Max Schachtman's ideas

[Geddan]

What is Schachtmanism?

[Ian]

my simplistic definition would be: It's a social democratic ideology that came from America that prefers American Capitalism to the Soviet deformed workers state, it is also quite crappy.

[vox]

From the Red Encyclopedia:

SHACHTMANISM: Hybrid political ideology that mixes (in varying ratios) Trotskyism and Social Democracy. The originators of Shachtmanism include Max Shachtman, Tony Cliff, CLR James, James Abern, and numerous others. Shachtmanites believe that the Stalinist rulers of Communist countries are a "new (ruling) class", completely distinct from the workers. Therefore, they go beyond Trotsky's description of Stalinist Russia as being a "degenerated workers' state"; Max Shachtman described the USSR as a "bureaucratic collectivist" society, while Tony Cliff (and Ted Grant before him) called it "state capitalism". Left Shachtmanites consider Communist nations to be as bad as imperialist nations (often calling Soviet aggression "imperialist"); the more right-wing, social democratic Shachtmanites (including Shachtman and SDUSA) consider Communist nations to be worse than Western capitalism, usually siding with the US government in international conflicts. In America, Shachtmanite groups include the ISO, the International Socialist wing of Solidarity, and (most notoriously) Social Democrats USA. In Australia and the UK, the Workers' Liberty groupings are the best-known Shachtmanite organizations.

I could probably fit comfortably under the "left-Shachtmanite" rubric. Harrington was close to this as well, but called the USSR "autoritarian collectivist."

vox

(Edited by vox at 3:38 am on Feb. 8, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

The Red Encyclopedia is wrong about Ted Grant calling the USSR 'state capitalism'. This was a theory of Tony Cliff's which Grant rejected, prefering the term 'deformed workers state'.

Ted Grant produced a pamflet attacking Cliff's state capitalism theory, its definatley worth a read. http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/9/reply_to...tony_cliff.html (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/9/reply_to_tony_cliff.html)

[vox]

The USSR was a "deformed worker's state" in the same way the USA is. (Meaning not at all, for those of you who are a bit slow.)

[Old Friend]

Vox, I just wanted to say that it is too bad that I have gotten myself kisked out just as you are returning. I would like nothing more than to address the topic you posted regarding UN Security Council resolutions dealing with Israel. Of course, I did not agree with the comparison you were trying to make. However, I will live up to my word and leave, at least until James loses his moderating powers.

Your enemy,

Stormin Norman

(Edited by Old Friend at 2:50 pm on Feb. 8, 2003)

[vox]

Of course you wouldn't agree, SN, you're an idiot of the first degree who spins bullshit like it's golden thread. But you can't change the facts, and you can't change history. The resolutions are there for everyone to read, and I advise you do just that, and there's no mistaking what they say. Selective punishment, SN? I'm sure you're all for it. All right-wingers are. The Left demands more (and that's the real difference, the right-wing aims low.) We demand a consistent and sane policy that reduces the wholesale slaughter of civilians. You can masturbate over Shock and Awe. The GOOD and MORAL and DECENT people of the world will continue to to the good works that have saved the right-wing from its own policies. Much as FDR saved capitalism for you in the past, the Left will now save the world from the hate-mongerers in the White House, who mask their religious zealotry with absurd rhetoric about a "threat" from Iraq. Of course, there's still absolutely zero evidence that Iraq could attack the United States, and Tenet, you know, CIA director and all, said that Iraq would only use WMDs if it believes that invasion is inevitable. But that what you want. You want death. You want suffering. You want horror and pain and misery. That is ALL the policies of right-wing shitheads have ever delivered to the world, and you can NOT name even ONE example where that isn't true.

I'm smarter than you, I know more than you, and I will always be one step ahead of you. Too bad Che-Lives is such a dung heap now.

Of course, with your new name you could have addressed the post you claim you wanted to address, right?

Right.

And you're still wrong.

vox

[Old Friend]

I do not take issue with the fact that those resolutions were passed, or possibly needed. However, you try to present them in as an example of U.S. hypocrisy, but I would use them as another example of the UN's inept nature. I would use it as an example of how they have again failed, how nobody takes their dictates seriously, and how they continue to pass resolutions for the purpose of reinforcing laws they are unable to enforce.
A governing body's legitimacy rests on the contingency that it is able to use forced coercion when its laws are broken. The UN is unable to do this. Therefore they are an illegitimate governing body.

The U.S. is an ally of Israel. Do you really think that the U.S. would undergo the same process of pulling teeth to get the UN to enforce its resolutions regarding Israel? That is an unrealistic expectation, not to mention it is the UN's responsibility to deal with them, not ours. One of the countries in violation of countless UN regulations is a direct threat to this nation, the other is our only ally in that part of the world.

Besides no member nation takes that body seriously. Every one of them does what is in their own best interest, and that is why Bush has sought out to expose them as another league of nations, rather successfully, I might add.

On the inductive scale for arguments, I give your case a 2. The premises do not support the conclusion, nor do you present a sound case. Personally, I think the one that most leftist here have already laid out is a better argument than yours. It follows:

1.)Saddam is known to have produced weapons of mass destruction.

2.)The UN has weapons investigators in Iraq.

3.)The United States has produced chemical, biological, and chemical weapons in the past.

4.)Therefore, there should be weapons inspections in the U.S.

Of course this argument ignores the real reasons for inspections, and oversimplifies the entire situation. I would rank that argument higher than yours, because the premises support the conclusion, if you ignore reality.

As for your claim that you are smarter than me, you can think what you want, that's not what I am here to debate. I already know the truth about this matter. In fact, I shouldn't be here at all.

Nice to debate you one last time. I suppose you will have the last word.

Stormin Norman

By the way, I did read those resolutions.

I just couldn't resist one last round with vox.