 'delineating the differences' again and again?

Far more wordage is spent on attacking the SWP again and again ad nauseum on U75, so what's the difference?

Spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about the SP's 'trotskyism'.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Far more wordage is spent on attacking the SWP again and again ad nauseum on U75, so what's the difference?

Spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about the SP's 'trotskyism'.

First wordage, now minutiae. Ace.

I think you mean minute.

If you want to find out more about SP then go to a meeting or read the website or something. I'm an actual person, not the internet voice of the CWI.

 

[TremulousTetra]

First wordage, now minutiae. Ace.

I think you mean minute.

If you want to find out more about SP then go to a meeting or read the website or something. I'm an actual person, not the internet voice of the CWI.

So spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about your 'trotskyism'.

PS. Your pedanticism about vocabulary is inconversant.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So spend a minutiae of your time, identifying the way YOU do actually disagree, because so far, I have seen nothing from YOU. So much so, it has left me wondering about the your 'trotskyism'.

Minutiae doesn't mean what you think it means. You mean minute, just like you meant word. Adding erroneous bits to words doesn't make you smarter.

So much so, it has left me wondering about your sheer fuckwitedness.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Minutiae doesn't mean what you think it means. You mean minute, just like you meant word. Adding erroneous bits to words doesn't make you smarter.

So much so, it has left me wondering about your sheer fuckwitedness.

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

PS. google dictionary.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

PS. google dictionary.

This google dictionary you mean?

Wordage.

 

[TremulousTetra]

This google dictionary you mean?

Wordage.

That's right, I did mean a small insignificant ammount your time/wordage.

Now I'll be honest with you, my original use of wordage, was just sloven. But so what? However, the word does mean "the excessive use of words; verbiage", which describes precisely what takes place on U75 with regard to the SWP.

Any way, enough willy waving. If you don't want to explain yourself, fair enough.

 

[Gravediggers]

And the SWP's 'truth' is,,,,,,,,,,,,?

I have no idea what the SWP's 'truth' is on the lessons of Leninism. But no doubt they use every trick in the book to justify the decisions and actions he took to suppress all opposition to the party and to protect his own position of the leader of the Bolsheviks and dictator of Russia. For like I've stated the whole theory for the necessity for vanguardist party was at stake.

If, as I suspect, you know the SWP's take on the 'truth' inside out, spit it out and while you are at it what about a post on why you disagree with the SPGB rather than the bland assertion of their 'utopianism'?

You've been pissing around the edges long enough.

 

[dennisr]

"enough willy waving"

 

[Proper Tidy]

That's right, I did mean a small insignificant ammount your time/wordage.

No you didn't.

Spend a minutiae of your time

Spend an intricate detail of your time doesn't work.

Now I'll be honest with you, my original use of wordage, was just sloven. But so what? However, the word does mean "the excessive use of words; verbiage", which describes precisely what takes place on U75 with regard to the SWP.

Any way, enough willy waving. If you don't want to explain yourself, fair enough.

Lolage.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I have no idea what the SWP's 'truth' is on the lessons of Leninism. But no doubt they use every trick in the book to justify the decisions and actions he took to suppress all opposition to the party and to protect his own position of the leader of the Bolsheviks and dictator of Russia. For like I've stated the whole theory for the necessity for vanguardist party was at stake.

If, as I suspect, you know the SWP's take on the 'truth' inside out, spit it out and while you are at it what about a post on why you disagree with the SPGB rather than the bland assertion of their 'utopianism'?

You've been pissing around the edges long enough.

my simple point is, one man’s truth, is another man’s lie. There is no trickery on the part of the SWP, just like there is no trickery on the part of the SPGB.

Can any of us really claim to know THE truth? No! All we can claim is, we have analysed the ‘facts’ scientifically, and come to an OPINION. And just like science, there can be GENUINE disagreement about what the truth is. In the end we could be wrong, and the anarchist’s right [and vice versa].
This ^ is the pragmatic position of the SWP. There is no point the left trying to resolve these disagreements through debate, they should just agree to fraternally disagree. For in the end the only real invigilator/arbitrator in this debate, is class struggle. Testing the arguments, in the material world, validates or invalidates their veracity, not debate.

This ^ means that difference, diversity, is a good thing. Each SPGB, SWP, SP etc etc, should struggle/compete for survival, for success, for influence amongst the working class, for this is social evolution. But whilst struggling recognising we are 95% in agreement. Hence, agree to fraternally disagree, work together whilst competing.

So you believe what you’ve said about Lenin/ism. Fine. I’m not challenging it, OR offering an alternative. If you want an alternative analysis go here.
www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/
http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/search.html

 

[TremulousTetra]

No you didn't.

yes I did.

Spend an intricate detail of your time doesn't work.

that's right.

Lolage.

You play the player [badly], because you wont play the game. thats ok.

 

[Proper Tidy]

yes I did.

You really didn't

that's right.

See, it makes absolutely no fucking sense

You play the player [badly], because you wont play the game.

Nah, I just can't be arsed. You want to find out about Trotskyism then my suggestion would be to read Trotsky. You know, instead of Tony Cliff or Alex Callalalalinicos.

 

[Gravediggers]

my simple point is, one man’s truth, is another man’s lie. There is no trickery on the part of the SWP, just like there is no trickery on the part of the SPGB.

The trickery on the part of the SWP is to gloss over the mistakes of adopting the vanguardist approach to political organisation. The proof is in the eating and for them a retreat into pragmatism is a 'tactical solution' for it means all dissent and the need to unearth the facts of Leninism are channeled into the cliche of, 'case not proven'. Or has a last resort to plea that Lenin in his final days conceded that events had proven him wrong and he had failed to understand the dynamics of class struggle.

Despite this admittance by Lenin the continual response from the left is there is life in the old dog yet, just give use a chance and we will prove - next time round - state capitalism is a stepping stone towards socialism. When in fact all it will prove is the working class have been led up the garden path by a bunch of dishonest manipulators.

Can any of us really claim to know THE truth? No! All we can claim is, we have analysed the ‘facts’ scientifically, and come to an OPINION. And just like science, there can be GENUINE disagreement about what the truth is. In the end we could be wrong, and the anarchist’s right [and vice versa].

But an opinion is worthless unless you have also reached a conclusion. And the conclusion for me is that Leninism treats my class with contempt for according to them, only the elite of professional revolutionaries possess the required knowledge, understanding and organisation necessary to understand the 'revolutionary situation'. In the meantime you lot stay over there in the shadows until we think we need you.

This ^ is the pragmatic position of the SWP. There is no point the left trying to resolve these disagreements through debate, they should just agree to fraternally disagree. For in the end the only real invigilator/arbitrator in this debate, is class struggle. Testing the arguments, in the material world, validates or invalidates their veracity, not debate.

This ^ means that difference, diversity, is a good thing. Each SPGB, SWP, SP etc etc, should struggle/compete for survival, for success, for influence amongst the working class, for this is social evolution. But whilst struggling recognising we are 95% in agreement. Hence, agree to fraternally disagree, work together whilst competing.

You assume the SPGB is part of the left. In a matter of fact, unlike the left, we do not support or participate in the political structure of capitalism. The left is to us no different to the right for they all seek solutions within the capitalist framework. So to expect us to "fraternally disagree" is not only a misnomer but suggests we have failed to identify the class enemy and collaborators. And in this respect the supposedly "95% in agreement" strongly suggests you have failed, or deliberately being misleading, regarding the position of the SPGB in the political process.

So you believe what you’ve said about Lenin/ism. Fine. I’m not challenging it, OR offering an alternative. If you want an alternative analysis go here.
www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/
http://www.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/search.html

None of these links offer an 'alternative' indeed all they have on offer is the same old crap of capitalism in a slightly different guise where a revolutionary leadership is supposedly an essential prerequisite for the transformation of the social relationships. Thereby categorically denying that the emancipation of the working class is about self-emancipation and all that entails in terms of class consciousness.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You really didn't



See, it makes absolutely no fucking sense



Nah, I just can't be arsed. You want to find out about Trotskyism then my suggestion would be to read Trotsky. You know, instead of Tony Cliff or Alex Callalalalinicos.

LOLage. That you would deploy such wordage on the minutiae I of my vocabulary, and not on your politics, speaks volumes.

 

[whichfinder]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=769845&id=1358913026

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers would the Anarchist Federation fit your description above 'of both its roots and its various manifestations'? For clearly, according to your use of the word vanguard, they are also telling the workers what to think and do.

Of course it wouldn't and no it's not.

You've displayed your ignorance of anarchism once already. Here's a second chance.

 

[sihhi]

This is about to enter the Top 5 of most replied threads on uk p&p ever.