the SWP; why are they hated?

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Fri May 17, 2002 20:00

To Ph, this a leaflet I have just found:

“Join the YRC. The Youth Rights Campaign (YRC) was set up by young workers…..drone…drone….
In opposition to the idea that youth should accept mass unemployment ..drone….drone…..
The campaign is sponsored by Paul Hill, Emmet Stagg TD, Micheal D. Higgins TD, Senator Brendan Ryan,Dcu Student’s Union, Charlie Douglas (Reg. Sec. ATGWU).”

No mention of the Militant Tendency. Youth Against The War was a front group of the Y.R.C. itself a front group of the Tendency.

Look at it, looks just like a S.W.P. front doesn’t it – collection
of various worthies, many of whom are deeply implicated in the running of Capitalism, and no mention of the PARTY.

Until they get you on the hook, then they try to reel you in.

Contact address was write to a certain Clare Daly.

Named Irish speakers at the meeting being advertised were Peter Hadden, Clare Daly, and a Dermot Connolly (none identified by Party affiliation). Now the first two are still about, the last one I dunno but judging by the blurb (kicked out of the Labour Party for standing for the ideas of James Connolly) I think I could hazard an educated guess.

What is the significance of this? Well it shows that no Leninoid outfit is that far removed from the other Leninoid outfit.

Defining characteristics of the front group phenomenon are

(one) they exist for one purpose – recruiting.

(two) they have no democracy or independent existence.

Both of these directly relate to the Leninist concept of the vanguard Party. The most important thing is how strong the party is, rather than encouraging working class self organisation, more people getting active and fighting for their interests (irrespective of political affiliation). This is clearly further demonstrated by the line on Germany, as basically the problem was the K.P.D. wasn’t a real vanguard, with the right leadership, had Trotsky been running the show history would have been totally different.

In relation to what Ray, is saying, yeah this is true up to a point, but we should not overlook two things

(one) both Lenin and Trotsky explicitly argued against democracy from time to time.

(two) Bolshevism (and this is true of Keiran Allen and others today) was/is totally contemptuous towards the bulk of the Russian population, sometimes the urban working class, but always the rural working class (and in actual fact, communism, real communism was closer to existing in the rural areas then in the cities during the Russian revolution). This left them with a “democracy” which only claimed to represent a minority of people in the Russian Empire, and even within that minority, they could simply dismiss any part of it, by referring to “peasant origins” (almost all the urban working class of the era was one step away from the farm), the main evidence for being more “proletarian” than “peasant” was support of, or lack of opposition to, Bolshevism. (as the Bolshevik party was vanguard of the proletariat, and as, according to the Marxist-Leninism ‘progress’ scheme the proletariat would support Bolshevism, in fact Bolshevism was seen AS the proletariat, the hand of human beings being left out of the equation).

As regard Dan on motivations. I was just thinking, is this the “materialist conception of history”?:

The Jesuits in South America: You might think they were destroying the indigenous culture and enslaving the native population.
Actually they were bringing the hope of eternal life, and teaching the value of work, to poor forgotten souls.

The Inquisition: You might think they were murdering and torturing any possible deviator from Roman Catholicism
(and often profiting into the bargain).
Wrong it was their intention to protect people from eternity in hell fire.

The U.S. Army in Vietnam:
Torture, rape, murder. No! Defending democracy.

In each case they may have well, and probably did, have the best of intentions, and really believe what they were doing was what they said they were doing. But in each case they knew best and just had to force the rest of the world to go along with it. Now that might be Roman Catholicism, it might be American Imperialism, but it is not socialism.

And of course the final and most important part of the “materialist conception of history” as delivered to us by trots is
Trotsky = Good man, Stalin = Bad man.

Finally the significance of the “abuses” under the “healthy democratic worker’s state” (C.W.I./Socialist Party) is not that they were bad things or mistakes but that they demonstrate the there was a class struggle (thus the repression of independent working class self-organisation) and the State was against the working people in that struggle. They demonstrate that there was a counter-revolution from the ‘left’/Reds, after all the were doing the same things as would have been done, by the “right”/Whites (and were where possible). They demonstrate that what Trots call “Stalinism” was alive and kicking before 1924. Different from a “mistake”.

They clearly demonstrate what happens when a vanguard party takes power and establishes a “healthy democratic worker’s state”.

The fact that almost all Leninist groups stand over the record of the Bolsheviks (at least all I have ever came across), hardly surprising given they derive their practise from them, shows that either they don’t have any problems with totalitarianism as a road to socialism! or that they do not know anything of what went on in the Russian Empire in the years 1917 to 1924.

This is by no means a small issue, as their theory and practise is based on, and they clearly want to replicate, the Bolshevik party.

“First of all, it would be totally impossible for socialists to take control of the existing state power in Europe and use it for their own purposes, because that power is fundamentally hostile to socialism. Even if the SWP won a majority at the ballot box there is no way the army and M15 would follow their orders. So theyd have to create their own state apparatus, which would have to be based on broad popular support.”

As did the Bolsheviks – the Red Army for example.

Two points:

(one) the Bolsheviks did have mass support, something like 24% of the population voted for them in 1917 Constituent Assembly elections and it was higher in the urban areas which they then used to build up the state apparatus. Even when they had little positive support, they were still in practice supported as the lesser evil against the Whites.

(two) Important segments of the former ruling class quickly came over to their side. Of lesser importance than the first point, but it should not be forgotten.

“So they wouldnt be able to set up a dictatorship, for the reasons i outlined already.”

First establish the state, then slowly whittle away independent organization while posing as the lesser evil. If left totalitarianism couldn’t establish itself in Europe because people’s commitment to democracy would overthrow it then the same would apply to right totalitarianism. If a “socialist” party couldn’t win support except on a democratic platform and thus there could be no repeat of Bolshevism, well read “State and Revolution” again.

“The point of emphasing the small size of the urban working class in Russia is that its much easier to crush opposition in rural areas which is fragmented and dispersed over a large area. One million people concentrated in a city are more of a threat to a repressive government than five million people spread out between hundreds of small villages.”

Actually it’s the other way around judging by the experience of the Russian Revolution – there was a far more deep seated, prolonged and successful revolutionary struggle against Bolshevism in the rural areas than in the cities. For precisely the reasons you point out. The population being diffuse, in areas of poor communications, and so on is harder to control. Hell two words – Viet Minh. In any case the accruements and technology of repression are far more advanced now than in the days of the Cheka.

“As for the SWP, of course there were other members capable of forming their own opinions, but they were all forced out by Cliff in the early seventies; most of the veteran IS figures such as Mike Kidron, Roger Protz, Jim Higgins and Peter Sedgewick left the IS around this time (Sedgewick is worth checking out if you want examples of the acerbic stance towards bolshevism that was common in the IS before Cliff decided to change the line; he once described the ice-pick which killed Trotsky as "something of a boomerang").”

So there was a minority of thinkers in the party who fell out. IMHO I don’t see how a party which was democratic to start with could have reverted to authoritarianism. How would this work? Anyways the point is that if all these individuals are of great significance to the story of British Trotskyism then it follows that within British Trotskyism a small number of leaders do the running. I.E. “a fairly strict intellectual division of labour”.

How would Cliff – a single individual – force people out of a democratic organization? How would people in a democratic organization, believers in socialist democracy allow themselves to be railroaded into a nutty authoritarian cult like the S.W.P.? “Cliff decided to change the line”, how could Cliff – a single individual – decide to change the line in a democratic organization.

“Anyway, im not in any way tempted to abandon the view that there were more than superficial differences between the Leninist and Stalinist regimes; as i said before, this does not excuse the bolsheviks for their real abuses. But the red terror was not comparable in scale to the great purges. Would you also maintain that there was no difference whatsoever between Stalin and Khrushcev (a man no trotskyist could be accused of fondness towards)?”

So your point is that there was a difference in scale but not a difference in content between the regime in the Stalin era and the regime in the Lenin era.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to base a revolutionary practice on the theories and practice of Bolshevism, don’t you think?

And for some one who does, arguments such as: the fundamental difference between the S.W.P. and the far-right is that the S.W.P. will never come to power, the difference between a fascist regime and Lenin’s one is there isn’t one, and the difference between the Lenin era regime and the Stalin era regime is one of scale but not content (all things you are saying) are to put it frankly somewhat concerning.

At what point does the Red Terror become equivalent to the Great Purges? (In any case more people died in the terror famines, - in the great purges important people died from the ruling class, thus they are remembered).

The Red Terror, by my reckoning claimed at least a million victims, mostly in the “merciless war on the kulaks”. That is a very conservative estimate because I have deliberately left out other aspects of the Terror (e.g. de-cosackisation) , I’m only counting repression not military conflict, and as the Bolshevik death toll would rightly include the 10 million odd estimated deaths from famines which their policy was responsible for. Lenin and co. were effectively in absolute power for 4 years (before the “peasant” revolt forced them to back down). I would say that is quite comparable to 4 years of the Stalin era, even with the most conservative estimate.

In any case you yourself have admitted that the difference, if one exists, is one of scale not one of content. Now that is somewhat superficial.

As for Kruchchev the job was already done by then.

So the great thing to endear us to Lenin, Trotsky and co. is their regime murdered less people than Stalin.

You still havn’t told us if Stalin was plotting to establish a brutal dictatorship all along.

You still havn’t told us what the healthy aspects of Bolshevism are and more besides.

“Finally, the question of what the bolsheviks intentions were is not irrelevant. If you compare them to far-right leaders, the implication is that everything the bolsheviks wrote about socialist democracy before the revolution was entirely spurious.”

Oh Dear! An implication only existing in the Manichean world of leftism. As pointed out this does not mean I impute base motivations to Lenin and co. I have dealt with most of this above, but for the record as far as I’m concerned:

Men like Jose Antonio Primo De Riveria, the Strasser brothers, Ernst Rohm, honestly believed in a nationalist-socialist revolution which was best for the people of Germany and Spain and was socialism. Micheal McDowell honestly believes in ‘trickle-down’ economics as a means of ending poverty. Etc…,etc… it is clear Lenin honestly believed that dictatorship was the means to socialism (although his definition of socialism was bizarre to say the least).

As for “State and Revolution” it is clear and was said so as the time by Bolsheviks, that this is out of keeping with Bolshevism, it also has no relation to what the Bolsheviks did when they go into power. You can draw you own conclusion. As for the motivations of the Bolshevik leaders, I’m not a psychologist.

“There are no grounds whatsoever for believing that lenin was secretly plotting to set up a brutal dictatorship from around 1903.”

Lenin clearly saw dictatorship as the means to establish socialism – his programme for the organization of the Party was a dictatorship. Ask Rosa Luxemburg. As the vanguard party was to seize power on behalf of the working class that then is a dictatorship (as the Party is a dictatorship and the state the means of dictatorship).

A dictatorship, or any authoritarian rule – including ‘bourgeois democracy’, is only brutal if people do not go along with it.

“Someone argued that although the bolsheviks probably had perfectly benign intentions, the premises of their ideology contained some dangerous and potentially authoriarian seeds. This is fair enough, but its a totally different argument.”

Ray’s argument is they had benign motivations but were authoritarian and thus could not realize their motivations.

Not “some dangerous and potentially authoriarian seeds”.

My argument is that they were more authoritarian than Ray would perhaps suggest (but their motivations I don’t know about – not having cut their brains open to have a look)

Not different unless you assume that every other politician or businessman or church leader or cop has base motives.

I’ll leave this with you Dan, answer my points, and the other people’s ones.

To put it down to basics I want to know two things

(1) What are the healthy aspects of specifically Leninist theory and practise?

(2) What is the socialist alternative which is democratic as it is blatantly obvious that Leninism isn’t it?

Finally about the A.N.L.. Interesting because it mirrors recent events.

Anti-Fascist Action start to win large numbers while battering the Fascists in the early 90ies.
The S.W.P. see this (while they didn’t do anything when their paper sales were being turned over on a fairly regular basis) they also see that Nazism is in the news (cause of events not in England) hey presto A.N.L. – not only a front group, but with a practise which is embarrassingly naff. Efforts which could have gone into the sensible practise of no platform direct action end up waving placards at the B.N.P. with ridiculous slogans like “Stop Racist Attacks” (one Bonehead to another Bonehead “oh all these people want us to stop racist attacks guess we better”).

The latest I have seen is protesting at the new B.N.P. councillors going into the council chambers. What a joke the left protesting at it’s own impotence. You might as well protests outside the voters houses with placards reading “Why didn’t you vote Labour”.

There is the issue – independent self organisation versus the front group, direct action versus wave a placard demanding whatever it is this week.

by Dan - Socialist Alternative Fri May 17, 2002 16:02 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

In a hurry so i cant write very much, just a few brief points. First of all, it would be totally impossible for socialists to take control of the existing state power in Europe and use it for their own purposes, because that power is fundamentally hostile to socialism. Even if the SWP won a majority at the ballot box there is no way the army and M15 would follow their orders. So theyd have to create their own state apparatus, which would have to be based on broad popular support. So they wouldnt be able to set up a dictatorship, for the reasons i outlined already. The point of emphasing the small size of the urban working class in Russia is that its much easier to crush opposition in rural areas which is fragmented and dispersed over a large area. One million people concentrated in a city are more of a threat to a repressive government than five million people spread out between hundreds of small villages. So since Europe is overwhelmingly urban, a repeat of the russian experience is unlikely. As for france, of course degaulles regime was no ideal democracy, but it was less brutal than Ulbrichts or Brezhnevs, to whom the PCF looked for guidance. The point about the PCF is that it shows that no authoritarian party can be truly revolutionary.

As for the SWP, of course there were other members capable of forming their own opinions, but they were all forced out by Cliff in the early seventies; most of the veteran IS figures such as Mike Kidron, Roger Protz, Jim Higgins and Peter Sedgewick left the IS around this time (Sedgewick is worth checking out if you want examples of the acerbic stance towards bolshevism that was common in the IS before Cliff decided to change the line; he once described the ice-pick which killed Trotsky as "something of a boomerang"). Since then the SWP has operated a fairly strict intellectual division of labour; the only people with the authority to speculate about questions of this sort are Harman, Callinicos, Rees etc. When it comes to fundamental questions like the october revolution the SWP doesnt listen to anyones view unless theyve been brought into the partys intellectual elite, and a precondition of entering that elite is orthodoxy on fundamental questions like the october revolution...

Anyway, im not in any way tempted to abandon the view that there were more than superficial differences between the Leninist and Stalinist regimes; as i said before, this does not excuse the bolsheviks for their real abuses. But the red terror was not comparable in scale to the great purges. Would you also maintain that there was no difference whatsoever between Stalin and Khrushcev (a man no trotskyist could be accused of fondness towards)?

Finally, the question of what the bolsheviks intentions were is not irrelevant. If you compare them to far-right leaders, the implication is that everything the bolsheviks wrote about socialist democracy before the revolution was entirely spurious. There are no grounds whatsoever for believing that lenin was secretly plotting to set up a brutal dictatorship from around 1903. Someone argued that although the bolsheviks probably had perfectly benign intentions, the premises of their ideology contained some dangerous and potentially authoriarian seeds. This is fair enough, but its a totally different argument.

by Andrew Fri May 17, 2002 10:23

Hi folks,

as this thread is vanishing back in the archive can I suggest moving it to http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=revoltnew
where it will stay in full view and will be linked from my Russian revolution page next time I do an update. I had set this up to debate a SP member but he hasn't responded yet.

I've posted the last few posts (from Dan on) into the thread to start it off

by Ray Fri May 17, 2002 09:36

I'll butt out again in a second, but I wanted to address something.

- Its misleading to speak of a Bolshevik "counter-revolution" as if they took power with the explicit intention of crushing the working class movement. -

As far as I know, most anarchists don't think Lenin and Trotsky were moustache-twirling evil geniuses, who spent twenty years plotting the establishment of a dictatorship. I'm sure they, and most Bolsheviks, acted with the best of intentions. They did what they thought was in the best interests of the working class.

The problem is this. Before the revolution, before the civil war, and then during and after the civil war, they always thought that the best interests of the working class were served by the rule of the Bolsheviks. As far as they were concerned (and it comes up time and time again in their writings), the working class might not know what was good for them, and it was up to the heroic, hard-working, self-sacrificing, altruistic Bolsheviks to show them the way.

Of course, before the revolution, the Bolsheviks assumed that the working class would accept this leadership without question, and would probably even be grateful to have such dedicated socialists on their side. And so it was easy to issue all sorts of pro-democracy statements - they assumed that real workers democracy would put the Bolsheviks in charge.

The problem arose when the Russian working class weren't sufficiently grateful, and fell under the influence of 'counter-revolutionaries', 'bourgeois elements', or some other bogey-men. Then the Bolsheviks had a choice. Would they let the working class choose its own path, which was certain to lead to disaster? Or would they hold on to power - just for a while, until the workers saw sense, until this current crisis was over, until the socialist society had been established?

Every time this came up, the Bolsheviks decided that the working class couldn't be trusted with power. They couldn't be trusted to run factory committees. They couldn't be trusted to run independent trade unions. They couldn't be trusted to run their own soviets, or to elect a constituent assembly. At every turn, the Bolsheviks decided that democracy was dispensable if it threatened socialism - and since they were the only ones who knew how to get to socialism, anything that threatened their rule had to be dispensed with.

I don't think people join the SWP or the CP or the SP because they secretly want to send people to gulags. I do think that Leninist groups often believe democracy is an optional extra, that should be discarded if it mightn't get the right results. And so, because they don't understand the lessons of the past, because they think that Russia failed because of the small urban working class, or because of a failure of leadership, or because of other exceptional circumstances, if they ever get the chance themselves they'll end up establishing a dictatorship. Not because they want to, but because they'll end up thinking they've been forced into it, because its necessary to achieve socialism, and because they don't understand that socialism and freedom can't be separated.

by Phuq Hedd Thu May 16, 2002 20:06

I asked three questions and you answered #3 only.

MY QUESTIONS:
1.how are you going to avoid the repetition of Authoritarian Socialist abuses of power if you believe in dictatorship of the party?

2.how are you going to avoid being sold out by the "democratic socialists" that you encourage us to vote for in the next elections?

3.do you support the SWP in their support of New Labour candidates in Britain?

YOUR CONDENSED ANSWER:
3. And yes, i do agree with the SWP's recommendation for the last British election "vote socialist where you can, vote labour where you must";

You completely fail to answer #1, #2 spending the rest of your answer dismissing anyone that perceives the authoritarianism of Lenin/Marx/Trotsky as "speaking rubbish". That's really not good enough if you're serious in portraying your ideas and party as the possible future of socialism. It sounds as though you have absolutely no idea of how to practically promote democracy.

Let me add two more questions:
4. Do you believe in the vanguard role of your Party?

5. Do you condemn the SWP/GR attempts to foster the impression that they organised RTS? (After all that's why feeling runs so high against the SWP at present. I know I couldn't generally care what they're doing, but this gets my goat).

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Thu May 16, 2002 19:08

“Democratic Centralism”, the notion of the “worker’s vanguard” taking state power “on behalf of” the working class, and holding up a totalitarian state and it’s murderous dictators as an example to follow, is authoritarianism.

I’m not interested in whether or not that represents the real Marxism or not.

Nonetheless not all Marxists are Leninists, and therefore not all Marxists are authoritarian.
I’ll leave it to you to decide which category you fit into.

“Fascists can take power with fairly slender support because they recieve support from the ruling classes, but socialists could only take power with overwhelming mass support. No party ambivalent on the question of democracy could hope to win such support.“

“Tyranny could only be established in Europe through brute force, and the only people who possess that are the ruling class.”

But when “socialists” “take power” then they would possess that brute force i.e. state power.

Your talk of “socialists taking power” puts you far away from socialism, which is the working class taking power. Also contrary to what you are saying there was a massive working class in the Russian Empire, on the land, and it was there that both the revolution and thus the counter-revolution reached it’s fullest expression.

“When the Bolsheviks took power they didnt have a rigidly centralised internal regime of the sort adopted by most leninist groups in the west; during 1917 they threw the party more or less open, then shifted to a more authoritarian regime soon after taking power. This was only possible because of the conditions in the civil war; if the russian working class hadnt been shrunk, fragmented and demoralised, they never would have allowed the usurping of democracy.”

But they quickly set up the authoritarian regime before the civil war, the real civil war didn’t start before the summer of 1918 (there was minor skirmishing before hand). Long before the decimation you speak of (which was itself in large part of the result of the Bolshevik totalitarianism) the counter-revolution and repression was underway. Here’s one I wrote earlier:

“On the 3rd of March 1918 the brief hostilities between Berlin and the Bolsheviks were ended ; on the 10th of April 1918 the volunteer and Cossack white armies ( the only anti-Bolshevik armed forces of any substance at this time) were well defeated; so the article on 'The immediate tasks of the Soviet Government', written by Lenin and published on the 25th of April 1918 , could be considered our 'control' i.e. Leninism minus military threat ; all the more so given that on March 14th 1918 Lenin said "The Soviet Government has triumphed in the Civil
War" and again on April 23rd he said "One can say with certainty that the Civil
War in its main phases has been brought to an end". (6)

Furthermore this was before the failure of the German revolution dimmed hopes of
spreading 'socialism' to the more advanced states .

In this article Lenin writes : "We must raise the question of piece-work and
apply and test it in practise .... we must raise the question of applying much
of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system."

"The irrefutable experience of history has shown that ... the dictatorship of
individual persons was very often the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship
of the revolutionary classes."

"Large-scale machine industry - which is the material productive source and
foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will ... How
can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to
the will of one".

" Unquestioning submission (emphasised in original) to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine industry . . . today the Revolution demands , in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will (emphasised in original) of the leaders of the labour process." (7)

Note the building of socialism requires "thousands subordinating their will to
the will of one" in other words submission to authority is an inherent
prerequisite of socialism not a temporary expedient employed to win the civil
war or to maintain 'socialism in one country'.

"Communist" political repression and class oppression likewise dates back to
before the civil war began in earnest. The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission
for Struggle against Counter-Revolution and Sabotage or Cheka (later known as
the N.K.V.D., G.P.U., K.G.B. and currently F.S.B.) was established on the 7th
of December 1917 . It's definition of 'counter-revolution' and 'sabotage'
included absenteeism from work and private trading (which was a necessity) . All
non-Bolshevik political factions were to fall victim to the Cheka within the
first year of it's operations, within it's first month the infamous Peter and
Paul fortress in St Petersburg was filled to the brim with political prisoners.
On the night of April the 11th 1918 (again during our 'control' period ) Cheka
units raided 26 anarchist centres in Moscow , killing 40 in the initial fighting
and arresting over 500.

The terror was not just a means of disposing of dissidents but also a means of
labour discipline, to quote Lenin again, this time writing in December 1917, :

"In one place they (i.e. the Cheka) will put into prison a dozen rich men, a
dozen scoundrels, half a dozen workers who shirk on the job....." ,"one out of every ten idlers will be shot".”

That is before the Civil War really began and in part while Lenin regarded the civil war as over. It is before the coup attempt of the Left S.R.’s and while the Imperialist powers were busy fighting each other, it is before the episode with the Czech Legion, it is before the establishment of the Komuch.

Lenin is on record as saying (a) revolution always occurs in time of civil war, famine, etc.. and (b) conditions in Russia were more ripe for successful revolution than in Western Europe.

“Not even the French CP, one of the most authoritarian parties in Europe, posed the slightest threat to democracy. The experience of 1968 showed that parties like the PCF are unable to take advantage of popular libertarian upsurges, even to hijack them for their own purposes.”

The PCF didn’t attempt to hijack this but divert it, it was authoritarian reformist not authoritarian ‘revolutionary’. Again you seem to believe that democracy is something we live in.

“Britain doesnt offer much proof that social democrats are vulnerable to pressure from below cos there hasnt really been any pressure from below during Blairs government. France is a better example; Jospin would have liked to have gone as far to the right as Blair but couldnt because of labour militancy.”

Aye, which is not proof that a “Social Democratic” Government is more susceptible to that than any other.

“This is very limited of course but marxists have never said otherwise; i dont think saying to people they should vote for labour as the lesser of two evils if theres really nobody else encourages much illusions about Blair.”

Well it tell’s people that they are the lesser of two evils – which is an illusion. Empirical evidence to the effect that they are. I have produced some to say that they are not.

“To return to the question of bolshevism: its not true to say that any attractive side to their ideas is paralleled by similar rhetoric from Hitler or other fascists. Hitlers ideas were perfectly consistent from the time of mein kampf to the last days of his reign;”

Jose Antonio Primo De Riveria was a ‘socialist’, the program of Japanese Fascism was ‘socialist’, more modern groups like the 80ies N.F. and the Third Way talk about de-centralization, ending Third World Debt and so on. Those are extreme examples but the same can be said of others – e.g. every election time there are promises. We have to learn to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. The question of intent doesn’t come into, lot’s of political leaders, businessmen, etc.. think they have the best interests of the world at heart – Annita Roddick is a brilliant example. Judge by their actions not by their statements.

“The same cant be said about Lenin; no matter how carefully his critics have pored over what is to be done? and the rest, they havent found a blueprint for an authoritarian regime. The bolsheviks didnt talk about banning trade unions, establishing a secret police force or whatever.”

Aye until they had the power to do so, when they did!

“It beggars belief that the motivating force behind all the sacrifices made by the bolshevik leaders before 1917 was simply the desire to set up their own dictatorship.”

I’m not interested in their personal motivations behind there attempt to establish a dictatorship but they didn’t do it by accident. In any case what you have just said equally applies to Joe Stalin (who if I remember right spent some time in prison) or Derzinsky.

“When Lenin wrote "state and revolution" he was not just indulging in a cynical act of deception to camouflage his true intentions; at the time he wrote it it seemed quite likely that the bolsheviks would be obliterated by the government before having the chance to take power.”

And that proves?

“ The same goes for Trotsky; if he was just a failed Stalin, he would never have put such effort into opposing Stalin and trying to build an alternative movement. There was no concievable reward for him in this.”

Why are you assuming that people cynically sit down and say “I want the power”. In any case Trotsky was ejected from power so this could still be the case. But it is the height of simplicity to impart to some politicians motives pure as driven snow and to others the basest of motives, based on no real reasoning. Their personal motivations are not the question. Their personal motivations are irrelevant. Trotsky was not a failed Stalin, he was a quite successful Stalin, until he was ejected from power.

“So when i say that there was a healthy side to Bolshevism, this is what i mean. Its misleading to speak of a Bolshevik "counter-revolution" as if they took power with the explicit intention of crushing the working class movement.”

No you still havn’t told us what the healthy side was, I still see a centralized, authoritarian political party seizing power, suppressing a revolution and establishing a murderous totalitarian dictatorship. Healthy side, where is it? “Ahh but they meant well” – is that what you are saying? Is that your "healthy side"?

“Stalin was in the habit of deeming people like the POUM "objectively counter-revolutionary" regardless of their motives; its not a wise approach. You cant understand the way people behave without understanding their real motivations.”

What about Stalin then, was he counter-revolutionary? Was there a counter-revolution in the Russian Empire, and if there wasn’t what do you call suppression of the Soviets, the mir, all rival political tendencies, militarisation of labour, etc… . Either the gains of the revolution, and the revolutionary forces, were suppressed or they were not.

“This is all obscured if you claim, as you did in a reply to someone else, that there was no real difference between Lenin and Stalin. This may be a useful shock tactic for dealing with the glib trot approach of claiming that the Soviet regime was perfectly healthy until Lenin died, but its not the truth.”

O.K. what’s the fucking difference that you find it so shocking to say there was no difference between the regime in the Lenin era and the regime in the Stalin era. Answer. What is the difference, support with empirical evidence. The only difference is there were no purges directed against the Nomenklatura under the Lenin regime. If you regard that as a major difference, well what can I say.

“You quoted some of Trotskys more sinister remarks during the civil war”

The quotes were all before or after the civil war, except “merciless war on the kulaks” (Lenin)about which I’m not sure.

“But they dont tell the whole story. Despite its dark side, of which i am well aware, i still believe that a careful and selective study of Bolshevik theory and practice will provide the revolutionary left with much of value.”

Such as?, is it “democratic centralism”, is it the “worker’ state” ruled by the vanguard party?
Practise? The "grain monoply"? The "merciless war on the kulaks"? The mass executions? The forced labour?

“Funnily enough, this used to be the position of the International Socialists; if Cliff hadnt been mesmerised by the success of Bolshevism into losing his critical sense, the SWP might still be one of the healthiest and most attractive groups on the far left, instead of following in the footsteps of the WRP. “

Yeah amazing capacity Leninism has for producing strange authoritarian cults. Everything that went wrong was Cliff had the wrong ideas, did the rest of the party not have any ideas or did they just do whatever Cliff told them to. What “success of Bolshevism” was Cliff mesmerized by? The number of tractor factories?

by ph Thu May 16, 2002 18:01

I'll get through what I can, I don't have much time. But Dan from SA (unfortunate initials :) )
has answered alot of the question on russia. I'm just going to do on point the one on "boundries" sorry I couldn't think of a better word. I meant what if you had a racist for example in your group.

People are rarely expelled from the SP, (none i can think in the few years I've been around). and ther is lots of room for opinion.

"Members abide by the democratic vote of their group."

Isn't that the same as democratic centalism or a "party line" or toeing the line etc...
Thats how we work too. When decisions are taken at congress etc democratically.

Sorry I don't have time to go into this properly.

Quickly though on the point of people not being marxists joining the party. We will welcome tham and try to convince them. There is always a danger of reformism etc. But this is the role of a leadership isn't it? A leadership has to convince people not force them and be held democratically accountable.

Your aims and objectives are quite big too and no different to a party "line". And expecting people to be fully convinced anarchists before they join cuts you off from the vast makjority of society by your own wish. And could be a little elitist. If on the other hand you recruit three hundred that democratically in there own sections decide to tactically go for an election what do you do?

I,m skipping alot here for time

"Yeah? I see S.P. kids bedecked with Che T-Shirts, doesn’t the yoof wing use the Che logo and I can remember not that long ago having a debate over this with an S.P. member. Aye and that Paul Kinsella chap – he one of yirs or one of theirs – was posting up on this very site advertising about the daughter of Che coming here to visit."

Come on che guevara t shirts! Do you think every kid wearing a che t shirt is advocating we go up into the mountains and prepare a peasent revolt. Hes a symbol. especially that famous picture. If you read are material on che or cuba you can see our points, www.worldsocialis-cwi.org
Anarchists throw around zapatas face in the same way and chomskys for that matter.

We didn't support iraq during the gulf war. Opposing impearialist wars doesn't necessarily mean you support the other side. We opposed the afgahan war too.

"Who are the USFI? (sorry man but the inner world of Trotskyism leaves me a bit confused).
"

USFI is the fourth international.

"Transitional demands are applying to socialism or are they applying to reforms within capitalism? Actually the latest crop don’t look that offensive. I would like an answer to that question though."

Both, for example an increase on the minimum wage is realisable under capitalism. Taking over the top 150 companies isn't.

Sorry this is all I have time for I'll come back on some of the rest tomorrow.

by Dan - Socialist Alternative Thu May 16, 2002 16:54 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

First of all, most of what i said earlier wasnt directed at you but someone else, so disregard it. If you distinguish carefully between Marxism and Leninism, fair enough, but many anarchists dont; ive often heard the argument that the expulsion of Bakunin and his supporters from the FI was the seed of the great purges (incidentally to answer Andrew, the SWP never told me anything about Bakunin, i formed a low opinion of him on my own initiative; i dont have any problem arguing with people who have a different view, im just not going to accept people who argue that a preference for Marx makes you an authoritarian thug. Not saying that you share this view, but it exists).

A few other points: i disagree with the way the SWP run the ANL, mainly because they run it as a front, as Cliff admitted himself. I havent read too much ANL literature but i certainly dont approve of their angle on fascism as you recount it. I wont campaign against the SWP or any other leninist group as i would the BNP because they dont present any threat to democracy. Fascists can take power with fairly slender support because they recieve support from the ruling classes, but socialists could only take power with overwhelming mass support. No party ambivalent on the question of democracy could hope to win such support. When the Bolsheviks took power they didnt have a rigidly centralised internal regime of the sort adopted by most leninist groups in the west; during 1917 they threw the party more or less open, then shifted to a more authoritarian regime soon after taking power. This was only possible because of the conditions in the civil war; if the russian working class hadnt been shrunk, fragmented and demoralised, they never would have allowed the usurping of democracy. The working class is so large in Europe that nothing short of a nuclear attack could lead to a situation where a party ruled over a "dictatorship of the proletariat" with hardly any proletariat. And workers are so attatched to basic democratic freedoms that no attempt to erode them would be tolerated. Tyranny could only be established in Europe through brute force, and the only people who possess that are the ruling class. So the idea that the SWP or any other group could impose a "socialist" dictatorship is absurd. I wouldnt have liked to have seen Gerry Healy become the Red dictator of Britain, but it was never going to happen. Not even the French CP, one of the most authoritarian parties in Europe, posed the slightest threat to democracy. The experience of 1968 showed that parties like the PCF are unable to take advantage of popular libertarian upsurges, even to hijack them for their own purposes. So frankly i think that we can sleep safe in our beds without being haunted by the thought of Alex Callinicos sending his goons around to eliminate opposition to SWP rule. Tin pot cod-bolshevik sects will always remain just that.

Britain doesnt offer much proof that social democrats are vulnerable to pressure from below cos there hasnt really been any pressure from below during Blairs government. France is a better example; Jospin would have liked to have gone as far to the right as Blair but couldnt because of labour militancy. This is very limited of course but marxists have never said otherwise; i dont think saying to people they should vote for labour as the lesser of two evils if theres really nobody else encourages much illusions about Blair.

To return to the question of bolshevism: its not true to say that any attractive side to their ideas is paralleled by similar rhetoric from Hitler or other fascists. Hitlers ideas were perfectly consistent from the time of mein kampf to the last days of his reign; everything the Nazis did could be logically deduced from his earliest writings. The same cant be said about Lenin; no matter how carefully his critics have pored over what is to be done? and the rest, they havent found a blueprint for an authoritarian regime. The bolsheviks didnt talk about banning trade unions, establishing a secret police force or whatever. It beggars belief that the motivating force behind all the sacrifices made by the bolshevik leaders before 1917 was simply the desire to set up their own dictatorship. When Lenin wrote "state and revolution" he was not just indulging in a cynical act of deception to camouflage his true intentions; at the time he wrote it it seemed quite likely that the bolsheviks would be obliterated by the government before having the chance to take power. The same goes for Trotsky; if he was just a failed Stalin, he would never have put such effort into opposing Stalin and trying to build an alternative movement. There was no concievable reward for him in this. So when i say that there was a healthy side to Bolshevism, this is what i mean. Its misleading to speak of a Bolshevik "counter-revolution" as if they took power with the explicit intention of crushing the working class movement. Stalin was in the habit of deeming people like the POUM "objectively counter-revolutionary" regardless of their motives; its not a wise approach. You cant understand the way people behave without understanding their real motivations.

This is all obscured if you claim, as you did in a reply to someone else, that there was no real difference between Lenin and Stalin. This may be a useful shock tactic for dealing with the glib trot approach of claiming that the Soviet regime was perfectly healthy until Lenin died, but its not the truth. This does not in any way excuse the Bolsheviks for their abuses; if i maintained that there was a huge break between the post-war SPD regime and Hitler, it wouldnt mean i was excusing the murder of Luxembourg and Liebnecht. You quoted some of Trotskys more sinister remarks during the civil war; these remarks, and others, need to be recalled by anyone inclined to idealise Trotsky or Lenin. But they dont tell the whole story. Despite its dark side, of which i am well aware, i still believe that a careful and selective study of Bolshevik theory and practice will provide the revolutionary left with much of value. Funnily enough, this used to be the position of the International Socialists; if Cliff hadnt been mesmerised by the success of Bolshevism into losing his critical sense, the SWP might still be one of the healthiest and most attractive groups on the far left, instead of following in the footsteps of the WRP.

by ph Thu May 16, 2002 14:36

i'll get back as soon as I can in work now.
later.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Thu May 16, 2002 11:57

How we make decisions – we have a meeting, we vote, majority wins.

You, ph, interject that this is fine for small groups.
(although it actually works for larger groups as well)
But nonetheless there are decisions which need to be taken over a greater geographic or numbers scale.

Fair enough, assembly decides (the meeting above), mandates (what does this word mean – gives specific instructions to, i.e. orders), a delegate (person who is mandated, can be recalled at any time, and does not have
this job all the time – i.e. it is rotated as far as is possible), to go to a meeting of other delegates (themselves representing assemblies) to carry out the instructions he has been given – i.e. argue for a certain course of action.

That is federalism, delegation and direct democracy.

There is no leadership in the above process. The decision has been made at the base, the delegate meeting merely amounts to a collective sample of what the entire organisation is thinking.

There may be specific tasks which also need delegation, the same deal applies (a) they are given specific tasks to carry out, i.e. we want the paper to look like this, this and this we want this, this and this kinda stuff included in it (b) Rotation of posts this team does the paper for three months or one issue or six months or whatever, then another team does it and so on.

This is not democratic centralism.
Where above is the leadership? And Lenin himself has said that organising without a leadership is tantamount to disarming the proletariat, going over to the camp of exploiters etc… etc..

A leader makes decisions, a delegate implements decisions. Delegation is not a permanent position.

The difference between Leninism and Anarchism is not just the matter of the State, but more fundamentally we believe in direct democracy, as has just been outlined, equal participation in the decision making process.

Leninism doesn’t. “Democratic centralism”
does not function like this, the State, any State by definition does not function like this.

Furthermore Leninists by describing the Russian Empire between 1917 and 1924 as a “democratic worker’s state” or a “healthy worker’s state”
(which the S.P.-C.W.I. do – I’ll go find the urls if you want) clearly demonstrate that they are either seriously deluded as to that particular segment of history (which is of great importance to their politics) OR their goals are totalitarian.
You decide which category you fit into.

“We don't put any of the crimes of the CP in russia in a positive light.”

Well “healthy democratic worker’s state” sounds just like that to me.

You are seemingly unaware that, there was no freedom of speech, democratic organisation, legal political organisations other than the Bolsheviks, free elections to
anything etc…

I’m going to post here the Kronstadt demands. Not because I regard to
Kronstadt episode as being of the singular significance – the situation in rural parts with Lenin’s “merciless war on the Kulaks” (his words) goes well beyond it, but simply
because it illustrates the workings of this “democratic healthy worker’s state”.

RESOLUTION
OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921
Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.
The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.”

It’s on the web here:
http://www.struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html

How could such demands exist, expressed by a section of the working class (one that Trotsky called the “flower of the revolution”), in a “healthy democratic worker’s state” and how could, in a “healthy democratic worker’s state”, the reaction of the government, aka vanguard of the proletariat , be “we will shoot them down like partridges” (Trotsky).

BTW this wasn’t a “rebellion” as is commonly supposed, it was an assembly passing a resolution – not an armed insurrection (more’s the pity).

“I haven't seen this issue but I think the russian revolution did start out well and was the closest we every came. There were many positive things about the revolution, evrything is not black and white. “

Indeed this is true, the “Russian” Revolution contained many positive things, but ye are confusing the revolution (self organization of the people) with the counter-revolution (the Bolshevik regime).

“I didn't see the other debate and can't vouch for it. But "removed very quickly" doesn't sound very libetarian to me!!!!!”

This is a newswire – it wasn’t news, and the bloke who made the original post
requested it’s removal, I’m not surprised it wasn’t making the S.P. look very good what
with an election coming up and all. I just mentioned it in passing, of course you cannot
speak of it if you didn’t see it.

“But in anarchism is their any point where someone disagrees so
fundamentaly he or she can't stay inside? You must have some boundaries.”

This statement mystifies me?
We don’t expel people for disagreeing with the tiny minority known as the PC (Politically Correct?) as do the S.W.P..
I’m not sure what we would be expelling people for – disagreeing!?!

Groups and where there are none, individual members,
of the A.F. have autonomy in their actions so long as those actions accord with the Aims and Principles
of the organisation (federalism) – membership is open to every one who agrees with the Aims and Principles.

Members abide by the democratic vote of their group.

Me: "The Socialist Party is formed around the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, correct? How does it recruit people who have no knowledge of these ideas while maintaining both internal democracy AND a Marxist-Leninist perspective?"

Ph: “By discussion, the same as youseleves I presume.”

O.K. 300 people like what they see in the Voice and join, not knowing anything of the long winded academic theories of Marx, Lenin and co.

They then start to make decisions
which are not at all in keeping with the line of Marx, Lenin and co.

They could move the party in a reformist direction or even an anarchist direction.
That’s what would happen if you had equal participation in the decision making process, plus recruiting people who havn’t studied their Marx, Lenin, etc…

This isn’t applicable to anarchism for two reasons (one) because you have to have a clear idea of what anarchism is before you join (two) because it is a pretty simple idea not an academic theory, much less a library of academic theories.

“In the anarchist model we must destroy the state immediately. This I think is correct if the world has a revolution at the same time. But it won't. If Ireland had a revolution tomorrow it would be invaded the following day. History has taught us this much.”

Funnily enough this anarchist is not a pacifist.

In any case a socialist state in Ireland exclusively would last as
long as an anarchist society in Ireland exclusively (actually the anarchist society would last a little longer, a centralised, hierarchal organisation is easier to get rid of than a diffuse, democratic one with mass participation. You merely have to decapitate the former).

“On the bin charges the activity came first not the election. And the activity did it too. But the election helped, wasn't necessary but it helped. Having a TD to us is a way of getting our ideas out and I don't see this as any sell out.”

Nor do I. It is not a sell out for Leninists to stand for election. I have already explored why it is the opposite of what anarchism is about.

Me: “As you have just pointed out there was an anarchist organization doing it along side ye, therefore that is NOT an argument in favour of the Leninist model of a party. "

Ph “But this is what leninist parties do. This is what we have always done. And what excatly did we do wrong in thsi case.”

I’m merely pointing out that this is NOT an argument in favour of “democratic centralism” i.e. an anarchist organization preformed exactly the same function.

“We recruit but we don't harrass, but really just go to the demos and look at our campaigns and notice people aren't shouting about us in the same way. We are very very different.”

I recognize in my previous post that the S.P. has changed tack. (for example you are actually debating with me, now I don’t think a swimmer would actually do that).

However it is not that far removed from the S.W.P. AND ten years ago it was the same, Youth Against the War was not a branch of the party it was a front group I was continually being told to ‘join the party’ in a cult like SWP fashion.

Also some of the Youth wings activities are of the meaningless action but it will get a few people into the group level. I recognize that, for example, the work the S.P. does around the bin charges, and previously water charges is not of this nature. I recognize that in the mid 90ies the S.P. changed much of it’s practice.

I mean nobody hates the S.P. the way everybody, yes everybody, hates the S.W.P. . But ye are still part of the same tradition. I’m pretty sure the old C.P.G.B. didn’t pull off the same amount of crap as the S.W.P., they are a kindof parody.
BTW I find it very curious the way Leninist groups seem to be so down on other Leninist groups.

“No we don't defend the cuban regieme. We say it never was a workers revolution in the first place”

Yeah? I see S.P. kids bedecked with Che T-Shirts, doesn’t the yoof wing use the Che logo and I can remember not that long ago having a debate over this with an S.P. member. Aye and that Paul Kinsella chap – he one of yirs or one of theirs – was posting up on this very site advertising about the daughter of Che coming here to visit.

In any case ye did have a position of support for the U.S.S.R. however you want to dress it. Ye also support the “weaker side” in an imperialist war now that I remember it – ye did support Iraq during the Gulf War.

“The USFI had taken an uncritical cheerleading support.”

Who are the USFI? (sorry man but the inner world of Trotskyism leaves me a bit confused).

“Transitional demands are supposed to be linking day to day issues with socialism, of course it is impossible under capitalism, thats the point but they are possible under socialism. But what do you say "we want anarchism" full stop. “

Transitional demands are applying to socialism or are they applying to reforms within capitalism? Actually the latest crop don’t look that offensive. I would like an answer to that question though.

Finally I have explained to you what I mean by direct democracy,

I now want to know what you mean by “democratic centralism”.

You mentioned the nec – who is on it, what function does it perform, how is it appointed, how often has it’s membership changed, etc… etc…
How does the Socialist Party make decisions?

BTW guess who the first living ‘socialist’ leader who had a city named after him was? When did the U.S.S.R. first go into alliance with an Imperialist state?

Who came out with the following:

"The irrefutable experience of history has shown that ... the dictatorship of
individual persons was very often the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship
of the revolutionary classes."

"Large-scale machine industry - which is the material productive source and
foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will ... How
can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to
the will of one".

"Unquestioning submission (emphasised in original) to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine industry . . . today the Revolution demands , in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will (emphasised in original) of the leaders of the labour process."

When were the first ‘socialist’ invasions? When were the first prison camps for dissenters established?

Who proscribed executions for not working hard enough? When were the beginning stages of the nationalization (‘collectivization’) of agriculture?

Whose policies led to a famine which consumed millions of lives – far more than the last famine of the Tsarist period (a seminal event leading up to the overthrow of Tsardom)?

Who introduced the Taylor system to Russia? Who led the ‘militarisation of labour’ – an updated version of serfdom?

The old question did Lenin lead to Stalin misses the point. The only significant difference was during the Stalin era terror was applied to the Party bosses as well as to the general population.

by Andrew Thu May 16, 2002 10:43

Just to reply to Dan, when he wrote
"Its very difficult to debate with people who maintain that Marxists are by definition authoritarian. If you wanna have a debate about Marx vs Bakunin and the First International, my view is that Marx was entirely in the right and Bakunin was a hypocritical windbag (and an anti-semite, moreover). If that makes me an irredeemable totalitarian, so be it, but i cant be arsed arguing with anyone who believes such rubbish."

You appear to be saying above that in order to discuss with you we have to accept that "Marx was entirely in the right and Bakunin was a hypocritical windbag". This is pretty much going to cut you off from any discussion with anarchists who are bound to want to challenge what you are presenting as dogma (ie fundamental and unchallengable belief).

This is pretty much to be expected with someone coming from a SWP background as the SWP publications have never discussed the early anarchist movement in any serious way whatsoever. Instead members are 'innoculated' with a couple of anti-semitic quotes and out of context ones about revolutionary organisation. You would be wise to consider this and be at least willing to discuss this period as well. A couple of URL's below present the anarchist side of this case

Will the real Bakunin please stand up?
Reply to the British SWP's distortions about the father of anarchism
http://struggle.ws/anarchists/bakunin/reply_swp_may01.html

Marx & the State
http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr1_marxstat.html

Bakunins ideas on revolutionary organisation
http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr6/bakunin.html

Web index on Mikhail Bakunin
http://struggle.ws/anarchists/bakunin.html

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Wed May 15, 2002 17:18

PH, I'll respond to your post later - don't have time now.

Meanwhile, in connection with my previous post here is the urls of two sites maintained by Anarchist Federation folk. Both containing some Marxist material.

Class Against Class:
http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/index.html

Subversion:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/

by ph Wed May 15, 2002 17:05

your problem is you are using simplistic slogans, no so different to the axis of evil speech. if you take the time to explain yourself well so will get a better listening. Your problem is you come in shouting that ever one except you is a facist. You make some very good points on state power and the nature of our relationship to the third world but you do yourselfd damage by the way you express it. If the SWP are the same as NAZIs shouldn't you be organising armed resistance? They are not the same or facists, they are not democratic its true but no more than your average bourgeois party, ff or fg don't excatly have democratic internal structures either. But they are not facists.
All states are states, and at the moment all are capitalist but not facist.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Wed May 15, 2002 17:03

“Its very difficult to debate with people who maintain that Marxists are by definition authoritarian.”

Not half as difficult as it is to debate with people who are ignoring what I’m saying. That is if you are responding to me (and you appear to be doing so).

Kindly tell me where I maintain that Marxists are authoritarian by definition, and to the contrary in my last post I positively refer to Marxists – the Left Communists – who were in my opinion basically anarchist (having the same positions), but called themselves Marxist.

“If you wanna have a debate about Marx vs Bakunin and the First International, my view is that Marx was entirely in the right and Bakunin was a hypocritical windbag (and an anti-semite, moreover). If that makes me an irredeemable totalitarian, so be it, but i cant be arsed arguing with anyone who believes such rubbish.”

And who is arguing that, nobody mentioned the First International bar you, nobody mentions “irredeemable totalitarian”, in fact as I pointed out in my last post people join Leninist groups for the best of reasons – surely there is no hint of “irredeemable” there and if you really believe I’m arguing these things and that you cannot be arsed arguing against them – why are you arguing?

“Anarchists are on much stronger ground attaking the practice of the Bolsheviks, so for the record, no, i dont approve of the banning of opposition parties and independent trade unions, I think the Bolsheviks were wrong to crush the Kronstadt uprising and smear the rebels as White counter-revolutionaries, and should have given the Mensheviks and anarchists freedom to organise.”

Fine thank you for answering my question – nonetheless this is not the position of most Leninist organizations .

“Criticising Lenin from the left is not the prerogative of anarchists”

No as I myself referred to in a previous post the Left Communists of Holland and Germany.

“as did members of the Bolshevik party.”

Which ones? (again that is a question not a statement)

“When the SWP defend the Soviet regime uncritically, and date the degeneration of the regime from the time Trotsky was forced from power, theyre full of shit. But they dont speak for every Marxist.”

Hardly – I’m well aware of this. I know Marxists involved in the anarchist movement. Members of my organization have websites full of Libertarian Marxist material, we have worked closely with such people when possible. I simply asked you and ph about your position in regard to this and I’m discussing Leninism not Marxism.

“However, i see no point in saying that Lenin and Trotsky were simply red versions of Mussolini and Hitler. Theres a malign, authoritarian side to Leninism, but theres also a democratic, libertarian side; if trots are wrong to pretend that only one side exists, so are anarchists. The only thing to do as far as im concerned is to face up honestly to the abuses of the regime, while retrieving the positive elements of Bolshevik ideology (this includes Trotskys writings about fascism, which is where this whole thing began). Perhaps the subtleties of this position are too much for people who like their politics black and white and simple enough to express in a slogan, but screw them anyway.”

O.K. what is the democratic, libertarian side in reality not rhetoric. Because if you actually read Fascist material you’ll find a lot of rhetoric there to. You are the person saying Lenin and Trotsky were simply red versions of Mussolini and Hitler – I’m not, you say that the difference between ‘bourgeois democracy’ and fascism is one allows independent working class organization and the other doesn’t – again according to that logic (and if that is your definition of fascism – you havn’t offered another although I have asked) then they were red versions of Hitler and Mussolini.

“Although i disagree with the SWP on many grounds (see further down the newswire for a statement written by myself and other ex-members on our problems with the party, a statement which could be elaborated on considerably), im not going to go around campaigning against them or the millies as i would with fascists;”

Yeah but you haven’t told us why. I’m not suggesting you should take the same attitude to them as to Fascists but your argument about fascism – until you respond to my request for a definition, applys to them equally.

“Rather, the authoriarian internal regime of the SWP guarantees that it will never be able to lead a revolution, a necessarily democratic process, unless it changes itself first. “

And so the Bolsheviks?

“And yes, i do agree with the SWP's recommendation for the last British election "vote socialist where you can, vote labour where you must"; the rationale behind this is that trade-union based parties like Labour are more vulnerable to pressure from below than the Tories, and less able to launch all-out assaults on the working class. This does not in any way mean excusing Blair's shameful record.”

How does ‘Blair have a shameful record’ if they are ‘less able to launch all-out assaults on the working class’. The policies implemented are the same irrespective of which party is in power – ‘Thatcherism’ was actually introduced in some countries, Australia for example, via the Labour/Social Democrat party.

Labour in England closed more mines and built more nuclear weapons than the Tories – Labour in it’s golden age post ’45 used troops to break strikes innumerable times. Blair’s shameful record is what you voted for.

Where is your empirical evidence to suggest Labour is more vulnerable to pressure from below?

Telling people to vote for them merely builds illusions in the Labour party – except these days the only people with those illusions are Leninists!

“Perhaps non-hostility would be a better term to use than unity; the problem was that the KPD said the SPD were even worse than Hitler.”

O.K. but that is different from an alliance, and it is different from the A.N.L. strategy which is justified according to this theory of history, and which rejects direct action, stands for ‘defense of democracy’ and is in cahoots with a now governing party. Thus representing no real opposition to the far right and a fair bit which strengths them.

“Doubtless phuq hedd and harry pollitt would say they were wrong now, but once you adopt the position that everyones a fascist, its hard to avoid the conclusion that the most dangerous "fascists" are the left ones.”

Except I don’t I simply asked you about your distinction between ‘bourgeois democracy’ and fascism because according to it the Bolshevik regime in Russia was fascist. I don’t argue this (although some Marxists do).

“I dont have any illusions about bourgeois democracy, but i disagree with the deterministic view that as soon as theres a crisis, democracy will automatically disappear and be replaced with fascism.”

Why?

“This was the dogma of the communist movement; according to Stalin, capitalism led to fascism, so all parties which "stood on the terrain of capitalism" would turn fascist.”

I haven’t argued that. Go find Stalin and argue against him.

“The thing is, most businessmen in Germany would have prefered an old-fashioned conservative despot to Hitler; but Hitler was the only reactionary with mass support.”

Thus they would have had a totalitarian regime with out Hitler. The National-Socialists granted more potential to such, made it easier, but they were not the cause.

“His regime wasnt simply "the political expression of monopoly capitalism", to use a comintern phrase of the time.”

No comintern members here.

“If theres a real crisis of capitalism in Europe in the near future along the lines of the thirties, capitalism and democracy will probably become incompatible.”

Aye. But wouldn’t that be deterministic (see above). (I think you could have a far greater degree of repression and ‘democracy’ but for now we can say ‘end of democracy’)

“In that situation, anti-capitalists will have the responsibility of defending freedom.”

Depends on what you mean by “freedom”

“ Our task wont be made any easier if weve been going around in the meantime telling everyone that all states are fascist.”

Which I’m not.

“We should be saying that all the democratic freedoms associated with bourgeois revolutions and liberalism (though more often fought for by the working class and socialists) are valuable and essential, but can only be preserved and extended if we eliminate capitalism.”

Yes.

“To be a real and effective anti-fascist requires a sophisticated understanding of what fascism really is, which wont be helped by using the word to describe anything we dont like.”

Which I don’t. I’m merely awaiting your definition of Fascism. I do suspect that the S.W.P. et al use this word and ‘Nazi’ in a blanket fashion to assist their recruiting. So please tell me what your definition of Fascism is.

Finally I would like if you could read my posts and respond to them, as you either havn’t or you have got it into your head that myself and Phuq Hedd along with Joe Stalin, are all here saying the same thing. Which is not the case.

by ph - sp cwi Wed May 15, 2002 16:56

This is a big one, i'll try to go point by point.

"So you are agreeing with my exposition of organisation based on mandated delegates,
federalism (the example was individual bulletins for each local group – with responsibility
for the ‘national’ paper being rotated from group to group), rotation of posts and all members
having an equal input into the decision making process."

I think the idea of having a paper for every local group is excellent. But difficult, as in practically difficult. I think the national paper would probably be best in one place. Rotating posts I agree is a good idea but for practicalites. Not everyone wants to write.
All members should have an equal input. This can be done within a party.

Democratic centralism is supposed to keep the leaders in check. But in anarchism is their any point where someone disagrees so fundamentaly he or she can't stay inside? You must have some boundaries. In a revolutionary situation we will have to be disciplined not to give in at the first reform.
In a democratic centralist structure every delegate should be recallable and held to account.
This makes it completly different to the bosses system where it is in fact the oppisite. You manager fires you, not vice versa.

Full timers basically work full time for the party. But also they can take on roles such as youth workers etc. Much of this is basically to do with the modern reality of work and how much time we have. Most of the party are working and have families so it means you don't have as much time. To me its essential. They aren't paid leaders though. You don't have to be in the nec or whatever to be a fulltimer. You're right on the delegate notion though, obviously people can't do it a few months at a time.
In reality in small parties much of the work is done by those prepared to do it.
Also if someone is a good writer of theoritician he or she should be writing.

Your right on the RTS, I did mean they were taking credit and getting away with it. My point is though that the RTS should have held their own press confrences and everything. But obviously I don't know everything going on there. I'm not critisising RTS for what they did and set out to do. They wanted a street party and had it. Fair enough, but there should have been plans and I suppose the SWP didn't get away with it in the end.

You're right on this but if the SWP decided to join RTS, could they take over? Have you anyway of preventing this?

The SPs methods are very different. We recruit but we don't harrass, but really just go to the demos and look at our campaigns and notice people aren't shouting about us in the same way. We are very very different. In our groups we have always made it clear who we are linked to. YRE I think you meant was always clearly a CWI group.

Socialist Youth today (look at their website) clearly state they are the youth group of the SP.
We have campaigns but we never hide who we are, thats the difference. The ISR and all its parts clearly say we are linked to our different parties and CWI.
The SY is supposed to exist seperately. But these things aren't always as easy as writing them down. The water charges campaign has been the most successful campaign we were involved in.
We never hid ourselves then either. Joe Higgins stood under our own name.

On the workers states we didn't say they were simply capitalism again or state capitalism. And we called for a political revolution.
We're not ultras though and never defended milosevic et all. If you want that talk to the sparts.

No we don't defend the cuban regieme. We say it never was a workers revolution in the first place, as with china but a peasent army. It started where the russians finished off. And we said during the revolutions it would not lead to socialism. The reason the CWi exists is because of this position. The USFI had taken an uncritical cheerleading support.

Transitional demands are supposed to be linking day to day issues with socialism, of course it is impossible under capitalism, thats the point but they are possible under socialism. But what do you say "we want anarchism" full stop.

"But we did (along with anarchists) go around knocking on doors and organising meetings etc. And someone had to and for that you needed some sort of collective group organising to get it started. This in a very small way is the role of a party.”

As you have just pointed out there was an anarchist organization doing it along side ye, therefore that is NOT an argument in favour of the Leninist model of a party. "

But this is what leninist parties do. This is what we have always done. And what excatly did we do wrong in thsi case.

On the bin charges the activity came first not the election. And the activity did it too. But the election helped, wasn't necessary but it helped. Having a TD to us is a way of getting our ideas out and I don't see this as any sell out.

Socialism Today is the magazine of the party in england and wales, I haven't seen this issue but I think the russian revolution did start out well and was the closest we every came. There were many positive things about the revolution, evrything is not black and white.

I didn't see the other debate and can't vouch for it. But "removed very quickly" doesn't sound very libetarian to me!!!!!

Fini does look back on facisim in this way. Here you can by t shirts lighters you name it of il duce himself. And also of Stalin for that matter.

"I put it to you, that regarding a totalitarian regime which murdered millions in a positive light puts a rather big question mark over your organization."

We don't put any of the crimes of the CP in russia in a positive light.

"The Socialist Party is formed around the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, correct? How does it recruit people who have no knowledge of these ideas while maintaining both internal democracy AND a Marxist-Leninist perspective?"

By discussion, the same as youseleves I presume.

"How can you have socialism, common ownership, without common participation in the decision making process, and how do you have that participation without the organizational model of anarchists (not ‘democratic centralism’)?
"

As far as I can see one major difference between anarchism and socialism marxism or whatever is about the existance of the state, In the anarchist model we must destroy the state immediately. This I think is correct if the world has a revolution at the same time. But it won't. If Ireland had a revolution tomorrow it would be invaded the following day. History has taught us this much. I don't know if this is a correct view of anarchism so I'd appreciate a reply on it.

PS I'm having a discussion under a thread about "an excellent article in the Sunday times"
Which is along the same lines, you may want to have a look.

by Dan - Socialist Alternative Wed May 15, 2002 15:46 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Its very difficult to debate with people who maintain that Marxists are by definition authoritarian. If you wanna have a debate about Marx vs Bakunin and the First International, my view is that Marx was entirely in the right and Bakunin was a hypocritical windbag (and an anti-semite, moreover). If that makes me an irredeemable totalitarian, so be it, but i cant be arsed arguing with anyone who believes such rubbish. Anarchists are on much stronger ground attaking the practice of the Bolsheviks, so for the record, no, i dont approve of the banning of opposition parties and independent trade unions, I think the Bolsheviks were wrong to crush the Kronstadt uprising and smear the rebels as White counter-revolutionaries, and should have given the Mensheviks and anarchists freedom to organise. Criticising Lenin from the left is not the prerogative of anarchists; Rosa Luxembourg said all these things at the time, as did members of the Bolshevik party. When the SWP defend the Soviet regime uncritically, and date the degeneration of the regime from the time Trotsky was forced from power, theyre full of shit. But they dont speak for every Marxist. In fact, back in the sixties, Tony Cliff and the other IS theoreticians used to be sharply critical of Bolshevism (not something the party likes to dwell on now, but its a fact - just look up their old magazines).

However, i see no point in saying that Lenin and Trotsky were simply red versions of Mussolini and Hitler. Theres a malign, authoritarian side to Leninism, but theres also a democratic, libertarian side; if trots are wrong to pretend that only one side exists, so are anarchists. The only thing to do as far as im concerned is to face up honestly to the abuses of the regime, while retrieving the positive elements of Bolshevik ideology (this includes Trotskys writings about fascism, which is where this whole thing began). Perhaps the subtleties of this position are too much for people who like their politics black and white and simple enough to express in a slogan, but screw them anyway.

Although i disagree with the SWP on many grounds (see further down the newswire for a statement written by myself and other ex-members on our problems with the party, a statement which could be elaborated on considerably), im not going to go around campaigning against them or the millies as i would with fascists; nobody with the slightest grasp of reality believes that these parties are a threat to democracy. Rather, the authoriarian internal regime of the SWP guarantees that it will never be able to lead a revolution, a necessarily democratic process, unless it changes itself first. And yes, i do agree with the SWP's recommendation for the last British election "vote socialist where you can, vote labour where you must"; the rationale behind this is that trade-union based parties like Labour are more vulnerable to pressure from below than the Tories, and less able to launch all-out assaults on the working class. This does not in any way mean excusing Blair's shameful record.

To return to the question of fascism; it has been said that an alliance with social democrats against nazis necessarily means abandoning revolution. This would be true if such an alliance was formed for the purpose of forming a government, but not if it meant grass-roots unity in the factory and the streets, which is what Trotsky was talking about. Perhaps non-hostility would be a better term to use than unity; the problem was that the KPD said the SPD were even worse than Hitler. Doubtless phuq hedd and harry pollitt would say they were wrong now, but once you adopt the position that everyones a fascist, its hard to avoid the conclusion that the most dangerous "fascists" are the left ones. I dont have any illusions about bourgeois democracy, but i disagree with the deterministic view that as soon as theres a crisis, democracy will automatically disappear and be replaced with fascism. This was the dogma of the communist movement; according to Stalin, capitalism led to fascism, so all parties which "stood on the terrain of capitalism" would turn fascist. Reality is a lot more complex than that. The thing is, most businessmen in Germany would have prefered an old-fashioned conservative despot to Hitler; but Hitler was the only reactionary with mass support. His regime wasnt simply "the political expression of monopoly capitalism", to use a comintern phrase of the time. Granted, capitalists will resort to authoriarian methods when the system is in crisis, but the options open to them will vary considerably, depending largely on the strategies adopted by their opponents.

If theres a real crisis of capitalism in Europe in the near future along the lines of the thirties, capitalism and democracy will probably become incompatible. In that situation, anti-capitalists will have the responsibility of defending freedom. Our task wont be made any easier if weve been going around in the meantime telling everyone that all states are fascist. We should be saying that all the democratic freedoms associated with bourgeois revolutions and liberalism (though more often fought for by the working class and socialists) are valuable and essential, but can only be preserved and extended if we eliminate capitalism. By doing so socialism will win support even from people without a pressing material interest in overthrowing capitalism. To be a real and effective anti-fascist requires a sophisticated understanding of what fascism really is, which wont be helped by using the word to describe anything we dont like.

by Phuq Hedd Tue May 14, 2002 20:50

You say that I'm trying to convince you that Bertie Ahern's Ireland is the 3rd Reich. I'm not.

The whole thread started with the assertion that the SWP was a fascist organisation. I still stand by that. I gave a clear definition of fascist to "curious" and I still stand by that.

Since then there's been an attempt by those that object to this view to draw a distinction between the "bad" fascists (rightwing) and the "good" fascists (leftwing). This has spiralled off into a discussion about whether we live under modern fascism. You seem to think that I'm claiming that we live in a replica of the 3rd Reich. I'm not. I'm saying that fascism has moved on and doesn't find it necessary to do those things. I'm saying that when State power is threatened then it reveals what it is willing to do to us.

Any structure which preserves and propagates itself at the expense of the people within it is fascist. That fits any and all of the Trotskyists, Leninists, NAZIs and Fascist Party.

I further believe that States of whatever type: bourgeouis liberal or proletarian illiberal are fascistic organisations.

Of course Ireland isn't the 3rd Reich. Nothing else can ever be or will be, it's a specific historical expression of State power.

There are others that share obvious similarities (Stalins Russia gulag==conc.camp, millions dead== millions dead, party power==party power).

There are still many more that are seem dissimilar in their horrors (British Empire colonialism == millions dead, but somewhere else, conc.camps in Boer war == conc.camps but for Boers, not Jews) (USA foreign policy == millions dead (but often indirectly), conc.camps == prisons for the 2million poor in gaol)

Ahern's Ireland is sweet compared to these because it is a weak and relatively powerless State. But we still participate in supporting a global economy whose mechanism for extracting wealth is murder and torture. Horrible 3rd world regimes exist because we support the US in its support of local human rights abuses because that gets cheaper raw resources.

Just because we don't have to do the dirty work ourselves doesn't mean we aren't bound into the system. In that sense we are very like the well-heeled middle and upper-classes in NAZI Germany: intellectuals, artists, homemakers, good parents, loving children. People that never wanted to think about what was actually being done to the Communists, or Jews. People that retained their elite positions in society after the war.

Deny it all you like. Ireland is a State. It profits from the misery in the world and if you support it then you have made the leap from being an unwilling participant to a cheer-leader.

It's time that "leftists" looked at what went wrong and why and stopped congratulating themselves for not wearing nice uniforms and hating Jews.

by Phuq Hedd Tue May 14, 2002 20:26

Melanie,

1. As it happens, NO. I ride a bicycle. But even if I did take public transport there is no contradiction. I totally support public transport and it makes sense as a transport mode in population dense urban areas.

2. I also support public hospitals and use them.

3. I also pay taxes and those go to line the pockets of rich people, fund police, subsidise rich farmers thus depressing the 3rd world market etc.

Is this because I agree with all 3 of those points? No. I would go to gaol if I didn't pay my taxes, and anyway I agree with paying taxes to support the first two points.

Aha! you cry, but that means that you support the State. No. Those are some of the public goods which the State claims to provide. I agree with those goals, but I think the State fails badly in realising those goals. If you disagree with that then I suggest that you leave your comfortable neighbourhood and look around. (Or you could try looking at some ESRI or CORI reports).

I agree with organisation, with publically owned structures, with co-operation, with hospitals, with day cares, with free mental-health care, with people being looked after collectively. These seem fundamental to any anarchist society that I would like to live in.

Now, nowhere in that do I see the need for supporting an un-democratic State which is run by people that I am unable to remove from office if they are NOT providing all those wonderful things?
Nowhere!

In fact if you look around you'll see that wherever there is a State (whether communist or capitalist) then we get less of those things than we would like. The wealth gets tucked into the pockets of the people that run the State and their buddies.

Oraganisation and co-operation take many forms and the State is merely one. I argue that it is not a good one because it removes power from most people and gives it to a few.

Power causes corruption. There are no examples of non-corrupt States.

Finally, I wouldn't sleep at night if I weren't trying to change things. Sometimes I don't sleep well because I worry that people are just going to continue blindly supporting authoritarian models. So what?

If you are serious in your questions then I suggest that you look at http://www.infoshop.org/texts/primer.html
or at some of the Workers Solidarity Movement website
http://struggle.ws

(p.s. the name's Phuq Hedd)

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Tue May 14, 2002 18:05

To ph:

“What you have described as a way of organising through delegates I agree with.
And to me is the way it should be done.”

So you are agreeing with my exposition of organisation based on mandated delegates,
federalism (the example was individual bulletins for each local group – with responsibility
for the ‘national’ paper being rotated from group to group), rotation of posts and all members
having an equal input into the decision making process.

Just re-capping, ‘cause as a member of a Leninist/Trotskyist organisation, you should know that‘democratic centralism’ as practised by the Leninist outfits is the exact opposite of this.

For example Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder”, written as a broadside to
particular elements within the Third International, in Germany and Holland, who were basically adopting anarchism (although they continued to call it Marxism).

Let’s look at some parts of it: On the Council Communists/Left Communists rejection
of the notion of leadership (which you do not have in the above organisational model i.e.
there are no leaders) Lenin says “Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline –
that is what the opposition has arrived at. And this is tantamount to the completely disarming
the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeois.”

“Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party
of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeois
against the proletariat.”

Leninist outfits even illustrate what they mean by “democratic centralism” by means of
a pyramid diagram – just like the old cartoons of the class structure, and it’s
no coincidence it mirrors exactly the management-workers division of decision making
power.

You go onto talk about “full timers”, well not being aware of what function “full timers”
perform within the Committee for a Worker’s International/Socialist Party, I’m not
sure what exactly you have in mind, but there is no necessary anarchist objection to some
one working full time for the movement (paid leaders is another matter).

“Full Timers” couldn’t function on a delegate basis for obvious reasons – are you going to find someone new to give up their wage job every six months or three months to be a full timer and then go backinto the labour market after 3 or 6 months.

“Look what happened to RTS. The SWP were very easily able to take it over and take credit for it.”

The SWP didn’t take over RTS – they claimed to be the organisers and then hopped on the bandwagon.
Not unlike their reaction to Joe Higgins’s electoral successes (bandwagon hoping that is).
RTS remains totally independent of the S.W.P., there are no members of the S.W.P. involved in it. So RTS is libertarian.

The S.W.P. are merely playing a media game and jumping on an issue (as usual). It is not
That difficult to get yourself credited with this, that and the other in the media – the anarchist group Class War was credited with organising more riots than it had members.

Monday’s RTS was organised very well, and was one of the best actions in Dublin City Centre ever,
(mind you not much opposition there) .

If they can be faulted it was for underestimating the police reaction, all that was needed was
a contingency plan in place to go into effect if there was such a police reaction.

“Like I said before and I think you agreed without structure whoever
shouts the loudest can take over.”

Sure but that is not what happened in this case.
The likelihood of the S.W.P. taking over RTS is up there with Johnny Adair
winning a Nobel peace prize.

“But their main problem is their methods. Unreal I don't know how they've gotten away with it for so long. They're politcs are terrible too, but the methods!!!! But this is why they will never pass a certin point. “

I’m interested in how far the Socialist Party actually are from the same shit.

Ten years ago it was Militant Tendency and I was briefly a member of one ofthe front groups “Youth Against War” I think it was called.
At the time in Dublin the Milies and the Swimmers would both have different front groups – just funnels for new recruits.

Since then the Socialist Party has learned to work with other people on a genuine basis.
(I think).

However there is still a very strong S.W.P.-G.R. smell coming from it’s youth activities.

Certainly what I remember of “Youth Against War” was
(1) It had no independent existence.
(2) There was heavy pressure on young teens to join the party.
(3) There were meetings which were basically like school, i.e. no debate, just absorb the
ideas of the leadership.

In fact in some ways the S.W.P. represent a step up from orthodox Trotskyism.

For example the Milies (and probably the Socialist Party also) had this crap about
“defending the deformed worker’s states” “progressive planned economies”.

That’s taken to a further extent by an outfit in New York called the Worker’s World Party,
who support Milosevic, probably Hussein and hailed the massacre at Tianamen Square.

Do you “defend” the regimes in Cuba, Belarus and North Korea?

Also there is this crap about “transitional demands”, basically a cynical con trick,
demanding things you know are impossible and present that as your platform.

“But we did (along with anarchists) go around knocking on doors and organising meetings etc. And someone had to and for that you needed some sort of collective group organising to get it started. This in a very small way is the role of a party.”

As you have just pointed out there was an anarchist organization doing it along side ye, therefore that is NOT an argument in favour of the Leninist model of a party.

As for electoralism, voting disempowers, direct action empowers. The direct action connected to the water and bin charges campaigns is aneducational process for people (including everyone involved) saying “We Can Do It”. This is the main reason anarchists favour direct action (our politics is basically power to the people).

Electoralism serves to legitimize the state’s electoral fraud, furthermore even if you don’t say it – “vote me end the charges” is how it is interpreted, and in actual fact that is exactly what the posters of Mick what’s his name (Murphy? Bald with glasses?) say’s “Vote Mick Bin The Bin Charges” (or something along those lines).

Finally if we are talking about getting rid of the “Star System” (i.e. structureless groups having ‘leaders’ from one or two individuals having a high media profile – Danny the Red or Germaine Greer are good examples from recent history), we would certainly want to get rid of the individual promotion which is electoralism.

I was just looking at Socialist Review, I think it’s called (C.W.I. in England and Wales, the magazine of theirs), in it the Russian Empire (aka Soviet Union) in the years 1917 to 1924 is described as a “democratic worker’s state” and a “healthy worker’s state”.

Therefore indicating something positive, no ? (Taffe also described Trotsky as “the brain of the working class” – well cult of personality how are ye).

Funnily enough on another debate on indymedia (one removed yesterday very quickly) a member of the Socialist Party (another on the same thread dissed RTS and compared people critical of G.R./S.W.P. to the ‘bickerers’ who didn’t support the Bolsheviks – you know the people who were shot, or imprisoned en masse) described the same state as a “military dictatorship”.

I put it to you, that if Haider, or Le Pen, or Fini, talked about certain other totalitarian regimes in the same fashion as ‘Socialist Review’ ye guys would be shouting it from the rooftops.

I put it to you, that regarding a totalitarian regime which murdered millions in a positive light puts a rather big question mark over your organization.

The Socialist Party is formed around the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, correct? How does it recruit people who have no knowledge of these ideas while maintaining both internal democracy AND a Marxist-Leninist perspective?

I recognize that the people who get involved in Leninist parties do so for the best of reasons, I was just reading “Resistance” of the S.W.P. the other day and well there was little to disagree with in it, however in internal structure and in seeing the Russian Empire 1917 – 1923 in a positive light, these organizations simply replicate all that is worse in the old world we anarchists wish to destroy.

How can you have socialism, common ownership, without common participation in the decision making process, and how do you have that participation without the organizational model of anarchists (not ‘democratic centralism’)?

by ph Tue May 14, 2002 15:03

I am not a facist and yes I am a member of a party.

The world is not so black and white. You can quote theory all day long but reality has a habit of stepping in. Bertie Aherns Ireland is not the third reich even if it is capitalist. And you won't convince anyone otherwise because its simply not true. The same goes for different opinions everybody isn't a facist just because they don't agree with you. You remind me of the sparts. Every state is not facist.

by Melanie Tue May 14, 2002 07:56

Being the anarchist that you are, and so against the state, do you use public transport?
If you need to go to hospital, do you go to one that is controlled by a state?
Do you pay taxes to a state?
If yes to any of the above how do you sleep at night supporting a state?
Hugs and kisses

by Phuq Hedd Mon May 13, 2002 18:31

Again you attempt to misrepresent my stance (or maybe you just don't get it). You say:

"But anyone who goes around saying that it doesnt matter if the far right grows cos were all living under fascism already needs to wise up."

This is a total distortion of what I've said. I am very concerned about the rise of the far right and I think that we need to organise against them and resist them actively. As I said before "you'd have a point if I advocated doing nothing, but I'm not advocating doing that".

Just to make my point clear again: supporting State Capitalists influenced by socialism (wherever they come from in the range of the Blairs, Schroeders, Ruairi Quinns, Joe Higginses, Lenins or Trotskys) is not the only choice. In fact its a bad choice. Its a surrender and entry into a situation which can only result in the defeat and destruction of the ideal of socialism which you obviously hold.

I should also make clear that your "this gives Anarchism a bad name" attitude reveals that you are incapable of dealing with the actual thoughts and ideas that I am presenting. I am not representative of, or claiming to be representative of anyone but myself. There is no hymn book from which I sing. Deal with the challenge that I am have forward to you:

1.how are you going to avoid the repetition of Authoritarian Socialist abuses of power if you believe in dictatorship of the party?

2.how are you going to avoid being sold out by the "democratic socialists" that you encourage us to vote for in the next elections?

3.do you support the SWP in their support of New Labour candidates in Britain?

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Mon May 13, 2002 16:41

"The idea of forming an alliance with the SPD against Hitler didnt mean going into government with them, it didnt mean abandoning the fight for socialism in order to defend capitalist democracy, it certainly didnt mean avoiding any kind of extra-parliamentary clashes with the Nazis."

Not a supporter of the K.P.D. but hold on a minute you havn't answered my points the only basis of forming an anti-fascist alliance with non-revolutionary forces (i.e. the S.P.D.) is to moderate your politics, which would have meant and end to streetfighting and 'defence of democracy'. Unless you think the S.P.D. is going to follow a programme of street battles and revolution.

As a point of historical fact streetfighting was more than a few ordinary members, this distinction between "ordinary members" and "leadership", - they just had the wrong leaders, is typical trot bollox which ignores objective conditions and the deadweight of tradtion.

This is not irrelevant the Anti-Nazi League, and similar groups today, still go for this 'defence of democracy', alliance with "Social Democrats", wave the placards and hope the far-right will go away crap, supposedly based on this muddle headed view of events in Germany. Which as I have already explored is possibly the best way to promote the far-right short of joining them.

"Of course ordinary members attacked the Nazis but the leadership joined forces with them to kick the SPD out of office in Prussia."

More than just the leadership, particularly in Berlin where Nazis and Communists joined forces in a number of strikes.

"They told their supporters to wait until Hitler took power, then the Communists would have their day."

Aye the actual line of the K.P.D. - which is not what Phuq Hedd or anyone else on this thread is saying.

"The idea that all non-socialist political systems are equally bad has a long and dreadful history on the left. Shorn of the rhetoric it amounts to saying this: it doesnt matter whether workers have the right to form trade unions. It doesnt matter whether theres freedom of the press. It doesnt matter whether left-wing groups have the opportunity to organise."

If it does matter then I have one question for you, are you still a Leninist/Trotskyist because when they ran Russia there was no freedom of the press etc... . Logically if you thought it was a matter of a political movement gaining support and establishing a certain regime plus fascism being lack of freedom of the press etc.. then you would be out campaigning against well ....the S.W.P./S.P./Worker's Party/C.P.I. .
Answer Please!

Again a lot of what you are saying amounts to (a) a lack of understanding of why and how totalitarianism arose (b) illusions in 'bourgeosis democracy', for example, left wing groups have the right to organise because they are irrelevant, not because the states of Europe are more cuddly now than 50 years ago.

It is useless to fight against one form of capitalist rule (totalitarianism) in the name of another ('bourgeois democracy')becuase if capitalism recquires it, it will be totalitarian.
For example Spain, had the Popular Front won, then it would have established a totalitarian regime also, like Franco. In fact it was already doing so.

If we were going to choose between forms of capitalist rule (if such a thing could be done), we would have to say that what we have now is, if it is far better than what existed under Fascism (rightly so), it is also far better than what is advocated by the Leninist Left. So where does that leave you?

by Dan - socialist alternative Mon May 13, 2002 15:28 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Im very impressed with phuq hedd's knack for deducing a persons entire political philosophy from a few remarks. I was hitherto unaware that the desire to replace one set of concentration camp managers with another lay behind all my political activity but now i know better. I havent learnt so much about myself since i heard Moore McDowell say that anyone who opposes capitalism is a gulag-loving fanatic. I would respond in kind but unfortunately i have a lot more tolerance for anarchism than you seem to have for socialism. Happily ive met numerous anarchists who are capable of producing arguments rather than slogans so i wont be tempted to conclude that its just a creed for people who like to indulge in holier-than-thou posturing and idle ultra-left rhetoric. Just one question: is everyone who isnt an anarchist a fascist?

Someone else raised a few valid points about Germany. The idea of forming an alliance with the SPD against Hitler didnt mean going into government with them, it didnt mean abandoning the fight for socialism in order to defend capitalist democracy, it certainly didnt mean avoiding any kind of extra-parliamentary clashes with the Nazis. This was the strategy of the Popular Front which was similarly ineffectual in stopping Franco. It simply meant that instead of treating the SPD as the main enemy the Communists should concentrate their fire on Hitler. In fact they did the opposite. Of course ordinary members attacked the Nazis but the leadership joined forces with them to kick the SPD out of office in Prussia. They told their supporters to wait until Hitler took power, then the Communists would have their day.

The idea that all non-socialist political systems are equally bad has a long and dreadful history on the left. Shorn of the rhetoric it amounts to saying this: it doesnt matter whether workers have the right to form trade unions. It doesnt matter whether theres freedom of the press. It doesnt matter whether left-wing groups have the opportunity to organise. I dont need anyone to tell me about the limits of democracy under capitalism; im a socialist not a fucking PD! But anyone who goes around saying that it doesnt matter if the far right grows cos were all living under fascism already needs to wise up.

by ph Mon May 13, 2002 14:35

What you have described as a way of organising through delegates I agree with. And to me is the way it should be done. Although there can be a problem of time and people making time where I believe it is important to have full timers to do alot of the groundwork. In my case I work long hours and have to do political work afterwards which means beginning meetings at 1030 or 11:00 and do all the groundwork then. With full timers they can do alot of this work. Although I will grant their is a danger of beauacracy coming in and this must be prevented. And they must work on a delegate form. But I believe this is possible.

On the social centres I'm not attacking them, they don't claim to be revolutionary in the point of changing society alone. And they are an excellent movement. Not to mention great places to go. As for your point on the movement moving towards libetarianism I have my doubhts to be honest the movement has many opinions but the main one is not to be labeled and anti party definitly. (this would include anarchist parties.)But thast doesn't necessarily make it more libetarian. Look what happened to RTS. The SWP were very easily able to take it over and take credit for it. Like I said before and I think you agreed without structure whoever shouts the loudest can take over.
But I don't think anyone will fall for stalinism again (I hope) even the rifondazione communista now has five factions and minorities.

On the provo support thats normal here. From example I went on the perugia march yesterday and it was common to see the hammer and siclkle and A for anarchy sprayed side by side. By the same person.

The unions of the base are very interesting and anti capitalist although non political, sindicalist. But again there is alot of unions of the base and all have different ideas and I haven't quite got my head around them yet. (i'm not sure if anyone has!) But they do act as a push for the main unions. Incidently there is also an anarchist one.

On the SWP I agree with everything you have said. I worked with them once and they alienated every non member on the campaign. You have them down completely. You should read Peter Haddens (SP) article on them. Its on the internet somewhere I'm sure. I can't remeber the name but ask someone on the next demo. It basically says everything everyones been saying up to this point although written about two years ago or three.
But their main problem is their methods. Unreal I don't know how they've gotten away with it for so long. They're politcs are terrible too, but the methods!!!! But this is why they will never pass a certin point.

On what someone else said on voting and getting people elected as a platform I don't see anything wrong with that. And we have never claimed we wiull fix it for you we have always said people must fight themselves. The Sp has a couple of hundred members but thousands took part in the water charges campaign. We never suggested we could win alone. But we did (along with anarchists) go around knocking on doors and organising meetings etc. And someone had to and for that you needed some sort of collective group organising to get it started. This in a very small way is the role of a party.

Because if no one had done this knocking on doors and organising the meetings would they have happened? Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't but organised activists made sure they did. And Joes election in my opinion was excatly the way to proceed to attack the charge. And it did not stop campaigning either.

by Phuq Hedd Mon May 13, 2002 03:51

You state that "they saw no reason to lift a finger to stop the Nazis coming to power" (paraphrase).

Well, I'm not here to answer for the actions of anyone else but my self, especially not of a rival group of authoritarian socialists. However what you've stated is simply factually incorrect. They did try and stop fascists coming to power.

This is all neither here nor there though. You are advocating support of the "lesser evil". This lesser evil is the a government which is an active participant in the murder and torture of millions of people around the world. Concentration camps have probably had their day. The State has more efficient weapons and organisational tactics in its arsenal now. We, the working classes of the 1st world, are the kapoks of the global gulag. The people whose lives are rendered down to GM foods and cheap gas are the non-priveleged inmates.

You and other leninists/trotskyists want to change camp management. You support more modern, slick camp managers that don't reveal the suffering or engage in needless sadistic cruelty.

I want to destroy the camp.

Your intellectual luminaries (lenin trotsky) believe in the camp.

Finally, you say that you're "sorry that Phuq Hedd took offence", well I don't take offence to your telling me that I've got it terribly wrong and that there are some obvious facts I'm overlooking: I'm happy to have concrete objections made to WHAT I SAY. I'm relatively happy to have you resort to personal insults though, I think it makes you look as though you haven't got much of a point. ;-)

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Sun May 12, 2002 20:11

I’m not getting into the whole Phuq Hedd versus Dan thing. Suffice to say I think calling all and sundry Fascist to be a bit of an assault on the English language. But calling people ‘fuckhead’ and ‘self-styled “libertarian”’ isn’t help full. Lads were having an interesting debate in this thread let’s keep it on the level of politics and not be trading insults.

O.K. Dan some points:

(1) You seem to regard the KPD (main German Leninist outfit) as partly responsible for the rise of Hitler, because they didn’t go into an alliance to stop him with the SPD (German version of the Labour party).

Seemingly taking the view that what happened in Germany in the 1930ies was that a political movement (the Nazis) developed and acquired state power (I will be turning to this later).

Actually it was the KPD which fought the Nazis on the streets, using direct action, - the only way to win, whereas the SPD was into ineffectual rallies (the same things that today’s S.W.P. hold up as ‘the way to beat the nazis’ ). So what was the point in entering into an alliance with them?

Radicals can only go into alliance with conservative political forces (such as the SPD) by moderating their program – surely this would have included an end to the disreputable street fighting – which again is the only way to smash this movement.

Secondly this would have been a ‘defence of democracy’ alliance, like the A.N.L., which only serves to promote the far-right as the only real radical alternative (we shouldn’t forget the leftist elements with National Socialism, particularly in Berlin).

It is no accident of history that those places with the less legalistic and less conservative Labour Movements, ones not formed around authoritarian Marxism, - Spain and Italy, also saw the strongest fight against Fascism.

(2) Totalitarianism developed in Europe in the 20ies and 30ies as the defence mechanism of capitalism. It is not the antithesis of ‘bourgeois democracy’ but complimentary to it. The Weimar Republic did not disappear one day to be replaced with the Third Reich, the elites of both were largely the same, Hitler came into power in alliance with the politicians and generals of bourgeois democracy. (and afterward they were still there for example the only S.S. General to be captured by the Americans: Reinhard Gehlen was head of the B.N.D., West Germany’s C.I.A., until 1968) .

It is the objective conditions which determine the extent of repression – what do Italy, Germany, Russia and Spain all have in common in this period other than totalitarianism?
“Bourgeois Democracy” can also be brutally repressive (i.e. Columbia).
The point being that what happened is not some Nick Griffin type idiot started to win support, rather what happened was capitalism needed repression.

(3) A Question Dan do you regard Le Pen, Fortun, Haider, Fini, Berlusconi, et al as Fascists?
What do you consider Fascism to be?

You should be aware that the leftist parties use this issue as a means of recruiting, and so make something of a song and dance about it. Similarly you should be aware that the capitalist media labels some of these as Fascists and others not so, or to a lesser degree (the only ones I am aware of having an actual Fascist political pedigree are Berlusconi and Fini). Perhaps something to do with the fact they are opposed to some things which are pretty important to the capitalist economy – the E.U. and immigration.
It strikes me that people know little of these movements (BTW I’m asking, not saying).

(4) Atrocities. You should read, actually you probably have, you should remember the appendix to ‘Homage to Catalonia’, about the “atrocities of the enemy”, “selective morality” and so on.

The regime headed in part by one Leon Trotsky claimed millions of victims, particularly in what Lenin called “merciless war on the kulaks”. In subsequent years left totalitarianism claimed far more lives than National Socialism. Similarly the atrocities inflicted on the German people, in the closing stages of , and after the Second World War, have been largely overlooked in general, ethnic cleansing from what is now Russia and Poland – including the murder of two million persons, mass rape, area bombing – half a million victims, starvation – estimates higher than the holocaust.

If we take Nazi rule in Eastern Europe (which also involved racial extermination of Slavs as well as Jews – more Slavs were killed in numbers, more Jews proportionality) as being a programme of colonial expansion, it doesn’t look that different from others in Australia, the Congo, North and South America.

The first genocide of the German state in modern times occurred in what was then German South West Africa about 100 years ago, while Hitler was still a down and out.
Indeed 3 million people starved as a direct result of British Colonial Policy in what is now Bangladesh during the years of W.W.2. (Churchill’s response was ‘so what they breed like rabbits’).

(5) I find it difficult this dichotomy between left and right, and this whole notion of a political spectrum in general. If rather than Trotsky on fascism you read Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera (leader of the Falange in Spain) or the programme of the Japanese Fascists (the author’s name escapes me) well basically it’s leftist.

I also note according to your differentiation between ‘bourgeois democracy’ and fascism (one represses ‘independent working class organisation’ the other doesn’t) then the regimes headed by Lenin, Mao, Castro and other such heroes of the left were indeed Fascist.

All of the above is not ‘political position’, just my personal viewpoint, a contribution to open debate and discussion.

BTW What finally became the ‘Nazis’ was not a tiny sect which grew into a mass movement from 1923 to 1933.
It already was a mass movement – the Freikorps, before 1923, one in alliance with the German Social Democrat Party.

by Dan - Socialist alternative Sun May 12, 2002 16:12 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Sorry if Phuq Hedd finds my remarks offensive but the idea he put across is so dangerous that its hard to react with equanimity. Now that the far right has the potential to pose a real threat its essential to look at previous experience if we want to prevent history repeating itself.

While the Nazis were growing from a tiny sect to a mass movement, the German Communists went around preaching the message that Hitler was no worse than the others, that the SPD were "social fascists", that Germany was already a fascist state in 1930. So they saw no reason to lift a finger to prevent Hitler from coming to power. I dont think anyone can seriously claim that the Nazi regime was in no significant way different from the Weimar regime which preceded it or the Federal Republic which followed it. Just ask the Jews.

Im intrigued by the idea that Phuq Hedd believes me to be an admirer of Blair, a man I have also loathed intensely. But i dont carry this loathing so far as to believe that Nick Griffin would be no worse if he was Prime Minister. The difference between fascism and bourgeois democracy is that under the latter, for all its faults, independent working-class organisations can exist. Under fascism they are wiped out with extreme violence. I know anarchists have little time for Trotsky, but it would be worth overcoming this distaste to read his writings on the situation in Germany, which conclusively bury the pseudo-radical ideas then put across by Stalinists and now being recycled by a self-styled "libertarian". If the German CP had listened at the time there would have been no Hitler and no holocaust, so pardon me if im a little abrasive in responding to the same rubbish now.

by neogeo Sun May 12, 2002 13:51

Having spoken about politics in this country to older people I notice a remarkable tendancy to vote along party lines regardless of what a party has done for the individual, the area etc. Fainna Fail seem to benefit most from this - the idea of the FF "family" and so on who would never think of voting otherwise. Probably a practice dating back to civil war politics. Idealogically, economically and socially, FF's coalition partner of choice would be FG, after all they have more in common than any say, FF and labour/SF/PD. I appriciate what you say about the SWP, my experiance with them is limited enough. Personally, of all the groups out there I've found Sinn Fein to be quite agressive in the persuit of potential members.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Sun May 12, 2002 12:14

"mainstream political parties happy to promise anything to win over public opinion."

Much like any political party, read what the Bolsheviks (whom the S.W.P. hold up as an example to follow and claim their practise is derived from)did in power in comparasion to what they said they would do before they got in.

"We in Ireland lack an independant centre-left party with coherent, implementable economic and social policies."

There are not implementable reformist-Social Democratic policies - such things would could never be implemented becuase they would have a damaging effect on what is a capitalist economy.
For example "Tax The Rich" well yeah see how many investments you get then.

"Why do the electorate, in the majority of consitiuances choose time and again between right and centre-right candidates with applicible socio-economic policies?"

Most people in this country who vote do so because that T.D. has represented them in the corridors of bureaucracy i.e. clientism, people do not vote on the basis of policy because all of it is the same anyways and because everyone knows it will be disregarded after the election.
It's the parishpump not Keynes or the Chicago School.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Sun May 12, 2002 12:02

neogeo it is impossible to work with the S.W.P. because of THEIR practise not because the idea of not liking the S.W.P. floated down from the heavens and possessed people's minds.
For example, from the pamphlet 'Monopolise Resistance':

"In all important respects GR is run by, and in the interests of, the SWP - it is a front organisation. This does not mean that all its supporters are SWP members far from it. the whole point of a successful front organisation is that it involves people who wouldn t otherwise join the party while at the same time being dominated by the party and existing to fulfill the aims of the party. A really successful front organisation will have lots of non-party people involved in running it while remaining politically dominated by the party controlling it. As a speaker put it at the SWP s Marxism 2001 conference, "The united front is a way for a tiny minority to win over lots of people Globalise Resistance is a united front."(4)

Soon after he attacked Reclaim the Streets in the press for being "part of the problem, not part of the solution" George Monbiot was invited by the SWP to be a main speaker at a number of GR rallies. This allowed the SWP to promote Globalise Resistance as a broad-based movement involving well known figures like Monbiot. The important business of that tour was reported in Socialist Worker: "On the Globalise Resistance tour 18 people joined the SWP in Manchester, 10 in Birmingham, 9 in Sheffield, 8 in Leeds and 4 in Liverpool". (5)"

G.R. is the S.W.P.'s vehicle for working with other people if you would work in that fine but you cannot seriously expect other people to want to. (oh and another example of it's front nature is the way it pops up in other places which have S.W.P. branches e.g. Cyprus).

So the thing to do is have a broad libertarian umbrella, formed from local autonomous groups, and which people can get involved in without demanding too much from them.
Let's get positive.

We are not all the same this is not Judean People's Front versus People's Front of Judea.
The theory and practise of libertarianism is far removed from that of the S.W.P. . This is the reality, which is unescapable.

by neogeo Sun May 12, 2002 02:07

And what is the problem with people pulling togeather to achive more common aims as opposed to less?

The SWP for all their faults, do possess a social conciense of sorts, something bereft of mainstream political parties happy to promise anything to win over public opinion. We in Ireland lack an independant centre-left party with coherent, implementable economic and social policies. Why do the electorate, in the majority of consitiuances choose time and again between right and centre-right candidates with applicible socio-economic policies?

by Phuq Hedd Sat May 11, 2002 21:34

Ein Reich, ein Volk!

no splitting there eh? Let's all pull together lads!

by neogeo Sat May 11, 2002 20:31

People's front of Judea indeed!
We're the Judean People's Front!

The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
Splitters.
And the People's Front of Judea.
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
We're the people's font of Judea!
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
People's Front! C-huh.

Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
He's over there.
Splitter!

and so on...

by Phuq Hedd Sat May 11, 2002 18:06

I note from "ph"'s comments that s/he thinks that I am a member of the WSM. I am not.

by Phuq Hedd Sat May 11, 2002 17:59

OK, leaving aside your _puerile_ ad hominem assault upon me let's address the central point:
how much difference is there between actions of authoritarian socialists and capitalists?

You, like so manys are able to see the murder, torture and horror of the concentration camps because you've had your face pushed into it often enough. You rightly are sickened by the degradation and destruction of the human beings that perished for the profit and amusement of the majority of society.

So lets look now at what _objectively_ is the difference betweeen the actions of the Trotskyists who massacred hundreds of thousands? Or between the actions of the nice Social Democratic countries that were busy murdering colonial subjects.

Or how about now with the nice Mr.Blair and Mr.Schroeder who preside over a world in which millions of children are slaves. Millions of women are raped as a systemic part of their societies, millions starve to death, millions are emaciated skeleton-like figures, dragging themselves from day to day and providing the surplus profit for Alternative Socialists that prefer Blair to LePen.

Yes, there are some differences, they don't wear uniforms or focus their hatred upon Jews (although its fair to point out that many involved with the NAZI-party weren't anti-Semites, they were just in it for what they could get). Yes, the concentration camp has been distributed into a series of prisons and countries.

But its still damn similar.

And while you and your "Alternative Socialists" are busy telling us how much better Blair is than LePen you are supporting that.

If I were advocating doing nothing in response to LePen and friends then you'd have a point. But I'm not.

I realize that independent thought must be hard from you, but try it, you'll find it rewarding.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Sat May 11, 2002 17:55

Dan: "while theres no such thing as a good state, some states are worse than others"

Any state would be as repressive as any other depending on the objective conditions - look at the repression in post war Germany (i.e. W.W.1) under the Social Democracts, marching hand in hand with the Freikorps (proto-Nazis), Republican Spain was more repressive than the Primo De Riveria dictatorship (itself supported by Social Democrats), Columbia today a "democracy" where people are decapitated by state forces with chainsaws.

Hitler, Mussolini all came into power in coalition with 'normal' right wing forces, and many of their henchmen remained in power after '45.

So yes an autocracy is worse than a republic but it is important not to have illusions in 'democratic' states, they moved in a totalitarian direction before (when the objective conditions demanded it) and they could do so again.

Look particularly at coup friendly elements in the 'elties' of Britain and Itlay in the 70ies.

The whole "right and left" thing is to big to go into right now, but no the S.W.P. or Jospin are not the same as Fascism.

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation (I confess) Sat May 11, 2002 17:42

Who decides what goes into Worker's Solidarity, well not being a member of the W.S.M. I dunno but I should imagine either (a) they have a meeting and vote (either by majority or consensus - majority is my guess) or (b) they delegate the job of producing W.S. to a different group of people in the organisation (with a turnover so all members get to be in the working group to do that).

Yes what your are saying about "non-hierarchical organisation" can be true, do a search for the Tyranny of Structurelessness. A lot of anarchists recognise this, particularly in groups such as the W.S.M. or the Anarchist Federation (of which I'm a member).
How do you avoid this.

(One) have a structure, i.e. how are decisions made, who is a member and who gets to make them, rather than just who ever happens to be at one particular meeting (or deciding things through friendship networks)

(Two) rotation of posts, e.g. if someone is writing the lead article in the bulletin this issue someone else must do it in the next issue and everyone takes a turn.

(Three) Chair meetings and make sure that newer less confident people are encouraged to take responsibility, have their say - part of this
may involve loudmouths rule, i.e. get the most active, loudest to shut up for a while.

We have all been socialised from an early age into an authoritarian way of behaving, we go to school when we are five remember. So we are used to having someone else making the decisions or to making decisions. We have to overcome this, and it does take more than just the magic words 'non-hierarchical'. Anarchists have criticised the social centres, Ya Basta!, R.T.S. etc.. on this very basis.

Another thing we need is to get rid of what Jo Freeman in the 'Tyranny of...' called the 'star system' e.g. Negri, Bookchin, Chomsky.

But that said the social centres scene is not Anarchist is it not the case that there are pictures of Che all over the place and so on within this scene. It is part of the new movement which is by varying degrees moving in a libertarian direction, no?
What the committees of the base/cobas whatever you call them are about is more relevant I must say.

So (some) Anarchists do address the very issues which you have raised.
As regard the sect business well the same could be said of you dissing the social centres - criticisms and open debate is a good thing..

ph “But it is a fact that many people within the social centres still have serious illusions about "armed struggle".
It is not unusual to find provo posters in there.
And people are shocked to find out the shinners aren't communist (really!) They also are shocked to find out they are in the gov. and are shutting down hospitals.”

Got to agree with you that attitude really pisses me off when I find radical Europeans, Americans, whatever supporting the Provos but not knowing a thing about the situation. I think the romantic notions of armed struggle are infantile, to be honest with you. Again there is anarchist critique of this (“You can’t blow up a social relationship” for example).

ph “possible while the WSM is small to let everyone decide but if they become thousands what then?
Obviously they will have to elect someone to do it, and that like it or not is a form of leadership, delegate or not”

Nope it’s not a delegate is mandated to carry out a decision and can be recalled at any time, a leader is elected with the right to make decisions. If the A.F. had thousands of members (I wish!) I would expect bulletins/papers for each city/town (i.e. back down to the small group level) with responsibility for producing the national bulletin/paper passing from one local group to the next so everyone gets a go.
A leader orders you, you order a delegate.

ph “I think through an offical party organisation you can have the checks and balances on this.”

Certainly true. Depending on what you mean by “official party organization”, do we institutionalize the leadership turn from unofficial to official? Or do we organize democratically (i.e. without leaders), as discussed above.
Consider this the Leninist groups do not have loose organization yet they still always have the same leaders.

To get back to the point of the original posting why do people hate the S.W.P.?
Well I think the people who do are usually ex members of the S.W.P. or one of their many front groups (these days particularly Globalize Resistance).

Just reading an article by Keiran Allen in first issue of “resistance” the S.W.P.’s magazine in Ireland, entitled “Anti-Capitalism and the Left”.
Well it talks about direct action, democracy, working class self activity and so on.
Well you join then and slowly find that this is not the case and you have been devoting your time, energy, money to an organization which is the exact opposite of what you are about – Power to the Party not Power to the People. (and very conservative practice rather than direct action etc…).

People are also pissed at how the promote themselves as the leadership in such a shamelessly opportunistic way – as we have seen most recently in regard to Monday’s R.T.S. .
Personally while I regard them as an impediment to building a revolutionary movement I don’t concern myself enough with them to hate them. Why bother?

I would urge people to read the statement of what was the S.W.P.’s UCD branch for an insight into the workings of the organization (all ex-members not another anarchist group).

For the S.W.P. I have one question if you have any kind of internal democracy in your organization and are founded on the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, how then can it be that you place such emphasis on recruiting – it is quite easy to join the S.W.P. and not even know who those people are, thus is it not possible, if you had internal democracy and a lot of new recruits that before long your politics would be completely different. Perhaps the membership have no input into decision making.

Also people do not like the S.W.P., because well perhaps something to do with the fact that half of this continent was turned into a prison camp by Leninists, including ones held up as heros by the S.W.P..

Not an insignificant thing in my opinion, Phug Head is off the mark describing them as fascist but what they hold up as an example to follow was along the same lines as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini.

BTW ph thanks for contributing to an interesting debate, are you a paddy in Italy or an Italian here (or neither?)

by Dan - Socialist Alternative Sat May 11, 2002 16:41 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

What sort of an ignorant know-nothing muppet believes that there's no difference between nazis and social democrats? Try living in a fascist state and then youll see what the difference is. I suppose you think saying that crap makes you into a hard-line anarchist, actually its just the same shite the German Stalinists said about Hitler in the 30s, that he was no worse than the SPD or anyone else. Then they were all put in concentration camps after 1933 and had to reconsider their opinions. I hope you dont have to go through a similar educational experience before you wise up. Try talking to some of the grown-up anarchists in the WSM and im sure theyll tell you that while theres no such thing as a good state, some states are worse than others.

Im not the biggest fan of the SWP, in fact ive just left the party, but calling them "fascists" is just purile and meaningless. If youre going to complain about the Swappers' often crass propaganda, you better not clog up indymedia with infantile pseudo-libertarian drivel.

by ph Sat May 11, 2002 15:50

Okay I'll check out early Negri, I've read empire but no early stuff. But it is a fact that many people within the social centres still have serious illusions about "armed struggle".
It is not unusual to find provo posters in there.
And people are shocked to find out the shinners aren't communist (really!) They also are shocked to find out they are in the gov. and are shutting down hospitals.

Negri is also one of the most influencial writers here after Chomsky so its necessary to have a critical look at him. The movements of the movements is at a quite delicate stage. It probably won't survive in the long term, its quite a mixed bunch from right wing catholics (acli) right over to the PRC. It could also break up on class lines. Although its an excellent opportunity for discussion etc.
But in many social forums the youth are staying away and the DS (centre left) are moving in. Or have already.

Either way we don't want to be facing the wrong way again. As far as I can see FIOM are the backbone of the movement here. And the unions of the base have forced things along to. The demo of 3,000 000 wouldn't have happened without cobas's demo of 100,000 a few weeks before. (after the main unions canceled it). Either way we're back to "traditonal" workers organisations.

In italy Negri is seen as close to the red birgades and you can be jailed for writing support for "terrorist " groups here too. Socialist Revolution (a funny sect, but quite big) have just been banned I heard. And most of the political prisoners say they are innocent or at least they were justified. And Italian politics has even more smoke and mirrors than the usual variety.
As you know terrorism here was practised by the hard left, the bourgeois in P2 and lots of state forces. And alot denied it.

Anyway if I'm wrong on negri I'll come back and say so, but I am reflecting popular belief here (including on the left) that he was close to the BR. And there wasn't a single BR either!!!
My information didn't come from socialist worker or any of their sister papers.

On Spain I don't claim any affiliation to the POUM
I think they should have been inside the youth movement rather than staying outside for their "purity". Which is a common mistake on the left of all sides. It was just an example of anarchist "betrayal" to this muppet who was going round calling everyone facists.

But my point was that anarchists do have leaders, who decides what goes in workers solidarity for example. It may be possible while the WSM is small to let everyone decide but if they become thousands what then?
Obviously they will have to elect someone to do it, and that like it or not is a form of leadership, delegate or not. I don't know the anarchist position on having full timers but it must be difficult working without them.
I also think it is mistake to ignore elections.

And you are right in the point of unelected unchallanged leaders. My local social centrre works in that way and they also often have closed meetings. They're not all anarchists or anything but a few are. it can be quite cliquey and seperate from society. I think through an offical party organisation you can have the checks and balances on this.

I'm not trying to be be sectarian or anything but sometimes I just get tired sometimes of the holier than thou attitute going on (on this site). If you don't agree with me your a statist etc, and now its gone to if your a statist you're a facist. Etc, I have alot of respect for the WSM, but they know what they are talking about rather than arrogantly shouting down anyone with a different opinion, which is ironic for "libetarians". But as with everything I suspect the ones shouting the loudest...

by Harry Pollit Sat May 11, 2002 13:41

In any case Negri isn't an Anarchist. But the point being made about non-hierarchial organisations having an unoffcial leadership can sometimes be true. Read the Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman. Of course recognising that and working to correct it and still working for democratic organisation is quite different from holding that up as an an excuse for authoritarian organisation.

Yes anarchists being human beings are capable of 'mistakes' but I wouldn't call establishing totalitarian dictatorships which murdered millions of human beings a 'mistake' (i.e. the histrorical record of Leninism). That's a bit much really.

As regard Spain the only relevance of the POUM is that Orwell was with them and that various Trot groups like to claim them as their own (even thought Trotsky denounced them).
The bulk of the fighters in the MayDays came from organisations such as the Libertarian Youth, a rather obvious point, given the fact the massivly outnumbered the POUM.

In any case the Leninist criticism of Anarchists in this period in Spain amounts to yiz were wrong cause you worked with the left and Leninists (Socialist Party, Communist Party, Left Republicans). I'm inclined to agree with them.

by Lies Sat May 11, 2002 11:14

You are seriously mistaken. Negri has always denied any involvement with the Red Brigades and by the way the Red Brigades certainly didn't like professors of any kind. Everyone knows that that was a fabricated accusation. No evidence has ever been found and that's why there is no evidence. In the second part of the 70s Negri was opposed to any form of party organization and the Red Brigades called themselves a Party. It's just sad that publications like IS spread this kind of lies. Spreading lies is dishonest.
Please go and read some stuff by Negri. Here is a website where you'll find some of his old writings (in English): http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/
Negri would never say or write that the working class doesn't exist anymore.

by ph Sat May 11, 2002 10:52

Negri doesn't deny it. The period of the red birgades was a long time ago and most including their activists have turned against this tactic. Which came impatience from the hot autum never turning revolutionary. Negri was one of the leaders of the Bologna professors who talked of a "vanguard" ie armed struggle tactics. He doesn't believe in this any more. But this isn't contreversal here. The red birgades were quite big for a time and many went for this mistaken tactic. Including Negri. He doesn't any more but he also says impearilism doesn't exist and the working class don't exist. The new US government and 13 million strikers in Italy have answered him on that. In the end of the day it has not been the social forums which have led the way, it has been FIOM the metalworkers union and pushed by the unions of the base. Anyway the point is the working class are alive and kicking.

by What? Sat May 11, 2002 10:38

Toni Negri was NOT a member of the Red Brigades.
Anyone who has bothered to read his stuff knows that his ideas cannot be confused with the Red Brigades' ideology. Yes he is still in prison, so what? Many revolutionaries have been unjustly arrested and condemned.

by p.h - sp Sat May 11, 2002 10:11

No but he's at the top of the no global leadership and makes the same claims of not being a leader or not needing any organisation.
But in fact he is although it isn't clear how descisions I've made. I have attended many meetings "collectives" which while a step forward are about as democratic as the person who can shout the loudest.
Negri was an active member of the red birgades, he is still in prison (at night). I don't know casarinis position on terrorism or this period.
I'm not Joe Carolan (I promise) I'm not a member of the SWP or particularly like them. But I do think we need organisations I am in the SP. But I can answer they are bringing him over to Ireland because they will uncritically support anyone anyway radical or popular (except joe higgins!)
I'm not bitching just adding to a debate on spain that had already begun.

by Niall Sat May 11, 2002 09:16

Luca casarini is not an anarchist. According to the SWP, Casarini and other Italian autonomists like Toni Negri support terrorism and the Red Brigades (see International Socialism 83). Recently Joe Carolan has announced that they've invited Casarini to Ireland. Joe, why have you invited him if you believe that?
By the way...and then they talk about bitchin!

by AA anarchist - party hack Sat May 11, 2002 08:56

Where were the anarchists when the stalinists were wiping out the POUM. Nowhere to be seen. The anarchists get an easy ride when it comes to Spain. Well heres some shocking news the anarchist CNT did have LEADERS they also made BIG mistakes. They were especially adapt at wasting the lives of their members on futile military goals and putting it down to heroism. They didn't back POUM against the stalinists. Including censoring their own papers. The Stalinists took them out later.
The anarchists aren't saints and like it or not they have always had leaders. Just because you say you aren't one doesn't make it so. Look at Casarini in Italy, he is the leader of the social centres in North Italy but claims he isn't. In practice he is. It is "his" social centres that have begun to charge people to stay and high entrance fees. He is the leader but there is no democratic hold on him or structure of any kind. But make no mistake he is a leader and seen as such.

by beckham - carni-ball-istas Sat May 11, 2002 05:35

2000 of us came out to play free style carni-ball (i.e. thousands of balls - thousands of players!) in Mayfair & Oxford St in London on Mayday-

our revolution needs no gods, no managers

everyone is their own football - as the DaDa revolutionaties of the 1920's taught us...

by dood Sat May 11, 2002 03:52

STFU!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
HAND!
YHBT!

by Komsomol Sat May 11, 2002 02:44 komsomol at swirve dot com

even the word Anarchy, discribes how unimaginably wrong that ideology is...

by Harry Pollit Sat May 11, 2002 01:07

Read about Spanish Revolution here:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

The section on collectives should answer some of your other questions/points.

by Harry Pollit Fri May 10, 2002 23:55

"Now in a anarchist state where will we get our money,"

There wouldn't be a state or money.

"food an education where will we go if we are sick."

Food comes from farms, education in schools (read Summerhill by A.S. Neil for an example about libertarian education - one example there are many this is something explored extensivly by libertarians), when you are sick you go to hospital. Where is the confusion!??!

"Now there is a history of anarchist groups cast your memory back to history class in school the spanish civil was one of the reasons franco seized power was the anarchist disrupted evrything they didn't take orders (how can a army work with out a chain of command)Therefore one of the reasons franc was in power was because of the Anarchist."

Aye, History Class is school, where do I begin, basically teaching in school is geared to the prevailing view/hegemony of ideas, it's complicated to get into in one post to indymedia, but that interpreation of events is simply not true. If you want to talk about the Spanish Civil War study it for yourself (which would include reading books from all political perspectives) I recomend 'The Spanish Civil War' by Anthony Beevor it's in one of those bookshops on Dawson St. and is cheap enough.

The only reason there was significant opposition to Franco is because of the tradition of direct action among Spanish working class people, just look at what happened to the powerful Marxist-Authoritarian Labour Movement in Germany (did someone forget to take orders there?).

"Its not worth saying NO NO NO NO you have to say yes to something at least or have a Alternative."

We do we say yes to democratic control at grassroots level. Assemblies or electronic referenda to make decisions, mandated delegates to carry them out.
Maybe you need someone to tell you what to do, maybe you can't participate in the making of a decision, but I doubt it you've managed to post to indymedia... (which is somewhat anarchistic in that anyone get's to share their opinion, and it is a media where everyone can place their reports).

by Comrade Jim Fri May 10, 2002 23:54

There is a party system there in the SWP but who are they in all fairness the only link between the SWP and the public is the grasroot members

I have never seen a SWP member in public over 25.
SWP recruit woung people and the Burn up before they reach there 30's.

Prehaps a member of the SWP can educate us in how there party works are there branches a committee do you hols a AGM do you have a leader, president General council. How many menbers are there what is the average age. Have you ever on a seat in the dail or any where. when did you decide to come to ireland from the U.K Please somebody tell us because your system is Undemocratic.

by Phuq Hedd Fri May 10, 2002 23:48

and a captain who is chosen by the team can be useful. But if you're playing commercial football, where you're renting your body and skills to an capitalist investor who controls the team through his "manager" (that you mentioned in your post) and chooses a "captain" (as you also mentioned), then yeah, that's a pretty fascistic set-up. Commercial football played by an elite of skilled workers is one of the most fascist spectacles in our society.

There's a big difference between voluntarily having a game of footie with the lads, choosing the best captain to help win against the other team and being a good little entertainment worker participating in the entertainment industry.

I suspect that you know full well that I am not arguing against organisation. I'm in favour of it. It's the _type_ of organisation that concerns me: I want organisations that don't allow a minority to hijack the organisation to their own ends. In other words I want truly democratic organisations, like the worker's militias in Spain, the workers soviets (prior to the bolshevik take over), the zapatistas etc.

The SWP on the other hand believes in a minority (themselves) controlling everyone else "for their own good". No thanks. I'm never taking part in anything that can result in that. Russia 1917 and Spain 1936 are a clear warning for us.

by ENOUGH! Fri May 10, 2002 23:25

I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST!
YOU ASK FOR SENSIBLE DEBATE AND WHAT DO YOU WRITE? NOBODY IN THE SWP FOLLOWS ORDERS.
YOU CALL THAT SENSIBLE DEBATE? DO YOU THINK WE ARE ALL MORONS? SAY SOMETHING USEFUL OR GO AND READ YOUR PARTY TABLOID AND LEAVE US ALONE.

by up the bolshies Fri May 10, 2002 22:59

So playing a game of football is facistic then. There is a captain and manager

GR were approached by RTE as RTS offered no spokesperson.
The reason anarchists hate the SWP is they are (shock horror) moderatly succesful. They are growing and making inroads into the unions (even though unions are part of the capitalist system according to many anarchists)and starting to connect with the growing mood.

The anti SWP is sometimes legitimate 'anarchist v party structure' but mostly sad wankers who have seen their movements fall apart and bitch at those on the left who have held principles and reaped some success.

To call anyone on the left a facist is a disgrace, making light of a very dirty word. Does anyone genuinly believe the SWP are going to round up dissidents when the day comes. No one in the SWP 'follows orders'

Sensible debate in public please fellow lefties, the world is reading.

by Stephen Rigney Fri May 10, 2002 21:53

Every fucking event is a just a day for selling papers and they like to hijack events claiming they're the official spokespeople etc.

As for Joe Carolan, he's just in love with his own voice and would do anything to stick his head on TV.

by saortinn Fri May 10, 2002 21:19

This another groug who should be classed with SWP.
Not wanted or needed (before I go on I'm not trolling) Now my understanding of a anarchist is anti establishment. Now in a anarchist state where will we get our money, food an education where will we go if we are sick.

Now there is a history of anarchist groups cast your memory back to history class in school the spanish civil was one of the reasons franco seized power was the anarchist disrupted evrything they didn't take orders (how can a army work with out a chain of command)Therefore one of the reasons franc was in power was because of the Anarchist.

Its not worth saying NO NO NO NO you have to say yes to something at least or have a Alternative.

If I was misguided in any facts I said plz do correct me

by saortinn Fri May 10, 2002 20:12

Phuq Hedd is right on both counts , the SWP are incredibly authoritarian and therefore fascistic, and secondly, whatever part of the political spectrum those in power hail from makes absolutely no difference. The end result is the same; a failure to realise that power is not the end but the means to achieve; this is constantly lost an anyone in power. As an anarchist I have little fear of the likes of Le Pen, the reality of him in power would make very little real difference; (maybe he's just more honest than Fianna Fail) however it would be a huge image problem for the French. But on a positive note, outside and inside France it might stir pepole to some degree of interest , for even in this the information age ignorance is at an alarmingly high level.
peace

by Phuq Hedd Fri May 10, 2002 19:54

they're both fascists defending the interests of the ruling classes through state power. The SWP are complicit in this having even called for votes in support of the Labour party in Britain.

That's right they campaigned to support the party that bombs Iraq, Afghanistan. They support the party that attacks street protests.

There's feck all objective difference between Le Pen and Jospin when they're in power. Vote any "left-wing" candidate into power and watch what happens when they get that power:
they either attempt to stay true to their ideals and are killed or set-up or deposed
or else they "compromise". They put a nice face on the institutions of the state.

Outright declared fascists like Le Pen are the people that our masters use when there is a threat from the working class to seize power. When they can control us with "representative democracy" then they will decry the Le Pens and adulate the Tony Blairs.

by shane Fri May 10, 2002 19:51

i would support phuq hedd, the catholic church is undoubtedly a fasist organisation. it helps to think about it as an international political party. it has the same corruption, double-speak, and injustice as any other far-right party. witness the blind eye turned to the rise of Hilter, the funding of Mussolini and Franco, the cardinals travelling in shiny new mercs, the almost daily revelations of sadistic SS-like abuse, and the refusal of the pope to sell the vast treasures in the vatican gallery to feed starving children.
the unholy trinity of the church, the state and capital must be smashed.

by Anton de Leon Fri May 10, 2002 19:42

According to Phuq Hedd all states are fascist. Also the Catholic church. This type of belief makes the recognition of real fascism difficult: if all states are fascist, is not Le Pen on the same level as any other leader? There are certainly fascist currents in Ireland, but to label almost everything fascist is political infantilism.

by Phuq Hedd Fri May 10, 2002 19:01

"curious"
a fascist organisation is one which emphasises the organisation as the important entity instead of the organisation being a means to an end. It devalues the individuals within it, converting them into being solely parts of the greater structure.

Originally it obviously came from Benito Mussolini's party of that same name. The name again emphasises that people are "bound" into a single stronger entity (the fasces was a bundle of rods bound together that symbolised the greater collective strength that was obtained by being united into a whole, it was carried as a symbol of authority by some ancient Roman judges or something). Mussolini emerged from what was ostensibly a socialist/communist background (as did Hitler). He emphasised the need for a strong state which could "get the right things done". This belief in "corporation" merged very nicely with the capitalists.

The whole point is that if the structure becomes something which is not easily dissolvable, changeable by its constituent elements (that's me and you) then it takes on a life of its own.

We've seen this with all the Capitalist states and with the State Capitalist states (any Marxist-Leninist country you care to mention). The State has too much power.

That's fascism, whether it's left-fascism or right-fascism.

Hope that helps ;-)

by curious Fri May 10, 2002 18:49

Could you explain that in a bit of detail by any chance?

Just seems like it's a word that gets thrown about the place a lot, I'm just curious as to what exactly you meant by it?

by Phuq Hedd Fri May 10, 2002 18:35

1. they believe in vanguardist bolshevism (look at the behaviour of Joe Carolan trying to pretend that he's a spokesman for Reclaim The Streets!)

2. they hijack events and organizations, pretending that I, that "hate" them am one of their supporters.

3. they believe in participating in the election farce, diverting energy and activism into their fascist organisation.

4. they keep on harrassing me at protests: if one of those effers tries to recruit me again then I'll..I'll...not join!

by Denise Fri May 10, 2002 18:28

Yea i think that not many people know exactly what the SWP stands for,what are its ideas,its issues,its policies...Thus they end up being generalised as "aggressive" like Mary just said.
Maybe get out there, talk to the people, more talks, advertisements..

by Mary Kinane Fri May 10, 2002 18:19

I don't hate the SWP but what I do find off-putting is their language - "fight" fanaticism', "rage" aganist racism, etc. I, personally, just find it a bit aggressive.