Trotskyist parties

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So I have been listening to the vast amounts of MP3's at

http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/fulllist.htm

It’s mainly SWP stuff.

They don’t seem to have the same ideas about Vanguard parties as are portrayed that Leninist parties do at RevLeft.

They seem to wholly support democracy, rather than subjugation to the party.

They are also extremely critical of the Soviet Union. They are critical of Lenin and Trotsky.

Overall they see to be quite well thought out.

So, why do people attack Leninist parties so often on this board? Is it mainly the result of what happened in the USSR, China and others.

IF so, then that is more of a practical criticism rather than a theoretical one is it not?

ALSO, at revleft, you permanently here that Trotskyite parties think of Trotsky as a kind of savior and if only he had won instead of Stalin that the Soviet Union would have been great.

This is not true, in an MP3, by a guy named John molyneux, he expressly states that Trotsky would have been more or less as bad as Stalin and all the Trotskyite parties would be Stalinist.

So, why all the lies about trots?

(I’m not a trot btw)

[More Fire for the People]

IMO, you probably never even read Lenin. Start with the State & Revolution, move on to What is to be done? Read this (http://orangepolyester.blogspot.com/2005/09/whats-vanguard.html). Listen to this (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~droop/sheepfoot/state-and-revolution.mp3).


They seem to wholly support democracy, rather than subjugation to the party.
Not a Leninist proposition at all. Leninists believe in the leadership of the proletariat by more consciouss members of the proletariat.


They are also extremely critical of the Soviet Union. They are critical of Lenin and Trotsky.
Most Lenininsts are.


This is not true, in an MP3, by a guy named John molyneux, he expressly states that Trotsky would have been more or less as bad as Stalin and all the Trotskyite parties would be Stalinist.
More or less, true. The USSR without Stalinian repression would have still had the Civil War, kulak reaction, famine, and urban disease.

[rebelworker]

Two factors,

from my personal experience in a trot group(one linked to the SWP), and I think something that is somewhat inherant in "mass" vanguard parties, is the huge discrepancy between the ideas and practice of the leadership, and the knowledge of the rank n file or public fae of the organisation.

Secondly its possible that trots are starting to learn from reality and drop the horrible policies which they have defended , both in theory and practice, for decades.

Also keep in mind that the SWP is like the britany spears of trot groups, big hype with little substance.

If they didnt support Trotskyism wy would they identify as trotskist groups?

I would be warry of them if I was you. Speaches on the internet are one thing.
Lenin himself said all power to the soviets, we know how that turned out...

[YKTMX]

What's more likely? That a few Anarchist hacks, disgruntled Stalinists or sectarians would be right about the nature of Trotskyism, or that an actual Trotskyist party would? Who has actually invested more time in the theory and practice of Trotskyism?

So, I'd suggest to you that the open-mindedness and non-dogmatism that you've "experienced" listening to the MP3's is the "truth", and that the blatherings on this board are something apart from the truth.


This is not true, in an MP3, by a guy named John molyneux, he expressly states that Trotsky would have been more or less as bad as Stalin and all the Trotskyite parties would be Stalinist.

I doubt Comrade Molyneux would phrase it as bluntly as that.


Lenin himself said all power to the soviets, we know how that turned out...

Care to elaborate?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+May 26 2006, 12:34 AM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ May 26 2006, 12:34 AM)
They seem to wholly support democracy, rather than subjugation to the party.
Not a Leninist proposition at all. Leninists believe in the leadership of the proletariat by more consciouss members of the proletariat. [/b]
You're exactly right. Leninists don't support democracy, and prefer subjugation to the party. And offer their "leadership", which is why I completely reject it.


[email protected] May 26 2006, 01:00 AM

Lenin himself said all power to the soviets, we know how that turned out...Care to elaborate?
Well Lenin got shot, and the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. That's how that turned out.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I doubt Comrade Molyneux would phrase it as bluntly as that.

Maybe I paraphrased him poorly.

What i think he meant was that individuals don’t determine what a society will look like. Whether Trotsky or Stalin, things would have been similar within the Soviet Union. He did mention though the purges etc would likely not have happened.

I met him once, he's big fella hehe. Cool though.



So, I'd suggest to you that the open-mindedness and non-dogmatism that you've "experienced" listening to the MP3's is the "truth", and that the blatherings on this board are something apart from the truth.

That’s what i am thinking to be honest.

But i do have one question, are trots still Leninist? Or is it more accurate these days to think of them as quite departed from more traditional Leninism.


IMO, you probably never even read Lenin.

Well I’ve never read Lenin's work first hand, however I’ve read much who have written about Leninism. David Lane and such.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You're exactly right. Leninists don't support democracy, and prefer subjugation to the party. And offer their "leadership", which is why I completely reject it.

But are Trotskyists still Leninist?

[More Fire for the People]

Ignore Fistful of Steel, he is using his bullshit to cover up for the fact that he lacks knowledge on the issue. A vanguard is "An organized layer of thousands of workers, by hand and by brain, firmly rooted amongst their fellow workers and with a shared consciousness of the necessity for socialism and the way to achieve it, has to be created." (Duncan Hallas)

[rebelworker]

Most Trotskyists are leninists(there may be so e who supprt Trotskys positions before he joined the bolshevik Party but Ive never met one). As I said in my post I was a member of a trotskyist Party for years before I became an anarchist andmy criticism comes from personal experience. Beleive what you will, I just said be cautious...

[barista.marxista]

What parties say and what parties do are two entirely different things. If you are wondering about the democracy of your Trotskyist party: try to make your voice heard at the next national convention of delegates, or try to get a book you wrote published by their press, or try to contest an issue brought up in the newspaper. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Leninist and Trotskyist party members have absolutely no say over the decision-making or the publication process of said party. This is something ubiquitous in Leninist parties, showing how much they really believe the "democratic" part of "democratic centralism."

I worked with the SWP(USA) for years, and then spent a little time working with RCP, and the experiences are startlingly similar. But this disillusionment, more often than not, must be garnered from actual praxis instead of theoretical squabbling. Many self-proclaimed Leninists do no work with an actual Leninist party, and instead simply posteur on these forums with links to party newspapers in their signatures. This ideological isolation will never be productive, and only actual work will show the pitfalls of the failed Leninist paradigm.

This topic (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50273&st=0[/URL) is an interesting comparison on the issue.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by bl[email protected] 26 2006, 01:15 AM

You're exactly right. Leninists don't support democracy, and prefer subjugation to the party. And offer their "leadership", which is why I completely reject it.

But are Trotskyists still Leninist?
Yes.

You have to be wary of social democratic groups like the SWP that are psuedo-trotskyist though. Whoever said they were the Brittany Spears of the socialist movement was completely spot on.

Leninists ensure democracy by having formal leadership elected by the people. The problem with no leadership, especially in a trasnitory society is that there is a complete vacuum of leadership, and the most charismatic or authoritative individuals will become de facto leaders that have no real responsibilities or means of being controlled by the people. Formal leadership forces responsibility upon leaders and puts them directly at the subjugation by the people.

People think anarchists can't have dictatorships or be authoritarian simply because they are anarchists. Hiding behind the mask of anarchism is a free pass to be authoritarian for far too many people.

[Janus]

Lenin himself said all power to the soviets, we know how that turned out...
Did he really say that? I had always thought that Lenin always envisioned the party to be the ones who would take power rather than the soviets, which is why he stripped them of their powers.

So like what others have said, there is a difference in what parties say and how they transfer this into action.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'm sure if you dig around, you'll find plenty of criticisms of the Socialist Workers Party (UK) on the internet....some will be pretty good, others will be complete crap. Personally, I remember reading this piece HOW SOCIALIST IS THE SWP? (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/swp.html) and thinking it was rather good.

Personally, I think the SWP are leagues ahead of Grant and Woods, who are planning to re-enter the Labour Party ( :o )....and, to their credit, the SWP&#39;s paper is pretty decent, they organise Marxism every year, and Chris Harman is a pretty bright guy and his introduction to Marxism is well written. And, on top of that, the members I&#39;ve met in person, have all been pretty nice people, though apparently that varies from region to region. <_<

Their theories probably alright, but if you want to look at their real practical failings, then their record regarding the Poll Tax riots is probably a good place to start. I mean, they didn&#39;t threaten to "name names" like one particular group, but they hardly come across as a "class conscious revolutionary vanguard" during that particular period in history.

[Intelligitimate]

What&#39;s more likely? That a few Anarchist hacks, disgruntled Stalinists or sectarians would be right about the nature of Trotskyism, or that an actual Trotskyist party would?

LOL&#33; Which one? Trot parties are constantly splitting with each other, and they all claim to be the true heir of Trotsky.

I&#39;ll say this much, it doesn&#39;t seem the Sparts have ever outright supported reactionaries, unlike nearly every other Trot party, although they take an idiotic position on NAMBLA. Also, the WWP (World Workers Party) seems to be officially a Trot party, though they don&#39;t stress it. It was always the opinion of Marcy that the issue was only divisive, even though he still maintained Trotsky&#39;s line on Stalin.

A good book to read on Trotskyites is The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930&#39;2 to the 1980&#39;s. It&#39;s literally amazing how many of the earliest Trotskyite bastards turned into neocons. It seems the only thing Trotskyism gave these men was a fierce hatred of everything about the USSR.

[bezdomni]

Personally, I think the SWP are leagues ahead of Grant and Woods, who are planning to re-enter the Labour Party
To amplify the voice of revolutionaries...

Did you actually read the rest of that interview, or did you just skim through it enough to where Grant says he thinks the labour party could be used?

I suggest you understand why and at least criticize their reasons.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:48 PM
So like what others have said, there is a difference in what parties say and how they transfer this into action.
That is ironic, coming from the ultraleftists, who, in word, repeat the same evangelical talking points, and, in deed, do nothing. At least you&#39;re consistent.

[Faceless]

What parties say and what parties do are two entirely different things. If you are wondering about the democracy of your Trotskyist party: try to make your voice heard at the next national convention of delegates, or try to get a book you wrote published by their press, or try to contest an issue brought up in the newspaper. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Leninist and Trotskyist party members have absolutely no say over the decision-making or the publication process of said party. This is something ubiquitous in Leninist parties, showing how much they really believe the "democratic" part of "democratic centralism."
I can&#39;t talk for the SWP but in Socialist Appeal any member can speak at the national conference, without needing to be a delegate. As for the party&#39;s press, it is limited by funds. Even the largest of "Trotskyist" partys are limited in that sense and so too I would expect are anarchist presses. I have never seen an anarchist publish works by a trotskyist. Of course you are only going to publish works which the party reckons are in conformity with the majority of its members. It would be sheer folly to produce the works of an anarchist in a trotskyist party press as it would be for an anarchist to produce trotskyist works. We do have a say in what is said. Our delegates vote on the prespectives of the party every year, and they are updated each year. The fact is that using marxist dialectics we usually come to the same conclusion. The most you can be charging us with is being consistent.


But are Trotskyists still Leninist?
As for the term "leninist", it is used as relaxed as the term "vanguardist" on this board. It means very little in fact. Usually it refers to anyone who wants to organise the best elements of the working class into a consistently revolutionary party. It is an umbrella term borne of ignorance and you really are better off reading it from Lenin and Trotsky themselves. Are trotskyists leninists? Not in the way RevLeft sees it but mostly these people have no experience of what "leninist" means.

[Janus]

That is ironic, coming from the ultraleftists, who, in word, repeat the same evangelical talking points, and, in deed, do nothing. At least you&#39;re consistent.
You seriously think that Leninists are the only ones doing things and that anarchists do nothing? Those kind of posts don&#39;t belong in Theory at all.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Leninists and anarchists are basically the same in theory. Leninists and anarchists both invision the same end product of the revolution except leninists have a more structured way of getting there which, although is structured, is easily corrupted.

[Janus]

although is structured, is easily corrupted.
And that&#39;s the major problem. Anarchists oppose this type of organization thus making them incompatible despite the fact that they&#39;re both working towards communism.

[RevolverNo9]

I can&#39;t talk for the SWP but in Socialist Appeal any member can speak at the national conference, without needing to be a delegate.

Er, well if there&#39;s only fourteen people at a conference I can&#39;t suppose that would pose too much of a problem...



The fact is that using marxist dialectics we usually come to the same conclusion.

? Before each conference does every member sit at their desks with little equations about the negation of the negation?



I&#39;ll say this much, it doesn&#39;t seem the Sparts have ever outright supported reactionaries

Well yes but the Sparts don&#39;t support anyone do they? Er, except anyone who recognises that the taboo against shagging 6-year-olds is just a relic of oppressive bourgeois morality...

Plus - as I think anyone&#39;s experience on a march will tell you - they&#39;re all lunatics&#33;&#33;&#33; And so patronising.

[Faceless]

Er, well if there&#39;s only fourteen people at a conference I can&#39;t suppose that would pose too much of a problem...
Ho ho ho, who told you that one? Whereas you are a really "mass" party :rolleyes: I don&#39;t really want to get into a shit-slinging match with a sectarian like yourself, though I&#39;m tempted. And no, we don&#39;t sit around a desk with equations about negation of the negation. We discuss them at branch meetings. What marvelous method have the Taffeites got up their sleeves; do inform me?

I can&#39;t see why you even came into this thread mate. You simply sling insults around about how your sect is good and they are small and they have this policy, whereas you have a "pure" mass workers party. Have you elucidated the problem posed in this thread by what appears to be a totally honest comrade? No.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+--> (clownpenisanarchy)Did you actually read the rest of that interview, or did you just skim through it enough to where Grant says he thinks the labour party could be used?[/b]

I actually responded to it here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47222&view=findpost&p=1292039189) :)

"Axel&#39;s" response was that I&#39;m "an anti-dialectician, and therefore, an anti-Marxist" which means he doesn&#39;t need to "deal with [my] drivel"; his choice I suppose. Of course, there&#39;s a whole bunch of other reasons why folks shouldn&#39;t have much time for Grant and Woods....and based on these reasons, calling them "revolutionaries" is fucking hilarious. I mean, I&#39;m pretty sure most people could agree that the moment when the Militant tendency threatened council workers with the sack (or when they threatened to snitch on fellow revolutionaries) was the moment when they crossed the line. I don&#39;t know what shit they&#39;ve done in America, but I don&#39;t think I have ever met/talked to a radical who was around back then who considers either Woods or Grant a "comrade"....and their opinion matters more to me on this issue than the opinions of Woods, Grants or their "supporters".


Faceless
The fact is that using marxist dialectics we usually come to the same conclusion.

Gee, I bet inner party debates must be great fun with you guys&#33; <_<

[Faceless]

I mean, I&#39;m pretty sure most people could agree that the moment when the Militant tendency threatened council workers with the sack (or when they threatened to snitch on fellow revolutionaries) was the moment when they crossed the line.

A downright ignorance of the situation is shown in your understanding of the "redundancys" in liverpool which puts you on a parr with that great revolutionary Niel Kinnock. The fact is that in Liverpool the council were locked in a battle with the thatcher government and were worthy of praise. The fight was over the "no rate" issue in face of cuts from central government grants. You should know that the so-called redundancies were infact nothing more than a legal tactic that the liverpool council could use to stop it from running out of funds. The council was running out of money since thatcher refused to give further grants and the council refused to rase rates above a minimum. As a result they HAD to issue redundancies as to do otherwise would have made meant fines on the council which would have left them with LESS time to galvanise the support of the Liverpool workers. No one was ever made redundant, the right-wing media, and Labour leaders (and you) latched onto this so as to attack Militant from the "left".

Your eclecticism and anti-dialectics doesnt make you look clever and your baseless attacks on Militant are worthy of the title "armchair socialist" who only knows socialism in "theory" but not at all in practice.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)You should know that the so-called redundancies were infact nothing more than a legal tactic that the liverpool council could use to stop it from running out of funds.[/b]

Which they did indeed threaten to use....going as far as to issue the redundancy notices. Some "tactics" are valid and some ain&#39;t....acting like the bosses is never a "tactic" revolutionaries should endorse. Though I suppose this just shows what happens when you decide that you&#39;re going to help run the bosses State.


Faceless
Your eclecticism....

What an odd criticism; as if doctrinaire obedience was a "good" thing. :huh:
_____

It&#39;s interesting though, that you seem to be fine with the threat to "name names". I suppose it&#39;s just another thing that "needs to be done" when your managing the bosses State. You fancy becoming a Minister???

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Faceless, you are clearly too young to remember all this, so you have got this &#39;information&#39; from secondary sources.

However, I was around at that time on the revolutionary left, and well recall the many warnings we sent Militant that as soon as the miners were defeated, Thatcher would turn on them.

They first of all refused to believe the miners would be defeated (their triumphalist dialectical theory told them that victory was assured), then when they were, they refused to accept they could be defeated in Liverpool, or expelled from the Labour Party. Their dialectical theory made them passive in the face of the mounting crisis, so they refused to even try to mobilse the working class of Liverpool and sat back while we continued to warn them that they were dead ducks if they relied on the passivity of the class, and depended on the sort of bureaucratic dodges you mentioned in your post, using dialectcal arguments that would make your hair curl.

So, even though we on the revolutionary left defended Militant right until the end (and even until they split soon after, and the two halves went into terminal decline), they still would not open their dialectically stoppered ears.

And it looks like they have knobbled you too.

So, it seems that defeats are all down to the class enemy; but successes are all the result of dialectics (but what successes?).

You dialectics-fans just do not learn.

In that case, chalk up another victory for dialectical mysticism....

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

Dialectical materialism: tested in Liverpool; sunk by knuckle-headed practice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bloody-C-Sham:


I met him once [i.e, John Molyneux], he&#39;s big fella hehe. Cool though.

I took him on at Marxism 1990, in a talk on dialectics; he won&#39;t forget me in a hurry&#33;

Excellent comrade though....

Check out his book on Trotsky.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:13 PM

I&#39;ll say this much, it doesn&#39;t seem the Sparts have ever outright supported reactionaries

Well yes but the Sparts don&#39;t support anyone do they? Er, except anyone who recognises that the taboo against shagging 6-year-olds is just a relic of oppressive bourgeois morality...

Plus - as I think anyone&#39;s experience on a march will tell you - they&#39;re all lunatics&#33;&#33;&#33; And so patronising.
Yeah, their line on NAMBLA is so fucking stupid. It makes me wonder if there is a high ranking pedophile in their party.

But their line on many other things is surprisingly correct, for a Trot party. For instance, their line on Solidarity and Afghanistan is completely correct, while every other Trot party took the side of the reactionaries. At least I can respect them as Trots for that. It is so surprising because Trots are usually the first to side with reactionaries. This is also why I like the politics of WWP (who have been called Stalinists by other Trots).

If you have to be a dirty Trot, be a WWP Trot, or at least a Spart. At least you won&#39;t be working in the service of reaction.

[RevolverNo9]

What marvelous method have the Taffeites got up their sleeves; do inform me?

I wouldn&#39;t know - you&#39;d have to ask one.

I apologise for my misleading signature but my support for the Socialist Party is tenuous at best. I&#39;m only involved with them in so far as it allows me a base for activism in my little area. They&#39;re the only organisation with any operation and at an individual level I respect the members in my area.

In the grander scheme of things however, I have far too many reservations about them (well I&#39;m sceptical about Trotskyism let alone the Socialist Party&#33;)



We discuss them at branch meetings.

You discuss things at branch meetings &#39;dialectically&#39;? I have no idea what that even means.



If you have to be a dirty Trot

&#39;dirty&#39;? What&#39;ve you got? Religion? Scatology? Or just malicious sectarianism?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:06 PM
So, why all the lies about trots?
You actually believe the stuff that people post on this board?&#33;

:lol: You have a lot to learn

Anyway, Trot groups are dead on, and their youth wings are always good craic - email a member or attend a meeting or some such to get started

BTW - like the avatar

[Faceless]

Armchair Socialist:

Which they did indeed threaten to use....going as far as to issue the redundancy notices. Some "tactics" are valid and some ain&#39;t....acting like the bosses is never a "tactic" revolutionaries should endorse. Though I suppose this just shows what happens when you decide that you&#39;re going to help run the bosses State.
Right, some tactics are valid and some aint. And on what grounds was it not a valid tactic to issue redundancies, which were issued in name only. The fact is that this was an effort to stand up to the Thatcher government; a direct confrontation with the "bosses State", and allowed the Liverpool council to pay its workers up to the last moment. You can not defend refusing to issue redundancies "in principle" if this means that, by some peculiar situation, you will have to submit to the State and ultimately be faced with defeat when the opposite might allow you time to mobilise against the State. Indeed, this tactic may have been mistaken and it opened the floodgates to attacks by the media and the bourgeois state but I have no intention to defend every tactic of the Militant, instead I am only trying to dispell the idea that tactics can be worked out in advance by pure principle. Rosa would do well to bear that in mind when associating every mistake of the Militant with my "knobbled" self.


What an odd criticism; as if doctrinaire obedience was a "good" thing.
How odd that I should accuse you of having theoretical ideas about socialism but no idea about how they are put into practice and then that you should accuse me of being "doctrinaire". You are the one who subscribes to the view that tactics can be ruled out "on principle"

Rosa:

Faceless, you are clealry too young to remember all this, so you have got this &#39;information&#39; from secondary sources.
You are right I am too young to remember this, I see this isn&#39;t the first time you have checked my profile. You also in one discussion refused to treat me with respect when I defended dialectics on the grounds of my age. Frankly I find this deeply patronising. It is probably just as well that in your profile you don&#39;t have your age displayed but presumably you don&#39;t remember the Russian Revolution and therefore your version of events is worth less than say trotsky&#39;s or lenin&#39;s, right? It is your ageist logic, not mine. My "information" was not contradicted by your reply insofar as your reply had any content at all. I don&#39;t really want to get into a discussion about dialectics and I truly regret mentioning it because never reaches a fruitful conclusion. If you really think that it was dialectical faith that meant the Militant simply "refused" to mobilise the Liverpool workers then fine, there is no way I can disprove you except by going down the road of discussing dialectics with you, which would be like talking to a brick wall. And besides all that, I&#39;m much to young, I should be playing football outside. :rolleyes:

Revolver:

&#39;dirty&#39;? What&#39;ve you got? Religion? Scatology? Or just malicious sectarianism?
As opposed to your sectarian attacks against myself and the fact that you are still yet to address any question in this thread.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)And on what grounds was it not a valid tactic to issue redundancies, which were issued in name only.[/b]

Because those redundancies "in name only" culminated in 30,000 council workers losing their jobs. Granted, the Militant tendency weren&#39;t directly responsible for those lay-offs, but those redundancy notices "in name only" sure did "grease the wheels". I mean, if it&#39;s "a-ok" for the "socialists" to issue redundancy notices (I kinda&#39; doubt your version of events here....indeed, I suspect knowing that his redundancy notice was "in name only" was hardly a great consolation to your average Joe) then it doesn&#39;t seem quite as startling when others do the same. After all, breaking even is the "name of the game".

Additionally, of course, Rover, for all I know, could have issued conditional redundancy notices; but that doesn&#39;t make they practice in any way "revolutionary". It&#39;s simply another aspect of the day to day running of the bosses State....you gotta&#39; wheel, you gotta&#39; deal, and you&#39;ve definitely gotta&#39; fuck around with the financial security of your average Sheila and Joe. What do you think the percentage is of homes repossed of the layed-off council workers in Liverpool? And what percentage of Militant members do you think lost their homes? Don&#39;t know the actual figures myself, but I really doubt that any of the former Militant Councillors are facing economic hardship these days....Councillers get paid pretty well you know, for the little work they do.

And aside from laying the foundations for mass lay-offs, pushing the fight within legal norms, failing to build a "class conscious vanguard" and actively contributing to the management of the bosses State by trying to further the interests of "Keynesian capitalism"....the Militant tendency also laid the foundations for their own removal from the Labour Party and their subsequent political obscurity. Hardly a "good" tactic now was it? I mean, myself, I think a series of strikes and support strikes would have been a more "valid tactic"....but you can&#39;t promote that if you&#39;re the Militant tendency, now can you? After all, those "uppity workers" may end up overthrowing the local Council, getting rid of your perks and setting up genuinely democratic organs of self control. And we sure can&#39;t have that&#33; :o


Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)....a direct confrontation with the "bosses State"....[/b]

The Miners Strike was a "direct confrontation with the bosses State", as were the Poll Tax riots....acting on behalf of "Keynesian capitalism" through political and legal manoeuvring is just the standard policy of "old" Labour Party.

But, hey, what&#39;s a bit of opportunistic "anti-Toryism" amongst friends.


Originally posted by Faceless
You can not defend refusing to issue redundancies "in principle" if this means that....

No, you flat out refuse to take your seat at "Camelot&#39;s table" and contribute to the active management of British capitalism....that&#39;s not the job of revolutionaries. I mean, what is, essentially, the difference between the actions of the Militant tendencies legal manoeuvring and the legal manoeuvring of any business that faces bankruptcy? Nicer rhetoric???

You think trying to shoehorn class struggle within the boundaries of bourgeois law is something that revolutionaries should encourage? That it&#39;s, somehow, a "valid tactic"? The mind boggles.


Originally posted by Faceless
....but I have no intention to defend every tactic of the Militant, instead I am only trying to dispell the idea that tactics can be worked out in advance by pure principle.

I&#39;m not asking you to devise "tactics can be worked out in advance by pure principle"; I&#39;m simply telling you in advance of any future dalliances that you lot may have regarding the management of capital, that it&#39;s a stupid idea. Basic materialism would tell you that if you are going to take part in the management of capital, then, sooner or later, you&#39;re going to be faced with a situation like this....and this can be easily avoided by choosing not to contribute to the upkeep of British capitalism.

You see, you can avoid having to face the decisions of any social democratic party, by not becoming a social democratic party....and that means you never help run the bosses State; no matter how good the pay is.


[email protected]
How odd that I should accuse you of having theoretical ideas about socialism but no idea about how they are put into practice and then that you should accuse me of being "doctrinaire".

I was referring to you trying to look clever by using the word "eclecticism"....which was, frankly, a daft criticism to make of someone; unless you think doctrinaire "purity" is something to be "desired".


Faceless
You are the one who subscribes to the view that tactics can be ruled out "on principle"

Yeah, it&#39;s a decision based on "principle" to say that revolutionaries who would like to help maintain that which they wish to overthrow are acting daftly. :rolleyes:

How&#39;s your portfolio these days??? :lol:

And, additionally, the observant reader will notice that you continue to dodge the issue of the threat to "name names". Was that a "valid tactic"???

[rebelworker]

Every time i bring up the fact that the militant leadership thretened to rat out working class peoplewho defended themselves againt police violence they just stay silent.

Im sure this has alot to do with the fact that they are all too young to remeber the events in question (otherwise they wouldnt have joined the group in the first place) and they dont get satisfactory answers from their leaders who are keeping them in the dark now(if they even bother to ask about it), but still makes you wonder, how blind is your faith?

[The Grey Blur]

:rolleyes: Show me the communist ideology without a fuckup to it&#39;s name

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 5 2006, 06:49 PM
:rolleyes: Show me the communist ideology without a fuckup to it&#39;s name

Don&#39;t you think it would actually be better to try and understand why those "fuckups" happen....and then try to correct them? But to do this, folks really have to realise what the mistakes were; and as rebelworker pointed out, on the issue of "naming names", these people are silent.

I mean, how can we try to progress from these "fuckups" if people deny that they happened?

[Socialistpenguin]

Every time i bring up the fact that the militant leadership thretened to rat out working class peoplewho defended themselves againt police violence they just stay silent.

I suppose, of course, being a fact and all, you have irrefutable proof of said fact?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Faceless:


Frankly I find this deeply patronising.

Oh dear.

But, what is this? More dialectical irrelevance:


It is probably just as well that in your profile you don&#39;t have your age displayed but presumably you don&#39;t remember the Russian Revolution and therefore your version of events is worth less than say trotsky&#39;s or lenin&#39;s, right?

I do not know why you posted this, since I agree with these two&#33;

But, since they were eye-witnesses, and you agree that their testimony thus carries more weight, you should, by parity of logic (a subject you DM-fans are not too good at) you should put more weight on my opinion.

Or would that be being a bit too consistent for a dialectician?

Anyway, how that supports you, when I disagree with your second-hand attempt to justify the lunatic antics of the Militant, I do not know.


I don&#39;t really want to get into a discussion about dialectics and I truly regret mentioning it because never reaches a fruitful conclusion. If you really think that it was dialectical faith that meant the Militant simply "refused" to mobilise the Liverpool workers then fine, there is no way I can disprove you except by going down the road of discussing dialectics with you, which would be like talking to a brick wall.

Since you seem to know a lot about talking to brick walls, I will leave you in piece. [Say hello to the mortar for me.]

But, I note once again, here we have yet another dialectician who cannot defend his baseless faith in this &#39;theory&#39;, but refuses to acknowledge the damage it has done to our movement (and to Militant).

Enjoy your game, Faceless, but be careful, you might have to change your name to &#39;Goal-less&#39;: whenever you score a goal, according to Hegel, you have and you haven&#39;t (unless of course you ignore dialectical logic, and use formal logic to tell you that you have).

Now, even a babe in arms like you can understand that, can&#39;t you?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I took him on at Marxism 1990, in a talk on dialectics; he won&#39;t forget me in a hurry&#33;

Well i have listened to lots of the mp3&#39;s.

And he does use dialectics alot. Since i have learnt to be critical of dialectics, at least in a basic way, you can hear him reference it in almost everything he says.

Its pretty much the same for Alex callonicos. I am suprised he is in the SWP to be honest. As far as i can tell he is not working class, and even his family are "blue bloods".

Its pretty sick to have a central commitee led by an academic trained at Oxford. Oh well :(

However, the reason i have trouble understanding trotskyist parties, mainly the SWP is because i always thought Leninism was party centric. However, in an Alex Collonicos talk he said the main power would be through Workers councils.

I really liked this idea and thought its quite a departure from the centralisation of leninist parties.

Its very hard to understand the difference between what a leninist would advocate and what a trotskyist would.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:00 PM

Every time i bring up the fact that the militant leadership thretened to rat out working class peoplewho defended themselves againt police violence they just stay silent.

I suppose, of course, being a fact and all, you have irrefutable proof of said fact?
Well the fact that it was said to the mainstream British papers of the time, and not refuted by the party might be a suprise to you but that the pile of horseshit your dealing with at this juncture.

I dont have the name of the paper on me right now but Ill get back to you...

fucking disgusting, just went to the wikipedia article on the poll tax riots, obviously been written by some miltant hack. They claim to have organised the whole thing despite the fact that it was lead by independant poll tax unions that sprung up all over the country. Their "coordinating comitte" was a minority of these unions that had been taken over by militant members.

noone can argue that militant wasnt the largest group at the time, but for them to re write the history to say they lead it is disgusting.

I found the original poll tax article that was used for the wiki one, they just cut out all the original authors criticism of the militant and re posted it.

everyone on the left (militant, swp, labour) disnmissed one of the best examples of the working class fighting back as a bunch of anarchist troublemakers(to their credit Class War was the only group to come out publicly in defense of the demonstrators, probably mostly recently unemployed miners, who fought back against the cops).

just goes to show how quick politcal groups will drop any radical pretenses to sway the opinion of the middle class once they are vying for power

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS, I cannot disgree with much of what you say, but it wasn&#39;t always like this in the SWP.

For example, Alex C used to be a staunch anti-dialectician (i.e., he thought the dialectic only applied to the class stuggle etc); so were other prominent SWP figures.

Things changed after the defeat of the miners in 1985, and the SWP discovered a new-found liking for mystical Marxism.

I think I know why this happened; you can find out here (if you can stand to read any more of my stuff&#33;&#33;):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...(stitutionists) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm#Sub(stitutionists))


However, the reason i have trouble understanding trotskyist parties, mainly the SWP is because i always thought Leninism was party centric. However, in an Alex Collonicos talk he said the main power would be through Workers councils.


I don&#39;t think the two are incompatible: if the party consists of advanced sections of the working class (a very big if, I grant you&#33;&#33;), and becomes a mass party during and after a revolution, then workers councils will be dominated by working class party members.

Recall that Lenin learnt from the 1905 revolution that class power can only be exercised through soviets.

So, Alex and Lenin, would, I think see eye to eye.

But, neither Lenin nor Alex are gods, so their word is not like the Law of Moses; I say that a future society will be run by workers, and if us Leninists don&#39;t like it, we can get stuffed. [Not that the working-class need my permission; they will grave-dig anyone who disgrees....)

The party is there to serve the class, not the other way round. And if the party tries to suppress working-class democracy (it will surely fail, as it did in the USSR), then the class will have to overthrow the party, and start all over again.

Now, only those wedded to the dialectic will disagree at this point, for reasons I outline in that link.

As far as Alex&#39;s academic status is concerned, recall that Lenin himself was not exactly a horny-handed proletarian, and was highly educated.

When the class is strong and confident (if ever that happens&#33;&#33;), such things won&#39;t really matter, since they will have the power to control the petty-bourgeois elements in our movement, like Lenin and co (or his modern-day equivalents).

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:55 PM

Personally, I think the SWP are leagues ahead of Grant and Woods, who are planning to re-enter the Labour Party
To amplify the voice of revolutionaries...

Did you actually read the rest of that interview, or did you just skim through it enough to where Grant says he thinks the labour party could be used?

I suggest you understand why and at least criticize their reasons.
Something that ultra-lefts are clearly incapable of. How many times have I posted things that just ended up getting ignored?

I have heard that the SWP have even rejected the theory of permanent revolution. Those nutters know nothing about Trotskyism.

[YKTMX]

I have heard that the SWP have even rejected the theory of permanent revolution. Those nutters know nothing about Trotskyism.

But this is the problem, comrade.

If you continually get your impressions from things people (sectarians) "tell you" about the SWP, how will you ever be able to come to a position that reflects the reality?

The SWP doesn&#39;t reject the theory of permanent revolution. Cliff theorised a position called "deflected permanent revolution", which he considered an adaptation of Trotsky&#39;s theory and applied it to China and Cuba.

[More Fire for the People]

Permanent Revolution by SWP (http://www.themightyowl.com/marxism2005/permanent-revolution-and-the-third-world-chris-nineham.mp3)

[Intelligitimate]

LOL&#33; Look at the Trots arguing with each other over such stupid shit. Such is Trotskyism.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:54 AM
LOL&#33; Look at the Trots arguing with each other over such stupid shit. Such is Trotskyism.
Right, because no other Socialist "faction" has ever contradicted itself in any way whatsoever. What are you, may I ask? I bet within 5 minutes I can pull out a dozen instances of contradiction, infigting and general incompetance with whatever particular movement you follow.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Ernest, from his other posts i think Intelligitimate is basically a stalinist.

For him parties dont split, one half just gets purged. :lol:

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:33 PM


I have heard that the SWP have even rejected the theory of permanent revolution. Those nutters know nothing about Trotskyism.

But this is the problem, comrade.

If you continually get your impressions from things people (sectarians) "tell you" about the SWP, how will you ever be able to come to a position that reflects the reality?

The SWP doesn&#39;t reject the theory of permanent revolution. Cliff theorised a position called "deflected permanent revolution", which he considered an adaptation of Trotsky&#39;s theory and applied it to China and Cuba.
I will have to look into this, but the SWP is indeed sectarian and full of nonsense. Someone in the SWP even got up and said "He is the most capable representative of the US ruling class." when Alan Woods had questioned the intellectual capabilities of G.W. Bush at the 2005 World Youth Festival. :lol: They have failed to get any serious foothold in Venezuela, just like the rest of the sects.

[Intelligitimate]

You know, everyone always talks about Stalin&#39;s cult of personality, and it is quite easy to produce numerous quotes from Stalin showing he denounced it, and even believed it was started by people trying to discredit him. And, in fact, it was destroyed by the people who used it the most. Take this quote for example:

"Miserable pygmies&#33; They lifted their hands against the greatest of all living men, our wise leader Comrade Stalin. We assure you, Comrade Stalin, that we will increase our Stalinist vigilance still more and close our ranks around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin".

This was written by none other than Khrushchev. So the very people who created the cult of personality around Stalin for their own purposes, which Stalin denounced on numerous occasions and even suspected was an attack on him, are the very people who quickly destroyed it once Stalin was out of the picture.

My question is, why does no one talk about the cult of Trotsky? You people are absolute fanatics&#33; The closest I&#39;ve ever seen a Trot to criticizing Trotsky was when the Sparts were criticizing other Trots for not following Trotsky&#39;s own criticism of his pre-1917 Menshevism closely enough&#33; You people take Trotsky&#39;s tired ass bullshit as Gospel, using Trotsky&#39;s shitty analysis of the USSR for every other socialist country you don&#39;t like (which is usually all of them&#33;).

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:05 AM
Ernest, from his other posts i think Intelligitimate is basically a stalinist.

For him parties dont split, one half just gets purged. :lol:
Oh yes, let&#39;s not forget the completely retarded use of the word "Stalinist." Stalin was a Stalinist, Khrushchev was a Stalinist, Mao was a Stalinist, Yeltsin was a Stalinist, etc. Apparently you don&#39;t even have to a Marxist to be a Stalinist, or even like Stalin&#33; In fact, you can hate socialism and Stalin with a passion and still be a Stalinist, as Yeltsin proves. Such is the stupidity of Trots.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Volkov/Axel:


They have failed to get any serious foothold in Venezuela, just like the rest of the sects.

Spoken by a comrade who cannot defend his ideas, and who belongs to a Trotskyite sect himself (and one, like the old Militant, that cannot distinguish between reality and wish-fulfilment).

Perhaps, Volkov/Axel, you would like to repeat, in this thread, the slurs against this board and the comrades who post here, which you retailed in this ‘discussion’ with me:

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=1441.90

But, then again, maybe not.

And now the plaintive cry:


How many times have I posted things that just ended up getting ignored?

Well, as an expert in &#39;selective blindness&#39;, Axel/Volkov, you really have no room to complain.

[Herman]

I have no sympathy for Trotsky. He had a huge ego, did not like working with others and usually offended others with his arrogance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:

And, I suppose you knew the guy (or are you relying on impeccably &#39;accurate&#39; Stalinist sources?).

Trotsky made many mistakes (so did Marx, Engels and Lenin; they were not gods) -- I list some serious ones at my site --, but as a revolutionary he stands second only to Lenin.

[Herman]

And, I suppose you knew the guy (or are you relying on impeccably &#39;accurate&#39; Stalinist sources?).

Trotsky made many mistakes (so did Marx, Engels and Lenin; they were not gods) -- I list some serious ones at my site --, but as a revolutionary he stands second only to Lenin.

“Stalin has never been a man to shoot first and argue afterwards. In
fact, I venture to assert that at no time in the political history of
any country has there been so lengthy a warfare of words, and only
words, between leading members of a political party; and I would add
that no leader with such power in his hands as that possessed by Stalin,
ever showed such patience with an opponent. I write as one who was a
witness on the spot, and even a not infrequent participant in the long
controversy extending from December 1923 to January 1929 when Trotsky
was banished from the Soviet Union.”
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 153

“Stalin has been widely attacked by political adversaries, Russian and
foreign, as a cruel and heartless man, but in point of fact he was
remarkably long-suffering in his treatment of the various oppositions.
This statement may sound surprising, but it is true, as the record
shows. The Kremlin&#39;s struggle with the Oppositionists began before
Lenin&#39;s death, and again and again one or another of the Opposition
leaders admitted his faults and beat his breast and cried "Mea maxima
culpa," and the Kremlin forgave him. I say this is all on the record,
whatever the Trotskyists may claim.”
Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal &
Hitchcock, 1941, p. 116

“One further point in Stalin&#39;s favor was the personal relations
existing between Trotsky and the other leading figures. For this
Trotsky had only himself to blame. Arrogant, cynical, contemptuous of
mediocrity, his whole career had been dotted with violent outbursts
directed against innumerable lesser personages.”
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich &
Cowan, 1942, p. 63

“Both temperamental and political factors were involved in Trotsky&#39;s
fall. Throughout his long revolutionary career, up to 1917, Trotsky was
a man of such strong individuality that he could never remain long
within the ranks of an organized political party or group. He had to be
leader or nothing. He came into frequent and bitter clashes with Lenin,
whom, as late as 1913, he called "that professional exploiter of every
backwardness in the Russian labor movement," adding: "the whole edifice
of Leninism at the present time is based on lies and falsifications, and
contains within itself the poisonous beginning of its own disintegration."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930,
p. 94

“Nor was Trotsky&#39;s personality an asset. He was widely disliked for
arrogance and lack of tact: as he himself admitted, he had a reputation
for "unsociability, individualism, aristocratism. Even his admiring
biographer concedes he "could rarely withstand the temptation to remind
others of their errors and to insist on his superiority and insight.
Scorning the collegiate style of Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders,
he demanded, as commander of the country&#39;s armed forces, unquestioned
obedience to himself, giving rise to talk of "Bonapartist" ambitions.
Thus in November 1920 angered by reports of insubordination among Red
Army troops facing Wrangel, he issued an order that contained the
following passage: "I, your Red leader, appointed by the government and
invested with the confidence of the people, demand complete faith in
myself." All attempts to question his orders were to be dealt with by
summary execution. His high-handed administrative style attracted the
attention of the Central Committee, which in July 1919 subjected them to
severe criticism. His ill-considered attempt to militarize labor in
1920, not only cast doubts on his judgment, but reinforced suspicions of
Bonapartism. In March 1922 he addressed a long statement to the
Politburo, urging that the party withdraw from direct involvement in
managing the economy. The Politburo rejected his proposals and Lenin,
as was his wont with Trotsky&#39;s epistles, scribbled on it, "Into the
Archive," but his opponents used it as evidence that Trotsky wanted to
"liquidate the leading role of the Party."
Refusing to involve himself in the routine of day-to-day politics,
frequently absent from cabinet meetings and other administrative
deliberations, Trotsky assumed the post of a statesman above the fray.
"For Trotsky, the main things were the slogan, the speaker&#39;s platform,
the striking gesture, but not routine work. His administrative talents
were, indeed, of a low order. The hoard of documents in the Trotsky
archive at Harvard University, with numerous communications to Lenin,
indicate a congenital incapacity for formulating succinct, practical
solutions: as a rule, Lenin neither commented nor acted on them.
For all these reasons, when in 1922 Lenin made arrangements to
distribute his responsibilities, he passed over Trotsky. He was much
concerned that his successors govern in a collegial manner: Trotsky,
never a "team player," simply did not fit. We have the testimony of
Lenin&#39;s sister, Maria Ulianova who was with him during the last period
of his life, that while Lenin valued Trotsky&#39;s talents and industry, and
for their sake kept his feelings to himself, "he did not feel sympathy
for Trotsky": Trotsky "had too many qualities that made it
extraordinarily difficult to work collectively with him." Stalin suited
Lenin&#39;s needs better. Hence, Lenin assigned to Stalin ever greater
responsibilities, with the result that as he faded from the scene,
Stalin assumed the role of his surrogate, and thus in fact, if not in
name, became his heir.”
[Footnote]: According to her [Lenin&#39;s sister] Trotsky, in contrast to
Lenin, could not control his temper, and at one meeting of the Politburo
called her brother a "hooligan." Lenin turned white as chalk but made
no reply:...
Pipes, Richard. Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf,
1993, p. 459-460

“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“
From Trotsky, 1913 Letter to Chkeidze

You were saying about Stalinist sources...?

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Jun 5 2006, 11:21 PM--> (rebelworker @ Jun 5 2006, 11:21 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 07:00 PM

Every time i bring up the fact that the militant leadership thretened to rat out working class peoplewho defended themselves againt police violence they just stay silent.

I suppose, of course, being a fact and all, you have irrefutable proof of said fact?
Well the fact that it was said to the mainstream British papers of the time, and not refuted by the party might be a suprise to you but that the pile of horseshit your dealing with at this juncture.

I dont have the name of the paper on me right now but Ill get back to you...

fucking disgusting, just went to the wikipedia article on the poll tax riots, obviously been written by some miltant hack. They claim to have organised the whole thing despite the fact that it was lead by independant poll tax unions that sprung up all over the country. Their "coordinating comitte" was a minority of these unions that had been taken over by militant members.

noone can argue that militant wasnt the largest group at the time, but for them to re write the history to say they lead it is disgusting.

I found the original poll tax article that was used for the wiki one, they just cut out all the original authors criticism of the militant and re posted it.

everyone on the left (militant, swp, labour) disnmissed one of the best examples of the working class fighting back as a bunch of anarchist troublemakers(to their credit Class War was the only group to come out publicly in defense of the demonstrators, probably mostly recently unemployed miners, who fought back against the cops).

just goes to show how quick politcal groups will drop any radical pretenses to sway the opinion of the middle class once they are vying for power [/b]
The tabloids say a lot of things and should be regarded with EXTREME skepticism. As for the response from Militant, if everyone on the Left tried to refute everything slanderous said against them in the tabloids, we would surely get nothing done.

I apologise in advance to the creator of this thread, but I do not see the benefit of these type of debates. Neither side will be willing to give an inch, one side will say something, the other will refute and so forth, while the exchanges get more and more derogatory till it ends up in a giant vulgar mess.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H, so you quote an enemy of Marxism, a few Stalin worshippers, and hope that will impress me.

Nice try -- except it wasn&#39;t.

And the letter you quote just confirms that Trotsky got things wrong -- but who doubts that?

Not I.

Is that the best you can do? Slanders and opinion.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Socialistpenguin+Jun 5 2006, 07:00 PM--> (Socialistpenguin &#064; Jun 5 2006, 07:00 PM)
Every time i bring up the fact that the militant leadership thretened to rat out working class peoplewho defended themselves againt police violence they just stay silent.

I suppose, of course, being a fact and all, you have irrefutable proof of said fact?[/b]

I thought this was "common knowledge"? But, anyway, I did a search on the internet and here&#39;s what I found for you....


[i]Originally posted by Steve Wallis+--> (Steve Wallis)[In my opinion, that sort of naïvity is about as believable as the Militant Tendency&#39;s Steve Nally saying that offering to "name names" at the time of the poll tax riot wouldn&#39;t imply revealing the names of the riot instigators to the police - as far as I&#39;m concerned, Galloway is and Nally was agents of big business.]

[....]

....if it was not for Steve Nally&#39;s &#39;mistake&#39; and Militant&#39;s refusal to expel him for it.[/b]

Article; it&#39;s rather long and I couldn&#39;t be arsed to read it all, but it seems the fella&#39; writing this article was a member of the Militant tendency back then and is now trying to more accurately understand its mistakes. (http://mailgate.supereva.com/talk/talk.politics.mideast/msg248467.html)


Originally posted by Anarchist Workers Group
Steve Nally and Tommy Sheridan, the leaders of the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation were, however, equivocal in the extreme. They went on TV to denounce those who fought the police and threatened to &#39;name names&#39;.

Again, I didn&#39;t read the whole piece, but a search for "Tommy Sheridan" on wikipedia will describe him as "active in the Militant Tendency faction inside the Labour Party, before leaving Labour as a member of Scottish Militant Labour (SML)" (no page on Steve Nally). (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/awg/poll_tax.3.html)


This weakness is expressed most clearly where he [Danny Burns?] describes the comments made by Tommy Sheridan (Chair of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation) immediately after Trafalgar Square as "defensive" (pg 104). In this statement Sheridan denounced the rioters. The next day he and Steve Nally were to say that they intended to "name names" and "root out the trouble-makers". This was to earn them the well-deserved epithets of "Nally the Nark" and "Shop&#39;Em Sheridan". There was nothing defensive about the remarks made by these gentlemen. They indicated a real desire go on the offensive... against the proletariat&#33;

Review of Poll Tax Rebellion by Danny Burns; AK Press/Attack International 1992. (http://againstsleepandnightmare.com/wildcat/polltaxbook-review.html)

Although this piece appears to be written by an anarchist group, the piece that led me to that site, DIALOGUE ON DRUGS AND DEMOCRACY, (http://againstsleepandnightmare.com/wildcat/w16-letters.html) says "One result of our policy of "continuous improvement" in our organ&#39;s size and quality has been a corresponding upward direction in the coherence of our correspondence. We no longer get idiotic letters from anarchists in Manchester." And the site itself is called "Wildcat"....and although I&#39;m unaware of this group, after searching wikipedia using the term "Wildcat", this appears to be them: "Wildcat was the name of a small close-to-Bordigist ultraleftist organisation that existed in England in the late 1980s and early 1990s" (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat)).

And additionally, from DIALOGUE ON DRUGS AND DEMOCRACY:


Originally posted by 5. REPLY FROM SUSSEX POLL TAX RESISTERS
....firstly it was obvious that the all important defence of those being victimised after the events of the 30th of march could not be left up to the Militant and the leadership of the "official" anti-poll tax movement who, at the time, were threatening to grass people up to the police....

[....]

In such circumstances, as we saw it, it was vital for us to press home the fact that only a few months before, leading figures in the Militant tendency and the ABAPTF had gone on television announcing that they would "name names" and fully co-operate with the police in bringing "rioters to justice" : that in short, the Militant were grasses whose position was directly opposed to the basic position of the TSDC of unconditional defence of all poll tax prisoners.

[....]

On the contrary, we do not simply identify Militant with the state and dismiss them as nothing more than police informers - nor do we simply identify rank and file members of Militant with its leadership. For us Militant will act as grasses in particular concrete circumstances due to their political position and perspective. Because they seek to represent the working class as it is, or more precisely what they see the working class as being - respectable "law abiding" working class families - through the remnants of the traditional Labour Movement, they had little option in the aftermath of the poll tax riots but to present themselves as reputable upholders of law and order and the "peaceful and democratic traditions" of the Labour Movement. Even if it meant that they had to set up a witch-hunt on the same lines as Kinnock uses against them, it was necessary for them, in the face of a hostile media, to present both themselves and the ABAPTF as a respectable and democratic working class movement. It was for these reasons, and in such circumstances, that Militant came to threaten to "name names".

Furthermore, we must remember that in the face of the overwhelming outrage at the behaviour of Steve Nally and Co., not only from the rest of the anti-poll tax movement but also from Militant&#39;s own rank and file (some of whom had been involved in the fighting at Trafalgar Square), the leadership of Militant were forced into an embarrassing climb down in which they pleaded that they had been "quoted out of context"&#33; The proposed "internal inquiry" never happened and the ABAPTF never came to publish any names of supposed trouble makers or "agents provocateurs".

http://againstsleepandnightmare.com/wildcat/w16-letters.html

Now, I&#39;ve got you four references there, which have enough "key words" to allow anyone to find more references on Google, so I think that is sufficient, don&#39;t you? Additionally, all of the sources I&#39;ve used here have come from people involved with the anti-Poll Tax movement....so you can&#39;t really dismiss them as Mainstream Media outlets doing the States "dirty work" by discrediting revolutionaries. And, if you were able to check BBC archives, the BBC likely being who Nally and Sheridan talked to, then I&#39;m sure you&#39;d be able to turn up the transcripts of their declarations to "name names".


Originally posted by Axel1917
Something that ultra-lefts are clearly incapable of. How many times have I posted things that just ended up getting ignored?

The irony is delicious&#33;

Clownpenisanarchy is referring to an article that you first posted which I then replied to and then you flat out refused to respond to my comments....you were probably "short of time" yet again. Since then, I have shown the article to clownpenisanarchy on at least one occasion, yet I have not linked my original response until this thread....so whilst, before he knew I&#39;d responded, he could say that I should read the piece in it&#39;s entirety, your moaning is fucking hypocritical.

Especially, as over on Yasaree you posted a fucking huge article by Alan Woods on Religion that I read and then responded too (thread (http://www.yasaree.net/en/index.php?s=&showtopic=27&view=findpost&p=76)). Would you have bothered reading 25 pages of tedious writing? In the words of Gina Yashere, I don&#39;t fink so&#33; So, until you do, and until the documented evidence shows that "ultra-lefts" actually "ignore" documents you post, I think you should shut your trap. Understood?


Originally posted by Axel1917
I have heard that the SWP have even rejected the theory of permanent revolution.

Then you&#39;ve "heard" wrong, which is not all that surprising given that your source of information is a senile old man who&#39;s got a bad temper. Despite calling Engels, Lenin and Trotsky "lesser thinkers" in his work How Marxism Works (http://www.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/index.html), Chris Harman, "a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Harman), speaks very highly of the "theory of permanent revolution"....if memory serves me correctly, he describes it as something like the "missing link" of the "Marxist puzzle". So once again Axel, objective fact rubbishes your delusional rantings.


[email protected]
....but the SWP is indeed sectarian and full of nonsense.

Now, I&#39;m sure some folks would class myself as "sectarian", but if you look at my opening post in this thread, you&#39;ll see that a gave a rather fair opinion of the SWP. I pointed the thread starter to a decent critique of them and also listed some of their positive achievements.

Your two posts in this thread however, have possibly been the most sectarian posts yet. You labelled the SWP as "nutters" in one post, and as "full of nonsense" in the other. Indeed, your ignorant rantings have added nothing to this thread....and I don&#39;t think it would be unfair to class them as spam. And therefore, I&#39;d suggest that you modify your behaviour before so as to not receive warning points in the future.


Axel1917
Someone in the SWP even got up and said "He is the most capable representative of the US ruling class." when Alan Woods had questioned the intellectual capabilities of G.W. Bush at the 2005 World Youth Festival.

Source? Eyewitness accounts? Anything?

[Herman]

Red H, so you quote an enemy of Marxism, a few Stalin worshippers, and hope that will impress me.

Nice try -- except it wasn&#39;t.

And the letter you quote just confirms that Trotsky got things wrong -- but who doubts that?

Not I.

Is that the best you can do? Slanders and opinion.

This just shows that you are unable to accept the truth. I&#39;ve quoted various sources from that time and from when the Soviet files were available, even Trotsky himself and you still think it is all lies and slander, yet you come to me with no sources of your own. Please. Grow up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh I am sorry Red, I didn&#39;t know you were a deity, and could accurately depict the personality of someone you had not met.

I take it all back.

[Herman]

Oh I am sorry Red, I didn&#39;t know you were a deity, and could accurately depict the personality of someone you had not met.

You&#39;ve just been beaten down over an argument and you&#39;re trying to hide it with &#39;You weren&#39;t there, so you don&#39;t know&#39;. Let me just put it plainly: No one, not even you were there to see Trotsky. You&#39;re assuming yourself a &#39;deity&#39; as well since you believe Trotsky was the kind of chap you&#39;d like for a barbecue with your family along too. At least I used sources to attempt to back up my argument, where as you didn&#39;t use anything except a childish response.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:44 AM
I have no sympathy for Trotsky. He had a huge ego, did not like working with others and usually offended others with his arrogance.
Blimey, I bet Trotsky&#39;s crying in his grave at your lack of sympathy&#33;

Whether Trotsky was a decent bloke or not is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to assessing his contribution to marxist theory or the international communist movement.

It&#39;s even less relevant to an assessment of contemporary so-called Trotskyst parties.

[Herman]

Blimey, I bet Trotsky&#39;s crying in his grave at your lack of sympathy&#33;

Whether Trotsky was a decent bloke or not is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to assessing his contribution to marxist theory or the international communist movement.

It&#39;s even less relevant to an assessment of contemporary so-called Trotskyst parties.

Well, we weren&#39;t arguing about his contributions, but about his personality. Anyway, his contributions are not far-reaching in Marxist theory. Already Marx had developed the theory of Permanent revolution. The only thing Trotsky did was basically revive it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


You&#39;ve just been beaten down over an argument and you&#39;re trying to hide it with

As I said, I have no intention of arguing with a minor deity who can assess a man&#39;s character without meeting him.

How could I possibly win?




[b]No one, not even you were there to see Trotsky.

But I passed no comment on his character, since, unlike you, I am not a god.


At least I used sources to attempt to back up my argument, where as you didn&#39;t use anything except a childish response.

You mean you were quite happy to believe tittle tattle.


And I am supposed to be the child here....?

[Intelligitimate]

We don&#39;t need to know Trotsky personally to access anything about his character. We can read his writings, we can read the impressions he left on those who did meet him, etc. There is no point in maintaining such silliness, Rosa.

I think you&#39;re very intelligent, Rosa. Perhaps one day we should debate the merits of Trotskyism compared to Marxism-Leninism (note to Trots: it is improper for a Trot to call themselves a Marxist-Leninist for simple historical reasons: "Stalinists" already took the term. Trots usually either call themselves Marxists or Leninists, or more often than not, simply Trotskyists).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Intel:


There is no point in maintaining such silliness, Rosa.

This advice from someone who spits bile....

[Redmau5]

it is improper for a Trot to call themselves a Marxist-Leninist for simple historical reasons: "Stalinists" already took the term.

There is nothing improper about it. People can call themselves whatever the fuck they want.

[Herman]

As I said, I have no intention of arguing with a minor deity who can assess a man&#39;s character without meeting him.

How could I possibly win?

To proper answer for this is:


We don&#39;t need to know Trotsky personally to access anything about his character. We can read his writings, we can read the impressions he left on those who did meet him, etc. There is no point in maintaining such silliness, Rosa.

Thanks for mentioning this at last.


You mean you were quite happy to believe tittle tattle.


And I am supposed to be the child here....?

You are being childish because you do not even bother to show any facts or sources. You still haven&#39;t shown anything to counter what I&#39;ve said. If you think that i&#39;m wrong, prove it. If you do not, then stop making these useless comments.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jun 6 2006, 12:32 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jun 6 2006, 12:32 PM)

[/b]
From Armchiar Socialism:


The irony is delicious&#33;

Clownpenisanarchy is referring to an article that you first posted which I then replied to and then you flat out refused to respond to my comments....you were probably "short of time" yet again. Since then, I have shown the article to clownpenisanarchy on at least one occasion, yet I have not linked my original response until this thread....so whilst, before he knew I&#39;d responded, he could say that I should read the piece in it&#39;s entirety, your moaning is fucking hypocritical.

Where is this article, and for your information, I have to choose and pick things carefully, as unlike you, I am getting caguht up in organizational work. Unlike you, a redstar2000 drone, of whom names himself with a negative phrase (armchair anything usually implies someone that does not know what he/she is talking about, in addition to just sitting around and not observing reality), I do try to get involved in things.


Especially, as over on [i]Yasaree you posted a fucking huge article by Alan Woods on Religion that I read and then responded too (thread (http://www.yasaree.net/en/index.php?s=&showtopic=27&view=findpost&p=76)). Would you have bothered reading 25 pages of tedious writing? In the words of Gina Yashere, I don&#39;t fink so&#33; So, until you do, and until the documented evidence shows that "ultra-lefts" actually "ignore" documents you post, I think you should shut your trap. Understood?

Have you ever read Lenin&#39;s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, some interviews with Ted Grant, and other works on that topic? No. You demonstrate no understanding of this. I have repsonded at Yasaree. That site is not too active, and I honestly do have little time on my hands&#33; I almost forgot about this. If anyone needs to shut their trap, it is you, given your lack of understanding of Marxism (see your misunderstanding of what Woods was saying&#33;).


Then you&#39;ve "heard" wrong, which is not all that surprising given that your source of information is a senile old man who&#39;s got a bad temper. Despite calling Engels, Lenin and Trotsky "lesser thinkers" in his work How Marxism Works (http://www.comcen.com.au/~marcn/redflag/archive/harman/hmw/index.html), Chris Harman, "a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Harman), speaks very highly of the "theory of permanent revolution"....if memory serves me correctly, he describes it as something like the "missing link" of the "Marxist puzzle". So once again Axel, objective fact rubbishes your delusional rantings.

I will see what some experienced comrades say about this. Grant is neither angry or senile. If anyone is senile, it is your beloved redstar2000, proven by his racism and supporting Fascist attacks on churches (he would be banned if the rules at this site were consistently followed&#33;).


Now, I&#39;m sure some folks would class myself as "sectarian", but if you look at my opening post in this thread, you&#39;ll see that a gave a rather fair opinion of the SWP. I pointed the thread starter to a decent critique of them and also listed some of their positive achievements.

Even if you agree with some things, that does not excuse them from sectarian and other anti-Marxist things. A good deal of CL and SWP members are more advanced than most of this site. This does not excuse them from their opportunism, sectarianism, etc., though.


Your two posts in this thread however, have possibly been the most sectarian posts yet. You labelled the SWP as "nutters" in one post, and as "full of nonsense" in the other. Indeed, your ignorant rantings have added nothing to this thread....and I don&#39;t think it would be unfair to class them as spam. And therefore, I&#39;d suggest that you modify your behaviour before so as to not receive warning points in the future.

I suspect that you can&#39;t even define sectarianism. I neither put my own priorities above that of the working class, nor does the CMI/IMT isolate itself from them, unilke the rest of the "Marxist" parties/organizations&#33;


Axel1917
Someone in the SWP even got up and said "He is the most capable representative of the US ruling class." when Alan Woods had questioned the intellectual capabilities of G.W. Bush at the 2005 World Youth Festival.

Source? Eyewitness accounts? Anything?

http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-yout...tival230905.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-youth-festival230905.htm)

See the section entitled "Ultra Left Antics"

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+--> (Intelligitimate)Trots usually either call themselves Marxists or Leninists, or more often than not, simply Trotskyists).[/b]

Don&#39;t forget the term Bolshevik Leninist. Granted, it&#39;s more or a historical term than a contemporary one....but it&#39;s still worth note.


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Where is this article....[/b]

See the first page of this thread....it&#39;s from the thread wear you had a tantrum infront of Miles (Communist League) because he was rubbishing your ignorant ranting about the organisation he was involved in. If I remember correctly, you deemed the organisation an "ultra-left sect". :lol:


Originally posted by Axel1917
.... and for your information, I have to choose and pick things carefully....

So, has it ever occurred to you that the reason that others may not respond to the pages long works of Grant and co. is because they too have things to do? Not that you&#39;ve yet shown any evidence in favour of that proposition, but if you can use limited time as an excuse, why can&#39;t others? Surely if the limited time of "ultra-left X" means he or she is "incapable", then your limited time will allow others to direct the same criticism at you?

And, on top of that, despite your limited time, you are still able to post on, at the very least, two boards regularly. And after I brought it up, you certainly, despite your busy schedule, had time to respond to my comments on Alan Woods article. So, frankly, I find your pleading of mitigating factors, well....tedious.


Originally posted by Axel1917
....of whom names himself with a negative phrase (armchair anything usually implies someone that does not know what he/she is talking about, in addition to just sitting around and not observing reality)....

The term "armchair", describes a piece of furniture. Essentially, my username is a play on words....in that everyone here is sitting in an "armchair" whilst posting (I suspect most people, like myself, are actually sitting in a chair....but "Chair Socialism" doesn&#39;t have the same ring to it). As a descriptive term, its "negative", or for that matter "positive", inclinations are purely subjective....but would you prefer it if I stood up to type?


Originally posted by Axel1917
....I do try to get involved in things.

And, of course, because you know me personally and receive regular updates about the events in my life, this enables you to make informed comments on my life and activities. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Axel1917
Have you ever read Lenin&#39;s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, some interviews with Ted Grant, and other works on that topic?

I&#39;ve read portions of Lenin&#39;s work, it&#39;s pretty boring ya&#39; know, along with some other pieces by a variety of Leninist leaders, including your very own Ted, one the subject of "ultra-leftism". Heck, I&#39;ve even read a few pieces by Uncle Joe on the subject....you&#39;d probably like them, seriously.


Originally posted by Axel1917
I have repsonded at Yasaree.

I&#39;ll respond at some point tommorow....or maybe on Thursday.


Originally posted by Axel1917
I will see what some experienced comrades say about this.

Why don&#39;t you just look at the link? You don&#39;t even have to read the work; being short on time and all, you can just use the find function and search each chapter for the word "permanent". I&#39;m not in the business of defending the SWP, though I think that if you and your group wish to appear credible, you should at the very least try to base your criticisms of them on objective truth....just making shit up is hardly "good practice".


Originally posted by Axel1917
....and supporting Fascist attacks on churches....

You see, they were Mosques he was referring too. You can&#39;t even produce reasonably accurate slander....and you call me a "drone"&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by Axel1917
Even if you agree with some things, that does not excuse them from sectarian and other anti-Marxist things. A good deal of CL and SWP members are more advanced than most of this site. This does not excuse them from their opportunism, sectarianism, etc., though.

Just other "sects" right? You know, no doubt both organisation has its faults, but not having someone like you act as a promoter of their organisation is undeniably a great bonus.


[email protected]
See the section entitled "Ultra Left Antics"

Emphasis added....


In Defence of Marxism
Needless to say, the ultra-left sectarians have been driven to distraction by the success of the Marxist tendency. In a desperate attempt to find a stick to beat us with, one supporter of the American SWP loudly protested in the meeting on militarism that Alan Woods had questioned the intellectual qualities of George Bush: “He is the most capable representative of the US ruling class,” he explained to the astonished audience, who must have thought they were listening to a man from Mars.

http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-yout...tival230905.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-youth-festival230905.htm)

The American SWP, as far as I&#39;m aware, is not linked with the British SWP....the subject in question in this particular thread. So the point is really mute in that regard.

On top of that, I&#39;m sure that the folks in the American SWP will be rather astonished to find out that they are an "ultra-left" organisation. You told me to read Lenin&#39;s work, and I think it would be better if you, and your "comrades", read that work instead....because you don&#39;t seem to have the foggiest idea of what the term "ultra-left", as described by Lenin, actually means. Do you even know what the British communists who felt his "venom" were actually proposing? I&#39;ll give you a hint, it was a tad different from what the American SWP propose. :lol:
____

Additionally, are you, or anyone else for that matter, going to defend Militants threat to "name names"? Because you all seem strangely quiet on this issue. Your not embarrassed are you?

[Axel1917]

See the first page of this thread....it&#39;s from the thread wear you had a tantrum infront of Miles (Communist League) because he was rubbishing your ignorant ranting about the organisation he was involved in. If I remember correctly, you deemed the organisation an "ultra-left sect". :lol:

I will perhaps look into this later. It sounds like the thread when Miles got annoyed with me, for I exposed his rabid opportunism and sectarianism. He had to open up a fresh can of immaturity and call me things like "dipshit," if I recall correctly.


So, has it ever occurred to you that the reason that others may not respond to the pages long works of Grant and co. is because they too have things to do? Not that you&#39;ve yet shown any evidence in favour of that proposition, but if you can use limited time as an excuse, why can&#39;t others? Surely if the limited time of "ultra-left X" means he or she is "incapable", then your limited time will allow others to direct the same criticism at you?

I dont&#39; know. Some of these people (especially redstar2000) have a lot of time to spend on the Internet, and they still ignore such things.


And, on top of that, despite your limited time, you are still able to post on, at the very least, two boards regularly. And after I brought it up, you certainly, despite your busy schedule, had time to respond to my comments on Alan Woods article. So, frankly, I find your pleading of mitigating factors, well....tedious.

Regularly? Perhaps, but I don&#39;t post in length on them for obvious reasons.


The term "armchair", describes a piece of furniture. Essentially, my username is a play on words....in that everyone here is sitting in an "armchair" whilst posting (I suspect most people, like myself, are actually sitting in a chair....but "Chair Socialism" doesn&#39;t have the same ring to it). As a descriptive term, its "negative", or for that matter "positive", inclinations are purely subjective....but would you prefer it if I stood up to type?

You are the first one I have seen to use it so literally. Regardless, the negative defintion suits you just fine as well.


And, of course, because you know me personally and receive regular updates about the events in my life, this enables you to make informed comments on my life and activities. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

You obviously spend more time screwing around at Internet forums than I do.


I&#39;ve read portions of Lenin&#39;s work, it&#39;s pretty boring ya&#39; know, along with some other pieces by a variety of Leninist leaders, including your very own Ted, one the subject of "ultra-leftism". Heck, I&#39;ve even read a few pieces by Uncle Joe on the subject....you&#39;d probably like them, seriously.

This is no excuse not to finish the work. I wonder if you have understood anything you have read as well.


I&#39;ll respond at some point tommorow....or maybe on Thursday.

Okay, we will see. I am not sure when I will get to things. I have to meet with someone tomorrow.


Why don&#39;t you just look at the link? You don&#39;t even have to read the work; being short on time and all, you can just use the find function and search each chapter for the word "permanent". I&#39;m not in the business of defending the SWP, though I think that if you and your group wish to appear credible, you should at the very least try to base your criticisms of them on objective truth....just making shit up is hardly "good practice".

I did a bit of both. Sorry about that. I got the British SWP mixed up with the US SWP of the Pathfinder tendency. At least I correct my mistakes, unlike you, hence you not being able to put up theoretically or in practice (just what is your redstar2000 group doing. Sitting behind computers all day?).


You see, they were Mosques he was referring too. You can&#39;t even produce reasonably accurate slander....and you call me a "drone"&#33; :lol:

Regardless of my mistake, redstar2000 does support Fascist attacks on Mosques. Again, if the rules were consistent, he would be banned.


Just other "sects" right? You know, no doubt both organisation has its faults, but not having someone like you act as a promoter of their organisation is undeniably a great bonus.

Someone that does not go out to the workes is accusing me, a member that does not act in a sectarian manner, of being worthless? What do you redstar2000 drones know?


Emphasis added....

[QUOTE=In Defence of Marxism]Needless to say, the ultra-left sectarians have been driven to distraction by the success of the Marxist tendency. In a desperate attempt to find a stick to beat us with, one supporter of the American SWP loudly protested in the meeting on militarism that Alan Woods had questioned the intellectual qualities of George Bush: “He is the most capable representative of the US ruling class,” he explained to the astonished audience, who must have thought they were listening to a man from Mars.

http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-yout...tival230905.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxists-world-youth-festival230905.htm)


The American SWP, as far as I&#39;m aware, is not linked with the British SWP....the subject in question in this particular thread. So the point is really mute in that regard.

I have already corrected my mistake above. I find it irritating that everyone out there has to copy everyone else&#39;s abbreviations and names in some cases. Stupid Pathfinder.


On top of that, I&#39;m sure that the folks in the American SWP will be rather astonished to find out that they are an "ultra-left" organisation. You told me to read Lenin&#39;s work, and I think it would be better if you, and your "comrades", read that work instead....because you don&#39;t seem to have the foggiest idea of what the term "ultra-left", as described by Lenin, actually means. Do you even know what the British communists who felt his "venom" were actually proposing? I&#39;ll give you a hint, it was a tad different from what the American SWP propose. :lol:

I was contacting them to get a bit of an introduction in regards to the SWP issue I have made a mistake on. Again, I don&#39;t have all of the time in the world. Also, I did read that work with my comrades, and we had a good discussion on it. Again, you are not able to analyze the present day and find out what is sectarian and what isn&#39;t. If you bothered correcting your mistakes, you would realize what a load of trash the redstar2000 papers are.


Additionally, are you, or anyone else for that matter, going to defend Militants threat to "name names"? Because you all seem strangely quiet on this issue. Your not embarrassed are you?

Militant&#39;s threat? We are not called the Militant anymore. We are the Committee for a Marxist International, also known as the International Marxist Tendency. What is this threat you speak of?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Note: I&#39;m going to deliberately ignore the points not relevant to a discussion in Theory. Not only are they merely debates of a personal level between myself and Axel, but they really serve no purpose in a forum like this....and I don&#39;t think the general membership will be that interested in Axel and I&#39;s "bickering". If an Admin wants to split that stuff to a thread in Chit-Chat, fine; but in order to try and maintain a certain standard in this forum, and to be consistent, I feel further discussion on certain topics is really pointless.

Now, on with the relevant, theoretical stuff....


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)This is no excuse not to finish the work.[/b]

Why? I&#39;m under no obligation to read that particular work....and nor does it especially matter if I read that work in its entirety. Generally speaking, I read for pleasure and therefore, if I don&#39;t enjoy reading something, I stop reading it. Indeed, given that it&#39;s only relevant in an historical sense, there&#39;s not much that that work would have with regards information about the goings on of the modern left.

Both the Leninist and left-communist positions, neither of who&#39;s "theoretical camps" would I place myself in, have developed immensely since the time when that document was written....and so have concrete material conditions. So, as I said, that document is really only relevant in a general historical sense.


Axel1917
What is this threat you speak of?

Do you read the threads you post in? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50531&view=findpost&p=1292081620)

Heck, the post I linked, was one in which you must have read because you replied to comments I made in that very post. So I don&#39;t know how you can "plead ignorance" here.

[Axel1917]

From Armchair Socialism:


Note: I&#39;m going to deliberately ignore the points not relevant to a discussion in Theory. Not only are they merely debates of a personal level between myself and Axel, but they really serve no purpose in a forum like this....and I don&#39;t think the general membership will be that interested in Axel and I&#39;s "bickering". If an Admin wants to split that stuff to a thread in Chit-Chat, fine; but in order to try and maintain a certain standard in this forum, and to be consistent, I feel further discussion on certain topics is really pointless.

Now, on with the relevant, theoretical stuff....


Why? I&#39;m under no obligation to read that particular work....and nor does it especially matter if I read that work in its entirety. Generally speaking, I read for pleasure and therefore, if I don&#39;t enjoy reading something, I stop reading it. Indeed, given that it&#39;s only relevant in an historical sense, there&#39;s not much that that work would have with regards information about the goings on of the modern left.

I don&#39;t understand why you do this. It seems like you have a disdain for theory. I had some hard times studying and understanding some things when I was younger, but nonetheless, I did make efforts to read what I did. I feel like I am under obligation in regard to the working class to get a good grounding in theory and practice so I can do my best to help end captialism once and for all. I am a rather serious person.


Both the Leninist and left-communist positions, neither of who&#39;s "theoretical camps" would I place myself in, have developed immensely since the time when that document was written....and so have concrete material conditions. So, as I said, that document is really only relevant in a general historical sense.

Times have changed, but a concrete analysis of today&#39;s world will indicate that a good deal of that work is relevant to this very day, espeically considering the failure and splitting of numerous sects.


Heck, the post I linked, was one in which you must have read because you replied to comments I made in that very post. So I don&#39;t know how you can "plead ignorance" here.

Again, we are not known as the militant anymore, and we were expelled by a majority that went ultraleft from that tendency. Not to mention that the person who made these threats is not involved in either of the tendencies anymore. I also would not necessarily consider the threats of one person to reflect the overall tactics employed by the tendency as a whole. How are we involved in such things now?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)I don&#39;t understand why you do this.[/b]

What don&#39;t you understand? That I read for pleasure? :huh:

I would have thought it was a relatively simple thing, humans experience a wage range of emotions, and of these emotions, pleasure is one of the more enjoyable. Therefore, where possible, humans try to increase the amount of pleasure in their lives by doing things they find, you guessed it, pleasurable&#33;

Some folks like playing computer games for pleasure, others like playing sports, and others leaking reading interesting books....I happen to enjoy all of these things in "moderation". And therefore, where possible, I do these things.

Got it?


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)It seems like you have a disdain for theory.[/b]

Not the abstract, almost mystical, category of "theory"; but rather specific theory. I try, wherever possible, to read theory that is useful....and I&#39;ve therefore read a variety of theoreticians; including Lenin and Trotsky. Now, there are other folks who I think are more useful theoretically and I therefore direct my attentions towards them....two major theoretical works I plan to read soon are Rocker&#39;s Anarcho-Syndicalism and, due to a recommendation, Luxemburg&#39;s Junius Pamphlet.

I very much doubt that you&#39;ve read Pannekoek (a.k.a. John Harper), or Sylvia Pankhurst, or Rocker, and so on, recently. Does this show that "you have a disdain for theory"? Earlier in this thread someone said I was "eclectic" and that&#39;s a rather decent analysis....I don&#39;t very much like the idea of doctrinaire obedience, rather I&#39;d prefer to read from a variety of sources that I think would be useful in forming a theoretical outlook. And so far, I&#39;ve not found either the writings of Lenin or Trotsky to be of much use in this regard....where as I think the writings of Marx and Engels still retain a great deal of value for modern communists.


Originally posted by Axel1917
I had some hard times studying and understanding some things when I was younger....

Your 20, I&#39;m 18; so I don&#39;t think stories about "when u waz a nipper" have much use here. I mean, you probably still aren&#39;t legally old enough to drink in whatever State you live in....which would make my average Saturday afternoon seem a great deal more "grown up" than yours. <_<


Originally posted by Axel1917
I feel like I am under obligation in regard to the working class to get a good grounding in theory and practice so I can do my best to help end captialism once and for all.

Okey-dokey.


[email protected]
....but a concrete analysis of today&#39;s world will indicate that a good deal of that work is relevant to this very day, espeically considering the failure and splitting of numerous sects.

Not really.

That document, in it&#39;s historic context, along with the decisions of the 10th Congress, was Lenin&#39;s attempt to argue for the type of organisation that has led to the "failure and splitting of numerous sects". The banning of factions, the "universalising" of HQ&#39;s countries conditions to apply to every other country, the rigid obedience to only a few tactics and so on, were all emphasised by Lenin at that point.

His aim, in an historical context, was to drag, amongst others, the British left-communists to the right and get them to stay in a Moscow oriented Party. Now been as there isn&#39;t a "left-communist faction" within any Leninist Party (that I know of) and been as there isn&#39;t a Leninist Party advocating the tactics of Pankhurst et al. (once again, that I know of), the document is really irrelevant.

So unless your group has a "left-communist fraction" and is trying to get them to drop tactics, which unlike the rest of the left-communist movement, haven&#39;t developed over the last century, then I can&#39;t really see that document having much use....other than from an historical viewpoint. Your desire to label anyone who disagrees with your Party as "ultra-left" aside, contemporary Leninism, from a inner Party and tactics viewpoint, doesn&#39;t have a problem with "left-communist" factions....making Lenin&#39;s work, virtually redundant.

Essentially, the historic era in which that work was written is over. So I don&#39;t see any reason to read that particular work.


Axel1917
Again, we are not known as the militant anymore, and we were expelled by a majority that went ultraleft from that tendency. Not to mention that the person who made these threats is not involved in either of the tendencies anymore. I also would not necessarily consider the threats of one person to reflect the overall tactics employed by the tendency as a whole. How are we involved in such things now?

Because not only did a person representing Militant (from whom your Party derives its historic roots) make those comments, but that no one who later went on to form your Party has ever, to my knowledge, criticised the actions of those members....then or now. Which means that any trust people may place in you, must surely be tested. After all, if you&#39;re not willing to condemn such an act, how are we to know you wouldn&#39;t do such things in the future?

So whilst you may wish to paint those in your Party who derived their roots from the Militant tendency as "angels", their unwillingness to condemn that particular tactic makes them wholly untrustworthy. And not only that, you&#39;ve still failed to say whether you agree with that particular tactic. If you don&#39;t, am I going to assume that your going to press for Woods and co. to issue a formal apology? Because until then, I don&#39;t think it would be wise for anyone to trust you lot....and you can count on me to bring this issue up every time I hear someone from your Party describe the Party as a revolutionary Party. And I think a lot of folks, especially those involved in the anti-Poll Tax movement, feel, essentially, the same way as myself.

So I guess you better ask Alan or Ted to issue that apology and condemn the actions of those two former Militant members.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:


You are being childish because you do not even bother to show any facts or sources.

You seem to be superglued to the idea that I am trying to establish anything about Trotsky; for a minor deity you are a bit slow.

Since I do not live on Mount Olympus with you and those other gods (I hope they are quicker-witted than you), I do not seek to pass an opinion about a man I have not met.

That you can (and do) do this, suggests I should leave you to get on with things (and not annoy you any more (your name-calling is very scary) -- and anyway my lightning-strike insurance has run out), so that you can continue to screw up the universe in the way you and those other (less slow-witted) gods have done since the Big Bang.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2006, 01:23 AM
So I guess you better ask Alan or Ted to issue that apology and condemn the actions of those two former Militant members.
Should every Anarcho-Syndicalist be responsible for the failures of the CNT? Should Anarchists be responsible for the terrorist bands that joined the white army in Russia?

Your assertion is ridiculous, blaming an organization for the actions of a party they were expelled from.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 7 2006, 05:14 PM
Should every Anarcho-Syndicalist be responsible for the failures of the CNT? Should Anarchists be responsible for the terrorist bands that joined the white army in Russia?

That&#39;s a rather silly comparison, don&#39;t you think? I mean, I haven&#39;t said I want "every" Trotskyist in the world to be responsible for the actions of the Militant tendency. Nor have I even said that I want "every" member of the IMT, which claims its political heritage from the Militant tendency, to apologise.

Granted, folks who associate with either Anarcho-Syndicalism (I&#39;m pretty sure most Anarcho-Syndicalists claim their political roots lie with Durruti and not the CNT as a whole....but that&#39;s a minor point), Russian anarchism or the Militant, will have to form some kind of opinion on whatever actions are seen as worthy of criticism by others on the left. But X saying historical event Y was dumb or a mistake, is not quite the same as what is in question here.

You see, both Woods and Grant were active within the Militant tendency when it threatened to "name names", so therefore, there is a degree of direct accountability involved here. Now, as you mention, these guys were "expelled from" the Militant tendency, but they weren&#39;t expelled for condemning Nally and Sheridan. Indeed, as far as I know, they&#39;ve done nothing with regards condemning the individuals involved during their time inside the Militant and during the time since they were expelled....if they had, I&#39;m sure one of their supporters would have brought this up by now.

So really, what do you make of the fact that neither Woods nor Grant issued or backed a motion to punish Sheridan and Nally after this debacle? I mean, unlike your modern day Anarcho-Syndicalist who is in no way accountable for whatever the CNT did, both Woods and Grant were in a position to do something about Nally and Sheridan....yet they did absolutely nothing. So the logical conclusion is that they consider the threat to "name names" a viable tactic....and that certainly reflects badly on their current organisation.

I mean, are we to assume that if Nally and Sheridan wanted, they&#39;d be allowed into the IMT? Because Woods and Grant, as far as I know, haven&#39;t criticised either of these guys for their actions, so they&#39;d likely still consider these guys "comrades" (unless they&#39;ve disagreed with them on other issues....which is a possibility in the case of Sheridan at least).

Do you get what I&#39;m saying here? Do you get the difference between a modern day Anarcho-Syndicalist being held accountable for the actions of the CNT which they had no power over, when compared to Wood and Grants culpability with regards the actions of individuals in a group they had a great deal of influence over? And most of all, do you see why those of us outside of the IMT feel that we need to know that Woods and Grant don&#39;t see threatening to "name names" as a viable tactic?

And furthermore, there&#39;s a difference between the actions of the CNT and those of the Russian anarchists who sided with the Whites and the Militant who threatened to "name names". You see, as far as I know, the "bad" things the CNT did, can be said to be mistakes, where as the actions of the Russian anarchists and the Militant don&#39;t represent "mistakes", they can be quite clear shown to be deliberate acts of betrayal. And that, CYM, is a pretty big fucking difference.

[Hit The North]

The continuing value of Trotsky, for those who respect him, is that he represented a surviving thread of the revolutionary spirit of the Russian revolution in the dark years of Stalinism. His internationalism and rejection of bureaucratic control in favour of independent working class action, helped keep the spirit of Marxism alive. During the Cold war it was useful to call yourself a trotskyist because it separated you from the Stalinist deformation of the revolutionary tradition.

To cast oneself as a Trotskyist today seems to me to be irrelevant to the contemporary situation.

The SWP(UK) have Trotsky amongst their pantheon of revolutionary socialist heroes (alongside Marx, Engels, Lenin, Gramsci, Luxemborg), but in the spirit of marxism is never uncritical in its assessment of them. This seems an eminently healthy state of affairs.

Too many comrades on this forum are too eager to label themselves and others without really understanding the content of those labels beyond the short-hand slurs they represented in the past.

Time to move on.