# Are you a marxist but not a member of a marxist organisation?



## hitmouse (Nov 10, 2021)

Just for balance, like.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 10, 2021)

I wouldn’t use the term “Marxist”, because of the connotations, but I am hugely influenced by Marx. I am always going back to his writing and finding relevance in it.


----------



## petee (Nov 10, 2021)

what's a Marxist?


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2021)

It me.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

Marxism focuses on material social conditions rather than more abstract stuff such as anarchism does at times, which is why I recalibrated my meters. Same answer as the anarchism thread though, I haven’t been a member of a Marxist org but been a fellow traveller. Their politics and actions made a lot of sense to me.


----------



## JimW (Nov 11, 2021)

My feeling really is you should be a Marxist but the only Marxist organisations should be research groups and the like, political groupings should be working class/community, not that my track record of action for about fifteen years qualifies me to have an opinion.


----------



## campanula (Nov 11, 2021)

Kinda (Marxist)because that was the tradition when my political proclivities were formed...plus, like Danny, I still find a  certain savage resonance in  his writing.  Not a member of anything, these days. Even my Hardy Plant Soc. subs have lapsed. Fairly sure that this is a bad thing but I have not managed to prod my give a fuck metre into much more than a sharp tutting and excess of sweariness which upsets my dog.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm a Marxist because Marx and Marxism explains the way the world is better than any other philosophy and indicates a way in which to change it. Other theorists from the time, socialist, anarchist and utopian, had insights of various value, but Marx was the one who developed the ideas into a coherent whole. His work is still the bedrock upon which any half decent revolutionary organisation is based. 

The problem is that so many organisations are called (by themselves or others) Marxist that it rather diminishes the term, but it still covers more of the basics than using any of the 'sub-Marxist' philosophies (Leninism, Trotskyism etc) or saying I'm a libertarian marxist or a dialectical materialist, which just makes most people look at you a bit funny.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> Or saying I'm a libertarian marxist or a dialectical materialist, which just makes most people look at you a bit funny.



Actually most people don’t understand those terms or give a fuck. So perhaps in your little bubble It may be grotesque but not really anywhere else.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Actually most people don’t understand those terms or give a fuck. So perhaps in your little bubble It may be grotesque but not really anywhere else.


Yes, that's the point.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yes, that's the point.



You agree with bottom up rather than top down? If so, we agree. That’s what I mean by libertarian.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You agree with bottom up rather than top down? If so, we agree. That’s what I mean by libertarian.


I do, but I think that's inherent in 'proper' Marxism. Libertarian is to distinguish from the Stalinist school and those who believe in a 'strong state' generally


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> I do, but I think that's inherent in 'proper' Marxism. Libertarian is to distinguish from the Stalinist school and those who believe in a 'strong state' generally



Inherent in theory…


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 11, 2021)

Back in the seventies, when I was talking about joining the International Socialists, a woman who I barely knew (and whose name or appearance I can't recall) objected "but the working class is not a revolutionary class." I didn't understand what she meant, but had I listened to her I would have been spared a good deal of strife and suffering. It took me several decades to realise what she was saying. That's not to say Marx wasn't right in much of his analysis of capitalism and history, but he made the mistake of projecting the past into the future.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 11, 2021)

Any belief system named after an individual runs into the immediate problem of hero worship. If Marx said it then it must be right. The inerrancy of the Bible or the Communist Manifesto or Capital. It gets even worse when dogma is difficult to interpret. What exactly is the dictatorship of the proletariat? At least Marx's beard style never became compulsory.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 11, 2021)

This is easier to answer than the anarchist one for me   

Many of the marxists I like are firmly on the anti-bolsehvik/leninist/trot end of the spectrum and are very anti-vanguardist and even anti-organisational. 

The leftcoms like the ICC and the CWO are just too grindingly serious and "ultra" for me.

I was briefly in the IWCA which I think it's fair to say was heavily influenced by Marx, but wouldn't have defined itself as marxist.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm a big fan of much of Marx's writing and ideas. His contribution to our understanding of how this shit system works is monumental. That said, as a man, he was a right arsehole, but nevertheless, many of his ideas still stand. I'm much less enamoured with Marxists and Marxism, especially of its Leninist varieties, which is an abomination.


----------



## LDC (Nov 11, 2021)

I've just read _Marx at the Millennium _by Cyril Smith (not that one) which rips into Marxism while acknowledging the usefulness of what Marx wrote. It's an easy read too.






						Marx at the Millennium - Cyril Smith
					

Cyril Smith reinstates Marx's work as a relevant and vital source of inspiration, arguing that the Marxist tradition has essentially ignored the fundamental ideas of the man himself.




					libcom.org
				





			Marx at the Millennium by Cyril Smith 1996


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 11, 2021)

What Fozzie Bear said x2

Also who are these ‘Marxist organisations’ by the way?


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

_The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. - _The Communist Manifesto

Marx himself is nowhere as important or relevant as the ideas he explicated, just like the fact that Francis Crick was a sexist arsehole doesn't alter the double-helix structure of DNA.

I've not heard of any Marxist organisations worth my time and effort, unfortunately.


----------



## [62] (Nov 11, 2021)

Marx's analysis of capitalism was spot on and very far-sighted. I would have thought even capitalists themselves could see that.

He should have just left it at that with a 'you work out the answers' sign-off.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

[62] said:


> Marx's analysis of capitalism was spot on and very far-sighted. I would have thought even capitalists themselves could see that.
> 
> He should have just left it at that with a 'you work out the answers' sign-off.



 In many ways he did, didn't he? There was supposed to be a third volume of Capital, which is itself more a theoretical than a practical work. Ideologies like Leninism build on top of Marx's work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just for balance, like.


balance? like there's only anarchism and marxism? what about non-marxian socialism?


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> balance? like there's only anarchism and marxism? what about non-marxian socialism?


It’s fucking worthless.   Like non Marxist anarchism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> In many ways he did, didn't he? There was supposed to be a third volume of Capital, which is itself more a theoretical than a practical work. Ideologies like Leninism build on top of Marx's work.


ideologies like leninism may found themselves on marx's work but that doesn't mean they're a progression from his work


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> ideologies like leninism may found themselves on marx's work but that doesn't mean they're a progression from his work



I don't like Leninism either, but I don't know whether or not they're a "progression" from Marx, whatever that means.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I don't like Leninism either, but I don't know whether or not they're a "progression" from Marx, whatever that means.


what i mean by a progression is a positive development. it may be a development of certain aspects of marx's thought but that doesn't make it more progressive - quite the contrary, imo.


----------



## Signal 11 (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> There was supposed to be a third volume of Capital,


It's coming out in 1894.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 11, 2021)

Id say im highly influenced by Marx's thought and elements of Marxism. For me, the best Marxist organisations are ones aiming for concrete goals based on real lived collective experience... they dont have to call themselves Marxist organisations. And a lot of the actual Marxist ones are at best a drag and at worse well... I think we all know.

In that sense, yes, I am a member of Acorn, which is a direct action housing union. It doesnt ever mention Marx or Marxism but a lot of the activists are young and left or recently radicalised. It's not perfect - they have paid professional staff, too many links to Labour and all that jazz but I think its a solid group personally.

I get emails and follow Counterfire but im not a member (basically cos of what I said above).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

"...under the name communism, Marx developed a theory of anarchism; and further, that in fact it was he who was the first to provide a rational basis for the anarchist utopia and to put forward a project for achieving it.”


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 11, 2021)

Riklet said:


> Id say im highly influenced by Marx's thought and elements of Marxism. For me, the best Marxist organisations are ones aiming for concrete goals based on real lived collective experience... they dont have to call themselves Marxist organisations. And a lot of the actual Marxist ones are at best a drag and at worse well... I think we all know.
> 
> I get emails and follow Counterfire but im not a member (basically cos of what I said above).



I agree with your point about the best and most effective groups are those aiming for concrete goals 'based on real lived collective experience', but my general experience over the last period has been a degeneration of that type of work across the board. The retreat from class politics and the rise of identity, Corbyn/Labourism, the culture of online 'activism' and, perhaps, time and the passing of one generation (mine/ours) to a younger one in terms of energy and time have all had an effect.  As for Counterfire, I can't say I know too much about them but what I have seen is okay, but I've never thought about joining them.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Riklet said:


> Id say im highly influenced by Marx's thought and elements of Marxism. For me, the best Marxist organisations are ones aiming for concrete goals based on real lived collective experience... they dont have to call themselves Marxist organisations. And a lot of the actual Marxist ones are at best a drag and at worse well... I think we all know.
> 
> In that sense, yes, I am a member of Acorn, which is a direct action housing union. It doesnt ever mention Marx or Marxism but a lot of the activists are young and left or recently radicalised. It's not perfect - they have paid professional staff, too many links to Labour and all that jazz but I think its a solid group personally.
> 
> I get emails and follow Counterfire but im not a member (basically cos of what I said above).


A single issue group can’t really be ‘Marxist’ in the same way it could be a (version of) anarchist, imo.  For mutualist anarchism that working together in an anti capitalist, non hierarchical organisation is an example of anarchy in action.  You can’t really get that in Marxism, cos of the state.   

Counterfire are just extrots who have dumped most of their insights to jump into bed with the Stalinist rump of the cpb.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> A single issue group can’t really be ‘Marxist’


Why not. I’ve read no end of academic articles examining all manner of (single) issues “from a Marxist perspective”.  

Which is, to be fair, one of the connotations of the term “Marxist” that makes me not want to call myself one. I think it was butchersapron who coined the term “PhD Marxism”.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Why not. I’ve read no end of academic articles examining all manner of (single) issues “from a Marxist perspective”.
> 
> Which is, to be fair, one of the connotations of the term “Marxist” that makes me not want to call myself one. I think it was butchersapron who coined the term “PhD Marxism”.


in 1991 i went to birmingham university for an interview. this professor took me into his study and on the backof his door was a poster of karl marx

i didn't go there


----------



## LDC (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> A single issue group can’t really be ‘Marxist’ in the same way it could be a (version of) anarchist, imo.  For mutualist anarchism that working together in an anti capitalist, non hierarchical organisation is an example of anarchy in action.  You can’t really get that in Marxism, cos of the state.



Not sure I get what you're saying tbh, what do you mean, 'cos of the state'? As Danny has said there's plenty of people and groups like that.

Big question about non-hierarchy that needs discussion and what that means tbh, it's slipped into common place usage when discussing this stuff.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Why not. I’ve read no end of academic articles examining all manner of (single) issues “from a Marxist perspective”.
> 
> Which is, to be fair, one of the connotations of the term “Marxist” that makes me not want to call myself one. I think it was butchersapron who coined the term “PhD Marxism”.


I don’t see what academic articles have to do with organisations.  Anything can be analysed from a Marxist (or anarchist or anything else) perspective.   It doesn’t make those academies marxist.  

A Marxist approach to single issue campaigns is, generally, for them not to be limited to Marxists.  You don’t have to believe that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall to join (say) cnd or the anl.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> I don’t see what academic articles have to do with organisations.  Anything can be analysed from a Marxist (or anarchist or anything else) perspective.   It doesn’t make those academies marxist.
> 
> A Marxist approach to single issue campaigns is, generally, for them not to be limited to Marxists.  You don’t have to believe that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall to join (say) cnd or the anl.


campaigns often involve people from a range of political backgrounds, you don't have to be a marxist to recognise that


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not sure I get what you're saying tbh, what do you mean, 'cos of the state'? As Danny has said there's plenty of people and groups like that.
> 
> Big question about non-hierarchy that needs discussion and what that means tbh, it's slipped into common place usage when discussing this stuff.


It’s not true of all anarchist viewpoints, only for those who think we can build a bit of an anarchist society even within capitalism, that you can ignore the state.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> campaigns often involve people from a range of political backgrounds, you don't have to be a marxist to recognise that


Yes, exactly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> I don’t see what academic articles have to do with organisations.  Anything can be analysed from a Marxist (or anarchist or anything else) perspective.   It doesn’t make those academies marxist.
> 
> A Marxist approach to single issue campaigns is, generally, for them not to be limited to Marxists.  You don’t have to believe that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall to join (say) cnd or the anl.


No you don't.  I was answering the claim you made in an earlier post, but I honestly can't be bothered quibbling over every new goalpost, so I'm out.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> No you don't.  I was answering the claim you made in an earlier post, but I honestly can't be bothered quibbling over every new goalpost, so I'm out.


Perhaps you should have quoted the relevant post then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> Perhaps you should have quoted the relevant post then.


I did.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I did.


?? Well, sorry, but your last comment makes no sense then.  There is a clear and obvious distinction between analysing a campaign from a particular perspective and the campaign itself.  

If it takes on arguments that (say) you need to challenge the entirety of capitalism to win your aim, it’s no longer a single issue campaign.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> ?? Well, sorry, but your last comment makes no sense then.  There is a clear and obvious distinction between analysing a campaign from a particular perspective and the campaign itself.
> 
> If it takes on arguments that (say) you need to challenge the entirety of capitalism to win your aim, it’s no longer a single issue campaign.


We speak a completely different language.

You said single issue groups can’t be Marxist.  I said they could. You said here’s two that aren’t. Two I didn’t claim were.  I only claimed it was possible for a single issue group to be Marxist.

Honestly it’s utterly impossible to discuss anything with you because it’s never about content it’s about fake semantics, moved goalposts around bizarre tangents, and quibbles you introduce after the fact and then double down on.  Always.  

I’m putting you on ignore until I’ve got some headspace and then we’ll go back to just discussing music.  Have a good evening.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2021)

This thread is definitely confirming why I've always steered clear of becoming a member of a Marxist organisation


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Ideologies like Leninism shit on top of Marx's work.


Fixed for you


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> We speak a completely different language.
> 
> You said single issue groups can’t be Marxist.  I said they could. You said here’s two that aren’t. Two I didn’t claim were.  I only claimed it was possible for a single issue group to be Marxist.
> 
> ...


Oh and this is what you always do.  Blame someone else because you make (half of) a lousy argument.  You seem to think you made various points that you never actually made.  It’s an arrogant and dishonest approach.  

I replied directly to your single sentence post  with no movement of goalposts (not that I realised it was a point scoring contest), but disagreeing with what you explicitly said.  You could have clarified what you thought I was misunderstanding or argued against it.  But you choose to ignore and run off. Again.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

andysays said:


> This thread is definitely confirming why I've always steered clear of becoming a member of a Marxist organisation


And exactly why I don’t want to be an ‘anarchist’


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

belboid said:


> And exactly why I don’t want to be an ‘anarchist’



And thus we are divided.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 11, 2021)

i remain attracted to the idealist liberationist aspects of marx, and in so far as i analyse anything, its a class position that gives me my bearings.  

The problem is that i ended up breaking with  two 'marxist' organisations, not really over fundamental disagreements regarding ideology, more about tactics and strategy.  Personal failings probably also played a role.  Its one of life's disappointments  that a mass marxist movement has failed to take root in my lifetime..   However, if one bursts through in the next decade, (assuming i have the longevity) please give us a nudge


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Fixed for you





Magnus McGinty said:


> And thus we are divided.




Yeah, the performative sectarianism has been one of the most consistently irritating things for me, ever since I discovered revolutionary left-wing politics two decades ago.

I am aware that this divisive shit has historical roots stretching back to well before I was even a twinkle in my father's eye, and the differences in ideology and philosophy are almost certainly irreconcilable.

Which doesn't change how it's always made me feel like a bit of an outsider, because I really struggle to give a fuck about it beyond meme potential.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Yeah, the performative sectarianism has been one of the most consistently irritating things for me, ever since I discovered revolutionary left-wing politics two decades ago.
> 
> I am aware that this divisive shit has historical roots stretching back to well before I was even a twinkle in my father's eye, and the differences in ideology and philosophy are almost certainly irreconcilable.
> 
> Which doesn't change how it's always made me feel like a bit of an outsider, because I really struggle to give a fuck about it beyond meme potential.



The SWP are annoying though as they attempt to control anything that isn’t their initiative which gains some appeal. And if they can’t control it they oppose it. They’ll set up a separate thing. They do this all the time with anti-fascist stuff.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The SWP are annoying though as they attempt to control anything that isn’t their initiative which gains some appeal. And if they can’t control it they oppose it. They’ll set up a separate thing. They do this all the time with anti-fascist stuff.



Yes, this is one of the many, many reasons I never got involved with the SWP.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Yes, this is one of the many, many reasons I never got involved with the SWP.



I had a passing interest once and then they basically stalked me to ‘come to a meeting’. Knocking on my door fairly frequently. Gave me the chills.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I had a passing interest once and then they basically stalked me to ‘come to a meeting’. Knocking on my door fairly frequently. Gave me the chills.



_"Come theorise with us Magnus. For ever and ever and ever..."_


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Yeah, the performative sectarianism has been one of the most consistently irritating things for me, ever since I discovered revolutionary left-wing politics two decades ago.
> 
> I am aware that this divisive shit has historical roots stretching back to well before I was even a twinkle in my father's eye, and the differences in ideology and philosophy are almost certainly irreconcilable.
> 
> Which doesn't change how it's always made me feel like a bit of an outsider, because I really struggle to give a fuck about it beyond meme potential.


It's not sectarianism though, is it, because that implies Marxist-Leninism and libertarian communism are on the same side. They're really not. On the one hand you have those who seek some sort of "workers' state" and a top-down notion of "democratic centralism". On the other hand, you have those who envision building some sort of workers' control from below, based on a form of direct democracy via workers' and community organisations. 

There is an abyss between those two forms of socialism, and the history of wholesale shootings,  gulags, etc hasn'tbrought us any closer together. Sure, Marxist-Leninists are a bit better behaved these days because it's a moribund movement that needs to make friends where it can. Luckily they're unlikely to be in a position of influence again. Sadly, neither are anarchists. In the toss up between socialism or barbarism, barbarism is clearly winning. But I live in hope. Do nowt and we're all fucked... build a movement and there's a chance (however slim) that things could improve.

Or as old Bert Brecht said: "Those who fight can lose, but those who don’t fight have already lost”.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> _"Come theorise with us Magnus. For ever and ever and ever..."_



Where as, conversely, pretty much any other group I’ve made overtures towards tend to be paranoid as fuck. Either you’re somehow already known so maybe ok or viewed with mistrust.
Which makes me think the SWP are a cop trap.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

I spent a couple of decades in the early SWP and really enjoyed the first half . The organisation still had a good number of industrial and trade union militants , the rank and file period meant that we knew key militants in local workplaces . The early anti fascism stuff was both thrilling and effective and the Right to Work campaign was bold and drew in a lot of support. 
I learnt a lot of theory and history from educational and learnt a lot from comrades and contacts about organising at work . 
What I did notice over the years was the move from a quite eclectic approach to Marxist theory , history and practice to one that was solely based on the 1917 vanguard model to the exclusion of anything else . Whereas before there was a critical appreciation say of Luxembourg , the IWW , aspects of the work of the British Communist Party in the unemployed movement, it’s work in fighting fascist both physically and in practically in the campaigns for local tenants unions and its post war occupations of buildings to tackle homelessness etc this was all eclipsed by ‘what Lenin said ‘. 
The last ten years saw me in repeated battles over the rank file , anti fascism work , the poll tax and miners strike tactics and working within local communities on local issues. The organisation slowly went internal , theoretical clarity was apparently needed and Bambury promised ‘blood on the carpets ‘ . At the end my heart wasn’t in it so I drifted out . 
I am for socialism from below , the self activity of the working class and for trying to work with local working class activists to tackle local working class issues . Couldn’t give a toss about recreating the Bolsheviks . 
Was and still am an enthusiastic supporter of the IWCA model .


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

I’m also for the IWCA model.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Why is a vanguard party problematic?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Why is a vanguard party problematic?



Because if you’re trying to eliminate class, you’re creating a new class system. Boffins smarter than me may have a better answer though.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Because if you’re trying to eliminate class, you’re creating a new class system.


I don't think that's the idea at all


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 11, 2021)

JimW said:


> My feeling really is you should be a Marxist but the only Marxist organisations should be research groups and the like, political groupings should be working class/community, not that my track record of action for about fifteen years qualifies me to have an opinion.


I think I might agree with you there, but I'm not sure Marx would've?


Pickman's model said:


> balance? like there's only anarchism and marxism? what about non-marxian socialism?


Feel free to start your own "are you a non-anarchist non-marxian socialist but not a member of a NANMS org?" thread if you'd like?


belboid said:


> A single issue group can’t really be ‘Marxist’ in the same way it could be a (version of) anarchist, imo.  For mutualist anarchism that working together in an anti capitalist, non hierarchical organisation is an example of anarchy in action.  You can’t really get that in Marxism, cos of the state.





belboid said:


> I don’t see what academic articles have to do with organisations.  Anything can be analysed from a Marxist (or anarchist or anything else) perspective.   It doesn’t make those academies marxist.
> 
> A Marxist approach to single issue campaigns is, generally, for them not to be limited to Marxists.  You don’t have to believe that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall to join (say) cnd or the anl.


Comrades, I think Belboid's ultra-left errors here are rooted in an inability to correctly apply what Trotsky wrote about the United Front to today's situation.
Nah, just kidding, what I actually think the distinction you're drawing is a bit flaky here. Presumably you wouldn't deny that being involved in the ANL or whatever could be useful activity for marxists, or marxist praxis or whatever? And you were responding to a comment about ACORN, which at least seeks to be/claims to be a union, so I dunno if it's helpful to put unions and single issue campaigns in the same category anyway? I don't think the vast majority of anarchists would claim ACORN or whatever to be an anarchist organisation, but rather, to the extent that they support something like ACORN, that they see it as a way of building class power?


glitch hiker said:


> Why is a vanguard party problematic?


Any specific vanguard party or just vanguard parties in general? I think the list of reasons why the CCP is problematic are a bit different to the reasons why the RCP were shit, but I can't say I like either of them much.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I don't think that's the idea at all



Based on which examples of vanguard groups taking power?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Based on which examples of vanguard groups taking power?


based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Why is a vanguard party problematic?



As I think Rosa Luxemburg put it, and maybe Trotsky at one time in his career, the party substitutes itself for the class, and then the central committee substitutes itself for the party ...


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Any specific vanguard party or just vanguard parties in general? I think the list of reasons why the CCP is problematic are a bit different to the reasons why the RCP were shit, but I can't say I like either of them much.


In general.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> In general.


I mean, I think their track record is the most important thing to go by. At the large scale, if you get a vanguard party that's capable of taking power, you get Russia at best and something like North Korea as a worse-case example, at the smaller scale, if you have a small group that is not capable of taking power but aspires to be a vanguard party, then you tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance. None of it seems that appealing?
Here's what an old Marxist had to say about it, if you're interested:


			Rühle: Revolution Not A Party Affair


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, I think their track record is the most important thing to go by. At the large scale, if you get a vanguard party that's capable of taking power, you get Russia at best and something like North Korea as a worse-case example, at the smaller scale, if you have a small group that is not capable of taking power but aspires to be a vanguard party, then you tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance. None of it seems that appealing?
> Here's what an old Marxist had to say about it, if you're interested:
> 
> 
> Rühle: Revolution Not A Party Affair


I think an organised effort to spread class consciousness is vital. I don't see anything else working. I'm not dogmatic about it, but I don't see much from, for example, anarchist groups in that context. They tend to be focused elsewhere. 

In the end secterianism is the bane of the left. But we all know that


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness



Fair enough. But do they?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fair enough. But do they?


I can only speak for the SPEW because that's the only one I'm involved in


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness


Other types of organisations can do that , in fact an internet account can do that . The basis of a vanguard party is that in theory it’s supposed to recruit the best , and more advanced sections of the working class , to lead the working class to revolution . In order to do that it has to have hegemony of a critical mass of that class.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I can only speak for the SPEW because that's the only one I'm involved in



Nice acronym. But I thought the view of a vanguard is that the proletariat aren’t able to be revolutionary. So you super heroes do that work for them. Without ever becoming rulers. Lol


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nice acronym. But I thought the view of a vanguard is that the proletariat aren’t able to be revolutionary. So you super heroes do that work for them. Without ever becoming rulers. Lol


Even within the vanguard theory the proletariat can be revolutionary ie as in Portugal. Within vanguard hindsight theory it’s the lack of a mass vanguard party that explains why it ( the revolutionary situation ) didn’t lead to a successful revolution.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> am for socialism from below , the self activity of the working class and for trying to work with local working class activists to tackle local working class issues . Couldn’t give a toss about recreating the Bolsheviks .
> Was and still am an enthusiastic supporter of the IWCA model .



Good stuff. That pretty much sums up where I am alongside rank and file trade union work. Both methods, of course, deeply unfashionable…


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Other types of organisations can do that , in fact an internet account can do that . The basis of a vanguard party is that in theory it’s supposed to recruit the best , and more advanced sections of the working class , to lead the working class to revolution . In order to do that it has to have hegemony of a critical mass of that class.


We already have that: not everyone in society is equally class conscious.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness



Oh you’re trolling. Ok.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nice acronym. But I thought the view of a vanguard is that the proletariat aren’t able to be revolutionary. So you super heroes do that work for them. Without ever becoming rulers. Lol


Seems like a bad faith reading to me


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Oh you’re trolling. Ok.


I'm not trolling, why say something so stupid?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> We already have that: not everyone in society is equally class conscious.


Of course but they are not . What did Marx say about the ruling ideas ?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm not trolling, why say something so stupid?



Because I’m stupid. And you just repeated an earlier assertion.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Of course but they are not . What did Marx say about the ruling ideas ?


I've no idea. 

This conversation just seems to be in bad faith at this point. I mean, you could just outline what marx said and we could discuss it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I've no idea.
> 
> This conversation just seems to be in bad faith at this point. I mean, you could just outline what marx said and we could discuss it.


I mean, none of us are in a vanguard party, so you should be class consciousing us really?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I mean, none of us are in a vanguard party, so you should be class consciousing us really?


This thread is wild


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> This thread is wild


Yeah stick around, it’s cool.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 11, 2021)

So one of the other problems with vanguardism is that the party has nothing to learn from working class people. 

This is categorically not true in my experience. People individually and collectively generally have quite sophisticated ideas about what is wrong with their workplaces and communities - and creative thoughts about how to improve them.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I've no idea.
> 
> This conversation just seems to be in bad faith at this point. I mean, you could just outline what marx said and we could discuss it.


Well it wasn’t intended to be in bad faith . Marx said , in so many words , that the ruling ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class . For example the newspapers , the news channels etc are owned by members of the ruling class . The way the economy is explained is explained in the ideology of the ruling class , the way politics is explained is explained in the ideas of the ruling class etc etc . 
Within  Marxist theory precisely because at times the working class , as labour, comes into conflict with capital it is possible that workers through struggle begin to break from the ruling ideology and see the need for independent organisations and representation that put the working class interests first . 
Marx didn’t have a theory of a vanguard party . Early Marxists saw the need for an independent party or organisation , the majority saw socialism as achievable by elections . The syndicalists like the IWW saw the formation of one big union and a general strike as ushering socialism . Lenin was the main contributor to the theory of a vanguard party whilst at the same time denouncing insurrection  by a chosen few .


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness


The Leninist vanguard party is based on the idea that the working class, by itself, can only ever achieve trade union consciousness at best. So the role of the vanguard party is to shepherd the proles towards their party, and once in the party and under the firm guidance and discipline of the vanguard party's fully class conscious and infallible leadership, then the workers will be led to the promised land.

It's role is not to spread class consciousness but loyalty to a party that has substituted itself for the class.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yeah stick around, it’s cool.


I'm posting while in a zoom component of a SPEW meeting on climate change. It's fucking Marx-tastic here in chez GH commune


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Well it wasn’t intended to be in bad faith . Marx said , in so many words , that the ruling ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class . For example the newspapers , the news channels etc are owned by members of the ruling class . The way the economy is explained is explained in the ideology of the ruling class , the way politics is explained is explained in the ideas of the ruling class etc etc .
> Within  Marxist theory precisely because at times the working class , as labour, comes into conflict with capital it is possible that workers through struggle begin to break from the ruling ideology and see the need for independent organisations and representation that put the working class interests first .
> Marx didn’t have a theory of a vanguard party . Early Marxists saw the need for an independent party or organisation , the majority saw socialism as achievable by elections . The syndicalists like the IWW saw the formation of one big union and a general strike as ushering socialism . Lenin was the main contributor to the theory of a vanguard party whilst at the same time denouncing insurrection  by a chosen few .


Bit more though, that in times of non-crisis there exists a special group who can pierce the veil - and who have done so prior to the crisis.  A group who can see longer and further simply because they are not part of that crisis - better educated, better dressed. Oddly enough, those groups have pretty much  always ended up being dominated by middle class people - almost as if they were simply a vulgar repetition of  a radicalised class snobbery.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm posting while in a zoom component of a SPEW meeting on climate change. It's fucking Marx-tastic here in chez GH commune


You sure it ain't the SPGB that you joined by accident this time wells?


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> based on the idea that, as I understand it, a vanguard party is intended to spread class consciousness


I mean, I think an important part of class consciousness would be the idea that "any cook can govern". So you would hope that an organisation that wanted to spread class consciousness would want ordinary members to be fully involved in decision-making at all levels of the organisation, without the formation of ruling cliques who hold a disproportionate share of power. Again, I don't think the track record of vanguard parties is very good on that score.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, I think an important part of class consciousness would be the idea that "any cook can govern". So you would hope that an organisation that wanted to spread class consciousness would want ordinary members to be fully involved in decision-making at all levels of the organisation, without the formation of ruling cliques who hold a disproportionate share of power. Again, I don't think the track record of vanguard parties is very good on that score.


However they/belboid can say that Lenin came up with that term so they REALLY believe it. And that constitutes the historical experience of vanguardism/leninsim in practice.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> The Leninist vanguard party is based on the idea that the working class, by itself, can only ever achieve trade union consciousness at best. So the role of the vanguard party is to shepherd the proles towards their party, and once in the party and under the firm guidance and discipline of the vanguard party's fully class conscious and infallible leadership, then the workers will be led to the promised land.
> 
> It's role is not to spread class consciousness but loyalty to a party that has substituted itself for the class.


I’ve got some sympathy for this position. However in my view ,  in theory the vanguard party ie the best elements of the class in one party , is perfectly plausible in certain circumstances. In practise , especially the further the vanguard sects are removed from the working class they say they are for the more they become a characture of the shenanigans in the Russian CP.

The vanguard succeeded in a revolution in Russia , albeit over a hundred years and in a mainly peasant country . It’s success sent shockwaves over the world and inspired many . You only have to read say the Ten Days that Shook the World or Victor Serges stuff  to get a feel if it’s attraction .

Precisely because it worked in 1917 it became the model for the founding of numerous other Communist Parties . Many of these early Communist Parties were amalgamations of all sorts of people , syndicalists , muscular reformists , even some anarchists . They were over a period of years pretty much standardised under the Comintern led by the Bolsheviks and gradually served the best interests of the Russians .
The Communist Parties , which by and large did have at times working class support are well and truly finished as revolutionary organisations . Most of the vanguard party stuff now is the small Trot groups who precisely because they are small and even further removed from the working class simply become a parody of the factional fights in the Russian CP. I suppose in the same way the anarchists who are smaller and equally if not more further removed are seen as Spanish Civil War Re-enactment societies or  Makhno appreciation clubs . 
I suppose the real crux is that what ever the historical basis of ‘revolutionary’ groups and to a large extent the reformist groups is that they talk to the ‘left’ . Very few actually engage or recruit from the working class


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> I’ve got some sympathy for this position. However in my view ,  in theory the vanguard party ie the best elements of the class in one party , is perfectly plausible in certain circumstances. In practise , especially the further the vanguard sects are removed from the working class they say they are for the more they become a characture of the shenanigans in the Russian CP.
> 
> The vanguard succeeded in a revolution in Russia , albeit over a hundred years and in a mainly peasant country . It’s success sent shockwaves over the world and inspired many . You only have to read say the Ten Days that Shook the World or Victor Serges stuff  to get a feel if it’s attraction .
> 
> ...



From feudalism to the space age within 4 decades.
But, what changed for the working class?


----------



## cloudyday (Nov 11, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> The vanguard succeeded in a revolution in Russia


the vanguard succeeded in a counter-revolution.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> the vanguard succeeded in a counter-revolution.


Im not denying that the revolution didn’t go to what we would have liked it to have been . However I’m not sure that a revolution was possible in Russia without the Bolsheviks if was then surely what happened after 1917 would have been opposed on a mass scale ?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> From feudalism to the space age within 4 decades.
> But, what changed for the working class?


Crunch point . Normally explained by theories of state capitalism, degenerated workers states , deformed workers states . Some requiring a second revolution some requiring a polical revolution . To be honest it’s all second star on the left stuff for most of us .


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 11, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> the vanguard succeeded in a counter-revolution.


how so?


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Comrades, I think Belboid's ultra-left errors here are rooted in an inability to correctly apply what Trotsky wrote about the United Front to today's situation.
> Nah, just kidding, what I actually think the distinction you're drawing is a bit flaky here. Presumably you wouldn't deny that being involved in the ANL or whatever could be useful activity for marxists, or marxist praxis or whatever? And you were responding to a comment about ACORN, which at least seeks to be/claims to be a union, so I dunno if it's helpful to put unions and single issue campaigns in the same category anyway? I don't think the vast majority of anarchists would claim ACORN or whatever to be an anarchist organisation, but rather, to the extent that they support something like ACORN, that they see it as a way of building class power?


of course being in single issue campaigns can be useful, something doesn’t have to be Marxist to be useful.  We should always be learning from the class, as a way to improve our praxis.  Of course lots (most) of the Marxist groups have failed to do that,  they’re stuck a perspective from years ago and don’t think they’ve anything left to learn.  That’s hardly something unique to Marxist organisations tho.


----------



## cloudyday (Nov 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> how so?


continuity/reappropriation/defence of the state apparatus during times of rebellion facilitates the return to history, the 'something other' once again becomes negated.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> The Leninist vanguard party is based on the idea that the working class, by itself, can only ever achieve trade union consciousness at best. So the role of the vanguard party is to shepherd the proles towards their party, and once in the party and under the firm guidance and discipline of the vanguard party's fully class conscious and infallible leadership, then the workers will be led to the promised land.
> 
> It's role is not to spread class consciousness but loyalty to a party that has substituted itself for the class.


Naah, that’s a total misreading of Lenin (albeit one that various Leninist groups also follow).  The Lars T Lih book from ten years ago makes the point well, that WitbD? wasn’t written to be holy writ for all time, it was a specific response to specific issues at a specific time.   Lenin wrote many times how the workers movement was more advanced than the socialist movement, but WitbD? was a response to the Economists, who thought struggles should be limited to narrow economic demands, as well as those who wanted to ally with semi-bourgeois groups for greater democracy, but nothing more than that. What’s more it was written at a time of extreme tsarist repression when secretive organising was essential.  

In the, almost legendary, paragraph on how the class can only achieve trade union consciousness on its own he was simply repeating the words of kautsky and the spd - which is to say it wasn’t a specifically  ‘Leninist’ view, it was the mainstream one. And it was one that had been true of the development of socialist ideas inRussia, they came from intellectuals at first.  But that doesn’t mean they should be taken as true for ever.  Nowhere else, in his past or future, did Lenin make such a formulation again.  

There are many examples of Lenin contradicting the common interpretation ofWitbD?  Here’s one:

 “At the Third Congress of the party I suggested that there be about eight workers to every two intellectuals in the party committees. How obsolete that suggestion seems today! Now we must wish for the party organizations to have one social-democratic intellectual to several hundred social-democratic workers.”

As I said above, WitbD? is in large part a response to the spontaneists and Economists who wanted to restrict the struggle to narrow economic issues, it tried to stress how revolutionaries also have to take on issues used to split the W-c: anti-jewish pogroms, the crushing of language (and national) rights, the oppression of women.  A view that is still vital today, as their are plenty of Economists  still about.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

Yet, they, the Marxists followed - the actual reality was - the crude understanding that lih set out to fix, the one that you have followed through organisational set up in party after party. Whilst saying different of course. And, no, the idea that Lenin expressed a classical fake-Leninism once in one line and one line only is a shameful thing for anyone who has read Lenin to come out with. It was repeteated polemically and practically for year after year until his death.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Yet, they, the Marxists followed - the actual reality was - the crude understanding that lih set out to fix, the one that you have followed through organisational set up in party after party. Whilst saying different of course. And, no, the idea that Lenin expressed a classical fake-Leninism once in one line and one line only is a shameful thing for anyone who has read Lenin to come out with. It was repeteated polemically and practically for year after year until his death.


Yes, in practise many organisations have indeed done just that, I don’t think anyone would deny that (about organisations other than their own, of course).  But where else did big L actually _say_ such a thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2021)

You did, not ee


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

cloudyday said:


> continuity/reappropriation/defence of the state apparatus during times of rebellion facilitates the return to history, the 'something other' once again becomes negated.


Are you saying that the vanguard party, having established the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' essentially becomes the thing it replaced? Why would that necessarily follow given that, once in control, it emancipates the means of production and abolishes capitalist class relations?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yes, in practise many organisations have indeed done just that, I don’t think anyone would deny that (about organisations other than their own, of course).  But where else did big L actually _say_ such a thing?


Where did Hitler explicitly call for the Final Solution, in all its detail? Nowhere that anyone has found yet. Were he and the Nazi party responsible for it all? Yes, of course.

Sorry to bring Adolf into all this, but you get my drift. Was Mao responsible for the mass murder of the Great Leap Forward? Yes, of course. Will you find any documents explicitly calling for the death of more than 50 million Chinese? No, you won't.

So. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. Is it interesting to read what they said and wrote? Yes and maybe. Is it more important to understand the actual events on the ground whilst they were in power or had influence? Yes emphatically. Because sometimes people lie, pretend or are delusional in multiple ways. Or are not told the truth by their evil courtiers and so cannot be blamed if they fail to see the misery all around them. The only way to see whether they meant what they said is to check with the reality.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 12, 2021)

I am an ex Trot, cue arguments that Trotskyism is not a progression from Marxism, but I have not ceased to be.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Are you saying that the vanguard party, having established the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' essentially becomes the thing it replaced? Why would that necessarily follow given that, once in control, it emancipates the means of production and abolishes capitalist class relations?


Seriously? When, in the whole blood-drenched history, has the coming to power of any M-L vanguard party ever emancipated the means of production and abolished capitalist class relations? It's never happened, and wage slavery never stopped. History shows that every vanguard party essentially became the thing it replaced - often an even worse version.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Im not denying that the revolution didn’t go to what we would have liked it to have been . However I’m not sure that a revolution was possible in Russia without the Bolsheviks if was then surely what happened after 1917 would have been opposed on a mass scale ?


The Bolsheviks were opposed on a mass scale. They just happened to have won. They were opposed by the Government which they overthrew, naturally, and also by supporters of the Tsarist regime, landowners, the Church etc. But also by many on the left. Some anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported them at first, but later were purged or changed their minds. There were widespread revolts by Left SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists, 'Green' movements , Kronstadt rebels etc. The Bolsheviks inherited much of the apparatus of the state, including much of the army, so that gave them a great advantage. They were also very lucky. Their opponents were divided and weak.

Another thing which gets overlooked. Half the population were not ethnically Russian and became subjects of the Russian empire by conquest and subjugation. Most of them resented their Russian overlords, Tsarist or Bolshevik, in the same way that colonised peoples do the world over. Again, they were in no way any kind of coherent movement, nor could they be. That didn't stop widespread ethnic or religious anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian activity for decades.


----------



## BristolEcho (Nov 12, 2021)

Interesting reading. I'm currently going through Mike Duncan's Revolutions series on the Russian Empire and it's been great for covering a lot of information I would never have learned.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Where did Hitler explicitly call for the Final Solution, in all its detail? Nowhere that anyone has found yet. Were he and the Nazi party responsible for it all? Yes, of course.
> 
> Sorry to bring Adolf into all this, but you get my drift. Was Mao responsible for the mass murder of the Great Leap Forward? Yes, of course. Will you find any documents explicitly calling for the death of more than 50 million Chinese? No, you won't.
> 
> So. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. Is it interesting to read what they said and wrote? Yes and maybe. Is it more important to understand the actual events on the ground whilst they were in power or had influence? Yes emphatically. Because sometimes people lie, pretend or are delusional in multiple ways. Or are not told the truth by their evil courtiers and so cannot be blamed if they fail to see the misery all around them. The only way to see whether they meant what they said is to check with the reality.


The Wannsee Conference.  It’s pretty well documented.

You can indeed argue that Lenin didn’t put his words into practise, but I was replying to specific claims that he also frequently repeated said formulation.  But he didn’t.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Seriously? When, in the whole blood-drenched history, has the coming to power of any M-L vanguard party ever emancipated the means of production and abolished capitalist class relations? It's never happened, and wage slavery never stopped. History shows that every vanguard party essentially became the thing it replaced - often an even worse version.


Are there not reasons why that has failed?

What is a better approach?

I'm not saying this is the best approach but I don't see much being achieved by other methods. Anarchism has yeilded fuck all for example


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Seriously? When, in the whole blood-drenched history, has the coming to power of any M-L vanguard party ever emancipated the means of production and abolished capitalist class relations? It's never happened, and wage slavery never stopped. History shows that every vanguard party essentially became the thing it replaced - often an even worse version.


As has been mentioned several times by people, all of these formulations have particular meanings (to lefty activists anyway). And Marxist-Leninists are all Stalinists, so you shouldn't be surprised to find few defenders here of the Stalinists, or their anti-working class regimes.   I dunno how many people on the boards would claim that thee was any successful revolution bar the Russian one (for a time). But the bolsheviks did lead the overthrow of both the Tsarist regime and the bourgeoise one that followed it, a feat no one else has achieved even for a time. Various places have seen situations of dual power or civil wars 

Of course, that victory didn't last and I thoroughly agree that some of the issues that led to its defeat were put in place while Lenin was still alive.  That's why we cant just blithely try to repeat everything they did (as if that were even possible), we have to learn from it so next time we can do it better.

But...no other organisation has ever overthrown capital and bourgeoise government, so we have to look at why all of them (anarchism, trotskyism included) also failed.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Are there not reasons why that has failed?
> 
> What is a better approach?
> 
> I'm not saying this is the best approach but I don't see much being achieved by other methods. Anarchism has yeilded fuck all for example


Yes, the main reason it failed is because it's something to do with the nature of bolshevism/marxist lenininsm/state socialism (state capitalism).

As for the other aproaches (i.e. anarchism that "yielded fuck all"), when such alternatives were in with a chancethey tended to get crushed by bolsheviks. For examples, see here Voline, The Unknown Revolution, here The Cuban Revolution, here The dossier of subject no.1218 : a Bulgarian anarchist’s story by Alexander Nakov [Review], here Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution and here Homage to Catalonia and many more.

Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Yes, the main reason it failed is because it's something to do with the nature of bolshevism/marxist lenininsm/state socialism (state capitalism).
> 
> As for the other aproaches (i.e. anarchism that "yielded fuck all"), when such alternatives were in with a chancethey tended to get crushed by bolsheviks. For examples, see here Voline, The Unknown Revolution, here The Cuban Revolution, here The dossier of subject no.1218 : a Bulgarian anarchist’s story by Alexander Nakov [Review], here Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution and here Homage to Catalonia and many more.
> 
> Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.


Why were the anarchist methods insufficient to overcome the stalinists? Why will this be any different in the future? If you cant beat the stalinists, how are you gonna beat the bourgeoisie?  Yes, the Stalinists were and are viciously oppressive, but so were the Tsarists. 

Sorry, but 'the big boys didn't let us' isn't really much of an answer.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

I agree with you to an extent belboid, many of the anarchists at the time had their own flaws and weaknesses, (though ruthless mass murder and counter-revolution wasn't one of them). In Ukraine, the Makhnovists were trapped in the middle by hostile whites on one side and hostile bolsheviks on the other (it was only ever going to end in the way it did). In Spain, the CNT-FAI were too accomodating and trusting towards the PCE/PSUC and tried to maintain an anti-fascist unity in the face of the fascist threat. The bolsheviks (with the exception of the POUM) prioritised the crushing of their rivals. Probably the anarchists should have crushed the CP straigtht off? Lesson learned, eh. The Struggle Against Fascism Begins With the Struggle Against Bolshevism


----------



## Peter Painter (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Probably the anarchists should have crushed the CP straigtht off? Lesson learned, eh. The Struggle Against Fascism Begins With the Struggle Against Bolshevism



But even if that had been possible, what then in terms of receiving military support? Other than the USSR, there was very little coming from elsewhere. And the anti-fascist forces were seriously disadvantaged when it came to the arms they had access to. Much of it was old and faulty. In a sense their hands were a bit tied


Sure, I totally accept that had the CP in Spain been destroyed then the social revolution would have only been defeated by fascism (rather than by a combination of fascism and Stalinism). But could it have succeeded when faced with the fascist advance aided by Hitler and Mussolini, and with no real military support or provision of effective arms itself?


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

And that is something Spanish anarchists could probably discuss till the cows come home... and still not have a definite answer.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> The Bolsheviks were opposed on a mass scale. They just happened to have won. They were opposed by the Government which they overthrew, naturally, and also by supporters of the Tsarist regime, landowners, the Church etc. But also by many on the left. Some anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported them at first, but later were purged or changed their minds. There were widespread revolts by Left SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists, 'Green' movements , Kronstadt rebels etc. The Bolsheviks inherited much of the apparatus of the state, including much of the army, so that gave them a great advantage. They were also very lucky. Their opponents were divided and weak.
> 
> Another thing which gets overlooked. Half the population were not ethnically Russian and became subjects of the Russian empire by conquest and subjugation. Most of them resented their Russian overlords, Tsarist or Bolshevik, in the same way that colonised peoples do the world over. Again, they were in no way any kind of coherent movement, nor could they be. That didn't stop widespread ethnic or religious anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian activity for decades.


So on one hand they  ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets . 

I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Why were the anarchist methods insufficient to overcome the stalinists? Why will this be any different in the future? If you cant beat the stalinists, how are you gonna beat the bourgeoisie?  Yes, the Stalinists were and are viciously oppressive, but so were the Tsarists.
> 
> Sorry, but 'the big boys didn't let us' isn't really much of an answer.





Kevbad the Bad said:


> The Bolsheviks were opposed on a mass scale. They just happened to have won. They were opposed by the Government which they overthrew, naturally, and also by supporters of the Tsarist regime, landowners, the Church etc. But also by many on the left. Some anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported them at first, but later were purged or changed their minds. There were widespread revolts by Left SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists, 'Green' movements , Kronstadt rebels etc. The Bolsheviks inherited much of the apparatus of the state, including much of the army, so that gave them a great advantage. They were also very lucky. Their opponents were divided and weak.
> 
> Another thing which gets overlooked. Half the population were not ethnically Russian and became subjects of the Russian empire by conquest and subjugation. Most of them resented their Russian overlords, Tsarist or Bolshevik, in the same way that colonised peoples do the world over. Again, they were in no way any kind of coherent movement, nor could they be. That didn't stop widespread ethnic or religious anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian activity for decades.


and then the stalinists killed all the auld bolsheviks. and quite a few stalinists too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> So on one hand they  ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets .
> 
> I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .


shurely third revolution, feb being 1 and nov being 2


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> So on one hand they  ‘just happened to have won’ or on the other hand they won because their opponents were divided ( worth exploring in itself as to why you think that was) and they ‘inherited’ the state army apparatus ( ie they had politically won over large sections of the army and navy) and had support in the soviets .
> 
> I’m not a great fan of how the revolution turned out but I think we need an honest appraisal as to why the Bolsheviks led the revolution and not the greens, anarchists , Mensheviks etc and why these forces were unable to pursue a second revolution .


The most fundamental reason was that the Bolsheviks were against the war. So were the vast majority of the population, so that gave them their immediate support. Once they had that they proceeded to destroy their opponents and their erstwhile allies. The opposition was fragmented for a whole heap of reasons, not least being ethnic and geographical diversity. The SR's were initially divided by attitudes to the war, the anarchists were numerically weak outside the Ukraine and at first few appreciated just how ruthless the Bolsheviks could be. And they were lucky. Luck plays a much bigger part in history than we often think.


----------



## Peter Painter (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> And that is something Spanish anarchists could probably discuss till the cows come home... and still not have a definite answer.


 Ha, yes, well, counter-factual speculation and all that!

Although I'm sure I once heard Paul Preston say that had the Spanish Republic survived the entire Second World War could have been averted.

I'm unsure if he'd still think that or not if you replaced, "Spanish Republic survived" with "social revolution been successful"...?


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

Oooh... and there lies a grand idea for a Philip K Dick style alternative history


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I can only speak for the SPEW because that's the only one I'm involved in


I knew you were Trot. Thankyou for finally admitting it.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Anarchism has yeilded fuck all for example


What were you saying about people posting in bad faith?

It is not true that the anarchists achieved 'fuck all'. You only have to look at the collectives during, say, the Spanish revolution, to know that they had some success. And that's just one example.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> The Leninist vanguard party is based on the idea that the working class, by itself, can only ever achieve trade union consciousness at best. So the role of the vanguard party is to shepherd the proles towards their party, and once in the party and under the firm guidance and discipline of the vanguard party's fully class conscious and infallible leadership, then the workers will be led to the promised land.
> 
> It's role is not to spread class consciousness but loyalty to a party that has substituted itself for the class.


A good post Serge. Shame it was completely ignored and not replied to by glitch hiker. Not the first time that's happened either.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Yes, the main reason it failed is because it's something to do with the nature of bolshevism/marxist lenininsm/state socialism (state capitalism).
> 
> As for the other aproaches (i.e. anarchism that "yielded fuck all"), when such alternatives were in with a chancethey tended to get crushed by bolsheviks. For examples, see here Voline, The Unknown Revolution, here The Cuban Revolution, here The dossier of subject no.1218 : a Bulgarian anarchist’s story by Alexander Nakov [Review], here Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution and here Homage to Catalonia and many more.
> 
> Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.


No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour. 

I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> What were you saying about people posting in bad faith?
> 
> It is not true that the anarchists achieved 'fuck all'. You only have to look at the collectives during, say, the Spanish revolution, to know that they had some success. And that's just one example.


I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?

Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?


no


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour.
> 
> I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either


no anarchists don't always being up kronstadt as an example of oppression


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> No marxist I know advocates for that kind of behaviour.
> 
> I can't speak to those other events but anarchists always bring up Kronstadt as an example of oppression, but I'm not convinced by that either


Do you know any Marxist Leninists whose vanguard party has achieved political power? If not, then you're answer is no surprise. Ask a "Marxist" who has been in such a position and you'll be amazed what they'll justify.

By the way, your dismissal of Kronstadt tells me all I need to know.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.


Success at creating a brutal totalitarian police state, yes.

Here is some material to back up what I was saying about the Spanish anarchists:









						With the Peasants of Aragon
					

Augustin Souchy With the Peasants of Aragon Libertarian Communism in the Liberated Areas 1982 With the Peasants of Aragon: Libertarian Communism in the...




					theanarchistlibrary.org
				








__





						Collectives in the Spanish revolution - Gaston Leval
					

Detailed account of worker-controlled agriculture, industry and public services in revolutionary Spain during the civil war.




					libcom.org
				




I also posted the documentary Living Utopia in the anarchist and breadtube videos thread the other day, it's worth checking out.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I have a lot of time for anarchism


I'm not convinced you do. You seem to be saying that we are liars, aswell as people who have achieved "fuck all".

You have just come across as sectarian and dogmatic so far.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Success at creating a brutal totalitarian police state, yes.
> 
> Here is some material to back up what I was saying about the Spanish anarchists:
> 
> ...


they lost. They allied with the bourgeoisie (as did the rest, of course) and ended up supporting a bourgeoise led coup in Madrid.  Some nice ideas and a very short-term success.  If that's the best you can come up with, it is grossly insufficient.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I'm not convinced you do. You seem to be saying that we are liars, aswell as people who have achieved "fuck all".
> 
> You have just come across as sectarian and dogmatic so far.


Can I take my hand out of the box now?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I have a lot of time for anarchism, but if we're criticising MLism for not delivering the goods then surely all other ideas have to equally scrutinised no?
> 
> Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.


Some movements fail because they get squashed. Marxist Leninists so often failed because they ended up becoming the exact opposite (more or less) of what they purported to believe in.

As for Lenin, he only ever became special in retrospect because when he died his followers, and Trotsky's as well, could blame it all on Stalin.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Can I take my hand out of the box now?


I have no idea what that means


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> they lost. They allied with the bourgeoisie (as did the rest, of course) and ended up supporting a bourgeoise led coup in Madrid.  Some nice ideas and a very short-term success.  If that's the best you can come up with, it is grossly insufficient.


I am aware that they lost, which is stating the obvious. I think some of them did effectively side with the bourgeoisie. I think the spanish anarchists were probably divided into factions of moderates (who merged with the state side and effectively abandoned the revolution) and militants (who were truly anti-state and wanted to take the revolution further). But that doesn't mean it was a total failure, that there was no achievements in anarchist liberated areas. And it doesn't mean that we can't learn from past mistakes.

But atleast we were not brutal, cynical totalitarians like the Leninists (wether trots or stalinists).


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> no anarchists don't always being up kronstadt as an example of oppression


Not every day, no.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I am aware that they lost, which is stating the obvious. I think some of them did effectively side with the bourgeoisie. I think the spanish anarchists were probably divided into factions of moderates and militants. But that doesn't mean it was a total failure, that there was no achievements in anarchist liberated areas. And it doesn't mean that we can't learn from past mistakes.
> 
> But atleast we were not brutal, cynical totalitarians like the Leninists.


No, instead you are failures. 

The anarchists dumped their principles in Spain, they helped run a state despite opposing all states,  the left wing communists in Germany had the majority of the party members for a short while after their split, but rapidly collapsed almost straight afterwards. What's the point of a political philosophy that you can never implement? 

I dont see any learning here, just the same old_ repeat what we always did_, same as far too many trots and tankies try to do.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> No, instead you are failures.
> 
> The anarchists dumped their principles in Spain, they helped run a state despite opposing all states,  the left wing communists in Germany had the majority of the party members for a short while after their split, but rapidly collapsed almost straight afterwards. What's the point of a political philosophy that you can never implement?
> 
> I dont see any learning here, just the same old_ repeat what we always did_, same as far too many trots and tankies try to do.


'The anarchists' joining the state is an inaccurate generalisation. As I posted, and that you completely ignored, *some* anarchists sided with the state - and* others* stayed true to revolutionary anarchist principles.

And, as I also said, and that you totally refused to acknowledge, the anarchists did manage to successfully implement an egalitarian collectivism (which is detailed in those links I posted).

Fucking hell it's annoying having to repeat myself like that. I think I know exactly how Danny La Rouge feels now. You trots just come across as blind dogmatists and sectarians who just listen to yourselves and no one else. There's no point in having an 'exchange' with you. It's not an exchange, it's a frustrating waste of fucking time.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Anyway....Marxism isn't just bloody Stalinism, so no good reason to get stuck on that.  I have little doubt the man himself would have rejected their claims to be followers of his ideas.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Anyway....Marxism isn't just bloody Stalinism, so no good reason to get stuck on that.  I have little doubt the man himself would have rejected their claims to be followers of his ideas.


Seriously you might aswell just have a 'conversation' with yourself. It's effectively what you are doing anyway.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> 'The anarchists' joining the state is an inaccurate generalisation. As I posted, and that you completely ignored, *some* anarchists sided with the state - and* others* stayed true to revolutionary anarchist principles.
> 
> And, as I also said, and that you totally refused to acknowledge, the anarchists did manage to successfully implement an egalitarian collectivism (which is detailed in those links I posted).
> 
> Fucking hell it's annoying having to repeat myself like that. I think I know exactly how Danny La Rouge feels now. You trots just come across as blind dogmatists and sectarians who just listen to yourselves and no one else. There's no point in having an 'exchange' with you. It's not an exchange, it's a frustrating waste of fucking time.


Good thing no anarchist ever repeats the same old points time and time again!  

The six to nine months of the Aragon collective were matched by various other parties in other regions, so they dont really show anarchism as being a superior way of making revolution, do they? 

Which anarchists are you saying remained 'true to anarchist principles'? Why were they able to do so when the others didn't? What did they achieve?

Because results are what matter.  There's little point staying 100% true to your principles if they just get you shot and leave the class under fascism.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Seriously you might aswell just have a 'conversation' with yourself. It's effectively what you are doing anyway.


well, I'm certainly not getting any coherent responses from you


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

(fact is, we've all done these discussions dozens of times and can pretty much predict the next move, just like in chess. So, yes, they can be quite boring when we all just respond to the Lenin Gambit with the Spanish Gambit (Aragon variation).  Sorry if you think you are saying something bold and new, you're not.  And, no, I know I'm not either.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> Good thing no anarchist ever repeats the same old points time and time again!
> 
> The six to nine months of the Aragon collective were matched by various other parties in other regions, so they dont really show anarchism as being a superior way of making revolution, do they?
> 
> ...



Indeed. Or leave the class under autocratic state capitalism.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 12, 2021)

think im marxist without being in a marxist organisation.  unless the library is run by some sect or other.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 12, 2021)

Which it may be , last time i went saw a copy of marx for beginners.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Do you know any Marxist Leninists whose vanguard party has achieved political power? If not, then you're answer is no surprise. Ask a "Marxist" who has been in such a position and you'll be amazed what they'll justify.
> 
> By the way, your dismissal of Kronstadt tells me all I need to know.


Something you're too cowardly to come out and say it seems.

I don't believe Kronstadt was the result of evil old Trotsky smashing those Lenin once described as the 'pride of the revolution'. There was a civil war and counter revolutionary activity going on.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Some movements fail because they get squashed. Marxist Leninists so often failed because they ended up becoming the exact opposite (more or less) of what they purported to believe in.
> 
> As for Lenin, he only ever became special in retrospect because when he died his followers, and Trotsky's as well, could blame it all on Stalin.


Seems like Stalin deserved the blame for fucking things up, to be blunt.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I am aware that they lost, which is stating the obvious. I think some of them did effectively side with the bourgeoisie. I think the spanish anarchists were probably divided into factions of moderates (who merged with the state side and effectively abandoned the revolution) and militants (who were truly anti-state and wanted to take the revolution further). But that doesn't mean it was a total failure, that there was no achievements in anarchist liberated areas. And it doesn't mean that we can't learn from past mistakes.
> 
> But atleast we were not brutal, cynical totalitarians like the Leninists (wether trots or stalinists).


I guess I must be talking to the wrong Leninists....or maybe the right ones.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> of course being in single issue campaigns can be useful, something doesn’t have to be Marxist to be useful.  We should always be learning from the class, as a way to improve our praxis.  Of course lots (most) of the Marxist groups have failed to do that,  they’re stuck a perspective from years ago and don’t think they’ve anything left to learn.  That’s hardly something unique to Marxist organisations tho.


I appreciate the thread has moved on a bit, but it seems to me like we've managed to reach agreement on
1) participation in single issue campaigns can be useful activity, whether from an anarchist or marxist perspective, without those campaigns needing to be anarchist or marxist in themselves
2a) it's not accurate to describe groups that are not marxist as being marxist
which would seem to leave the point of disagreement as being 
2b) is it accurate to describe groups that are not anarchist as being anarchist?


belboid said:


> Why were the anarchist methods insufficient to overcome the stalinists? Why will this be any different in the future? If you cant beat the stalinists, how are you gonna beat the bourgeoisie?  Yes, the Stalinists were and are viciously oppressive, but so were the Tsarists.
> 
> Sorry, but 'the big boys didn't let us' isn't really much of an answer.


There's some merit to this line of questioning, but at the same time, I have some bad news for you about the historical successes of Trotskyism.


glitch hiker said:


> Coudln't you say that Lenin had some sucess as well? Before he died and Stalin took over.


If lenin's so smart how come he's dead?


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If lenin's so smart how come he's dead?


I am undone 

I'm just someone who wants capitalism and patriarchy to fuck the fuck off. I find reading all these old books by Lenin and marx incredibly difficult. So unless you can send David Harvey round to tell me a bedtime story about commodities and alienation I think I'm done. My eyes are so shit I can barely read a book as it is, never mind three fucking volumes of capital.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 12, 2021)

I've never been a Marxist but once went to a handful of meetings of an SWP front organisation, although one of those meetings was only me and the local branch leader who I am 80% certain was an undercover cop.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I appreciate the thread has moved on a bit, but it seems to me like we've managed to reach agreement on
> 1) participation in single issue campaigns can be useful activity, whether from an anarchist or marxist perspective, without those campaigns needing to be anarchist or marxist in themselves
> 2a) it's not accurate to describe groups that are not marxist as being marxist
> which would seem to leave the point of disagreement as being
> ...


1) Yes, 2a) yes and 2b) only on a very specific and narrow definition of 'anarchism

Absolutely, as I recognise in a later post.

For that one, I definitely blame Stalin.'


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Something you're too cowardly to come out and say it seems.
> 
> I don't believe Kronstadt was the result of evil old Trotsky smashing those Lenin once described as the 'pride of the revolution'. There was a civil war and counter revolutionary activity going on.


What? That you're a tankie-lite member of a trot group with a chip on your shoulder about the anti-authoritarian socialists or anyone who dares to question the gospel according to VI Ulyanov and his followers? Or is it just that you're a knob?

Incidentally, a knob on ignore now


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I've never been a Marxist but once went to a handful of meetings of an SWP front organisation, although one of those meetings was only me and the local branch leader who I am 80% certain was an undercover cop.


Obviously not good at his job


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Oooh... and there lies a grand idea for a Philip K Dick style alternative history


Spain probably wouldn’t have passed the test to join the EU


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> What? That you're a tankie-lite member of a trot group with a chip on your shoulder about the anti-authoritarian socialists or anyone who dares to question the gospel according to VI Ulyanov and his followers? Or is it just that you're a knob?
> 
> Incidentally, a knob on ignore now


Nothing I've said is remotely tankie. You don't even know what the word means, coward.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Seems like Stalin deserved the blame for fucking things up, to be blunt.


Oh no he didn't.


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Oh no he didn't.


he's behind you!


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Spain probably wouldn’t have passed the test to join the EU


Good plotline. The Iberian and North African Libertarian Socialist Commonwealth is in deep turmoil between those who believe it's time to cooperate with the newly established United States of Europe and thus break out of the statist, capitalist encirclement, and those in the revolutionary old guard, still true to the founding principles... etc...


----------



## glitch hiker (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Good plotline. The Iberian and North African Libertarian Socialist Commonwealth is in deep turmoil between those who believe it's time to cooperate with the newly established United States of Europe and thus break out of the statist, capitalist encirclement, and those in the revolutionary old guard, still true to the founding principles... etc...


What a fucking simpleton you are


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Nothing I've said is remotely tankie. You don't even know what the word means, coward.


Sorry  had to take a last peek before I switch you off proper. Love the "I'm no tankie!!!!11!!" objection. At least you accept you're a knob though. But "coward"? What were thinking of challenging me to a duel?

Sayonara and tanks for the memories


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Good plotline. The Iberian and North African Libertarian Socialist Commonwealth is in deep turmoil between those who believe it's time to cooperate with the newly established United States of Europe and thus break out of the statist, capitalist encirclement, and those in the revolutionary old guard, still true to the founding principles... etc...


Alan Partridge speaks in dictaphone 😂


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Sorry  had to take a last peek before I switch you off proper. Love the "I'm no tankie!!!!11!!" objection. At least you accept you're a knob though. But "coward"? What were thinking of challenging me to a duel?
> 
> Sayonara and tanks for the memories


Kudos for being the first mentioning North Africa - definitely more important (and plausible) than Russian gold.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I guess I must be talking to the wrong Leninists....or maybe the right ones.


You and belboid are just a waste of time. You are effectively just trolls really. Rancid cockring trolls with shite totalitarian politics. And you are both going on ignore.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 12, 2021)

Fucking hell. 

Get shit done.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> Get shit done.


Love it when events that happened before anyone was born leads to posters blocking each other


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

It's very clear to me at the moment why people say that certain leninist parties are cults.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

Often get the feeling that some posts on here epitomise exactly why the left and anarchists need each other more to engage with than they need to engage with the working class they are supposedly fighting for. Very, very few people I've worked with or who have lived in areas I have lived in give a toss about the Bolsheviks, the Spanish civil war etc  and would be bored senseless by such discussions.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 12, 2021)

I’m a massive nerd and I’m bored of them tbh.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Very, very few people I've worked with or who have lived in areas I have lived in give a toss about the Bolsheviks, the Spanish civil war etc and would be bored senseless by such discussions.



To be fair, there could be an interesting exchange about the Bolsheviks and the Spanish civil war, whether or not your neighbours or workmates give a toss about it. And I get the impression some people on here know quite a lot. But it all gets lost in personal antagonism, which is a pity.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> To be fair, there could be an interesting exchange about the Bolsheviks and the Spanish civil war, whether or not your neighbours or workmates give a toss about it. And I get the impression some people on here know quite a lot. But it all gets lost in personal antagonism, which is a pity.


Yes I’ve got an interest in both , like I’ve got an interest in growing vegetables or post punk music but I suppose my point is it’s , and they are ,  a niche interest.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 12, 2021)

Btw, glitch hiker very much reminds me of a guy who once obsessively and unpleasantly trolled Libcom (until he was banned). Also used to obsessively troll and shitpost in the comments section of Red and Black TV's YouTube channel - with exactly the same criticisms of Martin as gitch hiker's in the anarchist and breadtube thread. Said he had  good comrades in SPEW and always used to big up Labour and slag off anarchists. Called himself G. Whistler or Ghost Whistler. Very similar political dogmatism (and ideology) and behaviour - OTT reactions to disagreements, blind authoritarian apologetics while slagging off anti-authoritarians, and OTT and unnecessary personal attacks. Wouldn't surprise me if glitch hiker had been booted off here before either.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 12, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Yes I’ve got an interest in both , like I’ve got an interest in growing vegetables or post punk music but I suppose my point is it’s , and they are , a niche interest.



Yes, and this is a niche interest sort of a place. Not sure how many of your neighbours are here. My point is, a lot of information goes missing because of pointless arguments.


----------



## Ĝasper (Nov 12, 2021)

I've not read much Marx, have preferred Engels stuff. I am happy to identify as a communist or socialist, but not marxist. I will concede that I am a _marxisant_ to use a French word. Basically fellow traveller, or someone sympathetic.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

The39thStep said:


>



The Kangaroo Chronicles. Looks fucking great





__





						The Kangaroo Chronicles - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 13, 2021)

Not really sure what I was hoping for when I started this thread, suppose I was just curious as to whether Marxists (at least as represented on u75) are actually any more or less likely to be involved in formal political groups than anarchists? And what I've learned is that if you make your poll options confusing and vague and give a cop-out option, you will probably not have any useful data to use.


----------



## A380 (Nov 13, 2021)

People never look at Marx as what he actually was, an economist who saw that societies change based on ‘technology’ in its broadest term increasing the amount of surplus value. You can’t wish full socialism,much less advanced communism into place any more than you could have a feudal society rather than a slave based one with the tech the Romans had (scratch ploughs no ready access to steel in large quantities etc) . Likewise the merchants of the reformation couldn’t have built their primitive capitalism in place of feudalism without their tech changes ( crop rotation, stored energy access etc etc). To imagine anything else is like those books where the vikings had steam trains.

Views about being the ‘vanguard of the revolution’ come from skipping all those (even more) boring  bits in Capital about making fucking shirts…

Communism will come - if it does- when we have post scarcity tech - probably free’ energy and direct production. As with the other changes it will probably be ugly, violent and driven by not very nice people.It won’t be delivered by nice folks selling leaflets to each other. 

Besides, whilst his historical analysis is pretty spot on , he could be wrong about the next stages of society.  We also might face unseen bottle necks like climate disaster….


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> Seems like Stalin deserved the blame for fucking things up, to be blunt.


You don't seem to really want to open your mind and learn at all. You just come across as blindly and stubbornly committed to authoritarianism. But the fact is that things were very fucked up before Stalin came along. It started with your precious vanguard party brutally  repressing the other socialists and communists (including the anarchists) and co-opting and effectively destroying the worker's councils/soviets. Stalin would have got nowhere without Lenin and Trotsky laying the ground work of a highly repressive, totalitarian police state that murdered those who did not agree with them being in charge.

Stalin learnt alot from those two and inherited their repressive state apparatus, he merely took things to another level, which may well would have happened anyway had Lenin stayed alive, or Trotsky somehow gained power, which he was not capable of doing.

At the end of the day Stalinism and Trotskyism originate from the bossom of Leninism. That is simply a fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> You don't seem to really want to open your mind and learn at all. You just come across as blindly and stubbornly committed to authoritarianism. But the fact is that things were very fucked up before Stalin came along. It started with your precious vanguard party brutally  repressing the other socialists and communists (including the anarchists) and co-opting and effectively destroying the worker's councils/soviets. Stalin would have got nowhere without Lenin and Trotsky laying the ground work of a highly repressive, totalitarian police state that murdered those who did not agree with them being in charge.
> 
> Stalin learnt alot from those two and inherited their repressive state apparatus, he merely took things to another level, which may well would have happened anyway had Lenin stayed alive, or Trotsky somehow gained power, which he was not capable of doing.
> 
> At the end of the day Stalinism and Trotskyism originate from the bossom of Leninism. That is simply a fact.


Trotskyism is Stalinism out of power, and Leninism is just Stalinism as a child


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

A380 said:


> People never look at Marx as what he actually was, an economist who saw that societies change based on ‘technology’ in its broadest term increasing the amount of surplus value. You can’t wish full socialism,much less advanced communism into place any more than you could have a feudal society rather than a slave based one with the tech the Romans had (scratch ploughs no ready access to steel in large quantities etc) . Likewise the merchants of the reformation couldn’t have built their primitive capitalism in place of feudalism without their tech changes ( crop rotation, stored energy access etc etc). To imagine anything else is like those books where the vikings had steam trains.
> 
> Views about being the ‘vanguard of the revolution’ come from skipping all those (even more) boring  bits in Capital about making fucking shirts…
> 
> ...


Nice folk don't sell leaflets


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Often get the feeling that some posts on here epitomise exactly why the left and anarchists need each other more to engage with than they need to engage with the working class they are supposedly fighting for. Very, very few people I've worked with or who have lived in areas I have lived in give a toss about the Bolsheviks, the Spanish civil war etc  and would be bored senseless by such discussions.


Aye, I've worked with anarchists in many a campaign and they've been excellent comrades, particularly in anti-fascist and housing campaigns (campaigns which most of the 'trad' commies/trots had given up on in favour of something much blander). Some of them could be the most bloody stupid occasionally, but they weren't the most irritating - an honour which goes to either the SWP or CP because of their insistence on dominating.

I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ).  For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff.  When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'

Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Trotskyism is Stalinism out of power, and Leninism is just Stalinism as a child


It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?” – Victor Serge, *From Lenin to Stalin*, 1937.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Aye, I've worked with anarchists in many a campaign and they've been excellent comrades, particularly in anti-fascist and housing campaigns (campaigns which most of the 'trad' commies/trots had given up on in favour of something much blander). Some of them could be the most bloody stupid occasionally, but they weren't the most irritating - an honour which goes to either the SWP or CP because of their insistence on dominating.
> 
> I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ).  For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff.  When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'
> 
> Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.


If we extrapolate from one example to a global scale we look like stupid wankers. And here you are extrapolating from er one example to a global scale


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> If we extrapolate from one example to a global scale we look like stupid wankers. And here you are extrapolating from er one example to a global scale


Not really, I am talking about how focusing solely on small, local, initiatives, while worthwhile, means that the participants will miss the occasions when far bigger and broader action is necessary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Not really, I am talking about how focusing solely on small, local, initiatives, while worthwhile, means that the participants will miss the occasions when far bigger and broader action is necessary.


No it doesn't. And no you aren't. You went to one meeting and you're saying if everything was done like this it's all fucked - extrapolating from your single example. But not everything is or will be done like that.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> No it doesn't. And no you aren't. You went to one meeting and you're saying if everything was done like this it's all fucked - extrapolating from your single example. But not everything is or will be done like that.


I am giving one meeting as an 'example' and pointing out what has been my actual experience of those involved in climate action around here. Anarchists are, probably, pretty good when it comes to some direct action against something specific, but less so when it comes to, say, trying to convince Unite to oppose a third heathrow runway, even tho building it would employ Unite members. I have seen a refusal to engage with anything that would simply, and boringly, put pressure on the government - cos 'governments are the problem.' 

That meeting was particularly bad, as a couple of the other anarchists there agreed, but what else could I expect from a former Class War parliamentary candidate?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> The six to nine months of the Aragon collective were matched by various other parties in other regions, so they dont really show anarchism as being a superior way of making revolution, do they?


I very much doubt that they were matched by others.  With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy is a ground level tour of the most anarchistic area, very detailed, honest and contemporary.  Have you read it?

Groups like the Friends of Durruti were the militants, but there were others. And as I've already said, lessons can and have been learnt from the spanish revolution - it's strange that you insist on saying that's not possible.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm just someone who wants capitalism and patriarchy to fuck the fuck off.


That then begs the question - why do you double down on stubbornly being in favour of state capitalist dictatorship?


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I very much doubt that they were matched by others.  With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy is a ground level tour of the most anarchistic area, very detailed, honest and contemporary.  Have you read it?



Nope, only so many books I have time to read, but I'll look that out.


Count Cuckula said:


> Groups like the Friends of Durruti were the militants, but there were others. And as I've already said, lessons can and have been learnt from the spanish revolution - it's strange that you insist on saying that's not possible.


I have never said any such thing. There are lots of lessons to be learned. I just don't think anarchists have learned the right ones


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I am giving one meeting as an 'example' and pointing out what has been my actual experience of those involved in climate action around here. Anarchists are, probably, pretty good when it comes to some direct action against something specific, but less so when it comes to, say, trying to convince Unite to oppose a third heathrow runway, even tho building it would employ Unite members. I have seen a refusal to engage with anything that would simply, and boringly, put pressure on the government - cos 'governments are the problem.'
> 
> That meeting was particularly bad, as a couple of the other anarchists there agreed, but what else could I expect from a former Class War parliamentary candidate?


So it wasn't you who posted asking if everywhere acted the same then. Tell you what, why not read your posts so you know what you've said


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Aye, I've worked with anarchists in many a campaign and they've been excellent comrades, particularly in anti-fascist and housing campaigns (campaigns which most of the 'trad' commies/trots had given up on in favour of something much blander). Some of them could be the most bloody stupid occasionally, but they weren't the most irritating - an honour which goes to either the SWP or CP because of their insistence on dominating.


belboid, I genuinely thought you were SWP but guessing from this you're not?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just for balance, like.


I find Marx's critique and analysis of capitalism very useful (unlike Leninism). And the org I'm in (the ACG) has published a Compendium of Capital by Carlo Cafeiro (considered by Marx himself in his day to be the best work on his ideas). What I don't agree with Marx on is his solution to capitalism, which was predicted by Bakunin and Kropotkin to end up as an even worse tyranny than what preceeded it, and was certainly predicted by them to be a complete disaster and a form of tyranny.

Being a member of the SWP years ago taught me a lot about the 'revolutionary' leftist parties. I have heard about significant problems with most, if not all of them (including the Socialist Party and Militant tendency). Many (if not all) of them being corrupt cults that party organisers and CC members use as careers and power trips, helped along with 'democratic' centralism -  which is just a way to undemocratically impose the will of the central committee on the party.

I knew people who were involved in the workings of the party, more so than I was, who experienced first hand the top-down corruption of the SWP. These comrades criticised and left the party and it showed them what Leninist ideology was. Before they had these experiences they were committed party members. Many of these people went over to anarchism, some of them were permanently put off of being involved in politics after what they went through in the SWP. It was through a comrade that became an anarchist that I learnt about anarchism and decided to leave the party myself and get involved with anarchist stuff. My comrades considered anarchism, or libertarian communism, to be a more genuine, authentic form of communism. And before the Bolsheviks seized power and bastardized the words socialism and communism it was libertarian communism/socialism that was the dominant strain.

Militant were just as bad as the SWP at trying to opportunistically take over campaigns, and destroy them when they couldn't do that - the anti-Poll Tax campaigns were a good example of that. I mean it was the likes of Tommy Sheridan who came out of that lot, says it all really.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Nope, only so many books I have time to read, but I'll look that out.


You should read it, especially as it's free online. I'm sure theres plenty of stuff you've not read. And theres clearly plenty you need to learn frankly.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> So it wasn't you who posted asking if everywhere acted the same then. Tell you what, why not read your posts so you know what you've said


No it wasn't.  you seem to have added some words from your own imagination


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> belboid, I genuinely thought you were SWP but guessing from this you're not?


left almost two decades ago.   There are still aspects of their thought that I think is very useful, but a load of it is still completely stuck in the eighties and the organisational model is terrible.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I just don't think anarchists have learned the right ones


So tell me, what is it that we haven't learnt?


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> So tell me, what is it that we haven't learnt?


Anything.  

Tbh,  I cant be arsed going around in tedious circles with you just posting up summat you've copied from a libcom article. If you want a thread discussing the ins and outs of the spanish revolution. start a thread on it or bump an old one. 

Anyway, i thought I was on ignore. Seems we can't believe a word (some) anarchists say.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> There are lots of lessons to be learned. I just don't think anarchists have learned the right ones


Which is basically the same as not learning anything. Which is what I said you were saying.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Anything.


Exactly my point. And complete bollox.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> left almost two decades ago.   There are still aspects of their thought that I think is very useful, but a load of it is still completely stuck in the eighties and the organisational model is terrible.


Must admit I'm surprised. You come across as very SWP.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Anything.


So why argue that you were not saying that? This is why you just come across as a troll. You don't participate in a proper discussion, you are just a  frustrating waste of time trying to 'communicate' with.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Must admit I'm surprised. You come across as very SWP.


He certainly comes across as just as narrowly committed to authoritarian state capitalist bullshit as the SWP. And as I say, I've been a member of that dire organisation.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Nope, only so many books I have time to read


As if you've ever wanted to read it. I doubt you ever heard of before coz it's not some leninist text.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> So why argue that you were not saying that? This is why you just come across as a troll. You don't participate in a proper discussion, you are just a  frustrating waste of time trying to 'communicate' with.


Its really hard to follow your stream of gibberish and hackneyed phraseology and set text links. 

Please, do put me back on ignore, cos I think you're a complete waste of space, which is why I just take the piss out of you. 

(not all anarchists are such a waste, serge at least indicated the lesson learned that Algerian independence was central)


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> summat you've copied from a libcom article.


I've not copied anything from libcom. I posted some useful  resources in response to someone's post.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I cant be arsed going around in tedious circles


Which, just like yesterday, is exactly how I feel about responding to the blinkered trot garbage you post on here. It's like you are incapable of properly reading the posts of those who disagree with you. You avoid properly discussing  everything and are extremely disingenuous. But ofcourse you are - you're someone with shit authoritarian politics.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Its really hard to follow your stream of gibberish


That's rich coming from you. And your user name is very apt, which is why it kinda sounds like bellend.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ).  For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff.  When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'
> 
> Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.


Again, that's the thing, I agree that anarchist methods for stopping climate change don't look that promising, but I also don't see the chances of building up a socialist movement that's both popular and strong enough to capture the state (whether by electoral or revolutionary methods) and then also principled enough to, uh, do good climate stuff and not just USSR/China mark II, within the required time frame as being great either. So we're probably fucked lol?

In terms of realistic possibilities for the medium-term future, I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that, just as Rojava didn't come from taking the state on head-on and winning but was more taking advantage of the state being temporarily distracted elsewhere, we could well see crumbling states deciding that withdrawing from certain disaster-hit zones would be better or more feasible than trying to maintain order there. Although obviously the material conditions for trying to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth in those areas or whatever would not be that promising.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Aye, I've worked with anarchists in many a campaign and they've been excellent comrades, particularly in anti-fascist and housing campaigns (campaigns which most of the 'trad' commies/trots had given up on in favour of something much blander). Some of them could be the most bloody stupid occasionally, but they weren't the most irritating - an honour which goes to either the SWP or CP because of their insistence on dominating.
> 
> I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ).  For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff.  When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'
> 
> Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.


Emphasis added

Your in such a manner bears no other construction that that I've put on it


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> serge at least indicated the lesson learned that Algerian independence was central


So anarchists have learnt lessons after all- which backs up what I was saying and contradicts what you posted previously. Fucking hell you're a cockring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> So anarchists have learnt lessons after all- which backs up what I was saying and contradicts what you posted previously. Fucking hell you're a cockring.


Cockrings prolong pleasure. Belboid on the other hand...


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Your in such a manner bears no other construction that that I've put on it


What?  If this is how you construct sentences no wonder you can't understand anyone else's words.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 13, 2021)

I think the thing is that we should concentrate on the history / highlights of the working class struggle rather than focus on the history of what the anarchists / or Bolsheviks did/ might have done. Yes theres a lot to learn from mistakes but it’s almost with Marxism versus anarchism that we get to the point of parallel histories with selective quotes from either tradition . No doubt if the syndicalists were still around we’d have yet another version . 
It’s the working class that is the agency for change not Malatesta or Lenin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> What?  If this is how you construct sentences no wonder you can't understand anyone else's words.


Let me put this in simple terms for you 

You've told us how you think anarchists are shit at campaigns which aim to influence the government and illustrated this claim with an anecdote about a meeting on climate change with no actual indication that they aimed to influence government policy - indeed you stressed that it only looked at local activities. You then went on to say that if we wait for everywhere to act as they did at your meeting everything's fucked (if we wait till we've built up strong enough local communities in such a manner). In other words you're extrapolating from one meeting to a global scale which as I say is the sign of a stupid wanker. 

You have posted nothing to make me reconsider my interpretation of your post being as you've only come out with bluster


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Again, that's the thing, I agree that anarchist methods for stopping climate change don't look that promising, but I also don't see the chances of building up a socialist movement that's both popular and strong enough to capture the state (whether by electoral or revolutionary methods) and then also principled enough to, uh, do good climate stuff and not just USSR/China mark II, within the required time frame as being great either. So we're probably fucked lol?



Totally agree that there is precious little chance of the necessary socialist revolution happening before a very large part of the world is completely fucked.  That's why we will have to hold our noses and push for some reformist tosh that wont be anything like enough, but could stop 1 billion people having their lives completely destroyed.


hitmouse said:


> In terms of realistic possibilities for the medium-term future, I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that, just as Rojava didn't come from taking the state on head-on and winning but was more taking advantage of the state being temporarily distracted elsewhere, we could well see crumbling states deciding that withdrawing from certain disaster-hit zones would be better or more feasible than trying to maintain order there. Although obviously the material conditions for trying to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth in those areas or whatever would not be that promising.


Yeah, I think both Rojava and Greece around 2015 show how workers can take over and run things when the state has become incapable of doing so. But its a difficult thing to campaign for - 'We want the state and the services it provides to collapse so that we have a chance' is hardly a slogan that will inspire the masses.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Let me put this in simple terms for you
> 
> You've told us how you think anarchists are shit at campaigns which aim to influence the government and illustrated this claim with an anecdote about a meeting on climate change with no actual indication that they aimed to influence government policy - indeed you stressed that it only looked at local activities. You then went on to say that if we wait for everywhere to act as they did at your meeting everything's fucked (if we wait till we've built up strong enough local communities in such a manner). In other words you're extrapolating from one meeting to a global scale which as I say is the sign of a stupid wanker.
> 
> You have posted nothing to make me reconsider my interpretation of your post being as you've only come out with bluster


yeah, that's a repeat of one of your earlier posts (which I responded to), but doesn't mention anything about 'asking if everywhere acted the same' which is the post I replied to on this occasion.  

Now, if you want to point out examples where anarchist groups are doing something more to pressure the government, please go right ahead. I do reckon there probably is some direct action they've taken part in, but round here, there is precious little that I've seen.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 13, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Being a member of the SWP years ago taught me a lot about the 'revolutionary' leftist parties. I have heard about significant problems with most, if not all of them (including the Socialist Party and Militant tendency).Many (if not all) of them being corrupt cults that party organisers and CC members use as careers and power trips, helped along with 'democratic' centralism - which is just a way to undemocratically impose the will of the central committee on the party. Militant were just as bad as the SWP at trying to opportunistically take over campaigns, and destroy them when they couldn't do that - the anti-Poll Tax campaigns were a good example of that. I mean it was the likes of Tommy Sheridan who came out of that lot, says it all really.



This is undoubtedly true. Reminds me of the very old joke I heard in the IS (before it became the SWP). A new member asks a CC member to explain democratic centralism. "Aah," says the CC member, "it means we have the democracy and you have the centralism."

Also does anyone remember John Sullivan's little pamphlet "Go Fourth and Multiply", later reissued as "As soon as this pub closes." It's a satirical take on the Trot sects. Funny and apt. Sullivan wrote it during some very boring trade union meetings as a way of staying awake.

Edit: added the link to Go Fourth and Multiply - it's the original version, I prefer it to the later version, but maybe that's nostalgia talking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2021)

Edited- cba


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> You say anarchists are weak when trying to persuade the state to do something and illustrate it with a meeting which on your telling isn't trying to do anything of the sort. Don't you see something of a contradiction there?


No, because they were explicitly saying that they were not trying to influence the state directly, that they were just ignoring it and building up an alternative. 

If you don't try to influence the state, you're not likely to do a very good job of influencing the state.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Please, do put me back on ignore


I will. Knobcheese.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 13, 2021)

belboid said:


> Now, if you want to point out examples where anarchist groups are doing something more to pressure the government, please go right ahead. I do reckon there probably is some direct action they've taken part in, but round here, there is precious little that I've seen.


I mean, depends if you're talking about a) pressuring the government generally or specifically with regards to climate change, and b) specifically anarchist groups or groups that anarchists are involved in, cos the answers will be different for all of them. If we're talking in general, then I'm sure there's all kinds of examples - the poll tax, anti-war movements, the universal credit campaign are all examples of anarchists aiming to affect government policy. If it's climate change specific, then I guess climate camp in the 2000s, various XR-related activities more recently and stuff like the ZAD in France, various anti-pipeline and resource extraction struggles have all had an element of pressuring the government and also been things that anarchists have been involved in? Probably best off asking someone who's been more involved in XR stuff than me as to what that's looked like, though? I suppose you're unlikely to find anarchists drawing up detailed plans for a Green New Deal, but saying "don't give planning permission to build this oil pipeline" doesn't seem any more statist than "don't invade this country", iyswim?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 13, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> Also does anyone remember John Sullivan's little pamphlet "Go Fourth and Multiply", later reissued as "As soon as this pub closes." It's a satirical take on the Trot sects. Funny and apt. Sullivan wrote it during some very boring trade union meetings as a way of staying awake.


Cheers for sharing. Have bookmarked those.


----------



## deeyo (Nov 13, 2021)

really enjoying this thread - & it's sibling.

had me speed-rereading soltjenitzyns 'the cancer ward' looking for a passage i thought was in the beginning,  discovered that ol vlads april theses made other bolsheviks call him a lunatic & 'the heir of bakunin', rediscovered some disturbing stories bout stalin & lysenko & finally found this bertrand russell quote:

_' It should not be forgotten that in Marx's prophetic vision the victory of the proletariat was to come after it had grown to be the vast majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat therefore as conceived by Marx was not essentially anti-democratic. In the Russia of 1917, however, the proletariat was a small percentage of the population, the great majority being peasants. It was decreed that the Bolshevik party was the class-conscious part of the proletariat, and that a small committee of its leaders was the class-conscious part of the Bolshevik party. The dictatorship of the proletariat thus came to be the dictatorship of a small committee, and ultimately of one man - Stalin.'_


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 13, 2021)

deeyo said:


> really enjoying this thread - & it's sibling.
> 
> had me speed-rereading soltjenitzyns 'the cancer ward' looking for a passage i thought was in the beginning,  discovered that ol vlads april theses made other bolsheviks call him a lunatic & 'the heir of bakunin', rediscovered some disturbing stories bout stalin & lysenko & finally found this bertrand russell quote:
> 
> _' It should not be forgotten that in Marx's prophetic vision the victory of the proletariat was to come after it had grown to be the vast majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat therefore as conceived by Marx was not essentially anti-democratic. In the Russia of 1917, however, the proletariat was a small percentage of the population, the great majority being peasants. It was decreed that the Bolshevik party was the class-conscious part of the proletariat, and that a small committee of its leaders was the class-conscious part of the Bolshevik party. The dictatorship of the proletariat thus came to be the dictatorship of a small committee, and ultimately of one man - Stalin.'_


The demographic in Spain in the 1930s wasn't much better tbh .


----------



## Dom Traynor (Nov 13, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> I think the thing is that we should concentrate on the history / highlights of the working class struggle rather than focus on the history of what the anarchists / or Bolsheviks did/ might have done. Yes theres a lot to learn from mistakes but it’s almost with Marxism versus anarchism that we get to the point of parallel histories with selective quotes from either tradition . No doubt if the syndicalists were still around we’d have yet another version .
> It’s the working class that is the agency for change not Malatesta or Lenin.


This.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 14, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.




Wow!

Thanks for the reference, Serge. An honour indeed.  

It's been quite a few decades since I've indulged myself too deeply in these kind of intellectual nuances and, on Urban, I've generally made a point over the last two decades of rarely commenting before and unless I've read the entirety of any thread (in this instance, I've only read this and the previous page,) so apologies for barging in but I'm not sure I have the intestinal fortitude to stomach a read further backwards - or foward - in this case.

What does strike me, is how much I'm reminded of the 1970's ML's I used to hang out with back in my teens.

And the endless argument/discourse about which is the specifically appropriate interpretation of the historical narratives around socialism is still perpetuated by, generally, relatively privileged white westerners who, likely, are too young to have ever visited the Soviet Union and, almost certainly, have never experienced today's PRC other than a few weeks holiday.

Today, I'm more disturbed by the (similarly disposed, it seems,) "Tankies" that inhabit the social-media-sphere. Cheering on the fascist CCP and supporting the regimes in Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, Belarus and on and on. All in the name of anti-imperialism.

Irony is dead.

Anyway, if anyone's interested in what's happening on the ground in Hong Kong under fascism ...

This thread starts with treelover in July 2019 and has notable contributions from Yossarian and many, many others.










						Hong Kong: what next?
					

[QUOTE] Hong Kong: riot police have fired teargas and pepper spray on hundreds of protesters after hours of standoffs at several locations across the town of Yuen Long, where suspected gang members attacked commuters with poles and rods last weekend.  Thousands had marched in the area earlier on...




					www.urban75.net
				





I crash in around June 2021 here (although I've been posting on Hong Kong since I joined Urban in 2002).










						Hong Kong: what next?
					

There's an old Chinese saying I learned last week - "calling a deer a horse."  Around 200BC, a powerful chancellor called Zhao Gao supposedly tested the loyalty of courtiers by presenting the young emperor with a deer and saying it was a swift horse. When the emperor said it was clearly a deer...




					www.urban75.net
				





It's about at page 30 now.

Be careful who you're supporting - you people of the Liberation Front of Judea.


I have no time time for bullshit, student, ideological nonsense.

My friends are in jail. Many as political prisoners of the CCP.

Resist authoritarianism. Now!


Wake up peeps.

Be nice to each other.

Bed for Bella and me.

G'night.

Rest well.



Woof


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 14, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just for balance, like.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 14, 2021)

Right.

I've read the rest of the thread (not the first part).

The Tankie-type was banned - no need for me to read the first few pages then.

That's good. I'm off to bed now. I have real shit going on in my neck of the world that's far from fucking good.

Enjoy your debate good peeps.


Come Bella. Bed!

Woof


----------



## deeyo (Nov 14, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> The demographic in Spain in the 1930s wasn't much better tbh .



i'm not much of a historian, i can't really tell  to what extent 1910s russia and 1930s spain are comparable.  (while millions of workers were organised in cnt & ugt, i dont think there were any big trade unions in russia, for instance?)
but i suppose both revolutions ended with societies led by pigs on two legs in uniforms, & millions executed, in prison or exiled.

one would've hoped we had been better prepared next time around, but so far it seems the ruling class does its homework better...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2021)

Jessiedog said:


> Right.
> 
> I've read the rest of the thread (not the first part).
> 
> ...


Bella ciao


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 15, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Bella ciao





Thanks Picky.

S'funny how you've taken to me a wee bit recently.

I remember the old days when you and ernesto, et al, used to kick my arse to Kingdom Come, on a daily basis, for being a "liberal".

Ahhh! Them war' the daze, eh?! 

You've mellowed.

Truth is, I've always been on the front-lines; a Sau Juk born and bred. (I'm getting on a bit these days though - kudos to Grandma Wong an example to us all.)

It ought to be said though, that I've always held your integrity, politics, expertise and opinions in the highest regard.

I've learned much from you over the years and you've helped to shape my identity.

(I trust it's mutual.    )

Be well.


Solidarity one and all. 



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 15, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Bella ciao




Belladog says ciao.






Come Bells. Bed calls.


Meanwhile ... 

Be nice to each other, peeps!




Rest well




Woof


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2021)

In terms of the original poll, people's names might give a hint...









						Guests at a Kerala wedding included Marx and Lenin. Guess the groom’s name?
					

Newlywed Engels was also joined by Ho Chi Minh at southern India ceremony highlighting popularity of communist names




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 16, 2021)

Sue said:


> In terms of the original poll, people's names might give a hint...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From that article:


> The hammer and sickle remain in vogue across Kerala, where the Communist party has governed for much of the last six decades, and revolutionary names such as Stalin and Trotsky are still popular.


Calling your kid Trotsky while living in a CP stronghold seems like a bold move.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 16, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Calling your kid Trotsky while living in a CP stronghold seems like a bold move.



Stay away from the family with a kid called Mercader.


----------



## deeyo (Nov 17, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> Stay away from the family with a kid called Mercader.


good advice -pick your friends carefully, trotsky.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2021)

In Venezuela there is a high profile Trotskyist activist and union organiser called Stalin Perez Borges. Apparently his parents were not even communists, but anti-fascists who named their children after the leaders of the Allied powers. Stalin has two brothers called Churchill and Roosevelt.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 17, 2021)

Meal time debates must have been a hoot!


----------



## LDC (Nov 17, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In Venezuela there is a high profile Trotskyist activist and union organiser called Stalin Perez Borges. Apparently his parents were not even communists, but anti-fascists who named their children after the leaders of the Allied powers. Stalin has two brothers called Churchill and Roosevelt.



Apologies for the deviation, but reminded me of this....






						Baby Dictators - Photo Essays
					

Danish-Norwegian artist Nina Maria Kleivan dressed her daughter as some of the past century's most infamous dictators to highlight the human potential for evil




					content.time.com


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 17, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In Venezuela there is a high profile Trotskyist activist and union organiser called Stalin Perez Borges. Apparently his parents were not even communists, but anti-fascists who named their children after the leaders of the Allied powers. Stalin has two brothers called Churchill and Roosevelt.


I definitely remember there being at least one, possibly more, instance of someone involved in the Latin American cleaners' struggles in London who faced victimisation who was called Stalin, a brief look around found this for instance:








						Fight is on to win Jose Stalin his job back - Socialist Worker
					

More than 100 trade unionists and campaigners joined an angry protest on the steps of Soas, which is part of the University of London, on Wednesday of last week against the sacking of trade unionist Jose Stalin Bermudez.




					socialistworker.co.uk


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2021)

Those were the days, Totsky's fond memories of meeting his first anarchist.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 17, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Those were the days, Totsky's fond memories of meeting his first anarchist.


Of course anarchists the world over have modelled themselves on Luzin ever since.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 17, 2021)

That is quite a funny answer tbf.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> From that article:
> 
> Calling your kid Trotsky while living in a CP stronghold seems like a bold move.



Would make for a good ice-breaker though


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 17, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Those were the days, Totsky's fond memories of meeting his first anarchist.


Actually, that sort of puts me in mind of the famous Lenin quote, from his letter to Inessa Armand:

Is there enough for a compilation of "historical figures getting wound up by Trotsky"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> Those were the days, Totsky's fond memories of meeting his first anarchist.


Wonder how many dead anarchists he'd encountered before meeting his first living one


----------



## rekil (Nov 17, 2021)

Trotsky conveniently left out Luzin's long explanation of how the imminent arrival of intergalactic comrades with their superior transportation technology would render primitive railways redundant.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I definitely remember there being at least one, possibly more, instance of someone involved in the Latin American cleaners' struggles in London who faced victimisation who was called Stalin, a brief look around found this for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was also another cleaner involved in that dispute called Lenin: 






						Lenin Escudero | Staff | SOAS University of London
					

Lenin Escudero   | SOAS University of London




					www.soas.ac.uk


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> There was also another cleaner involved in that dispute called Lenin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But not I note a trotsky


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 17, 2021)

Do we need a "are you a marxist but not a parent of a child, or owner of a pet, named after a famous marxist historical figure?" thread?


----------



## Sue (Nov 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> But not I note a trotsky


Not that we know of. Y_et_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Do we need a "are you a marxist but not a parent of a child, or owner of a pet, named after a famous marxist historical figure?" thread?


Spymaster's middle name is Alexei after the famous russian miner stakhanov.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

Sue said:


> Not that we know of. Y_et_.


I met Trotsky once, the drummer out of the subhumans in march 1990. There's more detail in my autobiography "brushes with greatness"


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2021)

I knew Charlie  Van Gelderen  who was up until his death the last surviving member of those who attended the founding conference of the Fourth International.


----------



## petee (Nov 17, 2021)

The39thStep said:


> I knew Charlie  Van Gelderen  who was up until his death the last surviving member of those who attended the founding conference of the Fourth International.



but he was a member of a Marxist organization.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 17, 2021)

petee said:


> but he was a member of a Marxist organization.



I think this has nonplussed everybody  It's the "but" that does it.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 18, 2021)

I was going to recommend the following to glitch hiker on Kronstadt, but I see he's been banned (don't know if that's just from this thread or if it's a perma ban?) :






						The Kronstadt uprising of 1921 - Ida Mett
					

Ida Mett's history of the Kronstadt uprising highlights one of the most important yet neglected events of the Russian Revolution.




					libcom.org
				












						The Kronstadt Commune
					

Ida Mett The Kronstadt Commune 1938 Original title: “La Commune de Cronstadt” Published: Paris 1938. First published in English by Solidarity, 1967....




					theanarchistlibrary.org


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I was going to recommend the following to glitch hiker on Kronstadt, but I see he's been banned (don't know if that's just from this thread or if it's a perma ban?) :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Permaban


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 18, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Permaban


Ahh I see. I can't say I'm surprised tbh. Looks like I was too late, although he did kinda seem like he had made up his mind and wasn't gonna budge. But one has to try.


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Ahh I see. I can't say I'm surprised tbh. Looks like I was too late, although he did kinda seem like he had made up his mind and wouldn't budge.


He's a serial bannee/returner, so if previous behaviour is any guide, he'll be back shortly, as unpleasant and implacable as ever


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 18, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Ahh I see. I can't say I'm surprised tbh. Looks like I was too late, although he did kinda seem like he had made up his mind and wasn't gonna budge.


To be honest, I think you might be giving him too much credit in assuming the Leninism etc was sincere.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 18, 2021)

As a wildly promiscuous user of forums, I have been putting it about on Libcom recently and have uploaded a few pieces on the remarkably wretched Workers Revolutionary Party and its implosion in the mid-80s:






						57th Variety Act - Robin Blick
					

Few people have noted the spectacular split in the Workers' Revolutionary Party as more than a diverting entertainment. We invited two ex-members of the WRP's forerunner, the Socialist Labour League, to comment on the show. Below, Robin Blick casts an experienced eye backstage, while Ken Weller...




					libcom.org
				









						WRP: The Party's Over – Ken Weller
					

Solidarity member Ken Weller reviews the new Workers Revoutionary Party chorus line and finds it parading the same feet of clay.




					libcom.org
				









						Revolution betrayed - the Workers Revolutionary Party and Iraq
					

Two articles from Solidarity on corruption in the Workers Revolutionary Party and its links with Saddam Hussein and other Middle Eastern governments.




					libcom.org


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Permaban



Permanent exile to Siberia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Permanent exile to Siberia.


To the Arctic death camps of Kolyma


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 18, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I was going to recommend the following to glitch hiker on Kronstadt



Just read the introduction. Very interesting. I don't disagree with the political analysis, putting Kronstadt in the context of the systematic suppression of independent workers and peasants organisations and the growth of a repressive state. I'm less sure about the insistence this was state capitalism. I have no training in economics  but this seems to be a way of getting around the idea that "socialism" (in some form or other) can go badly wrong. The only state capitalist theory (in relation to the Soviet Union and later eastern Europe) I'm familiar with is Tony Cliff's and I think it's less than convincing.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 18, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> As a wildly promiscuous user of forums, I have been putting it about on Libcom recently and have uploaded a few pieces on the remarkably wretched Workers Revolutionary Party and its implosion in the mid-80s



Not long after the implosion I remember listening to Cliff Slaughter at a public meeting of one of the fragments. He gave an erudite talk on aspects of Marxist economic theory, as though oblivious to the decades of sexual abuse he'd ignored while being one of Healy's most loyal lieutenants. I was a Spart at the time, and a very senior "comrade" who accompanied me to the meeting remarked upon what a great experience it had been to listen to Slaughter, a legend of the Trotskyist movement. You really couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 18, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> As a wildly promiscuous user of forums, I have been putting it about on Libcom recently and have uploaded a few pieces on the remarkably wretched Workers Revolutionary Party and its implosion in the mid-80s:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Christ, I knew the WRP had some grim history with middle eastern regimes, but don't think I'd known the bit about the WRP voting to approve of the execution of a guy who'd been a visitor to a conference they organised, that's pretty fucking horrific.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 18, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Christ, I knew the WRP had some grim history with middle eastern regimes, but don't think I'd known the bit about the WRP voting to approve of the execution of a guy who'd been a visitor to a conference they organised, that's pretty fucking horrific.



They approved of the execution of more than 20 people, including one who had attended their conference. It was public knowledge in the 80s.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 18, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> Just read the introduction. Very interesting. I don't disagree with the political analysis, putting Kronstadt in the context of the systematic suppression of independent workers and peasants organisations and the growth of a repressive state. I'm less sure about the insistence this was state capitalism. I have no training in economics  but this seems to be a way of getting around the idea that "socialism" (in some form or other) can go badly wrong. The only state capitalist theory (in relation to the Soviet Union and later eastern Europe) I'm familiar with is Tony Cliff's and I think it's less than convincing.


Anarchists were long before referring to it as state capitalism,  before Tony Cliff latched onto it.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> As a wildly promiscuous user of forums, I have been putting it about on Libcom recently and have uploaded a few pieces on the remarkably wretched Workers Revolutionary Party and its implosion in the mid-80s



I'm half expecting someone to join the thread and say, "I was a member of the WRP for 10 years and it was just fine. Maybe the vote endorsing the executions was a mistake but Gerry Healy was a good person really, the girls just loved him."


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Anarchists were long before referring to it as state capitalism, before Tony Cliff latched onto it.



This is true, I just don't find the idea that the Soviet Union and eastern Europe were capitalist particularly plausible.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> I'm half expecting someone to join the thread and say, "I was a member of the WRP for 10 years and it was just fine. Maybe the vote endorsing the executions was a mistake but Gerry Healy was a good person really, the girls just loved him."


Corin and Venessa?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> I'm half expecting someone to join the thread and say, "I was a member of the WRP for 10 years and it was just fine. Maybe the vote endorsing the executions was a mistake but Gerry Healy was a good person really, the girls just loved him."


Well I used to know a bus driver in Croydon who had been in the Socialist Labour League ( a fore-runner of the WRP), a whole bunch of people in Oxford who were in the libertarian socialist Solidarity (originally a spin-off from the SLL) and a couple of people in the Workers Socialist League (a split from the WRP). They were all nice people. Oh yes, and a bloke in the first shared-house I lived in who slept in the garage. He was in the WRP for a while too.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Well I used to know a bus driver in Croydon who had been in the Socialist Labour League ( a fore-runner of the WRP), a whole bunch of people in Oxford who were in the libertarian socialist Solidarity (originally a spin-off from the SLL) and a couple of people in the Workers Socialist League (a split from the WRP). They were all nice people. Oh yes, and a bloke in the first shared-house I lived in who slept in the garage. He was in the WRP for a while too.



Back in the 1970s a friend of mine was arrested on an antifascist demo. The case went to court and I was in the public gallery along with a few other friends. When the jury was selected I thought I recognised one of them, a dark haired young man. Well, the dark haired young man became the foremen of the jury and as the jury filed back in after its deliberations he looked over at us and winked. And then I realised he was Simon Pirani, the WRP youth organiser. The verdict was not guilty - very unusual and almost certainly down to Pirani.

The WRP was relatively big (about 3,000 members in the 70s and 80s) and internally (as far as I can gather) quite loose. I think their trade unionists were allowed to get on with their work without much interference from the organisation (in contrast to the IS/SWP). So you could be a member and quite distant from the atrocities - but that doesn't make the atrocities any less real. I only encountered Pirani once (apart from the trial) and he seemed nice enough, though as youth organiser he can't have been unaware of Healy's behaviour.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

I should just add, that in sects like the Sparts and the WRP you see how otherwise decent people will turn a blind eye to, go along with, or actively participate in cruel and abusive behaviour if they believe to do so somehow serves a higher cause, or if the cruelty seems merely incidental in the context of a struggle for something greater.


----------



## LDC (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> I only encountered Pirani once (apart from the trial) and he seemed nice enough, though as youth organiser he can't have been unaware of Healy's behaviour.



I have met Simon Pirani a few times (and like and have plenty of time for him btw) and he is very critical of himself and the WRP and those years, and he's got some very interesting, self-critical, and reflective things to say about it. (He does lots of climate change stuff now, have posted an article by him recently on a thread about it on here.) I have met a few of the older WRP people that left, and they do liken it very much to a cult in how it operated with its members.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 19, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Anarchists were long before referring to it as state capitalism,  before Tony Cliff latched onto it.


Cliff had a theory ( wrote a book about it)  , I'm aware that anarchists sometimes referred to the USSR as state capitalist but aside from a label was there a theoretical justification ever written?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Well I used to know a bus driver in Croydon who had been in the Socialist Labour League ( a fore-runner of the WRP), a whole bunch of people in Oxford who were in the libertarian socialist Solidarity (originally a spin-off from the SLL) and a couple of people in the Workers Socialist League (a split from the WRP). They were all nice people. Oh yes, and a bloke in the first shared-house I lived in who slept in the garage. He was in the WRP for a while too.


The WRP  had a  number of decent  trade unionists at one time who worked hard in the unions. You just had to avoid the more barmy side to them and keep off the the subject of Trotsky's death mask or the coming British military coup if you ended up in the pub with them.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 19, 2021)

The39thStep ...
If I'm not mistaken, it goes back to old Mickey Bakunin who predicted that some of Marx's ideas could well lead to a form of state capitalism. With the Soviet Union and bolshevism becoming the orthodoxy, this was pretty much the general understanding of the so called workers' state. I think Berkman talked about it, and Pestaña (who was CNT delegate to the Comintern) and many more.... charlie mowbray would probably know more.


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I have met Simon Pirani a few times (and like and have plenty of time for him btw) and he is very critical of himself and the WRP and those years, and he's got some very interesting, self-critical, and reflective things to say about it.



I only have two recollections of Pirani, both positive. One is the court case described above where he got a real result.  My friend could have gone to prison if found guilty, he got off because of Pirani. I'd come across him a few weeks earlier at a WRP public meeting. I think he spoke (among others). At the end he ran up to me and a couple of friends, smiley and enthusiastic, with a few newspapers. Someone had a word in his ear and hauled him away. Somehow the WRP elders had figured out we were members of other left groups (I was in the IS, the others were in the IMG) and didn't want him to be contaminated. Kind of ridiculous because I would have talked to him. Not his fault at all though.

I hardly ever came across the WRP, they kept themselves away from the other Trot groups. My first real contact with Healyites was with the Workers Party, Royston Raging Bull's late seventies split, a Jehovah's Witness style group which went door to door with a poorly produced newsletter. They were deluded (as were we all) but not particularly unpleasant.


----------



## LDC (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> I only have two recollections of Pirani, both positive. One is the court case described above where he got a real result.  My friend could have gone to prison if found guilty, he got off because of Pirani. I'd come across him a few weeks earlier at a WRP public meeting. I think he spoke (among others). At the end he ran up to me and a couple of friends, smiley and enthusiastic, with a few newspapers. Someone had a word in his ear and hauled him away. Somehow the WRP elders had figured out we were members of other left groups (I was in the IS, the others were in the IMG) and didn't want him to be contaminated. Kind of ridiculous because I would have talked to him. Not his fault at all though.
> 
> I hardly ever came across the WRP, they kept themselves away from the other Trot groups. My first real contact with Healyites was with the Workers Party, Royston Raging Bull's late seventies split, a Jehovah's Witness style group which went door to door with a poorly produced newsletter. They were deluded (as were we all) but not particularly unpleasant.



He does this website and writing on it now People and Nature


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> He does this website and writing on it now People and Nature



Interesting, I'll take a look, thanks


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 19, 2021)

This is Simon Pirani's account of the break up of the WRP - chilling stuff. Make of it what you will. The Break Up of the WRP


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> I only have two recollections of Pirani, both positive. One is the court case described above where he got a real result.  My friend could have gone to prison if found guilty, he got off because of Pirani. I'd come across him a few weeks earlier at a WRP public meeting. I think he spoke (among others). At the end he ran up to me and a couple of friends, smiley and enthusiastic, with a few newspapers. Someone had a word in his ear and hauled him away. Somehow the WRP elders had figured out we were members of other left groups (I was in the IS, the others were in the IMG) and didn't want him to be contaminated. Kind of ridiculous because I would have talked to him. Not his fault at all though.
> 
> I hardly ever came across the WRP, they kept themselves away from the other Trot groups. My first real contact with Healyites was with the Workers Party, Royston Raging Bull's late seventies split, a Jehovah's Witness style group which went door to door with a poorly produced newsletter. They were deluded (as were we all) but not particularly unpleasant.


Ah , Royston lived in Stockport but I never ever came across him in any campaign or dispute there


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2021)

Carl Steele said:


> This is Simon Pirani's account of the break up of the WRP - chilling stuff. Make of it what you will. The Break Up of the WRP



Thanks, I'd not seen that. There's an interesting area for discussion where that attitude and cult-like behaviour bears resemblance to some of the anti-vax/covid conspiracy folks as well I think.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 20, 2021)

Yeah, Angry Workers have published a few things by ex-WRPers, like:




__





						Some experiences of how not to organise and a more useful one - Angry Workers
					

Reflections on 50 years of political experience As AngryWorkers we are grappling with the question of how organisation relates to class struggle in a meaningful way. We line out some basic ideas in our new book ‘Class Power on Zero-Hours’. During a series of open discussion meetings in London we...




					www.angryworkers.org
				








__





						Wapping ’86 and beyond: How have class relations changed - Angry Workers
					

We hosted a discussion meeting with comrades who took part in the Wapping printer dispute. Below you can find the initial blurb, the recording of the meeting and a longer comment from a comrade about how class relations have changed since then.*** Blurb Wapping '86: 'Picket' Bulletin and the New...




					www.angryworkers.org


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, Angry Workers have published a few things by ex-WRPers



Thanks for those articles. The problem is though, the more I read about the WRP and its collapse the more confused I get. As an example I've read the Aileen Jennings letter which purportedly broke the news of Healy's sexual abuse to the Political Committee. It's one of the most bizarre pieces of writing I've ever read:

-------------------------

June 30th 1985

_To the Political Committee_

During the course of action on the Manchester Area certain practices have come to light as to the running of Youth Training by a homosexual and the dangers this holds for the party in relation to police provocation. I believe the Political Committee was correct in stating that a cover-up of such practices endangered the Party from a serious provocation.

Having realised this I must therefore say to the Committee that I can no longer go on covering up a position at both the office and in the flats at 155 Clapham High Street which also opens the Party to police provocation; namely that whilst for 19 years I have been the close personal companion of Comrade Healy I have also covered up a problem which the Political Committee must now deal with because I cannot.

This is that the flats in particular are used in a completely opportunist way for sexual liaisons with female members employed by the Party on _News Line,_ female members of the International Committee and others [26 individuals were then named].

On any security basis one of these or more has to be the basis of either blackmail by the police or an actual leak in security to a policewoman. I am asking the Political Committee to take steps to resolve the position for the Party in the present political situation.

In 1964, after the Control Commission of Investigation Comrade Healy gave an undertaking that he would cease these practices, this has not happened and I cannot sit on this volcano any longer.

_Yours fraternally, Aileen Jennings

----------------------------------_

Is this a coded message or did Aileen think Healy was just involved in opportunist sexual liaisons which may have posed a security threat? (And how about Youth Training being run by a homosexual??!!) Also note that Healy had been investigated for "these practices" in 1964, over 20 years earlier.

As far as I can tell this letter, rather than reveal anything new, gave Healy's enemies a rationale to launch an investigation into abusive practices they already knew about. It's hard to believe that Healy's abuse remained a deep, dark secret for over 20 years, at least at the level of the Political Committee - people like Mike Banda, Cliff Slaughter, Corin Redgrave etc. must surely have known what was going on in Healy's apartment.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 20, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Edited- cba



Unlike you..


----------



## Carl Steele (Nov 30, 2021)

I've spent some time looking at the WRP and Healy. Nobody is in any doubt that Healy was a thug, and worse. Here's what the Sparts said about him in Healyism Implodes:

"Healy is a thief and swindler, a totally shameless liar, a systematic and brutal bully, a drunkard, a braggart of founder-leader proportions. And he is a canting, puritanical, hypocritical bigot. Our own experiences with Healy were quite unsavory. We witnessed Healy extorting false confessions, glorying in slanders and lies, deliberately driving weak unfortunates into unprincipled positions ...

"... Over the years we have heard a good deal about the puritanical practices of the Healyites: Young Socialist summer camps patrolled by purity squads, for example. The whole bunch of them are manifestly virulent anti-homosexual bigots - witness the A. Jennings letter's hysteria over the idea that a homosexual had somehow slipped through and was carrying out party assignments among the youth. The Healyite organization has been a machine for degrading people ..."

But when it comes to the question of Healy's sexual abuse the tune changes:

"... For all the talk about sex, it is nevertheless not possible to determine if what was involved was brutal rape or consensual activity with young women or something in between."

And Sean Matgamna (ex SLL member now leader of the AWL) is much the same. The Sparts reprinted in full the response of Matgamna to the implosion of the WRP. He had the following to say:

"It is as certain as anything is that in that organisation sexual exploitation, and where necessary harassment, intimidation, or worse, would be part of the great leader's way of life. In one notorious case - I know the people involved - Healy beat up a woman comrade, a full-time organiser, because she wanted an abortion rather than to have his baby."

But then he says;

"... nevertheless it is also true that a considerable part of the ballyhoo against Healy's sexual antics is both frame-up and an appeal to backwardness. Insofar as anything was voluntary in the WRP, many of the 'harem 26' must have acted voluntarily."

Add into this the hardly credible insistence of those who eventually opposed Healy that nobody knew anything about Healy's sexual abuse until 1985 (an assertion challenged by the Thornett opposition expelled in 1974) and a pattern of denial is clear.

Very sad, disgusting actually, but inescapable.


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Anarchists were long before referring to it as state capitalism,  before Tony Cliff latched onto it.


There were umpteen descriptions of 'state capitalism' before 1917 ever happened. Engels described a version back in Socialism, Scientific and Utopian, preceding Bakunin's notion that state socialism inevitably means state capitalism. The anarchist descriptions of the USSR mostly follow Bakunin, with some added specificity.

But that is quite distinct to what Cliff and indeed Lenin meant by State Capitalism. Lenin used the term before many of the anarchists did about the regime he led, specifically talking about the NEP and it's role in  developing particular aspects of the economy (under the direction of the dictatorship of the proletariat) as an essential prelude to full workers control. 

The anarchists (and to a large extent Raya Dunayeskaya, whose version of SC is also massively important and influential on the SWP's version) described SC overwhelmingly by means of the _relations of production_ - crudely, the existence of bosses and workers - rather than the nature of, I'm really not sure how to put this, but of the laws of capital itself - the investment in capital itself, how the law of value operated. This may seem esoteric, or even pedantic, but it is central in what distinguishes _capitalism _from a similar but different oppressive society (as it is useful to distinguish between fascist regimes and reactionary ones, like Spain and Argentina).

Is it a massive distinction? Maybe not. The relations of production are the central aspect for working-class activists, but those more precise details guide us as to how we can oppose the existing order and just what it is that we need to change.

(I accidentally hit post too early on this and meant to make the second half of the second paragraph much clearer, I'll still try and do so if no one replies beforehand)


----------



## Serene (Dec 2, 2021)

Groucho was funny.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 2, 2021)

belboid said:


> The anarchists (and to a large extent Raya Dunayeskaya, whose version of SC is also massively important and influential on the SWP's version) described SC overwhelmingly by means of the _relations of production_ - crudely, the existence of bosses and workers - rather than the nature of, I'm really not sure how to put this, but of the laws of capital itself - the investment in capital itself, how the law of value operated. This may seem esoteric, or even pedantic, but it is central in what distinguishes _capitalism _from a similar but different oppressive society (as it is useful to distinguish between fascist regimes and reactionary ones, like Spain and Argentina).
> 
> Is it a massive distinction? Maybe not. The relations of production are the central aspect for working-class activists, but those more precise details guide us as to how we can oppose the existing order and just what it is that we need to change.


Is this related to the distinction between the Italian and the German-Dutch lot?


----------



## Jessiedog (Dec 3, 2021)

I really love reading this thread.

It's like wandering into a massively-extended conglomeration of 1970's episodes of Citizen Smith, Monty Python and The Young Ones and yet with a deeply intellectual, well-read, nuanced (to the point of a fag paper width!), classical nonsense.

I fucking love it. I learn so much and piss myself laughing at the same time, as I read along.

It's a fucking brilliant, intense, hilarious, profound, articulate, bellybutton-ish, poetic, nonsensical, beautiful, competitive and hyperactive bundle of insanity - all rolled into one! And good old Picky, right there in the centre of the morass. In the thick of it. Surrounded by chaos. Relishing the battle. Lunging and retreating with short sharps jabs at all and sundry around. It's pure. Classic. Original. Urban. At. Its. Finest.  

It's complete nonsense and I fucking love it.

Personally, I've evolved.

And, together with my airs and graces, I've just wasted yet another six, fucking, drunken hours on a Friday night with the same Arab, East-German, full-on Nihilist lunatic - battering each others psyches (and our own!) into complete shreds. It's been every Friday (49 weeks a year,) for twelve years now. About 3,500 drunken hours to date.

Trust me peeps.

Nihilism is weird.

Three and a half thousand hours of intense, intoxicated, one-*on-one, ferocity of exploration has left my psyche in tatters.

And guess what?

He still doesn't fucking care!

But he's back every Friday for more dissection. 



Anyway. Nice to see everyone.

As you were peeps.

I'll try to drop in from time to time.

Visit the Hong Kong thread for a little cross-fertilisation.

Be nice to each other.

Be water.

G'night.


(Edit:  one-*on-one, not one-one-one. Bugger!)


Woof


----------



## NoXion (Dec 8, 2021)

I really don't have time for nihilism. In my experience, it's either extremely banal in that it makes the facile observation that meaning is not inherent to the universe and must to be constructed, or it's tedious adolescent edginess sharted out by mugs who mistakenly think that they're being philosophically deep or transgressive.


----------



## Carl Steele (Dec 8, 2021)

NoXion said:


> or it's tedious adolescent edginess sharted out by mugs who mistakenly think that they're being philosophically deep or transgressive.



Adolescent edginess is ok as long as it's adolescents doing it.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 8, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I really don't have time for nihilism.


Don't say that, they'll cut off your johnson


----------



## Jessiedog (Dec 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I really don't have time for nihilism.



Trust me. I get it!

I tried to explain your thoughts to the Arab (and the dog).

The response?

"I don't care!"

That was it. Nothing else. Just ... "I don't care!"


Hmmmm. So I wholeheartedly agree with you, NoXion. I too have little time for these fucking Nihilists (except for Friday nights, of course    ).

Let's face it ... They just don't fucking care!   


Be nice to each other peeps.

Come Bells.

Rest now.

Night all.



Woof


----------

