- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Last word then...

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on February 21, 19100 at 18:05:58:

:: 51% of a reduced turn-out does not constitute an overwhelming

:Yes it does---of the working class, i.e. a class who works for others.

Erm, no, look at the July figures, 998,000 for the SR's, some 160,000 for the Kadets, and they did not make up 50% at that time, so the 51% of teh Bolsheviks in October cannot possibly have been the majority of the working class.

Further, we can measure teh general class power of the proles by their numbers in the country, if they made up only some half million out of 200 million, they were in no way strong enough to make and hold a revolution.

:The task of the Communist Party is to lead the proletarian revolution.
In order to summon the proletariat for the direct conquest of power and
to achieve it the Communist Party must base itself on the >

Transfer interrupted!

g class. (Trotsky, emphasis added)

i.e. like a surfer riding on a wave - look at the subject object formation of that idea.

:The Bolsheviks stated that they would end the war, turn the land over to the peasants, and start building a socialist economy. This they did.

Except they switched slogans about ninne times over that period: 'all power to teh soviets!; All power to the factory committees', 'peace, bread and land' - they promised to deliver for, rather than asking the workers to deliver.

:Were there problems? Considering the amount of petty bourgeoisie in
Russia and the undervelopment of industry, there were bound to be
problems. Should they have thrown in the towel---or refused to take
power in the first place?

They should have worked to build liberal democracy in Russia - teh menshaviks were right on that score.

:As far as principles are concerned, I believe it is you who fall short.
You promise a socialist revolution without violence---I believe that's
either ludicrous or dishonest.

No, I prmoise to try and avoid violence, and work towards as peaceful a revolution as possible, and I think that it is possible, because I cannot see how the ruling class could stop a conscious and determined majority - they cannot make us all work at gunpoint, advanced capitalism requires our voluntary co-operation.

:Specifically, however... You claim that the literature of Marx and
Engels supports this view---that's untrue.

I actually cited historical evidence, rather than literature, but I did cite Marx's address to teh Workers of Holland.

: You claim that Marxism
promises a return of craft-production---that's also untrue.

I actuall;y said socialism does, please, lets distunguish marxism and socialism, marxism is a theory by which we analalise capitalism, socialism is a creed regarding how we will live in teh future - as I said in my last word in that debate, my sole contention is that if we aim to maximise the pleasure of work - and you do consider work a social good in itself - then we should maximise the amount of craft production we engage in.

:You claim that the literature of Marx and Engels supports the social division of labor---untrue again.

Amusingly, I was actually re-iterating teh case you made against me with such force over a year ago, wherein *you* convinced me of the opposite, I remain confuzzled, frankly, by your switch around - I could have cited the exact same passages from Capital as you cited at me back then...suffice to say, you never answered my honest question about the two lancasters - I'll ask it again, because I genuinely think that this debate was one about misunderstanding - if teh workers in Lancaster texas take rota shifts on the oil wells, and teh workers of lancaster England take rota shifts in a pot-ash mine - in a world economy, is there social division of labour between lancaster and lancaster. Please, I really want you to answer this, genuinely, I'm not out to score points, I'm out to understand here.

:When I point out, with extensive passages from the literature of Marx and Engels, that your claims are unsubstantiated (
here and here), you equivocate, going so far as saying (here) that The
Communist Manifesto was a clarion call for capitalism.

No, the Manifesto, which if you look at the Preface to the English edition, Charlie and fred later repudiated the Prgoramme of, was designed to precipitate the material conditions which made social possible, i.e. the workers developing the material conditions of capitalism in order to abolish it - remember, M&E always supported the bourgeoisie against teh aristocracy, hence their view on Poland and Ireland - and on free trade as well.

:Now you claim the Bolsheviks were based upon 'Jacobin' minority seizure of the state---another untruth (demonstrated with extensive passages here).

Well, again, over a year ago, you made the same charge, castigating lenin for the gap between his rhetoric about teh recall of delegates, and the practise - you neglect lenin's own statement that one man management is no incompatable with teh DOP, and you neglect Trotsky's iown writing on the revolution, wherein the party play the role of a vanguard and seizxe power - where did teh svoeits, let alone teh workers, vote for the october uprising?

:You debate with the confidence of an expert, yet you provide nothing to substantiate your allegations.

I've provided sufficient proof, however if I don't give rpecise page numbers, I must be making it up.

:All you really have going for you is your stubborn audacity.

And teh internal logic of my arguments, which you refuse to pick up on, prefering always to fall back on argument by authority - frankly if it were prooved me that Charlie supported vanguard tactics over democratic organisation, then I would just say fuck it, and stick by the case I have by its own merits rather than collapse in the face of marx.

I might, if I may, cite another case, though - the interview article I gave the URL for (CHicago tribune), in which, when asked about the IWMA involement in teh Paris commune, he says, of course they were at the forefront, being among teh most active revolutionaries, but they weren't organising it - anotehr feature of his words I always thought interesting.

Really, Lenin's position is little removced from hegel's model of the great man theory, wherein Lenin replaces the vanguard party for the great man, that changes the whole of society through its actions.

BTW - Krondstadt, Cheka - any comments on them?

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup