See all archived forum posts

Anonymous	Posted: 15 Apr 2005 08:57 pm    Post subject: Yellow Light on De Leonism Conference null
davesearles	Posted: 16 Apr 2005 01:14 pm    Post subject: If members of any organization wish to put on a symposium on DeLeon what is the matter with that? That wouldn't concern me anymore than if the SLP or members or former members thereof put on a symposium on Lenin. I am only sorry that it is too far for me to attend. I would urge anyone who could attend to make the effort to be there. Let me qualify my first statement a little. If I were planning to go an event and I found out that Vince had anything to do with the organizing I certainly would not attend regardless of what organization was putting it on. Further, specifically what is meant by libertarian socialism? Anyone who advocates getting rid of the state - is that a libertarian? It just seems like a mealy mouth euphemism to me. signed Dave
Anonymous	Posted: 17 Apr 2005 09:07 pm    Post subject: null null
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Apr 2005 03:29 am    Post subject: Oh, hell, after I type hundreds of words, my little finger brushes against the touch-pad and all my words get erased. Maybe that's an omen that I need to sleep on it before I try again. Anyway, you two are a textbook case of oil-and-water personalities. I don't want to see this happening. Have I not set a good example for others?
davesearles	Posted: 18 Apr 2005 12:13 pm    Post subject: Vince wrote: I believe Dave Searles is the worst example I've seen, to date, of persons who presumably have a genuine desire to help humanity, but remain beyond clueless in how to properly relate to real human beings, now. Dave writes: As Popeye says - I yam what I yam. I do not profess to any higher existence. I rely on the cover of no "desire" or motivations. If you will notice when it was pointed out to me by Mike that my comments may have been out of bounds, I immediately apologized. Vince chose not to accept the apology but proceeded to provide to the world further personal information and organizational plans or structure of certain people on the left, some of whom who post to this forum. He has no sense of boundaries whatsoever but continually hides behind his self procalimed (but phoney) status as a messenger of hope. Furthermore, who is he to suggest to others that they not attend a symposium on Deleon? So this is how we are going to use this forum? For example - Ken Ellis and I have been recently engaged in a tong war over his book. If it were in print form I would say that it was not worth the paper that it was written on, but I have and never would suggest that links to Ken's book be deleted from these pages. If people are interested they should be encouraged to read his book. If people are interested, as I am, they should be encouraged to attend the Deleon symposium. Vince is p.o.ed that they didn't want hs help in the organizing of it. Isn't that their right to decide how it's going to be organized? But as for Vince's suggestion - it it humourous how people use that phrase as an attemp at an insult. I take no offense what so ever. Dave P.S. Mike, I think that we had get straight pretty soon that these pages should be used to discuss DeLeonism - but the Deleonism shouldn't be used as a cover to attack the platforms, positions, of orgazizations on the left - such as the CPUSA. It is just not our business as to what the CPUSA states on it's web site. We have members of the CPUSA participating in this forum. I hope that we can learn from them. I hope that they can learn from us. Do you think that the SLP is going to have any of its members participate in this forum if Vince sees it simply as an opportunity to continually take pot shots at the SLP? I think that there needs to be established some boundaries where members of other organizations can participate without being made a target for it. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Apr 2005 03:05 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: but the Deleonism shouldn't be used as a cover to attack the platforms, positions, of orgazizations on the left - such as the CPUSA. It is just not our business as to what the CPUSA states on it's web site. I don't follow you there. The CP claims to be teachers about socialism. They claim that their program is workable. They claim to be part of historical processes. Of course it's our business. Not to attack, but to critique.
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Apr 2005 03:14 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: I think that there needs to be established some boundaries where members of other organizations can participate without being made a target for it. To hell with who the writer is and where the writer is from. The only thing that matters is the sentence. It's the sentence that's right or wrong. Everyone needs to confine themselves to "the points", to say "I agree with your points 1,3,5, but disagree with your points 2,4,6, for the following reasons, blah-blah." This is the way people are supposed to debate.
davesearles	Posted: 19 Apr 2005 12:18 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: "but the Deleonism shouldn't be used as a cover to attack the platforms, positions, of orgazizations on the left - such as the CPUSA. It is just not our business as to what the CPUSA states on it's web site." Mike wrote: "I don't follow you there. The CP claims to be teachers about socialism. They claim that their program is workable. They claim to be part of historical processes. Of course it's our business." Dave replies: let me give you an example of what I am thinking about. Suppose I stumble upon this web site and I start to particiape, much as Matt or Social have. Suppose that during the course of discussions I mention that I am a member of the Catholic Church. Should I be subjected to all kinds of interrogations as to what Catholics have learned from the Spanish Inquisition? To come back down to earth. If Matt, just using an example, makes a statement such as he did about atheism and the party or atheism and the state - it was perfectly within bounds for others to point out the apparent inconsitency with Matts remark and the statements of Lenin or the CPUSA constitution. Suppose the SLP takes the unexpectant step of joining the umbrella, or the CPUSA or the SP or some faction of them jopin the umbrella. Is the SLP going to be interrogated for the expulsion of Nat Pressman? Or the CPUSA for endorsing FDR for President? Of course, if a memebr of one of the organizations make an issue with one of these points, it should be discussed. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Apr 2005 01:32 pm    Post subject: Dave, I agree that people shouldn't be "interrogated" in the event that others find out their personall background. Half of the problems will be prevented if people just stay on topic, that is, this isn't the 'Spanish Inquision forum' or the 'Expulsion of Nathan Pressman' forum, so sticking properly to the matters of socialism and its program(s), we naturally wouldn't start "interrogating" someone, in most cases. The other half of the problems will arise when the writer's personal background remains connected to the views they express, say, hypothetically, if I used to be, or still am, a member of a Leninist organization, and I come here arguing that De Leonism is all washed up, because the true answer to the social question are in Lenin. In that case, although it's not my personal biography that's relevant in the debate, the social viewpoints associated with with my biography are relevant. I don't know if something should be on the table for debate until I see how it is introduced, both in context and in phrase. I can tell you this -- if any writer mentions the accomplishments of "the socialist countries", indicating that they feel that socialism has been implemented before, while I believe that socialism has never been implemented before, then I think it would be fair to ask them what they have to say about those "socialist countries", such as the fact that the USSR was always one of the major human rights violators in the world, right up until the day the so-called commmunists were removed from power. In other words, our personal history isn't relevant, but what we assert on this very day is relevant.
Anonymous	Posted: 19 Apr 2005 07:58 pm    Post subject: null null
davesearles	Posted: 19 Apr 2005 08:11 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: I can tell you this -- if any writer mentions the accomplishments of "the socialist countries", indicating that they feel that socialism has been implemented before, while I believe that socialism has never been implemented before, then I think it would be fair to ask them what they have to say about those "socialist countries", such as the fact that the USSR was always one of the major human rights violators in the world, right up until the day the so-called commmunists were removed from power. In other words, our personal history isn't relevant, but what we assert on this very day is relevant. agreed but with one caveat - that it be enforced Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Apr 2005 10:34 pm    Post subject: that what be enforced?, is this what you want?, that we adopt a new rule that [1] there are to be no disclosures of other forum writers' personal history or personal situation, unless the individual chooses to dislcose it; [2] post not in compliance are to be deleted; [3] authors of posts which are not in compliance are to be contacted to solicit their compliance.
davesearles	Posted: 20 Apr 2005 02:48 pm    Post subject: It seems reasonable to me - does it not to you? Dave
Anonymous	Posted: 20 Apr 2005 06:49 pm    Post subject: null null
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Apr 2005 11:21 am    Post subject: Vince, I didn't think it was a big deal either. I never met anyone who considered their political membership to be a personal subject. I would have assumed that everyone wants their politics to be loudly declared wherever they go, for the advertising value of that. But now I learn that this isn't always the case. Dave, okay, I guess that's a new rule, then. I'll have to come up with a better annnouncement mechanism.
Matthelme	Posted: 21 Apr 2005 04:32 pm    Post subject: on the USSR Hi All, Regarding the USSR and the CPUSA i would highly recomend reading a book by Bahman Azad called "Heroic Struggled Bitter Defeats". Go to www.intpubnyc.com and get a copy.
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Apr 2005 07:45 pm    Post subject: Matt, how about writing a synopsis of the book? At least a paragraph?
Matthelme	Posted: 21 Apr 2005 11:37 pm    Post subject: To Mike Hello, The USSR a "Human Rights Violater", Was introducing full employment a human rights violation? Free Medical Care a Human rights Violation? Free education from kindergarden to university, a human rights violation? If you think that Libertarian Socialism i.e Anarchism is a great thing you would see the USSR as a great human rights violater. A Marxist would not.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 02:24 am    Post subject: The USSR was a totalitarian state. Very often when a Soviet citizen complained about the lack of freedom of speech, the government made the absurd response of saying that the people did indeed have freedom of speech, and therefore the person who made the complaint was imprisoned for committing the crime of "slander against the state." Another absurdity was for the government to declare that dissidents must be mentally ill, because there was nothing wrong with the society for anyone to be dissatisfied about, so the mental hospital were filled with political prisoners. Oh, cripes, to consider it an ameliorating circumstance that such brutal slavery gave the people education and medicine ..... In every way, the so-called USSR exhibited the diametric opposite of Marxism.
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 02:44 am    Post subject: On the USSR On the lack of political dissent in the USSR, they deserve sharp critisizm. But to use this as an way to to throw dirt on the great achivements they made in building Socialism! Absurd! It may serve some people well to remember how Karl Marx treated men like Bukinin and other Anarchists, and how De Leon treated his opponents.Civil war between factons in the Scialist movement and hostility toward dessent in the movement is not something that started with Stalin or Lenin! It is sadly a tradition in the Socialist Movement. The USSR was founded on Marxist principals not Libertarian Socialism.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 03:16 am    Post subject: Re: On the USSR Matthelme wrote: the great achivements they made in building Socialism You don't get it. Socialism doesn't mean free medical, etc. Raising the material standard of living is one of the effects of socialism. It's not synonymous with socialism. Socialism has to be based a vibrant process of co-management, democracy, and that in turn requires free and open discussions, and certainly not one-candidate "elections." What "achievements they made"?
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 03:22 am    Post subject: Re: On the USSR [quote="Matthelme"]It may serve some people well to remember how Karl Marx treated men like Bukinin and other Anarchists, and how De Leon treated his opponents.Civil war between factons in the Scialist movement and hostility toward dessent in the movement is not something that started with Stalin or Lenin! It is sadly a tradition in the Socialist Movement.quote] Marx and De Leon yelled a lot, and used their influence to kick people out of small political organizations. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Kosygin sent millions of people to concentration camps and firing squads. No comparison.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 03:33 am    Post subject: Re: On the USSR Matthelme wrote: The USSR was founded on Marxist principals not Libertarian Socialism. Marx supported libertarian socialism ... "the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another" [The Civil War in France] ... "an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power, properly so called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in class society" [The Poverty of Philosophy] ... "The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." [Critical Margin Notes on 'The King of Prussia...'] ......
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 04:30 am    Post subject: To Mike If Marx had the power to jail and shoot his opposition maybe he would have! We are all lucky he never had a chance.
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 04:45 am    Post subject: on the State Marx and Engels recognized the need to capture the State and restructure it to serve the socialist cause. the state is a repressive apperatus, so what! Marx/Engels recognized the need to use the state against the structures of capital. Communist Manifest 101.
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 04:54 am    Post subject: To Mike Ending the commodifacation of stuff is an inseperable part of the socialist program. Raising the standard of living is an inseperable part of the socialist program. Conidering where they began, Czarist Russia, they made great gains wich would have been impossible without the implementation of Socialism.
graymouser	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 11:07 am    Post subject: The USSR never implemented Socialism. Plain and simple: private capital was not placed under worker control. Had it actually been Socialist, the government would've been controlled by the Soviets - not the Soviets controlled by the government (the "Supreme Soviet," a farce of nominal Socialism). Strictly speaking, a Socialist revolution in Tsarist Russia would've been impossible - the majority of the people were peasants or small artisans and had yet to sink into the proletariat. Thus, it was not the proletariat who seized control in Russia, but Lenin and his "vanguard," who then proceeded to remove all real worker control from the state they made. -Wayne
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 02:56 pm    Post subject: On Socialism Peasants are not working people?
graymouser	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 03:14 pm    Post subject: Quote: Peasants are not working people? Peasants and independent artisans are not part of the proletariat (i.e., they are not wage workers) and not subject to the proletarian social relations which, as per Marx, lead inevitably to Socialism. Peasants are subject instead to feudal social relations, which themselves do not lead to Socialist revolutions. The seizure of power by the Leninist vanguard could never have led to Socialism - because the Russian Revolution was not a breakdown of explicitly capitalist social relations. Socialism will come about during the final crisis of capitalism. The Russian Revolution was not part of that crisis, and never could have been. Denying that is denying Marxism. -Wayne
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 04:45 pm    Post subject: On Socialism Imperialism represents a world system of capitalism. The chain breaks at it's weakest link. That can explain the outbreak of socialist revolution in underdeveloped nations.As far a the peasant are concerned the feudal system in Russia was broken long before the October Revolution! nWhy does it matter if a working person crows wheat or makes steel?
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 05:13 pm    Post subject: on socialism i ment grows
graymouser	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 06:05 pm    Post subject: Matt - It matters whether a working person earns a wage or not. If you earn a wage, by definition, you are in the proletariat. If you do not, by definition, you are not. In that respect, the proletariat is a clear-cut class. Since Russia lacked a sharp division where the majority of the citizens were actually proletarians, there was no possibility of a majority proletarian revolution in Russia. Every Leninist revolution has been in a non-proletarianized society, except Cuba. They were also revolutions of a vanguard, not of the organized proletariat as the majority of people. This means that in no way were they Marxist revolutions. Leninism is basically a theory of revolution and attempted benevolent dictatorship, which breaks down into horrors like Stalinism. -Wayne
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 07:17 pm    Post subject: Re: on the State Matthelme wrote: Marx and Engels recognized the need to capture the State and restructure it to serve the socialist cause. the state is a repressive apperatus, so what! Marx/Engels recognized the need to use the state against the structures of capital. Communist Manifest 101. "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (from 'The Civil War in France') Didn't that party you've been associated with teach about all the important differences between the young Marx and the older Marx? Did they teach about how the preface to the 1872 edition of the Communist Manifesto retracted so much of the manifesto?
Matthelme	Posted: 22 Apr 2005 11:24 pm    Post subject: On Socialiosm That is ridiculase!
Matthelme	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 12:26 am    Post subject: On the Manifesto Hi Mike I have the 1972 edition. The teachings about the state have changed very little.
Matthelme	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 12:27 am    Post subject: Matt I ment 1872, i'm in a rush, sorry for the mix up
mikelepore	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 07:37 am    Post subject: Marx and Engels explained in the 1872 preface that the only reason they were not deleting the section calling for state ownership of industry is that the manifesto had by then become a historical document, so they felt that they no longer had a right to change it.
Matthelme	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 08:19 pm    Post subject: On the Manifesto What is your point? Marx/Engels are really Anarchist?
davesearles	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 01:51 am    Post subject: You're right Matt. Let's write to the publishers and have them yank out that ridiculous forward by Fredrick Engel. What the hell did he know about? Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 05:46 am    Post subject: Re: On the Manifesto Matthelme wrote: What is your point? Marx/Engels are really Anarchist? Marx and Engels eventually came to realize that state ownership of industry wasn't socialism, but they were never able to think of a workable alternative. SIU supporters like myself believe that the development of the SIU program was a continuation of what Marx and Engels had left unfinished. Socialism can only occur when workers build a workplace-based network that takes control of the workplaces. The state can't be part of that process, and no socialist political party can be a part of that process. However, to eliminate state enforcement of capitalist ownership, a socialist political party has to win control of the state and enact a mandate to adopt socialism. Then, the socially unnecessary and repressive aspects of government would get dismantled, such as imperialism, incarcerations, and more. (Traditional De Leonist also believe, but I don't agree, that all political and non-industrial government should then be abolished.) Marx was a lot more "anarchist" than myself. See, for example, in his remarks about Bakunin, where he always says that he agrees with Bakunin that the state has to be eliminated, but he says that the difference between himself and Bakunin is that Bakunin says that the state needs to be eliminated first and then class rule will collapse, whereas Marx says that class rule has to be eliminated first and then the state will collapse. So Marx disagreed with Bakunin mainly about a question of sequence. But was he an "anarchist"? No, in the sense in which Marx used the term, that is, reserving the word anarchist for those who (1) oppose any central planning; (2) oppose use of the ballot to capture the state. Anyway, getting away from the history of the theory, and returning to the present time ... A call for nationalization by government of industries should not be part of the program of a socialist organization. The expressed goal should be for a newly-formed network of workplace-located workers' organization to take control of the industries.