Anarchists proclaim free speech for all except Socialists

by Harry Pollit Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:02

How do anarchists censor "socialists" (i.e. Leninists)? Well go to the thread starting with "Vistor Serge Socialist Hero" to see, they 'censor' "socialists" by disagreeing with them, isn't it interesting the outrage provoked among 'socialists' by disagreement, debate and discussion. How do you participate in a decision making process with out debate, discussion and disagreement? How can you have common ownership (i.e. socialism) without common participation in the decision making process (i.e. every one having an equal say)? Surely such decision making would involve debate, discussion and disagreement.
Which leads me to ask why are ye so against it?

The fact ye are speaks volumes about the nature of Leninism - more than I could ever write.

So folks "What was Kronstadt", what is this all about?.

Well the Socialist Party/Socialist Worker's Party are Leninists. Followers of the first "socialist" dictators of the Russian Empire.
Our point is that Leninism has been put into practise, in the Russian Empire, where it established a brutal totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship which murdered millions.

Kronstadt is a small city and naval base in the bay outside St. Petersburg. The sailors there played an important role the revolution in 1917.
(The Bolsheviks made films about them, Trotsky praised them).

In 1921 the people of St Petersburg went on strike against the Bolshevik/"Communist" regime.
In response to this the Kronstadt sailors met in an assembly and passed a resolution calling for free elections to Soviets, Factory Committees etc.., for freedom of political prisoners, and such like.
- This in a society described by the Socialist Party as a "democratic worker's state" (i.e. what they aim to establish).

The response of the Bolshevik/"Communist" government was to launch a military attack on them, and when they were successful, mass executions.

Bascially something like Tianamon Square.

Kronstadt was one example of a what happened between 1918 and 1921. There had been a great democratisation during the revolution. Factory Committees taking over factories, soviets taking over residental areas, the village mir taking over the landlords land, - all these were basically democractic organisations.
This was crushed by the "Communists"/Bolsheviks, who organisations like the Socialist Worker's Party/Socialist Party take as their guide.

Leninist organisations like these claim their politics, their methods of organisation, have a validity because they were successful in the Russian Revolution. Well if this is their success?

by Bolshevik Lenninist Stooge Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:26

Naaahh I'm not shocked.

by kulpoon - N/A Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:55 kulpoon at hotmail dot com

Everybody has the right to say whatever they want. Even Socialists. It's a human right.. Once you start taking away human rights we'll have anarchy on our hands! ;)

"I may not like what you have to say, but I'll die for your right to say it"

by anarcho Thu Jun 20, 2002 12:53 anarcho at geocities dot com

It appears that this posting is just a sad
attempt at humour.

However, the mentality behind it *is* significant.
I would say it suggests that if you dare to question
Bolshevik ideology, to discuss it, then you are
accused of wanting to "censor" the "socialists"
in question.

That kinda says it all.

by Mark - Socialist Party Thu Jun 20, 2002 13:38

It was in fact a reference to ACTUAL censorship on this newswire where a thread I initiated was removed.

by anarcho Thu Jun 20, 2002 14:03 anarcho at geocities dot com

The indymedia collective removes anything which it
considers as being outwith its statement of posting principles.

I've had a posting of mine's removed when I
advertised an update to "An Anarchist FAQ" --
it probably was not considered news.

And anyways, the indymedia collective is not made
up of anarchists, as far as I am aware.

Why not join the collective rather than moaning
about them? Or why not ask them why they did it
instead of smearing them? After all, the reason
why they removed it may be considered by some as
important...

And, of course, how did the indymedia crew stop
you posting it elsewhere?

by Pissed Off Thu Jun 20, 2002 14:17

All these self proclaimed anarchists and socialists and revolutionary tourists resting on their laurels since RTS and the Election.

Indymedia anarchist? Anarchist principles obviously but I'm in it and I have never bothered to check or ask about peoples politics at meetings or on lists - no-one has asked me either - I don't give a fuck who uses it or comes to meetings - even cops welcome to attend if they haven't already - anyone who contributes is ok by me

Politicos who value analysis and bitching over any kind of action or productivity piss me off bigtime - and by this I mean both Socialists and their purer than thou critics -

Sorry for ranting but I am pissed off

by Mark - Socialist Party Thu Jun 20, 2002 15:02

How do you know what I have or haven't been doing since the election? If you must know what we are up to now, why not pop around to our stall beside the BOI accross from Trinity on Saturday?

by Finghin Thu Jun 20, 2002 16:23

THe Socialist Party and other like minded socialists never unconditionally supported the regimes in the ex USSR and China. We are Trotskyists and I'm sure you know that Trotsky was unswerving in his opposition to Stalinism. It was the supporters of Left Opposition that were probably the most persecuted group in Stalins USSR.

However unlike the SWP & Anarchists, the SP aknowledge the benefits brought about by the Ruissian revolution and defended the gains. THe Revolution did overthrow Tsarism, socialise the means of production and bring about a workers state. This state soon degenerated due to a number of factors, largly due to the isolation of the revolution in a backward capitalist country and the civil war. We do not believe that Stalinism naturally flows from Leninism, even the most superficial reading of Lenin would show that it is toally contrary to Stalin. We called for a political revolution to overthrow the corrupt buraucracy and bring about genuine workers democracy in the USSR

by Darren the half-baked socialist Thu Jun 20, 2002 16:30

Those people who engage in this kind of politics do it for a reason: they see the horror, injustice and exploitation around us - and try, therefore, to form networks, groups or campaigns to tackle the issues.
Unfortunately, we also seem to attract either socialist or anarchist nuts who slag each other off. Anarchists slag the SWP as an authoritarian outfit of power-hungry monsters who seek to deceive the working-class for their own ends. This is as far-fetched as any George Lucas film, really.
And socialists slag the anarchists for bypassing the need for hard slog when trying to win the working-class to a class-conscious position - Anarchists are seen as naive for believing in the spontaneous and simultaneuous insurrection of the poor and down-trodden worldwide.
The rest of us, most of us, l hope, forget about the petty bickerings. No, the SWP are democratic and anarchists aren't naive.
If you don't agree, go and set up your own site and do all your squabblings there.
l once read an article around here accusing the anarchists for being responsible for the re-election of Bertie Ahern. Quite ridiculous, really. No left group with a serious class-conscious position has a serious, tangible influence on the political ideas of the working class. If you think that then you're living in the clouds.
And anarchists never seem to consider the objective forces at play during the Russian revolution - the civil war, the legacy of WW1, the international armies of counter-revolution. These suffocations meted on the Russian revolution were the overriding contribution to the rise of militarism and the crushing of democracy within the soviets.
Even Chomsky acknowledges that Trotsky was a genuinely democratic figure both before the Russian revolution and after it. DURING it, however, the objective conditions in which democracy could flourish did not exist; so Trotsky had to act in undemocratic ways, at times. Not because he was essentially anti-democratic. But, rather, he had to make hard and militant decisions to protect the fledgling democracy of soviet Russia.
With hindsight, we can see that it failed.

by Daithi Mac Sithigh - [email protected] Thu Jun 20, 2002 17:39

Hi Mark,

Can you please indicate which of your postings was removed? Every removed post is removed for a specified reason and this is given on an open mailing list. I can check back and find out what it was if you wish.

As regards the anarchist FAQ, as far as I recall it was a link to an updated site, which would have been seen as an advertisement or duplicate posting, not a news item. I'll happily admit that at times the editorial collective makes bad judgements, that's why we do all discussion and editing in "public", in my opinion that's one of the essential components of the Indymedia revolution.

Daithi
-1 of IMC IE-

by Harry Pollit Thu Jun 20, 2002 18:04

To all those people accusing others of “squabbling and bickering” you are surely therefore guilty of this yourselves far more than people who write detailed arguments in the “add your comments” section rather than personal attacks (i.e. accusing people of being “nutters”).

“And anarchists never seem to consider the objective forces at play during the Russian revolution - the civil war, the legacy of WW1, the international armies of counter-revolution. These suffocations meted on the Russian revolution were the overriding contribution to the rise of militarism and the crushing of democracy within the soviets.”

Well here’s one I wrote earlier:

“Civil War

The question as to whether the Bolsheviks were forced into authoritarian,
hierarchical and dictatorial methods, forced into the establishment of State
capitalism, or "Siege socialism" as Parenti calls it, by the practical
necessities of civil war or whether all this was inherent in Leninism all along,
and the natural product of Leninist ideology, is actually not to difficult to
answer.

We merely have to look at the record of the Bolsheviks prior to the
civil war.

If this was a lab experiment we would have a 'subject' that is to say
Bolshevism plus civil war and a 'control' that is to say Bolshevism minus civil
war and by looking at the difference between the two we can ascertain the effect
of the civil war. The civil war didn't really heat up until the Summer of 1918
with the offensive of the Czech Legion and the establishment of the Komuch (an
alternative Social Revolutionary led government).

Allied intervention reached a new level at this time as well with the landing of a Allied force in Vladivostok (the British section of it was under a Labour party M.P. and comprised of old soldiers unfit of service on the Western front) - previously British troops had landed in Murmansk as an anti-German action .

There was a low level of violence prior to this, consisting of very small armies and very small casualty figures, for example the famous 'ice march' carried out by the White 'volunteer army' in the extreme south of Russia involved only 4,000 soldiers.

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". (8)

International Capitalism Made Me Do It.

Then we have the famous fourteen Imperialist armies or the "fourteen capitalist
nations" as Parenti calls them. Who were they? Well we have Turkey, Germany and
Austria-Hungary for starters, all of whom were outed from the territory of the
Russian empire as a result of their defeat in the First World War.

Then we have the Allied intervention which really took off after the First World War, that is the intervention of the Britain, France, Japan, the United States, Italy and Canada.
Then we have newly independent Poland involved in intermittent
incursions into the what is now the Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania culminating
in the offensive into Bolshevik occupied Ukraine in the spring of 1920.

Count them that's ten states, or seven really as the Central Powers pulled out early in the game and only had a very minimal involvement in the beginning of the civil war.

Where/who are the other four? or seven? Is it? Georgia, the Ukraine, Finland,
who by declaring their independence from Russia (in most cases later to be
quashed by the state which to quote Parenti "provided vital assistance to
national liberation movements in countries around the world." - around the world
perhaps meaning as far away from the U.S.S.R. as possible) could be said to have
invaded the Soviet Union, even if only someone cloned by the Kremlin would say
this.

Perhaps the fourteen includes the Czech legion - a force of former war
prisoners and nationalist activists fighting for Czech independence on the side
of Russia in the great war and later to clash with the Bolsheviks.

Or perhaps the other four are the different white armies of Russia, a neat trick presenting the Whites as more formidable than they actually were by counting their weakness i.e. division as a strength.

Or perhaps New Zealand, South Africa and Australia were also involved, though I find no mention of them in the official history of the Communist party or elsewhere.

In any case why are you questioning this I hear you cry and ignoring that far
more interesting and pressing concern - the single-handed victory of the Red
Army over the combined forces of the United States, Britain, France, Italy,
Canada and Japan plus the White Armies, and the various nationalist forces which
would be surely the single most amazing event in world history especially when
you consider that only a matter of months before the Bolsheviks could not even
resist imperial Germany alone.

It would be the single most amazing event in world history except for the fact that it is beaten into third place by the ability of the establishments in those countries to obscure the extent of their intervention from the public and by the ability of the Polish state that well known militaristic, imperialist, super-power to defeat the Red Army in 1920.
Thereby achieving a feat which all the others together could not do.

Or perhaps all is not as it seems and this 'Allied intervention' was not all it was cracked up to be.

To quote Voline, a Russian anarchist sent into exile by both of
Russia's absolutist regimes:
"According to legend, that intervention was highly important. It is
primarily in this way that the Bolsheviks explain the strength and success
of some of the white movements. That assertion, however, belies reality. It
is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the foreign intervention during the
Russian Revolution was never either vigorous or persevering. A modest amount
of aid, in money, munitions, and equipment: that was all . The Whites
themselves complained bitterly of [its paucity] later on. And as for the
detachments of troops sent to Russia, they always were of minor significance
and played almost no tangible part." (9)

Essentially these military units occupied a few ports and guarded parts of the
rear areas of the White armies to ensure that supplies got through to them (a
somewhat futile task as due to the corruption within the white movement much aid
ended up on the black market). The main body of Allied troops appears to have
been centred on the port of Vladivostok , those of you unfamiliar with the
distance between Moscow and Vladivostok think London to Hong Kong.”

The full article is on http://www.struggle.ws/freeearth.html
(entitled “worker’s icepick”)

“And anarchists never seem to consider the objective forces at play during the Russian revolution - the civil war, the legacy of WW1, the international armies of counter-revolution. These suffocations meted on the Russian revolution were the overriding contribution to the rise of militarism and the crushing of democracy within the soviets.”

Furthermore Lenin is on record as saying socialist revolution will always occur in such circumstances, if this is true, if Leninism cannot withstand them, then it is best left in the history books (or even the dust bin of history).

“the international armies of counter-revolution”

Is that the 14 or the 22 – can anyone name them? Tell us where and when they were?

“Even Chomsky acknowledges that Trotsky was a genuinely democratic figure both before the Russian revolution and after it. DURING it, however, the objective conditions in which democracy could flourish did not exist; so Trotsky had to act in undemocratic ways, at times”

And who decided that – i.e. who decided the Trotsky had to act in an undemocratic fashion? When was it put to a vote in the soviets, factory committees, mir, etc..?.
Not very democratic if the Central Committee made the decision?
Again the Civil War was over for the last 3 years of Lenin’s reign, and of course before the Russian Revolution, and after, was when Trotsky wasn’t in power! By their deeds you shall know them! (BTW when/where did Chomsky say that).

“These suffocations meted on the Russian revolution were the overriding contribution to the rise of militarism and the crushing of democracy within the soviets.”

“But, rather, he had to make hard and militant decisions to protect the fledgling democracy of soviet Russia.”

Make your mind up, either there was a “fledgling democracy” or a “crushing of democracy within the soviets”.
“With hindsight, we can see that it failed.”
‘Take the most radical revolutionary and place him on the throne of all the Russias and give him dictatorial power and within a year he will have become worse than the Tsar himself’.
Bakunin 1870.

Finally the Bolsheviks anti-democratic practise was not described by them as a temporary expedient, as you suggest, but as the building of socialism.

You might also explain how imprisoning pro-Revolution people and closing down the democractic organisations of the Revolution (i.e. Factory Committees, Soviets)was necessary to defend the revolution!!????!

Burn the village, to save the village, right?

Finghin:

“THe Socialist Party and other like minded socialists never unconditionally supported the regimes in the ex USSR and China.”
The Socialist Party/C.W.I. publications describe the Russian regime pre 1924 as a “democratic worker’s state”.

“We are Trotskyists ……..”

Presumably then you have positive feelings towards the regime when Trotsky was one of the top dogs.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jun 20, 2002 18:06

Here's some of what Chomsky has written about Trotsky. It is completely at variance with what you assert. It claims that Trotsky was directly responsible for the anti-democratic, fundamentally anti-socialist system that resulted from the Russian Revolution. The attempt to reduce an important political debate to "a squabble" is arrogant. It is important to know where one is going and what the results of our actions might be. If we've gone down a particular road before then it's good to remember what happened on it and to try and decide how many of those events are features of the road, how many are luck and how they can be avoided. Otherwise one is just blowing-off steam and having a good time protesting The Man (which is fine if that's what you want to do, but don't insist that everyone else has to be quiet and do what you want to do!):

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
[...]
The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood [...]" Our Generation, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 1986) pp. 47-52

"To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since.

These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts." [What Uncle Sam Really Wants Chp.4, Section 4: Socialism Real and Fake]

"'The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods, but the production of free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality.' This basic commitment, which runs through all of Dewey's work and thought, is profoundly at odds with the two leading currents of modern social intellectual life, one, strong in his day -- he was writing in the 1920s and 1930s about these things -- is associated with the command economies in Eastern Europe in that day, the systems created by Lenin and Trotsky and turned into an even greater monstrosity by Stalin. The other, the state capitalist industrial society being constructed in the U.S. and much of the West, with the effective rule of private power. These two systems are actually similar in fundamental ways, including ideologically. Both were, and one of them remains, deeply authoritarian in fundamental commitment, and both were very sharply and dramatically opposed to another tradition, the left libertarian tradition, with roots in Enlightenment values, a tradition that included progressive liberals of the John Dewey variety, independent socialists like Bertrand Russell, the leading elements of the Marxist mainstream, mostly anti-Bolshevik, and of course libertarian socialists of various anarchist movements, not to speak of major parts of the labour movement and other popular sectors." [Democracy and Education: Mellon Lecture, Loyola University, Chicago
October 19, 1994, Paragraph 1.]

by Mokky Thu Jun 20, 2002 18:15

To all those of you who cry "stop being sectarian", I say what's wrong with discussion - I agree that it should be positive where possible and based in as much fact as can reasonably be ascertained but that doesn't prevent criticism where it's due and that's not sectarian. Some comments are a bit inflammatory (and should be avoided, as I said) but it's not fatal.
To all of you who say "you should be doing actions not engaging in 'pointless' debate": who the fuk are you to be telling people what they should be doing for starters and are actions and debate mutually exclusive? Is there not a place for both? How effective would an uninformed action be? I have participated in actions that haven't been debated and they've degenerated into farce. Also, if you don't like the debate, you don't have to read it.
Of course it would be a shame if such debates turned newcomers to the site away from further investigating anarchism or socialism but that is no reason not to take issue with the facts as they are presented (the purpose of the comment section) or to avoid replying to legitimate questions.
Bring it on!

by anarcho Thu Jun 20, 2002 18:31 anarcho at geocities dot com

"As regards the anarchist FAQ, as far as I recall it was a link to an updated site, which would have been seen as an advertisement or duplicate posting, not a news item."

That is what I thought. It never crossed my mind
to accuse the indymedia collective of censorship
because of this, which I think is the important
point.

As such, the original poster is simply wrong in
accusing irish indymedia as being censors.
Particularly as there are plenty of threads
posted by socialists and containing comments
by socialists...

by help Fri Jun 21, 2002 00:15

Christ almighty this is getting worse, can't our anarchist friends figure out other people have different opinions to them. So get off your intellectual highorse and do something in the real world, instead of "they're going for elections, they're obviously authoritarian nazis, pass the capuciono"
I vote and I'm not a stalinist, trotskyist, (or any ist for that matter) authoritarian, and I have no intention of crushing anyone. or any ist for that matter you trendy holier than thou fucking muppets.

by hs - socialist party Fri Jun 21, 2002 00:47

the article was a joke I think, not a particularly good one but I don't think anyone is accusing indymedia of censorship. I have posted many times on this site, I have posted many CWI and Socialist party articles and some of my own.
(i did it again just before this) There is no problem with debate, while little action is going on it is a good thing. Anyway it's better than what was going on before which was no more than left wing gossip about the SWP.
On the anarchist v capitalist debate I am a socialist I think it is a mistake not to go for elections and not to organise centrally. I know the arguments but thats what I think. I think it will be difficult for anyone to break out of the leftist box and speak to others without doing so. (elections that is). But by all means try. I am willing to discuss with anyone as long as they don't do it down their nose at me.

by Des Fri Jun 21, 2002 00:56

I fully support the policies of the anti-leader, if we are not on the alert, the dreadful bolshevik, leninist, troyskyite types could succeed in a socialist revolution where justice would prevail and people would have a place to live, an education, a job and feel fulfilled. This prospect is simply frightening. There would be no place for guerrillia gardening, grass roots gatherings (what about the drugs squad) and boring the shit out of people on indymedia. Direct action would be simply fucked.

by hs - Socialist party Fri Jun 21, 2002 01:27

just one last point I would like to have a discussion with ph hp and other anarchists about whats happening today in Ireland, this isn't to hide from history, just the fact you have never critisised us on us and what we are doing today or what we should be doing today that we aren't. (and we discuss russian history all the time here)
It could be interesting, also more interesting for those who haven't studied the history of russia or read everything marx, lenin trotsky etc wrote. And for those who are unaligned unaligned and may be interested in more practical ideas.

by mal - none Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:58

Harry pollit? ur taking the piss with ur name right?
if not
VIVA the BALHAM GROUP!

by Harry Pollit Fri Jun 21, 2002 13:54

“Christ almighty this is getting worse, can't our anarchist friends figure out other people have different opinions to them.”

If you don’t want to read the debate (or something almost a debate as the Socialist Party never reply to the points) don’t, actually I see from the rest of your post you havn’t, have you? According to your logic you shouldn’t post anything here about anything as “other people have different opinions”.

”I vote and I'm not a stalinist, trotskyist, (or any ist for that matter) authoritarian, and I have no intention of crushing anyone. or any ist for that matter you trendy holier than thou fucking muppets.”

Sorry this thread is about Bolsheviks/”Communists” preventing people from voting, got that? Nothing to do with people who vote being “authoritarian”.

If you are not interested in the debate and don’t read the posts and describe people as “fucking muppets” you are better off finding something else to do with your time.

“Reference
by Mark - Socialist Party Thu, Jun 20 2002, 12:38pm
It was in fact a reference to ACTUAL censorship on this newswire where a thread I initiated was removed.”

“no one is accusing indymedia of censorship
by hs - socialist party Thu, Jun 20 2002, 11:47pm”

I know they like re-writing history – but in the space of 12 hours!!!!!!!!!!

“we discuss russian history all the time here”

Actually we don’t. Not only are there very few threads where this comes up, but the Socialist Party/Socialist Worker’s Party/any other similar group never reply except to try and change the debate to something else, or produce lame excuses like “quit squabbling” or are reduced to the level of abuse pretty quickly (see the first post for example).

So if you are a Leninist respond to the arguments concerning what happened when Leninism was put into practise.
If not it can be assumed that you cannot, and therefore what we are saying is right by default.

by Harry Pollit Fri Jun 21, 2002 14:21

This debate started out here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=6789&start=40

And hs has posted this ate the end of the thread:

" But the point is I don't like being accused of being some sort of jackboot wearing leninist that wants to oppress everyone. This I am not I can tell you.The conditions of the revolution in russia (tsarism, starvation war etc) are completely different to what we have now, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. But again Lenin et all aren't gods and I or my comrades are not interested in setting up a SP dictatorship. Or executing anarchists. Which all the way through, and not for the first time you have been basically saying. This is simply a return to earth,
As for Kronanstat, I'm no expert but it seemed to be a military decision, I wasn't there though, and quite possibly it was wrong. But alot of nasty things are done in wars look at some of the carpet bombings against Germany in WW2. Still necessary."

"But the point is I don't like being accused of being some sort of jackboot wearing leninist that wants to oppress everyone. This I am not I can tell you."

Nobody has said this. If this were the case would we bother to debate you. We are not talking about the subjective intentions of Leninists but were Leninist politics leads to.

"The conditions of the revolution in russia (tsarism, starvation war etc) are completely different to what we have now"

So why use an organisational method developed in that context, your justification is it was a success in Russia in the early C20th.

Secondly Lenin is on record as saying these will always be the circumstances of socialist revolution.

Thirdly the Socialist Pary/C.W.I. is an international organisation surely with sections in countries far more similar to Russia in this period. (i.e. in the "developing world").

"my comrades are not interested in setting up a SP dictatorship. Or executing anarchists. Which all the way through, and not for the first time you have been basically saying."

No we are not, we are discussing the objective results of Leninism put into practise, not the subjective intentions of Leninists.

If you are not interested in a party dictatorship, or executing people for disagreeing with you, why are you a Leninist?, when Leninism was put into practise that is what it did.

Furthermore why bestoe such praise on people who did just that (Trotsky was "the brain of the working class" according to C.W.I./S.P. top dog in England).

" as for Kronanstat, I'm no expert but it seemed to be a military decision, I wasn't there though, and quite possibly it was wrong. But alot of nasty things are done in wars look at some of the carpet bombings against Germany in WW2. Still necessary."

So you are admitting that the Bolshevik government was at war with the working classes of the Russian Empire? (Kronstadt happened after the civil war with the whites, no military action was initiated against the Bolshevik govt. by the Kronstadt sailors, they had a meeting and passed a resolution).

I note you are again ignoring the substance of that resolution, logically in a "democractic worker's state" (russia before 1924 according to the S.P./C.W.I. and what they aim to establish here), there would be elections to soviets, freedon of press for left socialists and workers, etc.. (what the Kronstadt resolution stood for),
not mass executions for the crime of demanding such things.

So you say: "I don't like being accused of being some sort of jackboot wearing leninist that wants to oppress everyone" and "I or my comrades are not interested in setting up a SP dictatorship. Or executing anarchists."

But doing that may be "Still necessary.".

In short I presume your reasons for being in the Socialist Party are sound but if you want to make the world a better place, rather than a worse place, you would do well to consider the record of Leninism put into practise.

by anarcho Fri Jun 21, 2002 20:20 anarcho at geocities dot com

Des:

"I fully support the policies of the anti-leader, if we are not on the alert, the dreadful bolshevik, leninist, troyskyite types could succeed in a socialist revolution where justice would prevail and people would have a place to live, an education, a job and feel fulfilled."

I'm sure all the anarchists, social democrats, SRs,
workers and peasants in jail under the Bolsheviks
were thankful they had a place to live! Much better
than being shot by the vanguard of the working class...

"This prospect is simply frightening."

And the prospect of following the same flawed
path to the same nasty ends is not frightening?
Yes, it would be "simply frightening" to try
and learn from the mistakes of history rather
than repeating them!

"There would be no place for guerrillia gardening, grass roots gatherings (what about the drugs squad) and boring the shit out of people on indymedia. Direct action would be simply fucked."

Is that the best people can come up with?

I would suggest you consult the thread which
started this nonsense off. There you will find
lots of great quotes by Trotsky on the need for
party dictatorship.

A bit of education on the actual practice and aims of Trotskyism would not go a miss...

by hs - socialist party Sun Jun 23, 2002 04:51

you didn't answer anything there! still talking nonsense, and I'm still not a jackboot leninist come out to the real world sometime, your welcome we could do with your help.

by Aidan Mon Jun 24, 2002 00:45

Just for the record the idea of Indymedia censoring anyone. Before the election Mark from the SWP posted something which was nothing less than blatant SWP propaganda for the Up coming election (a post which was intitled "Vote Socialist") As a violation of Indymedias Anti Andvertisment policy it was removed.

People (Mark most vocally) however made a fuss out of this, the "abuse of Indymedia Ireland" was put onto the Uk site, and URL and abusive articles acccusing Indymedia Ireland of being a WSM front was posted to the site.

Speaking as the member of Indymedia collective who argued againist the posting of the article I've recieved the frankly (and this is just my personnal opinion) abusive behaviour of the SWP. They've (as in members not as in a policy) implied Indymedia is Anti SWP (becuase we would not let the publish election advertisments) and furthermore a WSM front.

I'm sorry Mark you're talking utter shite. Your rants about censorship would be valid were it not for our constant attempts to engange your in dialogue over this. I'm personnally tired and bored with your behaviour.

Cop on

Aidan
-One of the IMC Ireland Volunteers