Socialism

Posted: 14 Oct 2004 04:21 pm Post subject: Kens book and the SLP at the time

Ken

I was just browsing through the start of your e-book on the SLP(I will at some point make an attempt to read all of it)but one thing I did notice is that you were rightly frustrated at the time because of the seeming inflexibility and dogmatism of your section and the party as a whole. Since I live in england and have never been to america my knowledge of SLP history is a little hazy and mainly consists of conversations I have with a former member of the SLP of Great Britain. One thing though, I do belive that the SLP under Arnold Peterson in his later years suffering from an intense degree of dogmatism and isolationism that is evident in your book. Maybe later in your book you talk about the actions taken by Nathan Karp and others to drag the party away from the bog of sectarianism, I dont know but I do intend to read the whole thing. Anyway, I understand the SLP was greatly damaged by the friction that was created when the dogmatists that you rightly dislike were either ejected from the party or forced to become more amicable to the wider class movement. Anyway, I cant say personaly, but I hear the SLP today is far less sectarian, and I was also wondering if you have read "Intervention and Union work" a handbook that is now issued to every member(I think) and was created to avoid the kind of dogmatic annoyances that you talk about when you were prevented from having anything to do with other organisations aside from the SLP.

Posted: 16 Oct 2004 03:50 pm Post subject:

Note: Readers can find the book by Ken Ellis at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/lwlindex.html

I am aware of this correction by the SLP of an earlier position: The party identified pamphlets in which Petersen and other Petersen-era authors exaggerated Lenin's degree of admiration for De Leon, and removed those pamphlet's from circulation.

As far as isolation goes: I understand the SLP's tendency not to collaborate with organizations that have vastly different views. What I don't fully understand is the SLP's tendency not to collaborate with others who have views very close to those of the SLP, based on charges of undesirable personalities or past misbehaviors.

Posted: 17 Oct 2004 12:29 am Post subject:

Though the SLP may presently agree that Lenin's degree of admiration for De Leon was exaggerated, that paltry admission is reminiscent of the CIA's 'modified limited hangout' that always goes way short of hitting the nail on the head. The SLP owes everyone a statement about the veracity of Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'. That subject has been ducked long enough. -KE

Posted: 17 Oct 2004 10:58 pm Post subject:

I'm pleased that Magoo is reading my book. I may have seemed to be reacting to 'SLP inflexibility and dogmatism' many years ago, but a party that would propagate and defend a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' has problems that go deeper than mere dogmatism and inflexibility. Today's SLP may be somewhat different from the SLP that I knew in the mid 1970's, but it still refuses to tackle issues at a depth sufficient to help move it towards becoming useful to workers.

If interested people want the SLP to grow strong, they would press the party to probe Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry', rather than just dismiss it as a dusty irrelevancy from the dark and dismal past. There is more substance in Petersen's 'mistakes' than you can shake a stick at, which is why party loyalists prefer his 'mistakes' remain swept under the rug. What's needed is for several watchdogs to apply pressure to investigate the basis of the party program.

I haven't read the "Intervention and Union work" handbook, but the issues seem familiar. Old rules prohibiting wider social involvement prevented members from straying far from their main role of marketing the SIU, but the resulting sectarian isolationism prevented members from developing into all-around individuals. -KE

Posted: 18 Oct 2004 04:08 pm Post subject:

Is this dictatorship over the peasantry a pamphlet or a general theory? From what I can understand the Intervention and Union work book it puts down concrete guidlines in not just propagating the SIU program, but also making direct contact with such organisations that can be said to be in the class struggle. While the SPGB forths at the mouth at this book, and comes out with daft things like "I dont think the SLP ever intended to practise it" I think it remains a decent book with a lot of potential to be put into practise.

Posted: 18 Oct 2004 04:21 pm Post subject:

I was just looking through some documents where I cam across this speech given by Nathan Karp, while Peterson was still National Sec. I think it deals with some of the things the SLP at the time attempted to deal with and perhaps is still dealing with.

In our view, the "New York" tendency has embraced and consolidated nearly everything that has been incorrect in past Party practice. They have shown themselves incapable of explaining the current situation in the organization or its roots. They are intent on preserving certain idealist conceptions of themselves and the Party, while defending the past with a most inadequate set of clichés.

They have failed to recognize what many other Party members have come to understand in recent years: namely, that dogmatism and sectarianism can be every bit as fatal to a revolutionary party as reformism and opportunism. They have been unable to see the need to steer equally clear of both dangerous paths. They have embraced dogmatism and sectarianism while labelling every attempt to avoid their mistakes as reformism and opportunism.

So as not to be misunderstood, it is necessary to briefly explain what we mean by these terms, although it’s a commentary in itself that the critique of reformism and opportunism is widely acknowledged, while the analysis of dogmatism and sectarianism is largely a dead letter. Too often these latter terms have been dismissed out of hand as slanderous charges rather than seen as two of many problems a revolutionary party must face, and which our Party faces at this moment.

Engel’s succinctly defined the problem of dogmatism when he wrote of those who "have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learnt off by heart but which will then supply all the needs without much more ado. To them it is a creed not a guide to action" (Nov.29, 1886)

Even if we have used other words to describe it, we are all familiar with the manifestations of such dogmatic thinking.

How often have we seen the premises of socialist theory treated in a "doctrinaire and dogmatic way" as if the repetition of a few catch phrases were sufficient to explain the most complex problems? How often have the great Marxist works been used as something "to be learnt off by heart," as if once committed to memory we would have a set of fixed conclusions which "will then supply all the needs without much more ado"

These attitudes are some of the most common and most harmful ways of denying the importance of keeping our theoretical understanding up to date and for failing to thoroughly study and analyze history as it unfolds. They lead to a mechanical reliance on the past and a completely artificial application of earlier experience to current conditions.

Instead of following the methods developed by Marxists and learning to apply the tools of historical materialism and dialectics, dogmatism treats socialism as a set of "eternal principles" and abstractions. As Engel’s warned, it turns socialist theory into a "creed not a guide to action"

This is one of the worst possible distortions of what revolutionary Marxism is all about. Yet it is quite common for dogmatists to, imagine they are upholding the "purity of the theory". Rigid inflexibility is mistaken for principle, as if the measure of a good revolutionary was his or her capacity for obstinate intransigence. A scientific attitude is replaced by arrogant professions of infallibility. Errors and incorrect premises are hardened into a body of dogma, and the defence of that dogma becomes more important than the continued study and application of Marxist science.

At that point, dogmatism commits its worst sin: it becomes useless to the revolutionary movement. When problems arise it is incapable of overcoming them by applying its ideas to the situation at hand. It can only demand "redoubled faith" in its abstract "eternal principles"

It is this attitude we refer to when speaking of dogmatism.

As for sectarianism, one could say it is dogmatism put into action - or inaction as the case may be. Where dogmatism eliminates the complexities of understanding society with simply formulas, sectarianism eliminates the difficulties of changing society by retreating into isolation. Dogmatism mistakes mechanistic rigidity and abstention for principled activity.

In defining the nature of sectarianism Marx wrote that a "sect sees the justification for its existence and its 'point of honour' - not what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from it." (Nov.6,1868)

In other words it is one thing to uphold principled integrity of an organizations program, and quite an other to make that organizations complete separation from all other forces a matter of principle in itself. Sectarianism holds the inherent danger that an organization will not define itself on the basis of its positive program, but in a negative fashion, focusing strictly on what it is not. This can even lead to a situation where its policies are decided not in relation to the concrete situation under review, but primarily in opposition to the policies of other groups. (And there has been more than a trace of this type of thinking in the discussions over Indochina and demonstrations)

In speaking of sectarianism then, we are referring to a pattern of activity that proceeds from dogmatic premises and acts as if the validity of the organizations program and politics can be preserved only by "shielding it from contamination." This error makes a virtue of isolation and leads-consciously or not to political practice that can be summed up in a single word, abstentions, a position that is embraced, upheld and defended by the tendency in New York.

Instead of viewing a good deal of the Party’s decline as a product of a partially self-imposed isolation from the working class, as a difficult problem to be overcome in a principled way, the New York tendency, in effect, denounces all practical activity in the class struggle - no matter what its content - as a form of opportunism.

They are unable to see that bridging the huge gap between revolutionary socialism and the present consciousness of the working class is the fundamental problem of a revolutionary party, and that it can only be overcome by finding principled non opportunist ways of intervening in the class struggle to introduce revolutionary politics.

The choice before us is not between reformism and revolution. It is between abstention and intervention. Everyone agrees that the content of our propaganda and the whole aim of our activity must be designed to attract class-conscious workers to revolutionary socialism and the SIU program for changing society. What the New York and other abstentionist tendencies contend is that certain forms of activity are inherently reformist.

This contention must necessarily remain of parlour-room abstraction.

No one will ever be able to explain in concrete terms why it is reformist to intervene in non-socialist movement to put a socialist program before politically active workers and why it is revolutionary to stay away (or wait for an invitation). No one will be able to explain why it is reformist to make a socialist speech from the platform of a rally protesting imperialism in Indochina or Africa and why it is revolutionary to give out leaflets on the periphery. No one will be able to explain why it is reformist to weigh the possibilities of running a socialist campaign for union office and why it is revolutionary to run for the post of university trustee or city controller.

No one will be able to explain why it is reformist to intervene in the anti-war or civil rights movements and revolutionary to intervene in electoral bourgeois politics. No one will be able to point out how the SLPs abstention from the anti-war movement clarified the question of reform vs. revolution for the millions set in motions against the war. No one will be able to explain why it is better to abandon workers to the reformist, Stalinist and Trotskyist left, than to confront them with the SLPs politics and program.

We have no illusions about the obstacles and difficulties of intervening in the class struggle or the exclusionary tactics that will be used against us in certain situations. We are far from suggesting that intervention is a panacea or that all our energies should be consumed in day to day competition with leftist groups.

What we are criticizing are the cumulative effects and the corroding influence of abstentionist orientation for the Party’s work. Such an attitude is theoretically and practically debilitating, and by gradually dismissing first this activity and that as "unfit," it has narrowed the circle of our work to a very few, largely ineffective methods.

Once we realize that abstention is a simplistic, unsatisfactory answer - an incorrect starting point and a dead-end conclusion - then we will be in a much better position to decide how best to use our resources without mechanical restrictions.

At least we will have no ready-made rationales for doing nothing, no pat excuses which too many have used for rejecting practical activity without questioning in the slightest their revolutionary credentials. And in this connection once might consider the implication of Engel’s remark that "As a rule, the official program of a Party is less important than what it does" (March 18. 1875)

But the New York tendency is not concerned with over coming abstention or isolation. Instead it is animated by a belief ("faith" would be a better word) that "when the time comes the working class will come to the SLP." Such an unreal conception of the revolutionary process is almost impossible to argue with, since it does not rest on anything solid. It is simply a belief. Unlike most Marxist ideas it can not be tested since it is never put into actually practice. In fact some of its adherent’s actually use such a position to comfort themselves by taking every problem, every failure, every setback as proof that we are right.

This view, of course, did not originate recently but has been a tendency in Party policy and practice for many decades. While there have been other tendencies in Party history as well (some of which have been overlooked or read out of official versions of our past) the abstentionist position has gained steadily increasing influence. It was especially damaging in the past two decades when crucial mistakes were made-mistakes for which we are still paying.

Everyone knows that some members of the headquarters staff, including the National Secretary, were a party to those mistakes, that they defended positions related to them and thus bear a share of the responsibility for them.

But Marxism teaches that practice is the test of theory. And unlike the New York sections which have been blissfully unaffected by the irrefutable evidence that these past policies were bringing the SLP to a dead end - and were therefore not merely "ineffective" but fundamentally wrong - we have been forced to re-examine them critically and make a break. Our only fear is that we moved too late and urged too little.

In many ways the question of abstentions has become a dividing line. For our part, we've come to realize that despite its purist posturing, the abstentionist position rests ona basic misconception of the role and responsibilities of a revolutionary party.

If it is not overcome it will seal our fate, if indeed it has not done so already. Those determined to defend abstentionism have been forced more and more to deny the reality around them in order to maintain the "logic" of their position. They either have no explanation for the Party’s decline or offer all manner of idealist and external excuses to avoid confronting our own mistakes. At a time when the Party is fighting for survival, they seem determined to drive the SLP into oblivion in order to preserve illusions.

We have never contended that there is a magic path out of isolation or an infallible formula for avoiding the pitfalls that await revolutionary socialists in the real world. Nor are we proposing any "get rich quick" schemes for building the party.

Rather we are identifying a set of premises and conceptions which cripple our activity because they are theoretically and politically incorrect. And a good many of those conceptions can be found in the documents submitted by the New York sections.

To assert - as some have and others undoubtedly will - that the only alternative to those old ideas is reformist opportunism is a red herring used to avoid the real problems we face. It’s a way of throwing up ones hands and pulling the security blanket of isolation back over our heads.

And while the cry of reformism will be raised, it too will necessarily remain in the realm of abstraction, for no one will be able to point to anyone advocating a reformist course for the SLP. Our Party has not made the mistakes that would fill its ranks with reformists. And it is not reformism that has brought our organization to its current crisis. Instead we are threatened by abstention, by isolation, by dogmatism.

To yell "fire" when the house is threatened by flood is to be blind and refuse to see.

A special word needs to be said about the attempt of the New York group to set itself up as the repository of the SLPs Marxist-De Leonist integrity. We are not prepared to let what we consider an essentially conservative thread of opinion lay unchallenged claim to the mantle of revolutionary Marxism, or wrap itself in the SLP banner.

It was De Leon himself who wrote that "there are two rocks that the socialist movement must guard against - the rock of dogmatism and the rock of romanticism" (Nov. 28, 1910)

And it was Engel’s who wrote that "it is impossible simply to drill a theory in an abstract dogmatic way into a great nation, even if one has the best of theories developed out of their own conditions of life" (Nov.29, 1886)

Nor will the work and the writings of the great socialist figures give much comfort to those defending abstention and sectarianism. It was De Leon who pointed out that "socialism being a science is planted also upon the general science of practice. Ignorant of what the third of these principles imports, the dogmatist would insist upon a complete divorcement of the socialist forces from all others, everywhere and under all circumstances." (Nov.28, 1910)

Similarly Engel’s, drawing on his and Marx’s long experience, wrote, "All our practice has shown that is possible to work with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organization and I am afraid that if the German Americans choose a different line they will commit a great mistake." (Jan.7, 1888)

But it was Marx himself who offered the most devastating characterization of those who preached abstention and purity of eternal principles in the name of socialism. Sarcastically describing such views in 1873, Marx wrote a passage that deserves some close attention by all who wish to avoid similar mistakes.

"In a word," Marx wrote ironically, "the workers should fold their arms and not waste their time in political and economic movements. These movements can only bring them immediate results"

"like truly religious people, scornful of everyday needs, they should cry full of faith, 'May our class be crucified, may our race perish, but may the eternal principles remain unstained.' They should, like pious Christians, believe in the words of the priest, despise earthly blessings and think only of earning paradise, (for paradise read the abolition of society) which will one day arrive in some small corner of the world, no one knows how or by whose efforts and the mystification will be exactly the same.

"Until this famous abolition of society arrives, the working class must behave decently, like a flock of well-fed sheep, leave the government in peace, fear the police, respect the laws and provide cannon fodder without complaining.

"In practical everyday life, the workers must be the obedient servants of the State, but inside themselves they must protest energetically against its existence, and show their profound theoretical disdain for it by purchasing and reading literary treatises on the abolition of the State. They must moreover take good care not to offer any resistance to the capitalist order apart from holding forth the society of the future in which the odious order will have ceased to exist!

"No one would deny that if the apostles of indifference to politics were to express themselves in such a clear manner, the working class would soon tell them where to go and would feel highly offended by these bourgeois doctrinaires and displaced gentlefolk who are stupid or naive enough to forbid them every real method of struggle because all the arms to fight with must be taken from existing society, and because the inevitable conditions of the struggle do not unfortunately fit in with the idealist fantasies that these doctors of social science have deified..." (Jan. 1873)

We think this passage cuts right to the heart of many of the errors reflected in what we have designated the New York tendency. Those who think abstention and the preservation of "eternal principles" are necessary are free to make their case, but it is high time to stop attributing these views to the founders and theoreticians of revolutionary socialism.

Posted: 20 Oct 2004 10:14 am Post subject:

Posted: 20 Oct 2004 10:37 am Post subject:

Posted: 20 Oct 2004 07:58 pm Post subject:

Interesting. I will have to root around for more info on Karps speech. I think I did have the second part kicking around somwhere but dont seem to be able to find it. I will look into it.

Anyway, on another note, I created a Yahoo forum for the discussion of Marxist-De Leonism:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Industrial_Unionist/

I hope you dont mind me advetising it on your forum, since you are already a member of my yahoo group I thought you woudnt mind.

Regards
D Read

Posted: 20 Oct 2004 10:32 pm Post subject:

It really is in Petersen's 1931 'Proletarian Democracy vs. Dictatorships and Despotism' on p. 41, though it was stated indirectly: "Property interests are bound to dominate the actions of such groups, and they must be convinced that it is in their interest to support the proletarian revolution, or be subjected to forcible repression in the interest of that revolution."

'Workers forcibly repressing peasants and middle classes' contradicts Marx's many observations of a natural alliance between workers, peasants and small owners. Further down p. 41, Petersen reinforced his 'over the peasantry' impression: "in a country {USA} where this peasantry is conspicuous by its complete absence, where, in short, the fact of complete industrialization, even of agriculture, is so obvious as to impress itself upon the dullest intellect - that in such a country there is no need of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the contemporaneous sense of continental Europe of 1871 or Russia of 1917."

According to Petersen, 'the USA doesn't need Marx's proletarian dictatorship (over the peasantry) because our agriculture is thoroughly proletarianized and de-peasantized.' While it's true that the USA doesn't have much of a peasantry, that fact is irrelevant to Marx's intended dictatorship over the big bourgeoisie. Can Russia's relatively small proletariat in 1917 be imagined dictating to a vast population of small owners?

Petersen was not alone in putting words in Marx's mouth. Bakunin (the intellectual godfather of the modern SLP) did so while Marx was still alive, prompting Marx to reply (in his 1874 "Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy"): "A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour!"

To 'prove' that he even had the support of Lenin (of all people), Petersen (on pp. 42-3 of his pamphlet) quoted a snippet of text from Lenin: "if Kautsky had still remembered it, he could not have denied the need for a proletarian dictatorship in a country in which the small peasant producer is predominant."

This quote further added to the impression of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry', but Petersen quoted Lenin entirely out of context. The original context showed Lenin refuting Kautsky's proposed 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie', while Lenin argued in favor of a 'PROLETARIAN dictatorship over the bourgeoisie'.

Lenin's refutation of Kautsky can be found at this independent site: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/subservience.htm

Search for the word 'secondly', which will take you to the very quote used by Petersen, and you will see that a 'proletarian dictatorship over the PEASANTRY' was far from the subject matter.

All of the relevant documentation is also in part B of my book: http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partb.html

After you've had a chance to digest this not-so-simple issue, what does it say about Petersen's credibility? -KE 10/20

Posted: 23 Oct 2004 04:06 pm Post subject:

Dan, feel free to use this forum to advertise anything you wish, including web sites.

Ken, I'm not sufficiently educated about Russian history to know whether the peasants were a revolutionary force, a counterrevolutionary force, or neither. Perhaps Arnold Peterson didn't know either but thought he knew. But I don't think that reflects on his "credibility" in a wider sense. Every human says some things that are true and some things that are not true.

A socialist revolution today wouldn't have to suppress the "big bourgeoisie", but it wouldn't surprise me if it became necessary to suppress a reactionary element of the working class. Nor for their allegiances, but for their actions. I think the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means little more than law enforcement, e.g., at the time of a socialist revolution, if some reactionaries get so angry that they commit arson, then they should be indicted for arson, if they commit assault then they should be indicted for assault, and if they protest peacefully then they would be exercising their rights and should not be interfered with. In my opinion, that's the "dictatorship of the proletariat." It's an unfortunate term that glaringly invites misinterpretation, and the misleading phrase should probably be avoided entirely.

Posted: 26 Oct 2004 12:37 am Post subject:

Petersen's possible uncertainties about the revolutionary propensities of the Russian peasantry have nothing to do with his credibility. Petersen's credibility was destroyed when he used a few words from Lenin out of context. While Lenin was counterpoising his 'PROLETARIAN dictatorship over the bourgeoisie' to Kautsky's 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie', Petersen seized upon a snippet of text to illegally make Lenin appear to be advocating a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry in a country in which small peasant producers predominate.' That was a very dishonest thing for Petersen to foist on SLP members, as well as foist on the world, and there is no doubt that many members remained totally fooled for their whole lifetimes. Because so few members or sympathizers would be willing to admit to having been fooled, their only ego-saving alternative is to try to defend Petersen. Naturally, when the indefensible is defended until hell freezes over, the usefulness of the party to the workers drops to zilch. It even goes negative, because the world would be a better place without defense and propagation of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'. The SLP will not become a positive force for change until the rottonness of the lies they inherited from the deep dark evil past are owned up to. SIU enthusiasts would all have to be cowards or worse to refuse to give that task the old college try. Unfortunately, while pursuing this subject on various forums for much of 2004, the only safe conclusion is that 'all SLP members and sympathizers are loyal dishonest cowards', because not one of them so far has been willing to admit that Petersen made a mistake, never mind told lies. That's a pretty serious charge, but the charade has gone on long enough. If the harshness of this verdict means getting kicked off yet another forum, then I'm prepared to face that consequence. -KE

Posted: 26 Oct 2004 10:42 pm Post subject:

Ken, did you think that SLP members have a lot of conversations about the relationship between the Bolsheviks and the peasants? I've been associating with SLP members since the 1960s, and I don't recall that topic ever being discussed. What's the relevance now if the man who was the party's National Secretary decades ago was incompetent on that topic? (Especially since the pamphlet you're critizing is permanently out of print.) You've got a lot of creative energy that you can apply to various issues, and I wonder why you picked that one. If it's true that the membership hasn't reviewed past errors in general, or doesn't practice enough self-criticism, that's important. But then you picked as your example an issue that the membership doesn't even have a position on. You said, ".... no doubt that many members remained totally fooled for their whole lifetimes." That would imply that it has been on people's minds, and formative in their thinking, rather than being a comment in the literature that remains ignored to the point of obscurity. Since the 1960s I've never heard of any reference to it until you just posted yours. Perhaps you have in mind certain observable effect that you attribute to the legacy of Petersen's comments. But what?

Posted: 28 Oct 2004 10:19 pm Post subject:

Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' was asserted in no uncertain terms during one of my early-70's SLP study classes. Henning's explanation of why 'the USA doesn't need a proletarian dictatorship' closely corresponded to Petersen's explanation. Back then, I was new to socialism, and had no knowledge of my own with which to guage the instructor's words. I found the subject matter intriguing and worthy of closer study at some later date. I gave it no further thought until a few years later, when I was trying to identify factors preventing the SLP from growing and prospering. With so many dedicated people putting out the word, some good reason had to exist for the party's stagnation. I became determined to find a good reason, because I didn't want to waste the rest of my life in a back alley, if I was in one. Though I occasionally grew suspicious at times, I didn't know for sure until 1976.

Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' should be of EXCEPTIONAL significance to the SLP today, because it remains the only explanation of 'why the USA doesn't need a proletarian dictatorship'. Unless, of course, someone can come up with a different explanation. If the 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry and middle classes' remains the chief reason, then it should matter little if that pamphlet is out of print. As I explain in my book, the usual reason provided to me was 'conditions!' I struggled to get a better reason than mere 'conditions!', and finally was 'rewarded' with 'advanced American conditions as opposed to backward conditions in Russia', which STILL wasn't sufficient. The average member didn't seem prepared to give a better reason, so I was left to dig one out on my own. There simply HAD to be a logical reason why 'the USA didn't need Marx's proletarian dictatorship', and I felt compelled to find out why the SIU was allegedly bettter. When I discovered Petersen's pamphlet, and that the supporting quote from Lenin had been taken out of context, to me it meant that I had been swindled (yet again).

Remaining fooled on a particular ideologic component doesn't mean that that component is necessarily burning holes in members' minds, especially if that component is uncontested. If uncontested, it can simply lie dormant until hell freezes over. People can incorporate whole networks of lies and never think twice about them, unless a contradiction occasionally pops up that demands a bit of introspection. What would it take to get an SIU advocate to rethink why 'the SIU better fits the USA than Marx's dictatorship'? Everyone I've debated so far is in a state of defensive denial, and refuses to face Petersen's theories directly. Their constant refusal is why I charge them with intellectual dishonesty. There's an elephant in the room, and they all refuse to acknowledge it. -KE

Posted: 30 Oct 2004 06:49 am Post subject:

Okay, I won't assume knowledge that I don't have. On factual matters regarding what you've heard in SLP study groups, I accept your word. All I can give is my own perceptions. I never attended SLP study groups. I have read the SLP's newspaper for about 37 years. I have picked up this perception of the party's view of the "dictatorship of the proletariat":

(1) Capitalism in the U.S. has reached the point where the workers fully occupy the industries, running them, as one leaflet said "from top to bottom." Even most of the management is conducted by workers on salary. The capitalist class has become an absentee ownership class. Few obstacles at workplaces will face workers when they "take, hold and operate" the industries. Where necessary, the workers will physically "lock out" (De Leon in Socialist Reconstruction of Society) capitalists and their representatives.

(2) The SLP rejects "the chessboard conception of society" (De Leon in Socialism Vs. Anarchism) where you win by attacking the "king" (rulers). Instead, the SLP looks forward to the time when a combination of social crises and socialist information will persuade the majority of the people to advocate socialism.

Mike Lepore's criticism: I would place a much greater emphasis on the fact that a political victory would give the socialist workers the control over the police departments and the armed forces. I believe that a small number of right-wingers will react to socialism with violence. I don't like the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", but, if one does choose to use the phrase, then the phrase properly refers to riot control and other types of law enforcement. Someday, socialism will be the law, and the law will be enforced. Some traditional De Leonists may jump on me for referring to law enforcement, and they will refer me to the thesis that the coercive state will be dismantled. I, however, believe that socialist society must have laws and will have laws. The dissolution of the state really refers to end of ruling class control over the law.

Posted: 31 Oct 2004 01:56 pm Post subject:

Marx's dictatorship over the bourgoisie can be defended against Petersen's warped dictatorship without having to advocate Marx's dictatorship, which recently was irrevocably proven obsolete. Marx's revolutionary goal for the most developed countries was plausible for a span of about 70 years, between 1848 and 1917, but faded after Europe failed to support the Bolshevik revolution with a sweeping European revolution. After the events of 1989 et seq, attempting to achieve social justice by abolishing private property was sent to the museum for the rest of time, never again to be adopted in the manner prescribed by Marx, i.e., coercively.

I have not been advocating 'replacing the SIU with Marx's proletarian dictatorship'. I've mainly been exposing the folly of believing that 'Marx's proletarian dictatorship was over the peasantry.' Let's not make the mistake in thinking that either of our perspectives on the proletarian dictatorship is more important than Petersen's, because Petersen's perspective still rules the ideology of practically all SLP members and sympathizers. So, it remains of highest importance that Petersen's errant theories be fully understood. Interest among sympathizers and members in discussing Petersen's theories should be created somehow. Otherwise, the SLP will continue to spin its wheels, and will continue to decline into oblivion. A totally useless theory will not resurrect the SLP, and yet Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program.

Petersen attributed his 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx, even though the history of workers and peasants allying together was chronicled in Marx's "Class Struggles in France", in his "18th Brumaire", as well as in many other places. On the basis of history alone, Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' could be rejected as pure bunk. Who would want to adhere to a theory that was long ago directly debunked in Marx's Conspectus of Bakunin's 'Statehood and Anarchy'? While debating an SLP sympathizer at the WSM forum back in Feb., I pressured him to choose between Petersen's version of the proletarian dictatorship vs. Marx's version, and of course the loyalist chose to adhere to Petersen's version (after WEEKS of trying to get him to choose). The decision didn't seem easy for him, but choosing Petersen's version meant continuing the usual justification for rejecting Marx's proletarian dictatorship in advanced countries like the USA. But, it also meant that the sympathizer embraced Petersen's lies instead of the historical truth. Those who are loyal to lies have as great a chance of positively contributing to society as the American Republican Party is likely to support universal health care, and free prescriptions for seniors.

A big mystery is: why am I the only one (with a history of significant involvement with the SLP) who seems willing to re-examine theory? -KE

Posted: 31 Oct 2004 08:11 pm Post subject:

Sorry I have not posted here in a while, been a bit busy. I have also been unable to locate the 2nd half to the Karp speech, but rest assured I will find it eventualy and post it on here.

Anyway, yes I agree that a socialist society will have laws, we are not anarchists here. However, it goes without saying that laws have an economic foundation that leads to their creation as coercive forces there to wreak havoc on the larger portions of society to the benifit of the minority capitalist class. Socialist laws though must be in place, it is utopian to think that murder, rape, and anti-social behavior etc will ever vanish utterly, though removing capitalism will remove the cause behind much of these. Whatever "police" forces the workers choose to operate will operate in their interests, since the minority propertied motive will have vanished.

Posted: 01 Nov 2004 04:34 pm Post subject:

Methinks Magoo must have been trying to respond to some other thread on some other forum, cuz his reply surely doesn't apply to what's been written above. -KE

Posted: 02 Nov 2004 01:36 am Post subject:

Your right, somthing isnt right there, I have no idea how that post ended up there because I certainly was responding to a post that was relevant. Ah well nevermind.

Posted: 02 Nov 2004 08:25 am Post subject:

Magoo: You replied to my post of September 17th, which shows up on the "previous page." Your reply is in the right topic.

Ken: Are you saying that SLP members talk about the "peasantry", not when discussing history, but when talking about today? I've never encountered it. I wonder if you've taken a slice of your experience and extrapolated it, like in that poem about the blind men and the elephant.

Posted: 03 Nov 2004 05:41 pm Post subject:

The fact that discussions in my SLP study class included 'the peasantry' should have answered that question for you. But, not all study classes were the same, I'll grant you. With Henning Blomen as my instructor, I consider myself mighty lucky. I was fascinated with his curriculum for a long time.

Your resort to the ad hominem draws attention away from substantive issues, such as Petersen's 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'. I will not resort to ad hominems. If revolutionary theory can't remain as the subject matter, the basis of our dialogue will slip away. -KE

Posted: 04 Nov 2004 05:38 am Post subject:

Characterizing another person as an individual is ad hominem. Characterizing a method of reasoning that another person has apparently employed is not ad hominem. But let me retract the above, and I will try to rephrase. Just as elsewhere in life, the conversation at a study class is shaped by the moderator. A sample tends to represent a population as the sample size increases. I think Henning Blomen is a small sample size for drawing an inference.

Posted: 04 Nov 2004 09:03 pm Post subject:

Since revolutionary theory can't seem to be made the subject here, I'll add a tidbit: Henning really was unusual in his ability to inspire my interest in socialism. As one of the most talented members in the Boston area, he sat for many years on the Nat'l Exec Cmte. He had his share of detractors in the Nat'l Office, however. I recall complaints about 'failure to respond in a timely fashion to important documents needing NEC input and action'.

Possible new topic: After the election, I was amazed at the new emphasis on 'moral issues', which supposedly won the race for Bush, apparently outweighing health care, the economy, and the war. I knew that cultural wars were always a hot topic, but Bush supposedly led on 'moral issues' 80% to 20%! It was such a sudden twist!

Some people are suggesting that Republicans stole the election in Ohio and Florida, with the usual dirty tricks of 'lack of paper trail in e-voting', failure to install enough machines in black districts, etc. The 5% advantage by which Bush 'won' those states far exceeded what previous polls suggested likely.

Those 2 factors put together, moral values and voter fraud, seem perfectly complementary, and to me suggest concerted underhanded manipulation. The more surplus value generated, the more clever and nasty the tricks that are played on us. -KE

Posted: 12 Nov 2004 05:25 am Post subject:

Posted: 05 Mar 2005 01:39 am Post subject:

I hope Mr. Ellis comes back. I do believe I understood every word here...wow. In otherwords, the American mindset and how we manufacture would be more in tune with a SIU concept than the Marxist term "dictatorship of the proletariat" which could be substituted as the unionization of the proletariat which would not be over anyone. Don't mind me if I am rambling. It's just that it changes the concept and gives it a better feel. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Social

Posted: 06 Mar 2005 04:42 pm Post subject:

I'm back. Sorry for the delay.

I don't think Social understood what I wrote. I believe that the SIU and the dictatorship of the proletariat are both obsolete, to be rendered even MORE obsolete by the soon-to-be-arriving abolition of human labor. Humans have to look ahead to the dawn of a new age in which current concepts of toil, wage-labor, unions, etc., will become nothing more significant than old memories. -KE

Posted: 06 Mar 2005 06:01 pm Post subject:

Okay, I didn't understand. SIU and the dictatorship of the proletariat are obsolete and not applicable to the U.S. mindset. The what will be considering the Capitalist class is still calling the shots and creating more illusions to keep wages low and prices high? The U.S. has always been the exception to Socialism and you pointed out one of the many reasons. However, I have been aware of sectarian and dogmatic beliefs as the core to what divides Socialist and I know full well that trying to reform Capitalism only off sets any revolutionay agitation. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there has been a grand assault on the Welfare State. That Welfare State was created to keep the peace among the working class. Now that the neocons have created a grand propaganda machine, the working class has to just accept what policies the Bosh administration is trying to pass off as being good for the Ole U.S. of A. including imperialist adventures. Are you say ing that all Socialist should just accept the things as they are and that the Capitalist are the victors?

Posted: 06 Mar 2005 07:09 pm Post subject:

Huh? Labor obsolete? When? And the workers will do what until that happens? Just curious. Dave

Posted: 07 Mar 2005 01:45 am Post subject:

Ah, I think I will just stick with the Communist. At least they have their shit together on a planetary scale unlike bickering, sectarian Socialist.

Social

Posted: 07 Mar 2005 09:41 pm Post subject:

Social: "trying to reform Capitalism only offsets any revolutionary agitation."

It isn't 'capitalism' that gets reformed; LAWS get reformed and replaced. Whoever fed us the concept 'reform capitalism' deserves to be shot for spreading confusion, just the way Petersen should be exhumed and shot for putting a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the PEASANTRY' into Marx's mouth.

Capitalists may very well be the undisputed victors, but that doesn't mean that 'we should just placidly accept the status quo.' As Engels wrote to Lafargue: "if we are not to go against the popular current of momentary tomfoolery, what in the name of the devil IS our business?" Full participation in the economy is also a worthwhile struggle, as well as the fight against unemployment. Engels proudly participated in the 8-hour League of his day, so a 6-hour League should be a natural for us.

Also, with the upcoming nanotech revolution, there is no chance that 'the industrialized West will enjoy all the goodies, while the underdeveloped countries will remain slaves.' The nanotech revolution renders that scenario obsolete. Nano will be everywhere, and the supremacy of Western Europeans will vanish. Wealth will be equal, infinite, inexhaustible, and at everyone's fingertips. Economic activity will be obsolete. Shortages will be a thing of the past, as everything useful will be created on the spot, where and when it is needed. -KE

Posted: 09 Mar 2005 01:43 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

It isn't 'capitalism' that gets reformed; LAWS get reformed and replaced.

Dave responds:

I like this idea. It can't be reformed. They can attempt to slow it down some but onward it churns.

Ken wrote:

Capitalists may very well be the undisputed victors...

Dave responds:

Ken, I was trying to figure out what this remark referred to. Can you give some context? Thanks

Ken wrote:

with the upcoming nanotech revolution, there is no chance that 'the industrialized West will enjoy all the goodies, while the underdeveloped countries will remain slaves.'

Dave responds:

Yes and no. Products of technology are becoimg cheaper yes - but technology itself is becoming more and more expensive - I agree that technology will not be restricted to the west but it is certainly not becoming universally available to all.

Ken wrote:

Wealth will be equal, infinite, inexhaustible, and at everyone's fingertips. Economic activity will be obsolete. Shortages will be a thing of the past, as everything useful will be created on the spot, where and when it is needed.

Dave asks:

You are not suggesting that the continuing techological developments in and of themselves are going to render the class struggle a nullity, or are you?

Dave comments:

Dig Petersen up and shoot him? Comrade Petersen had a whole bunch of sheep willing to follow wherever he led them until it was far far too late. Oh well. I'm willing to work with anyone who's left who advocates SIU.

Dave

Posted: 09 Mar 2005 01:57 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

Wealth will be equal, infinite, inexhaustible, and at everyone's fingertips. Economic activity will be obsolete. Shortages will be a thing of the past, as everything useful will be created on the spot, where and when it is needed.

Isaiah wrote:)

But he will do right in the cause of the poor, and give wise decisions for those in the land who are in need; and the rod of his mouth will come down on the cruel, and with the breath of his lips he will put an end to the evil-doer....The cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Dave

Posted: 12 Mar 2005 06:00 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote: "Capitalists may very well be the undisputed victors" ...

Dave responds: "Ken, I was trying to figure out what this remark referred to. Can you give some context? Thanks"

Here's the relevant snippet from what you wrote on March 6: "Are you saying that all Socialist should just accept the things as they are and that the Capitalist are the victors?"

Ken wrote: "with the upcoming nanotech revolution, there is no chance that 'the industrialized West will enjoy all the goodies, while the underdeveloped countries will remain slaves.'"

Dave responds: "Yes and no. Products of technology are becoming cheaper yes - but technology itself is becoming more and more expensive - I agree that technology will not be restricted to the west but it is certainly not becoming universally available to all."

In underdeveloped areas, land lines are being skipped altogether in favor of the cell phone communications revolution. 'Developing whole industries from the ground up in order to enjoy the end products' is an obsolete concept. The nanotech revolution will be imported directly from developed countries, enabling underdeveloped areas to skip the industrial revolution altogether.

Ken wrote: "Wealth will be equal, infinite, inexhaustible, and at everyone's fingertips. Economic activity will be obsolete. Shortages will be a thing of the past, as everything useful will be created on the spot, where and when it is needed."

Dave asks: "You are not suggesting that the continuing techological developments in and of themselves are going to render the class struggle a nullity, or are you?"

That seems to be what's on tap. The abolition of human labor, accomplished 100% by means of further technological development, spells the end of capitalism and class struggle. Class struggle cannot be abolished in any other way, unless you can think of a different realistic way.

Dave comments: "Dig Petersen up and shoot him? Comrade Petersen had a whole bunch of sheep willing to follow wherever he led them until it was far far too late. Oh well. I'm willing to work with anyone who's left who advocates SIU."

What's so good about the SIU? Do you buy Petersen's assertion that 'the Marxist theory of the state was flawed, and needs to be replaced with a new social form representing the classless and stateless administration of things?'

Believe that, and you will probably also believe Petersen's assertion that 'Engels didn't know the difference between socialism and state capitalism.' But, Engels distinguished between them in a footnote in his Socialism: Utopia to Science pamphlet.

I waste my words. SIU advocates don't care how badly they were swindled by anarchists cleverly disguised as socialists. -KE

Posted: 12 Mar 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 12:19 am Post subject:

Dave: "You don't think SIU is workable? Or that the workers are too stupid to ever put it into place?"

I don't think it's a matter of workers being 'smart' or 'stupid'. The SIU seems to be irrelevant or unattractive to real people. Figuring out why might be worthwhile.

Dave: "That there will not be equality until that halcyon day when micro robot machines simply produce wealth never ending - a veritable cornucopia - the great come and get it day. When that day happens would you please post it here? In the mean time I guess I'll have to hustle may ass on the labor market."

The abolition of human labor will not arrive in a single day. It is an end whose coming will gradually become increasingly apparent, so everyone will have fair warning, and the majority will welcome it. We have a right to be lazy, and will someday all enjoy exercising that right.

Ken wrote: "What's so good about the SIU? Do you buy Petersen's assertion that 'the Marxist theory of the state was flawed, and needs to be replaced with a new social form representing the classless and stateless administration of things?' Believe that, and you will probably also believe Petersen's assertion that 'Engels didn't know the difference between socialism and state capitalism.' But, Engels distinguished between them in a footnote in his Socialism: Utopia to Science pamphlet."

Dave: "Do I buy Petersen's assertion that Marx's theory of the state is flawed? I'll tell you Ken - I am a very simple person. I really don't care what Marx's theory of the state was. I don't care if Comrade Petersen thought that Marx's theory of the state was flawed and I don't care what you think that I may or may not believe about Comrade Petersen's specific ideas. And I particularly do not care what Fredrick Engles wrote in some footnote somewhere. I really don't have the "intellectual" capacity to even think about taking all that in."

A bit of a shock for me, to hear that a socialist could care so little about basic Marxist theories. Your seeming disinterest in the basics means that you cannot be influenced by my critique of De Leonism and Petersen. Have you always felt this way about socialist theory?

When I got interested in learning about socialism 35 years ago, and got nothing but confusion from the books and literature I was reading, I turned to parties for guidance. I guess it was the fact that the SLP members looked like me that made me want to learn socialism from them. All of the other socialists looked too scruffy or wierd for my liking. After finding a nice party to learn from, I never lost my desire to achieve clarity about socialist theory, an objective that took far longer than what I initially imagined. Simply learning that Petersen propagated many lies did not automatically confer ultimate wisdom upon me. If socialist theory didn't attract you, I hope that you will talk more about what attracted you to the SLP and SIU, for I am truly interested in comparing notes.

Dave: "I don't see "technology" nullifying the class struggle before the time that I am no longer able to survive the crumbling of the current order. So I will stupidly continue to advocate what I think is the only solution for all of society for all of the world."

Having become more familiar with your attitude towards theory, I can now better appreciate your reluctance to abandon what you are comfortable with. Is there any hope that socialist theory might someday become more attractive to you? I don't think we have much basis for agreeing on very much without first agreeing on some specifics about how Petersen lied. -KE

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 01:23 pm Post subject:

Ken you apparently believe that there is something important in Marx’s theory of the state that if known, as you know it, would necessarily cut the timbers from under the idea of SIU.

You also apparently believe that some lie cooked up by an otherwise dim bulb Arnold Petersen was so diabolical that it even now prevents those who advocate SIU from seeing the truth that you believe exists, that the SIU is actually impossible because of some “basic Marxist theory.”

OK Ken, do tell – what is that Marxist theory that if true would so negatively impact upon SIU. I generally do not care about such matters but since you are a man with his hair on fire to enlighten those who advocate SIU, please do not allow my oafish comments about not caring get in your way. Please tell us. What is that theory, and what was that lie that if known should convince all right thinking advocates of SIU to give up the cause?

Dave

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 05:52 pm Post subject:

Dave, thank you for your comments, which prove that you are indeed a reasonable individual. I hope that my comments below are sufficiently clear enough to inspire more thinking. This isn't the easiest material to digest. I struggled mightily with it after 1976, especially in the decade from 1992-2002, while writing and editing my book for web publication.

SLP members never got an appreciation for what the Marxist theory of the state really was, because A.P. never presented it. Marx expected simultaneous anti-monarchist (pro-democratic) revolutions in Europe to result in a unified proletarian dictatorship, taking the governmental form of a democratic republic. Proletarian parties, after becoming dominant in several post-revolutionary states, were then expected to pass pro-labor legislation, such as full employment, shorter work hours, universal suffrage, and many more measures, including the gradual expropriation of the means of production into the hands of the new workers' states.

A.P. ignored revolutionary monarchy-smashing, and took advantage of popular ignorance of European politics, pretending that all of Europe was democratic, and that winning elections was all that ever happened over there, including in Russia. The subext was 'the impossibility of expropriating the means of production after merely winning elections'. But, 'expropriating after merely winning elections' was not the Marxist theory for Europe and Russia. Marxist expropriation was to be enabled by simultaneously replacing (forcibly, if necessary) several European monarchies with the grand unified proletarian dictatorship, taking the form of a democratic republic, victorious workers then having the power to do with property whatever they wanted.

A.P. wanted the SLP to believe that 'expropriation leads to state capitalism', and it certainly does, IF practiced in ordinary democracies like the USA. But, the Europe of Marx's day was not democratic like the USA. A.P. wanted members to appreciate the problems associated with concentrating ownership of the means of production into the hands of a bourgeois state. Then it would become obvious to all that the bourgeois state would have to be abolished so that an organized proletariat could exercise control over the means of production. Hence, instead of advocating a Marxist workers' state, we got to advocate the SIU, which was founded on false pretexts.

But, Marx's theory is no bed of roses. It has so many problems of its own that its very weaknesses allow the SIU to look like SALVATION. Because Europe democratized in the early 1900's, Marx's theory of revolution became obsolete there. However, Marxism did find partial application in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and a few other places for awhile, for there the means of production were expropriated by new states supplanting old ones. But, the very fact of such revolutions occurring in lesser developed countries rendered their Marxist credentials dubious. Their decadence allowed all kinds of abuses, such as exploitation of labor and state terror.

Marx's expropriation also contradicts his early 'Holy Family', which recognizes the fact that 'labor creates property'. This fundamental truth shows that humans are stuck with property for as long as humans labor, no matter what kind of state may exist. The future abolition of human labor should thus become more attractive to socialists, for then the abolition of private ownership of means of production will finally have a solid basis for being realized. -KE

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 08:00 pm Post subject:

Ken thank you for your comments and if you ever accuse me of anything approaching reasonableness again I will have your section demand that you apologize and if you fail to apologize I will have charges preferred against you. (You can tell from this that indeed I was once a member of the SLP)

OK I read what you wrote. You have to realize that most of the little brain that I ever had, has long ago been replaced by bone matter so you must be patient. Can you break down what you wrote - and can you do it without reference to Comrade Petersen? (Let's assume that after Deleon died everyone at the National Office all packed up and went to the sea shore and forgot their way home.) Is there something in what Marx or Engles actually wrote, per se, that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work? Were there historical develoments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necesarilty force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work? Thanks.

Dave

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 10:23 pm Post subject:

I have a question. Since I understand that the SLP has problems in its organizational program, why then has not those who are members and those were given the boot try to make those necessary changes?

Sol

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 11:21 pm Post subject:

Dave: "Can you break down what you wrote - and can you do it without reference to Comrade Petersen?"

Rather than break it down, I'll provide some supplementary background to the term 'social-democracy', which was the intended precondition for communism. M+E often spoke about the principles of republicanism to the General Council of the First Int'l. The 3rd French republic (to which they refer here) was set up 6 months before the Paris Commune became essential to the defense of that republic:

"The recognition of the Republic was the first condition for all the rest; if that did not succeed all the rest must fail. ... The moment the Republic was proclaimed everybody in France became enthusiastically republican. Had the Republic been recognized [by England, especially-KE] then it would have had a chance to succeed. ... The propertied class had an interest rather to see Prussia victorious rather than the Republic. They are well aware that sooner or later the Republic must have become socialistic and therefore they intrigued against it ... middle class republics have become impossible in Europe ... Republicanism and middle class government can no longer go together. ... The International wanted to establish the Social and Democratic Republic and therefore it was high treason to belong to it. ... No republican movement could go on here without expanding into a working class movement ... Before our ideas could be carried into practice we must have the Republic. ... no republican movement could become serious without becoming social."

This shows the tremendous importance of workers first capturing political power (i.e., creating social democracy, or the proletarian dictatorship) before effecting a working class program and expropriating the means of production.

About the SIU: M+E died before De Leon put forth the SIU in 1905, so they could not have critiqued it directly. However, Bakunin in 1869 tendered an idea remarkably close to the SIU, though it was based on craft unions. One of M+E's old comrades from 1848, Johan Philip Becker, somehow became enamored with Bakunin's idea, which a bemused Engels commented about in a letter to Marx:

"Old Becker must have gone completely off his rocker. How can he decree that the trades unions must be the true workers' association and the basis of any organisation, that the other unions must only temporarily exist alongside with them, etc. All this in a country where there are no real trades unions as yet. What 'intricate' organisation! On the one hand, each trade centralises itself in a national summit and, on the other hand, various trades of a locality centralise themselves in a local summit. If one wants to make incessant squabbling permanent, he should use this form of organisation."

Though Bakunin's idea fitted the era of craft unions, De Leon seems to have adapted the basic notion to the subsequent era of monopoly capitalism. Industrial unionism corresponds to the vertical monopoly ownership that became increasingly noticable at the turn of the century.

I hope this helps. -KE

Posted: 16 Mar 2005 12:32 am Post subject:

Social wrote: "Since I understand that the SLP has problems in its organizational program, why then has not those who are members and those were given the boot try to make those necessary changes?"

Everyone who left the SLP for one reason or another seems (unlike me) to have retained faith in the SIU. I seem to be unique in losing 100% of the respect I once had for it, though it never STRONGLY attracted me in the first place. I was mainly looking for socialists who seemed similar to me. Members of other parties seemed much too far-out for my liking.

Most SLP ex-members aren't interested in doing much other than continuing to promote the SIU, especially the many splinter groups set up after 'disruptions'. Ex-members simply can't stand the straightjacket imposed by the SLP. They are not interested in correcting an SIU which they regard as essentially correct. They want to continue to feel comfortable supporting an idea which they regard as useful, and even essential, to saving society. They retain the old SLP attitude of turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards critics of the SIU. They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them by showing how badly they'd been lied to, but I now realise that such a task is impossible. My communications with them have had absolutely no effect. Ex-members just do not care about the subject matter. They don't know what they are missing, and can live very well with not knowing. I've resigned myself to complete ineffectuality on this issue, which leaves me free to pursue unrelated objectives. -KE

Posted: 16 Mar 2005 03:13 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

"What's so good about the SIU? Do you buy Petersen's assertion that 'the Marxist theory of the state was flawed, and needs to be replaced with a new social form representing the classless and stateless administration of things?' Believe that, and you will probably also believe Petersen's assertion that 'Engels didn't know the difference between socialism and state capitalism.'

Ken also wrote:

SLP members never got an appreciation for what the Marxist theory of the state really was, because A.P. never presented it. Marx expected simultaneous anti-monarchist (pro-democratic) revolutions in Europe to result in a unified proletarian dictatorship, taking the governmental form of a democratic republic.

Dave asked:

Is there something in what Marx or Engles actually wrote, per se, that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work? Were there historical develoments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necesarilty force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work? Thanks.

Ken quoted from something, what it was I am not sure. Then he added:

This shows the tremendous importance of workers first capturing political power (i.e., creating social democracy, or the proletarian dictatorship) before effecting a working class program and expropriating the means of production.

Fredrick Engles wrote in 1891 on the occassion of th 20th aniversery of the Paris Commune:

People think they are taking an extraordinary bold step forward when the rid themselves of faith in a hereditary monarchy and becomes partisans of a democratic republic. In reality however, the state is nothing more than a machine for theoppression of one class over another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletarirt after its victorious struggle for class supremacy whose worst sides the proletariet, just like the Commune, will have at the earliest possiblemoment to lop off, until such time as a new generation, reared under new and free socal conditions, will be able to throw on the scap heap all the useless lumber of the State.

Dave comments:

So Ken you have avoided the question of whether Marx or Engles actually wrote something that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work. I suspect that you know of no such writing.

Also I don't see anything that says that the state can't be revoked concurrent with the establishment of SIU. In 1891 it seems that Engles was saying that the state needed to be dismissed ASAP perhaps in as long as a generation. In 1905 DeLeon picked up on the idea, as I see it, that we need to dismiss the state right off. I see that as an addition to, not a contradiction of what Marx or Engles wrote. But this was clearly the SLP position in 1905 long before Comrade Petersen came to the helm in the National Office - but on and on you rant about Petersen's BIG LIE.

Ken wrote:

Everyone who left the SLP for one reason or another seems (unlike me) to have retained faith in the SIU. I seem to be unique in losing 100% of the respect I once had for it, though it never STRONGLY attracted me in the first place. I was mainly looking for socialists who seemed similar to me.

Dave responds - for all of the Paryty's faults, the SIU has been THE program of the SLP at least since 1905. You note that it is almost universal among even those who have left the party, that they remain advocates of the SIU. You say that you joined the party becuase you thought the party contained socialists like you, instead of you agreeing with the central tenent of the organization. Then you say that YOU lost respect for the SIU. I don't think you had any respect for yourself to join an organization in which you did not strongly believe in its goal.

Ken wrote:

Most SLP ex-members ... retain the old SLP attitude of turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards critics of the SIU. They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them by showing how badly they'd been lied to, but I now realise that such a task is impossible. My communications with them have had absolutely no effect. Ex-members just do not care about the subject matter. They don't know what they are missing, and can live very well with not knowing.

Dave responds:

OK Ken - we're really sorry. Can you come back and tell us the story again how the really mean and nasty Arnold Petersen was able to push this BIG LIE on the party even in 1905 before he was even National Secretary. What a joke!

When I signed onto this group at the invitation of Mike, Mike revealed to the group that it was I who had given him the SLP leaflet almost 40 years ago that changed his thinking. I just read the introduction to Ken's book on the web. It stated that he learned of the SLP when he had received a copy of the Weekly People in Boston in 1972 near the city hall. Can it be that I was the one who gave it to him? I lived at the corner of Mass. Ave. and Beacon Street in Boston from 1971-72. I would regularly get 100 copy bundles of the Weekly People and hand them out all over Boston. I was the only active SLPer on the streets in Bosten at the time. Ken I hate to admit it but I guess I somehow failed you somehow. I am sorry:)

Dave

Posted: 16 Mar 2005 01:18 pm Post subject:

Posted: 19 Mar 2005 09:05 pm Post subject:

Sorry that an acute spell of busy-ness has kept me away from the keyboard.

Dave: "Is there something in what Marx or Engles actually wrote, per se, that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work?"

Yes. In 1891, Engels excluded all possibilities of a 'classless and stateless union administration of society' taking control directly after a working class political victory, when he wrote (me27.227): "First. If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

The democratic republic and the administration of things are the lower and higher phases of communist society, so they cannot both administer society's affairs at the very same time. A society is either stateless or it isn't, but it can't be both at the same time.

Dave: "Were there historical develoments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necesarily force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work?"

No, there were no earth-shaking developments or events that could show anyone a method of quickly abolishing the state, not even the advent of industrial unions, which corresponded to vertical monopoly ownership of industries.

Dave: "Ken quoted from something, what it was I am not sure."

My apologies for failing to refer to Volume 4 of the 5 volume set of the Minutes of the General Council of the First International (1864-72).

Dave: Then he added: "This shows the tremendous importance of workers first capturing political power (i.e., creating social democracy, or the proletarian dictatorship) before effecting a working class program and expropriating the means of production."

Dave: "Fredrick Engles wrote in 1891 on the occasion of th 20th aniversery of the Paris Commune:

"People think they are taking an extraordinary bold step forward when the rid themselves of faith in a hereditary monarchy and becomes partisans of a democratic republic. In reality however, the state is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class over another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletarirt after its victorious struggle for class supremacy whose worst sides the proletariet, just like the Commune, will have at the earliest possiblemoment to lop off, until such time as a new generation, reared under new and free socal conditions, will be able to throw on the scap heap all the useless lumber of the State."

Dave comments: "So Ken you have avoided the question of whether Marx or Engles actually wrote something that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work. I suspect that you know of no such writing."

I didn't avoid your question. I answered it in my own way by showing how the SIU became known to the world only after both M+E died. So, how could M+E have critiqued that specific idea? Do you think they should have dreamt it up and critiqued it before they died? I also pointed out the similarity of Bakunin's scheme to the SIU, and the contempt with which Engels dealt with it in his 1869 note to Marx. You chose not to comment on that. Were Engels' words not at all relevant? Also, in my research into the Workmen's Advocate (the forerunner to the People), the 'union administration of society' idea was put forth even before De Leon became editor.

In the July 16, 1887 edition, Dr. Adolph Douai wrote in his lead article entitled "Trades Unionism": "We want a complete democracy combined with a government of Reason. That is impossible without the whole society consisting of trades unions which govern each itself, and together everything else. ... after the work-people will have recovered the political power, it must be done by a double kind of government - the economic concerns of the nation to be administered entirely by the trades unions, constituted democratically, so that the political State shall not meddle with them."

That looks like 'a state to handle political affairs, and the trade unions to handle economic affairs'.

Dave: "Also I don't see anything that says that the state can't be revoked concurrent with the establishment of SIU."

How about Engels' well-known statement: "The state is not abolished. It dies out." What does 'the state is not abolished' mean? Does it mean that 'the state is abolished'?

Dave: "In 1891 it seems that Engles was saying that the state needed to be dismissed ASAP perhaps in as long as a generation."

Engels was showing how the monarchies and republics of his day were both dominated by the bourgeoisie, and were both machines of oppression. Miracles could be expected only if European proletarians were to rise in several countries simultaneously and replace their absolute monarchies with the grand unified proletarian dictatorship. Anything short of that would end up being a grand disappointment. The proletarian dictatorship was the state that was expected to die out, and a time line for its complete dissolution was never speculated on in print.

Dave: "In 1905 DeLeon picked up on the idea, as I see it, that we need to dismiss the state right off. I see that as an addition to, not a contradiction of what Marx or Engles wrote."

De Leon was picking up on Bakunin's ideas, not Marx's or Engels' ideas. There is no way in which De Leon's anarchism can be reconciled with Marxism. The state cannot be abolished at the same time it is being used in a Marxist sense by workers to moderate the class struggle and impose a fair distribution of jobs and resources. A mere electoral victory of a workers' party in a democracy was never expected to get rid of class struggle, though workers could certainly use democracy to turn predatory capitalism into liberation capitalism.

Dave: "But this was clearly the SLP position in 1905 long before Comrade Petersen came to the helm in the National Office - but on and on you rant about Petersen's BIG LIE."

Petersen was head cheese from 1913-68. I hope that you will someday see the need to explore Petersen's lies thoroughly enough to help you to decide whether or not you want to keep repeating those lies for the rest of your life. Did Petersen attribute a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasants and middle classes' to Marx, and was such an attribution correct? Or, did Bakunin initiate that mistake? What kind of a socialist would fail to come to grips with that question within a reasonable amount of time? I hope YOU won't be like the many other SIU advocates who have refused to grapple with that question. Take whatever time you need to carefully reflect on this question so as to properly acquit yourself. The idea of a socialist 'knowingly and willingly spreading lies' should not be very savory to you, so please get to know the arguments a little better. Workers deserve to be told the truth, even if Marx's theory of revolution is obsolete.

Ken wrote: "Everyone who left the SLP for one reason or another seems (unlike me) to have retained faith in the SIU. I seem to be unique in losing 100% of the respect I once had for it, though it never STRONGLY attracted me in the first place. I was mainly looking for socialists who seemed similar to me."

Dave responds - "for all of the Party's faults, the SIU has been THE program of the SLP at least since 1905. You note that it is almost universal among even those who have left the party, that they remain advocates of the SIU. You say that you joined the party becuase you thought the party contained socialists like you, instead of you agreeing with the central tenent of the organization."

That 'instead of' could imply that I might have willingly adhered to notions about socialism that contradicted the SLP definition, perhaps even with the intent of stirring up trouble. But, at that green stage of my life, how was I to distinguish between the different versions of socialism? I trusted the members to guide me because they had already taught me a lot of great things. If they told me that the SIU was socialism, and that nothing less was acceptable, then who was I to object, even if its justification in socio-political-economic terms did not seem as obvious to me as it possibly could have? I regarded this 'deficiency in perfect harmony' as a failure on MY part, not as a deficiency or a lack of logic on their part, and I hoped that the deficiency could be remedied by further exposure to SLP philosophy, which is why I sought out every SLP pamphlet I could lay my hands on. I was particularly happy to dive into the dumpster in Brooklyn where many ancient pamphlets were being summarily dumped. Part A of my book goes into this in some detail. I wanted very much to be fully in synch with the party and its program, and was willing to do anything to realize that goal.

"Then you say that YOU lost respect for the SIU. I don't think you had any respect for yourself to join an organization in which you did not strongly believe in its goal."

Well, sometimes decisions have to be made. I liked the members so much that I really wanted to be part of their club, so I asked Henning how to join, and he set me up with Section Boston, and the rest is history. I was hoping to grow into whatever role I would be playing. It was only in 1976, 4 years after joining, and AFTER learning that the program was supported by Petersenian lies, that all respect for the program was lost OVERNIGHT. If you read part B of my book, you'd know how catastrophic that discovery was for me, the tears that were shed, the weight that was lost, etc. Have you ever been disappointed enough by a political party to shed tears?

Ken wrote: "Most SLP ex-members ... retain the old SLP attitude of turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards critics of the SIU. They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them by showing how badly they'd been lied to, but I now realise that such a task is impossible. My communications with them have had absolutely no effect. Ex-members just do not care about the subject matter. They don't know what they are missing, and can live very well with not knowing."

Dave responds: "OK Ken - we're really sorry. Can you come back and tell us the story again how the really mean and nasty Arnold Petersen was able to push this BIG LIE on the party even in 1905 before he was even National Secretary. What a joke!"

Did I ever say that 'A.P. perpetrated a lie in 1905'? Please don't put foolish words in my mouth. This 'mistake' on your part could be interpreted as MUCH WORSE than a simple mistake. It could indicate an intention to so befoul this dialogue as to render it useless.

Dave: "When I signed onto this group at the invitation of Mike, Mike revealed to the group that it was I who had given him the SLP leaflet almost 40 years ago that changed his thinking. I just read the introduction to Ken's book on the web. It stated that he learned of the SLP when he had received a copy of the Weekly People in Boston in 1972 near the city hall. Can it be that I was the one who gave it to him? I lived at the corner of Mass. Ave. and Beacon Street in Boston from 1971-72. I would regularly get 100 copy bundles of the Weekly People and hand them out all over Boston. I was the only active SLPer on the streets in Bosten at the time. Ken I hate to admit it but I guess I somehow failed you somehow. I am sorry:)"

Wow, Dave, it might have been you, though it's really hard to say for sure, since I was merely grabbing literature from whoever was passing it out and was not engaging anyone in conversations.

Whooda thunk I'd ever cross paths with the nameless one who gave me my first Weekly People? If it was you, then bask in the glory of having changed the direction of yet another soul. It's been an interesting experience, for sure. -KE

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 04:28 am Post subject:

As has been pointed out previously, I asked Ken:

"Is there something in what Marx or Engles actually wrote, per se, that shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work?"

Ken answered:

Yes. In 1891, Engels excluded all possibilities of a 'classless and stateless union administration of society' taking control directly after a working class political victory, when he wrote (me27.227):

"First. If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

Ken continued:

The democratic republic and the administration of things are the lower and higher phases of communist society, so they cannot both administer society's affairs at the very same time. A society is either stateless or it isn't, but it can't be both at the same time.

Dave responds:

Ken you have only answered the question if we accept that Marx and Engles were religous figures and that every word from their writings is in and of itself true and accurate dogma.

I have already quoted from Engles where he says that the state should be abolished, essentially as soon as possible, but possibly as long as in the time that it takes an entire new generation of people to come of age. (From Engles' 1891 writing on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune)

What you are telling me Ken is that you believe that because Engles in 1890 wrote what you quoted above that that writing in and of itself "shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work"

Why? Because Engles said it? No, he did not even say that did he Ken?

Engles THOUGHT that socialism may take as long as a generation to implement - according to Ken - this proves that Socialism cannot be implemented before that time.

Ken wrote:

SIU became known to the world only after both M+E died. So, how could M+E have critiqued that specific idea?

I also asked of Ken:

"Were there historical developments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necessarily force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work?"

To which Ken responded:

No, there were no earth-shaking developments or events that could show anyone a method of quickly abolishing the state, not even the advent of industrial unions, which corresponded to vertical monopoly ownership of industries.

Dave responds:

Ken apparently agrees that nothing either Marx or Engles wrote shows that SIU is unworkable. He apparently also agrees there have been no events since the death of Marx or Engles that would force a reinterpration of something that either of them wrote to alter the conclusion that nothing that they wrote shows that SIU is unworkable.

Now we go to Ken's other objection, that SIU is based upon a lie by Comrade Petersen. But there is nothing there, either. Even Ken admits that Petersen wasn't in the picture in 1905 when SIU was developed and essentially became THE goal of the SLP.

But Ken wrote:

Most SLP ex-members ... retain the old SLP attitude of turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards critics of the SIU. They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies.

And Ken wrote:

Petersen was head cheese from 1913-68. I hope that you will someday see the need to explore Petersen's lies thoroughly enough to help you to decide whether or not you want to keep repeating those lies for the rest of your life.

Dave responds:

So SIU was not in fact based upon Comrade Petersen’s' BIG LIES. We now can all breathe easier.

Dave also comments:

There wasn't any ambiguity in the SLP's program - it called for SIU and just about every issue of the People very patiently explained what it meant by SIU. Just about every 4th issue had Walter Steinhilbur's graphic - which he told me himself that he had to draw in order that he could better understand SIU. Henning Blomen (whom Ken previously referred to) was a fond acquaintance of mine. I had him give a public address in Beacon New York in the summer of 1969 when I was still a high school student. As Ken did, I also attended his study group meetings. Ken, you would not have gotten into the party if you had stated any reservations what-so-ever about the SIU program. As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only goes to impeach your credibilty.

Another thing that impeaches Ken's credibity is his consnatnt rant about supposed lies byArnold Petersen.

Ken - I never had any of your animosity towards Comrade Petersen. You may have different interpretations of events from his - but does that make him a liar?

It's funny, of the dozens and dozens of people whom I was personally acquainted with who knew Comrade Petersen and his writings and the writing of Marx and Engles you are the first person to even suggest that he was not a 100% honest individual. Believe me, there were many other criticisms of him so if they had thought that he had lied, I am quite sure they would have said so.

And there is certainly nothing that you have presented to make me believe that Comrade Petersen lied in any of the matters that you refer to. So if you have an opinion different than someone elses’, that makes them a liar? Not in my book.

The most that we really get out of Ken is this: He can take a quote from Engles such as the state withering away and then extend himself into illogic by implying from this mere statement that under no set of circumstances can socialism be established unless the state withers away. And then anyone who challeges Ken's illusion must be a liar.

If Ken also considers me to be a liar I would take that as a badge of honor.

Ken I never thought that I was out to save souls when distributing party literatue. I was merely promoting SIU the best way that I knew how.

Dave

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 09:41 pm Post subject:

Mike quoted me: "They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them by showing how badly they'd been lied to, but" ...

Mike: "Even if they were told lies, what indication is there that their support for the SIU is based on claims that they were told? Isn't there such a thing as arriving at an opinion, apart from believing someone else's claims?"

Well, surely that could be so, but sometimes interest develops in learning the origin of some ideas. Otherwise, a person could be an SIU advocate without knowing much about the official arguments supporting it. If every SIU advocate prefers not to discuss the SLP's supporting arguments for the SIU, which is a distinct possibility, then the SIU is thereby insulated from criticism, and is rendered holy and sacrosanct. One cannot be part of the SLP without becoming aware of a religious attitude towards its program. That was what we were being sent out into the world to MARKET, not to critique.

Mike: "I support the SIU because I can identify several of my own arguments for it; not because SLP literature reported certain alleged-facts which I accepted as accurate."

Well, that's fine. Unionizing is always a good idea, anyway.

Mike: "It would be fun to take a textbook on logic, and try to parse this: A former elected officer of a political party told lies, therefore the party's recommended program for social change is unworkable."

Allow me to make a stab in that direction, substituting 'useless' for 'unworkable': Petersen lied, but the 'useless' conclusion cannot be drawn from the fact that 'he lied', which is little more relevant to the issue of 'uselessness' than a bag of potato chips. That 'the SIU is useless' could instead easily be based on the accelerating likelihood that 'human labor will be abolished before the SIU revolution gets off the ground.' Socialism will not rest on a foundation of human labor, because human labor breeds capitalism, property, the state, the nuclear family, etc. As Marx put it, 'labor creates property.' The chances of abolishing that which is in the constant process of creation is like shoveling crap against the tide. The abolition of capitalist private property is bound to be a big waste of time, which is maybe why all of the efforts dedicated to that goal are presently shipwrecked. There was far more hope for realizing that goal from 1848 to 1921 or so. After the events of 1989 et seq, forget about it entirely.

Mike: "I would classify it as a combination of two fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem, the fallacy that a proposition can be determined to be true or false by considering the desirable or undesirable personal characteristics of someone who speaks for or against it, and argumentum ad verecundiam, the fallacy that a proposition is known to be either true or false by considering whether an "authority" speaks for or against it."

Petersen was a liar, but the SIU isn't going to fail to be implemented simply because he lied, so ad hominem isn't a factor in 'the uselessness of the SIU'. The other fallacy seems nebulous.

I never claimed that 'the SIU will fail because Petersen lied.' Petersen's lies and the uselessness of the SIU are 2 distinctly different issues, even if Petersen tried to buttress the alleged Marxist credentials of the SIU by pasting a fabric of lies onto it, as in 'building a myth around it'. It may not be perfectly correct to claim that "the SIU rests on a foundation of lies", which explains why I prefaced that phrase with 'THE POSSIBILITY' "that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies." I never went deep enough into the history of the SIU to be able to conclude without reservation that "the SIU rests on a foundation of lies", though that possibility should not be discounted, given all of the SLP's other shenanigans, such as De Leon and Vogt publishing a poorly translated and totally unauthorized pirate edition of Engels' "Socialism: Utopia to Science" pamphlet some months prior to the publication of the authorized Aveling translation, which may have resulted in Engels losing some pamphlet sales. -KE

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

given all of the SLP's other shenanigans, such as De Leon and Vogt publishing a poorly translated and totally unauthorized pirate edition of Engels' "Socialism: Utopia to Science" pamphlet some months prior to the publication of the authorized Aveling translation, which may have resulted in Engels losing some pamphlet sales.

Dave asks:

Could we have some documentation of this?

Thanks,

Dave

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:

The following can also be read at: http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partg.html

Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge in Hoboken
(MEW 38, p. 166) London, September 30, 1891
   ... ""The "People" is unreadable. Such a silly collection of junk in a newspaper I haven't seen for a long time. Who is the translator of my "Entwicklung"*? Jonas?

   * (MEW 38, Note #238, p. 610): "The Socialist Labor Party of North America had, in 1891, without Engels' knowledge, published his paper "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissensschaft" {"The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science"} in the weekly "The People". As can be seen from Friedrich Adolph Sorge's letters to Engels of October 9 and 12, 1891, Engels' paper was translated by De Leon and H. Vogt, (obviously from the German edition of 1883); it was also to be published as a pamphlet."

ENGELS TO FRIEDRICH ADOLPH SORGE IN HOBOKEN
(MESC, p. 411) London, Oct. 24, 1891
   ... "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus [Socialism: Utopian and Scientific] will be published here in a translation prepared by Aveling and edited by me (in Sonnenshein's Social Series). In face of this authorised translation the American pirate edition* with its miserable English will be rather innocuous. It is moreover not even complete, whatever they found too difficult they have left out." . . .
__________
   * "Engels refers to a translation by De Leon and Vogt which was published by the Socialist Workers' Party of America." {Note by Progress Publishers. It should have read: "Socialist Labor Party". The SWP was organized decades later. -K.E.}

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 11:13 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

If every SIU advocate prefers not to discuss the SLP's supporting arguments for the SIU, which is a distinct possibility, then the SIU is thereby insulated from criticism

Dave responds:

The list of "critcisms" by Ken so far of SIU:

1. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

2. DeLeon and Vogt pirated a section of Engels pamphlet taken from Anti-During.

3. St. Fredrick stated that the state would wither away therefore (according to Ken) Socialism cannot be established without a withering period.

4. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

5. St. Fredrick in a letterr to to St. Karl (who died in 1883) thought that a governement set up along craft union lines would be unworkable.

6. "SLP members never got an appreciation for what the Marxist theory of the state really was, because Arnold Petersen never presented it."

7. "Arnold Petersen wanted the SLP to believe that 'expropriation leads to state capitalism', and it certainly does, IF practiced in ordinary democracies like the USA." (huh?)

8. "Hence, instead of advocating a Marxist workers' state, we (bright, but hoodwinked socialists like Ken) got to advocate the SIU, which was founded on false pretexts. But, Marx's theory is no bed of roses. It has so many problems of its own that its very weaknesses allow the SIU to look like SALVATION." (huh?)

9. Robots are going to ENTIRELY DISPLACE ALL FORMS OF HUMAN LABOR therefore workers need not think about trying to takeover the means of production (we'll just suffer until then) and the need for a workers organization until then should be ignored.

"The future abolition of human labor should thus become more attractive to socialists, for then the abolition of private ownership of means of production will finally have a solid basis for being realized."

10. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

Dave

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 03:31 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

If every SIU advocate prefers not to discuss the SLP's supporting arguments for the SIU, which is a distinct possibility, then the SIU is thereby insulated from criticism

Dave responds:

The list of "critcisms" by Ken so far of SIU:

1. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

2. DeLeon and Vogt pirated a section of Engels pamphlet taken from Anti-During.

3. St. Frederick stated that the state would wither away therefore (according to Ken) Socialism cannot be established without a withering period.

4. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

5. St. Frederick in an epistle to St. Karl (who died in 1883) thought that a governement set up along craft union lines would be unworkable.

6. "SLP members never got an appreciation for what the Marxist theory of the state really was, because Arnold Petersen never presented it."

7. "Arnold Petersen wanted the SLP to believe that 'expropriation leads to state capitalism', and it certainly does, IF practiced in ordinary democracies like the USA." (huh?)

8. "Hence, instead of advocating a Marxist workers' state, we (bright, but hoodwinked socialists like Ken) got to advocate the SIU, which was founded on false pretexts. But, Marx's theory is no bed of roses. It has so many problems of its own that its very weaknesses allow the SIU to look like SALVATION." (huh?)

9. Robots are going to ENTIRELY DISPLACE ALL FORMS OF HUMAN LABOR therefore workers need not think about trying to takeover the means of production (we'll just suffer until the robots take over and take care of us).

"The future abolition of human labor should thus become more attractive to socialists, for then the abolition of private ownership of means of production will finally have a solid basis for being realized."

10. Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar.

Dave

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 07:46 am Post subject:

Ken, I like that phrase "the SIU rests on...."
My opinion - the SIU rests on this:

Socialism means the management role being performed by democratic representation of the staff at each workplace. This implies that there must have been some prior moment when the staff at each workplace decided to hold at least one meeting, and then and there they adopted democratic representation. That is the formation of the SIU.

I don't get that from The SLP Told Me. I get that from Common Sense Told Me.

My conception of it does have a lot of intersection, but not complete intersection, with what I've seen in SLP literature.

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 11:30 am Post subject:

Mike writes:

Socialism means the management role being performed by democratic representation of the staff at each workplace. This implies that there must have been some prior moment when the staff at each workplace decided to hold at least one meeting, and then and there they adopted democratic representation. That is the formation of the SIU.

Dave cogently states:

No I do not agree. Before any democratic representation in workplace administration can take place the workers are going to have to decide if Arnold Petersen was a big fat liar and whether the SLP owes royalty money to the estate of Frederick Engles for the SLP's publication of the Engles pamphlet, then the workers are going to have to decide if the state had withered or not. If the state did not wither, if royalites are owed, if Petersen lied, there can be no SIU:)

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 09:35 pm Post subject:

Ken cited a letter by Engels to Adolph Sorge dated 9/30/1891:

... ""The "People" is unreadable. Such a silly collection of junk in a newspaper I haven't seen for a long time. Who is the translator of my "Entwicklung"(Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)? Jonas?

Ken cited another letter by Engles to Adolph Sorge this one dated 10/24/1891:

... "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus [Socialism: Utopian and Scientific] will be published here in a translation prepared by Aveling and edited by me (in Sonnenshein's Social Series). In face of this authorised translation the American pirate edition* with its miserable English will be rather innocuous. It is moreover not even complete, whatever they found too difficult they have left out." . . .

From this Ken states that DeLeon and Vogt had pirated Engels work by having it printed in the Weekly People. Ken quotes from footnotes that appear from some where, but nothing in the footnotes actually ties the translation to DeLeon. DeLeon wasmade editor of the People in 1892 or 93. Prior to that who was the editor? Lucian Saniel? I can't recall.

The web site that Ken refers to apparently has been put together by Ken. Usually from what I have read of the roots of the SLP, a pretty sharp distinction is made the SLP before and after 1892. (At what point did they drop the "ic" as in Socialistic Labor Party?) I didn't get any feeling from Ken's chronology of any recognition of any basic change in the party after DeLeon became editor.

Dave

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 04:39 pm Post subject:

Dave: "I have already quoted from Engles where he says that the state should be abolished, essentially as soon as possible, but possibly as long as in the time that it takes an entire new generation of people to come of age. (From Engles' 1891 writing on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune)"

Anarchists commonly misinterpret M+E as advocating a quick abolition of the state. Is 'anarchism' a proper label for your belief system?

Dave: "What you are telling me Ken is that you believe that because Engles in 1890 wrote what you quoted above that that writing in and of itself "shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work ... Why? Because Engles said it? No, he did not even say that did he Ken?"

You don't show much intent to discuss what Engels DID write, i.e., 'the democratic republic would be the form of the proletarian dictatorship'. That dictatorship was to be a STATE, not a classless and stateless administration of things, and a timeline for the DYING OUT of that state was never established, except that its dissolution was predicated on the abolition of class distinctions. Obsolete as it might be, that happens to be the Marxist theory of how the state was to evolve into a classless stateless administration of things.

There are two major ways to abolish class distinctions: 1) Abolish private ownership of the means of production, or 2) Make the proletariat as free of labor and toil as the bourgeoisie, which would pretty well eliminate the main distinction between those 2 classes. Though Marx is well known for advocating #1, he also toyed with #2 in his 'Wage Labour and Capital' pamphlet.

Dave: "Engles THOUGHT that socialism may take as long as a generation to implement - according to Ken - this proves that Socialism cannot be implemented before that time."

What do you mean by 'according to Ken'? Your 'socialism in a generation' is YOUR ridiculous idea, not mine. This discussion is in trouble because you have a BIG accuracy problem. You shoot from the hip quite often, though you are nowhere nearly as accomplished a shooter as any of the Magnificent 7.

Dave: "I also asked of Ken: Were there historical developments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necessarily force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work? To which Ken responded: "No, there were no earth-shaking developments or events that could show anyone a method of quickly abolishing the state, not even the advent of industrial unions, which corresponded to vertical monopoly ownership of industries."

Dave responds: "Ken agrees that there were no developments that force a reinterpretation of Marx and Engles."

That's not at all what I wrote or implied. I have consistently argued for examining Marxism with the aim of negating notions of 'replacing existing states with a universal proletarian dictatorship', which only applied to the seemingly very real possibility (in Marx's thru Lenin's day) of replacing a mass of European monarchies with a universal proletarian dictatorship. All such short cuts to socialism need to be analyzed and critiqued for the moonshine that they are. (me4.278) ... "the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of labour" ... THAT is the only socialist scenario that has a chance of someday being realized.

Dave: "There is nothing that Ken is aware of (other than what he quoted above) where either Marx or Engles showed that SIU is not workable, and since what Ken quoted above also does not show that SIU is unworkable it seems that Ken is just spinning his wheels."

Does their predating the SIU's arrival, and their consequent inability to directly critique the SIU, prove that 'THE SIU IS WORKABLE'? From which school of logic would such a conclusion hail?

snip prelude to:

Dave comments: "By the way that Ken was writing I was under the impression that Ken thought that there was something that either Marx or Engles had written that showed that SIU was unworkable or that even if Marx or Engles has not written anything to that effect, per se, that some historical event forces a reinterpretation of what they actually wrote. But no on both counts."

In 1869, Engels disparaged Bakunin's 'union administration of society' idea. Engels' statement was a general blow to ALL 'union administration of society' ideas, including the SIU. Please acknowledge that Engels did not praise the idea that Becker found so tantalizing.

Dave: "Then we go to Ken's other objection, that SIU is based upon a lie by Comrade Petersen. But nothing there, either. Even Ken admits that Petersen wasn't in the picture in 1905 when SIU was developed and essentially became THE goal of the SLP."

I never claimed that 'the SIU was based on Petersen's lies.' EVERYONE attributes the SIU to De Leon, and no one would be stupid enough to assert that 'it was based on Petersen's lies'. Aside from that, Bakunin initiated the 'union administration of society' idea well before De Leon grappled with it. When will the SLP and other SIU advocates give credit where credit is due? They won't, because they are AFRAID of being openly associated with unrepentant anarchists like Bakunin, so they hide the fact that their program owes a lot more to Bakunin than to M+E. Remarkably enough, Bakunin attributed a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx decades before Petersen seized on it.

Dave: "But Ken wrote: "Most SLP ex-members ... retain the old SLP attitude of turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards critics of the SIU. They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies."

As I wrote to Mike: "It may not be perfectly correct to claim that "the SIU rests on a foundation of lies", which explains why I prefaced that phrase with 'THE POSSIBILITY' "that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies." I never went deep enough into the history of the SIU to be able to conclude without reservation that "the SIU rests on a foundation of lies", though that possibility should not be discounted, given all of the SLP's other shenanigans" ... etc.

Dave: "And Ken wrote: "Petersen was head cheese from 1913-68. I hope that you will someday see the need to explore Petersen's lies thoroughly enough to help you to decide whether or not you want to keep repeating those lies for the rest of your life."

Dave responds: "So SIU was not in fact based upon Comrade Petersen’s 'BIG LIES. We now can all breathe easier."

Petersen was limited to lying about Marxism, and then showing how well the SIU was justified by his phony version of Marxism.

Dave also comments: "There wasn't any ambiguity in the SLP's program - it called for SIU and just about every issue of the People very patiently explained what it meant by SIU. Just about every 4th issue had Walter Steinhilbur's graphic - which he told me himself that he had to draw in order that he could better understand SIU."

I had the pleasure of meeting the fine wrestler and Pratt Inst. instructor Steinhilber in 1974, while I was helping move the party out of Brooklyn. Big guy. He left little room on the sidewalk for others to pass.

Dave: "Ken, you would not have gotten into the party if you had stated any reservations what-so-ever about the SIU program. As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only impeaches you as an honerable person."

Just how low do you intend to go? I already explained the circumstances under which I joined, and they didn't include 'false pretenses'. I was hoping that further exposure to the SIU would draw me closer to it. Early on, I was convinced that the discrepancy between others' enthusiasm and mine was all my fault, but could be remedied. 'False pretenses' also implies that I may have 'secretly harbored an opinion about socialism that was different from the SIU.' If you find a shred of evidence of that possibility, please let me know. In the meantime, why not inquire of Bob Bills if I seemed to be operating under false pretenses during the nearly 3 years we worked together in Palo Alto? Or, ask any of the other people you might know, and who also knew me back then. You probably know Roy Nelson, whom I got to know pretty well in Section Boston. In 1976, after I became aware of Petersen's lies, and started to try to explain them to him, he refused to correspond with me any further. Or maybe Mike Murphy, who also stopped writing to me.

Allow me to tell you of my independence: I ALWAYS felt deep down that I was not going to waste the rest of my life working for something if I were to come around to feeling that it had no future. But, I was not going to give up on the SLP unless I had REAL EVIDENCE that it was not above board. I labored for the SLP in real ignorance during the years 1972-6, until the accelerating research I was doing finally PROVED beyond the shadow of a doubt that the party program was so weak that the only option Petersen had, if he were to try to reconcile the SIU with Marxism, was to lie about what Marxism really was. The SIU IS compatible with PHONIED 'Marxism', which is the only kind of Marxism the SLP knows, thanks to predominant anarchist influence from 1889 onward. You must remember the big takeover back then. Engels referred to it as a 'revolution in a socialist tea-pot'.

Dave: "I never had any of your animosity towards Comrade Petersen. You may have different interpretations of events from his - but does that make him a liar?"

That question will never be answered to your satisfaction until you make an effort to inform yourself of the issues surrounding what I think is a big lie worthy of your investigation. Until you make an effort to determine for yourself whether or not Petersen correctly or incorrectly attributed a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx, this question of 'whether Petersen lied' will forever hang like a cloud, forever casting the darkest of shadows on our dialogue, which is in such severe trouble that I often doubt if it can be salvaged. You seem far more interested in casting aspersion on MY character than in examining Petersen's alleged lies. What's holding you back?

Dave: "It's funny, of the dozens and dozens of people whom I was personally acquainted with who knew Comrade Petersen and his writings and the writing of Marx and Engles you are the first person to even suggest that he was not a 100% honest individual. Believe me, there were many other criticisms of him so if they had thought that he had lied, I am quite sure they would have said so."

The unanimity of belief in Petersen's alleged honesty is very common among SIU advocates. After all, it would be a bad reflection on SIU advocates if Petersen were to be convicted of the crime of lying about something [By the way, I'm sure that Petersen was very honest about purely business matters], because then they also could not help but be part of the lie, which no one in their right mind would want to be part of. Hence the immediate initiation of denial and defense mechanisms, such as impugning the character of the accuser. I received lots of abuse at the SLP Houston forum, the WSM forum, as well as other forums frequented by anarchists. Even Leninists join in the abuse, because Leninism is as obsolete as the SIU, Marx, Engels, Maoism, etc. Every scheme promising a feasible method of expropriation became perfectly obsolete after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc 1989, because the collapse and reversion to private property proved the vulnerability of societies based on the expropriation of the means of production.

Dave: "And there is certainly nothing that you have presented to make me believe that Comrade Petersen lied in any of the matters that you refer to. So if you have an opinion different than someone else’s, that makes them a liar? Not in my book."

How do you know that 'Petersen did not lie' if you constantly refuse to examine Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx? You must want to keep yourself in the dark as desperately as Petersen wanted you to remain that way. Are you afraid of being accused of being 'disloyal to the SIU' if you allow yourself to merely question it? -KE

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 06:09 pm Post subject:

Ken, you're right that the SLP started the talk about ending the state abruptly, and this doesn't come form Marx. However, I think some of this is because Marx hated speculation about the future society -- even to the point of hating to think about revolutionary goals and strategies, and some of this is because of the ambiguiity of the word "state" (the SLP has always used it's own definition which on one else ever used).

Either way, the SIU idea is a separate issue. We can have an SIU administration of industry whether the "withering away" or "dying out" of the state takes three days, three months, or three years.

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 06:25 pm Post subject:

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 06:36 pm Post subject:

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 12:42 am Post subject:

Dave: "Ken states that DeLeon and Vogt had pirated Engels work by having it printed in the Weekly People."

Not quite. Reprinting M+E's pamphlets in party newspapers was no big deal to M+E, who even encouraged that practice at times. What WAS a big deal was the subsequent publication of the substandard pamphlet. Translating it poorly, and publishing it without permission, was not very ethical. But, after the shocking Aveling affair of a few years before, a shortage of ethics in SLP behavior should be no big surprise.

Dave: "Ken quotes from footnotes that appear from some where, but nothing in the footnotes actually ties the translation to DeLeon."

How long has your vision been impaired? I quoted: ""Engels refers to a translation by De Leon and Vogt which was published by the Socialist Workers' Party of America." {Note by Progress Publishers. It should have read: "Socialist Labor Party". The SWP was organized decades later."

Note that I quoted:'Translation by De Leon and Vogt'. Now, what could that possibly mean? Is it possible that De Leon and Vogt did the translation? The MEW stands for 'Marx-Engels Werke', which is the German edition of M+E's Collected Works, and the MESC stands for a volume of M+E's Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers edition.

Dave: "DeLeon was made editor of the People in 1892 or 93. Prior to that who was the editor? Lucian Saniel? I can't recall."

My research showed that: At the time of the 1889 takeover by the anarchists, De Leon was still with Bellamy's Nationalist movement, and did not make much of an impact on the Workmen's Advocate until its final publication weeks in 1891. Sanial had been WA editor for some time, and then became the first editor of the People, which replaced the discontinued WA in April of 1891. According to the SLP web site, De Leon became People editor in 1892.

Dave: "The web site that Ken refers to apparently has been put together by Ken. Usually from what I have read of the roots of the SLP, a pretty sharp distinction is made the SLP before and after 1892. (At what point did they drop the "ic" as in Socialistic Labor Party?) I didn't get any feeling from Ken's chronology of any recognition of any basic change in the party after DeLeon became editor."

While researching my book, I wanted to know about the 'ic' as well, and what I found surprised me: The Sept. 24, 1887 edition was one of the last in which it was advertised that the Workmen's Advocate was "A Journal of the SocialistIC Labor Party". By 1888, it became the SLP without the "ic". The party decades later made a bit of an issue out of that "ic", many people incorrectly claiming that the dropping of the 'ic' coincided with De Leon's modernization of the SLP. But, after the anarchists took over in 1889, the 'ic' was RESTORED to the Party's name for a few weeks. That reversal was an inexplicable mini-shocker. -KE

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 02:02 am Post subject:

Ken quotes Dave:

"I have already quoted from Engles where he says that the state should be abolished, essentially as soon as possible, but possibly as long as in the time that it takes an entire new generation of people to come of age. (From Engles' 1891 writing on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune)"

Anarchists commonly misinterpret M+E as advocating a quick abolition of the state. Is 'anarchism' a proper label for your belief system?

Dave responds: It seems that I did not mischaracterize what Engels wrote in 1891.

Engels wrote:

People think they are taking an extraordinary bold step forward when the rid themselves of faith in a hereditary monarchy and becomes partisans of a democratic republic. In reality however, the state is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class over another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, will have at the earliest possible moment to lop off, until such time as a new generation, reared under new and free social conditions, will be able to throw on the scrap heap all the useless lumber of the State.

Dave comments further:

Logic clearly isn’t Ken’s strong point. First, his premises are off. “M+E” consists of a large body of work that progressed over time. It is hardly a homogeneous body of work. Ditto with “anarchists” and how they interpret “M+E”. Secondly, Ken implies that if a person agrees with anarchists on one well documented point then that person is imputed to be an anarchist.

Dave

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 02:04 am Post subject:

Ken quoted a writing from Engels in 1891:

"First. If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."

Ken added after the quotation:

The democratic republic and the administration of things are the lower and higher phases of communist society, so they cannot both administer society's affairs at the very same time. A society is either stateless or it isn't, but it can't be both at the same time.

Dave responded:

Ken you have only answered the question (of whether anything Marx or Engles wrote showed that SIU would be unworkable) if we accept that Marx and Engles were religious figures and that every word from their writings is in and of itself true and accurate dogma.

I have already quoted from Engles where he says that the state should be abolished, essentially as soon as possible, but possibly as long as in the time that it takes an entire new generation of people to come of age. (From Engles' 1891 writing on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune)

What you are telling me Ken is that you believe that because Engles in 1890 wrote what you quoted above that that writing in and of itself "shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work"

Why? Because Engles said it? No, he did not even say that did he Ken?

Engels THOUGHT that socialism may take as long as a generation to implement - according to Ken - this proves that Socialism cannot be implemented before that time.

To which Ken responds:

You don't show much intent to discuss what Engels DID write, i.e., 'the democratic republic would be the form of the proletarian dictatorship'. That dictatorship was to be a STATE, not a classless and stateless administration of things, and a timeline for the DYING OUT of that state was never established, except that its dissolution was predicated on the abolition of class distinctions. Obsolete as it might be, that happens to be the Marxist theory of how the state was to evolve into a classless stateless administration of things.

There are two major ways to abolish class distinctions: 1) Abolish private ownership of the means of production, or 2) Make the proletariat as free of labor and toil as the bourgeoisie, which would pretty well eliminate the main distinction between those 2 classes. Though Marx is well known for advocating #1, he also toyed with #2 in his 'Wage Labour and Capital' pamphlet.

Dave responds:

Again we go back to Ken’s notion that Engels was a religious figure. He wrote something on socialism in the context of the nineteenth century and it is doctrine 115 years later. Remember this whole discussion was about me asking Ken if there was something that Marx or Engels wrote that showed that SIU would be unworkable. Ken is lost on the distinction that while Engels did not advocate SIU, Ken has shown us nothing after repeated inquiry to show us what Marx or Engels wrote that would show that SIU would be impractical.

But Ken again insists that because Engels wrote something – it is gospel. Engels envisioned the possibility of a transition period between capitalism and socialism. Ken converts the envisioning of a possibility into a requirement – and according to Ken the state MUST exist during this period – it can’t be the SIU itself – oh no – that would violate Engelian prophesy.

In 1884 Engels wrote Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. He wrote of the state:

(The state) it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of "order"; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.

In that same work Engels also wrote of the state:

The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

Dave

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 02:06 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

"Also I don't see anything (in Ken’s quotations from Marx and Engels) that says that the state can't be revoked concurrent with the establishment of SIU."

Ken responded:

How about Engels' well-known statement: "The state is not abolished. It dies out." What does 'the state is not abolished' mean? Does it mean that 'the state is abolished'?

Dave responded:
What you are telling me Ken is that you believe that because Engles in 1890 wrote what you quoted above that that writing in and of itself "shows us that SIU (a proposed stateless democratic workers cooperative) cannot work"

Why? Because Engles said it? No, he did not even say that did he Ken?

Engels THOUGHT that socialism may take as long as a generation to implement - according to Ken - this proves that Socialism cannot be implemented before that time.

Ken now writes:

What do you mean by 'according to Ken'? Your 'socialism in a generation' is YOUR ridiculous idea, not mine. This discussion is in trouble because you have a BIG accuracy problem. You shoot from the hip quite often, though you are nowhere nearly as accomplished a shooter as any of the Magnificent 7.

Dave replies:

I clearly stated that ENGELS thought that socialism may take a generation after the end of capitalism. What I imputed to you was the notion that just because either Marx or Engles wrote something that it is gospel – if you missed that point I aplogoze that I didn't make it clearer to you.

Dave

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 02:08 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

“I also asked of Ken: Were there historical developments after Marx and Engles went to the great section meeting in the sky that necessarily force a reinterpretation of what they wrote, to the effect that SIU cannot work? To which Ken responded: "No, there were no earth-shaking developments or events that could show anyone a method of quickly abolishing the state, not even the advent of industrial unions, which corresponded to vertical monopoly ownership of industries.”

“Ken agrees that there were no developments that force a reinterpretation of Marx and Engels."

Ken responds:

That's not at all what I wrote or implied…

But Ken previously said:

I didn't avoid your question. I answered it in my own way by showing how the SIU became known to the world only after both M+E died. So, how could M+E have critiqued that specific idea? Do you think they should have dreamt it up and critiqued it before they died?

Ken writes:

That's not at all what I wrote or implied. I have consistently argued for examining Marxism with the aim of negating notions of 'replacing existing states with a universal proletarian dictatorship', which only applied to the seemingly very real possibility (in Marx's thru Lenin's day) of replacing a mass of European monarchies with a universal proletarian dictatorship.

Dave responds:

I first asked Ken if anything Marx or Engels wrote, per se, showed that SIU would be unworkable.. Concurrently I asked if there were any historical developments since the deaths of Marx and Engels that force such a meaning on their writings. No – still nothing from Ken on this score. He thinks it that it is significant that HE consistently argues for examining Marxism in a way that comports with his preconceptions – but no historical development is cited.

I would argue that our experiences with the different malignant forms of the state since the time of Marx and Engels reinforces the idea that the state ought to be gotten rid of immediately upon the demise of capitalism.

Dave

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 04:33 am Post subject:

Ken quotes Dave:

"Then we go to Ken's other objection, that SIU is based upon a lie by Comrade Petersen. But nothing there, either. Even Ken admits that Petersen wasn't in the picture in 1905 when SIU was developed and essentially became THE goal of the SLP."

Ken then states:

I never claimed that 'the SIU was based on Petersen's lies.'

But Ken previously wrote:

SLP members never got an appreciation for what the Marxist theory of the state really was, because A.P. never presented it.

Ken also previously wrote:

I have not been advocating 'replacing the SIU with Marx's proletarian dictatorship'. I've mainly been exposing the folly of believing that 'Marx's proletarian dictatorship was over the peasantry.' Let's not make the mistake in thinking that either of our perspectives on the proletarian dictatorship is more important than Petersen's, because Petersen's perspective still rules the ideology of practically all SLP members and sympathizers. So, it remains of highest importance that Petersen's errant theories be fully understood.

Ken also previously wrote:

On the basis of history alone, Petersen's proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' could be rejected as pure bunk. Who would want to adhere to a theory that was long ago directly debunked in Marx's Conspectus of Bakunin's 'Statehood and Anarchy'? While debating an SLP sympathizer at the WSM forum back in Feb., I pressured him to choose between Petersen's version of the proletarian dictatorship vs. Marx's version, and of course the loyalist chose to adhere to Petersen's version (after WEEKS of trying to get him to choose). The decision didn't seem easy for him, but choosing Petersen's version meant continuing the usual justification for rejecting Marx's proletarian dictatorship in advanced countries like the USA. But, it also meant that the sympathizer embraced Petersen's lies instead of the historical truth.

Ken also wrote:

it remains of highest importance that Petersen's errant theories be fully understood. Interest among sympathizers and members in discussing Petersen's theories should be created somehow. Otherwise, the SLP will continue to spin its wheels, and will continue to decline into oblivion. A totally useless theory will not resurrect the SLP, and yet Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program.

Ken also wrote:

It isn't 'capitalism' that gets reformed; LAWS get reformed and replaced. Whoever fed us the concept 'reform capitalism' deserves to be shot for spreading confusion, just the way Petersen should be exhumed and shot for putting a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the PEASANTRY' into Marx's mouth.

Ken also wrote:

They refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them BY SHOWING HOW BADLY THEY’S BEEN LIED TO, but I now realize that such a task is impossible. (emphasis added)

But now Ken tells us:

Petersen was limited to lying about Marxism, and then showing how well the SIU was justified by his phony version of Marxism.

Ken also writes:

I labored for the SLP in real ignorance during the years 1972-6, until the accelerating research I was doing finally PROVED beyond the shadow of a doubt that the party program was so weak that the only option Petersen had, if he were to try to reconcile the SIU with Marxism, was to lie about what Marxism really was.

Dave wrote:

"Ken, you would not have gotten into the party if you had stated any reservations what-so-ever about the SIU program. As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only impeaches you as an honorable person."

And Ken responded:

Just how low do you intend to go? I already explained the circumstances under which I joined, and they didn't include 'false pretenses'. I was hoping that further exposure to the SIU would draw me closer to it.

Ken quotes Dave:

"It's funny, of the dozens and dozens of people whom I was personally acquainted with who knew Comrade Petersen and his writings and the writing of Marx and Engles you are the first person to even suggest that he was not a 100% honest individual. Believe me, there were many other criticisms of him so if they had thought that he had lied, I am quite sure they would have said so."

And then Ken responds:

The unanimity of belief in Petersen's alleged honesty is very common among SIU advocates. After all, it would be a bad reflection on SIU advocates if Petersen were to be convicted of the crime of lying about something …

Dave comments:

Go back and read what I said. Many people did not like Petersen, or putting it mildly, were not fond of him. I have heard of all manner of complaints about him – but no one ever complained that he was not a 100% honest individual. That is quite different than your overblown statement of unanimity of belief.

Do I "believe" in Petersen's honesty (alleged or real)? Ken seems to think that just because people do not jump onto his bandwagon that they all have blinders on and ONLY he is blessed with being able to see THE TRUTH. I have no belief in Petersen's honesty one way or the other. Nothing that I think relies in any way on any statement of fact by Petersen. What I am saying is that of all the People besides yourself who actually, knew Petersen I never heard anyone say that he was not honest - that does not give me cause to "believe" in his honesty. It does give me reason to discount what you say especially when this great lie of your has never been proved - that apparently Petersen, with an intent to deceive the entire party and the entire working class attributed to Marx the idea that dictatorship of the proletariat apparently applied exclusively to the peasantry.

Ken quotes Dave:

"And there is certainly nothing that you have presented to make me believe that Comrade Petersen lied in any of the matters that you refer to. So if you have an opinion different than someone else’s, that makes them a liar? Not in my book."

Ken responds:

How do you know that 'Petersen did not lie' if you constantly refuse to examine Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx?

Dave responds:

That’s it? “Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx?” This is the big lie that you uncovered? And the FACT that Petersen told this whopper of course can only lead up to the conclusion PROVED beyond the shadow of a doubt (in Ken's mind anyway) that the party program was so weak that the only option Petersen had, if he were to try to reconcile the SIU with Marxism, was to lie about what Marxism really was.

Wow, I'll go right out and burn all my old SLP literature.

So now we get down to it. Let us suppose that Petersen actually did think that the SIU program was so weak that he had to lie about it. Ken actually believes that:

"Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program."

Dave responds:

The nub of the SLP's program is SIU. SIU is what I advocate - to that extent the SLP's program and my own are identical. Even though I was in the party for a spell I really never made a study on the question of to what extent others in the party based their own commitment to SIU based solely upon what Arnold Petersen had written. However I never saw any evidence of it. To me SIU was always adequately supported without resort to any writing of Arnold Petersen (whose writings I always thought were of no value).

So as usual your premises are way off.

Dave

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 05:03 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

“…given all of the SLP's other shenanigans, such as De Leon and Vogt publishing a poorly translated and totally unauthorized pirate edition of Engels' "Socialism: Utopia to Science" pamphlet some months prior to the publication of the authorized Aveling translation, which may have resulted in Engels losing some pamphlet sales.”

Dave asked for documentation.

The ONLY documentation of this is Ken’s citation of footnotes:

(MEW 38, Note #238, p. 610): "The Socialist Labor Party of North America had, in 1891, without Engels' knowledge, published his paper "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissensschaft" {"The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science"} in the weekly "The People". As can be seen from Friedrich Adolph Sorge's letters to Engels of October 9 and 12, 1891, Engels' paper was translated by De Leon and H. Vogt, (obviously from the German edition of 1883); it was also to be published as a pamphlet."

(MEW 38, Note #238, p. 610): "The Socialist Labor Party of North America had, in 1891, without Engels' knowledge, published his paper "Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissensschaft" {"The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science"} in the weekly "The People". As can be seen from Friedrich Adolph Sorge's letters to Engels of October 9 and 12, 1891, Engels' paper was translated by De Leon and H. Vogt, (obviously from the German edition of 1883); it was also to be published as a pamphlet."

Dave responds

"Ken quotes from footnotes that appear from some where, but nothing in the footnotes actually ties the translation to DeLeon."

Ken responds:

How long has your vision been impaired? I quoted: ""Engels refers to a translation by De Leon and Vogt which was published by the Socialist Workers' Party of America." {Note by Progress Publishers. It should have read: "Socialist Labor Party". The SWP was organized decades later."

Dave responds:

Thank you for enquiring about my eyesight Ken. But you still miss the point. Sure, the footnotes say what you state that they did – but the point is, the footnotes do not support the fact that is alleged. Where did the person writing the footnote get the information – how is the translation attributed to Vogt and DeLeon - especially when DeLeon was not made editor until 1892 or 1893?

Dave

Posted: 26 Mar 2005 02:50 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote to Dave: "How do you know that 'Petersen did not lie' if you constantly refuse to examine Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx?"

Mike: "For a statement to be a lie, the statement must be false, and the writer must know that his statement is false. Research can determine if a statement is false. I don't think there's any way to know whether the writer knew at the time that he was writing a statement that was false."

OK, one step at a time. Is Mike brave enough to admit that 'attributing a proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry to Marx' was a mistake? Or, are you going to sit on that fence forever? If brave enough to take one bold step, you would suffer the consequence of no longer being able to claim that 'the relative absence of an American peasantry obviates Marx's proletarian dictatorship in the USA'. Then other reasons for choosing the SIU over Marx's proletarian dictatorship might have to be discovered or bolstered.

Mike: "I think the word "lie" should be avoided, since only a mind-reader could know whether someone who makes an incorrect statement knew that his statement was incorrect."

Petersen attributed a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to both Marx and Lenin. Doubt about deceptive intent shouldn't have to linger for very long in anyone's mind, because Petersen backed up his claim with a quote from Lenin, which can be found without too much trouble in Lenin's pamphlet entitled "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky". The quote can then be checked for proper context. If Petersen made something out of Lenin's words that Lenin PLAINLY didn't intend, then Petersen would be guilty of lying. This issue is carefully documented at: http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partb.html

In Lenin's anti-Kautsky pamphlet, did Lenin really pin the necessity of a proletarian dictatorship on the presence of a large peasantry? Or, was Lenin refuting Kautsky's interpretation of the Soviet government as a 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie'?

In his 1931 pamphlet entitled "Proletarian Democracy vs. Dictatorships and Despotism", A.P. quoted Lenin: "if Kautsky still remembered it, he could not have denied the need for a proletarian dictatorship in a country in which the small peasant producer is predominant."

A.P. then concluded: "The logic of this statement is that in a country where this peasantry is conspicuous by its complete absence, where, in short, the fact of complete industrialization, even of agriculture, is so obvious as to impress itself upon the dullest intellect - that in such a country there is no need of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the contemporaneous sense of continental Europe of 1871 or Russia of 1917."

But, was 'the logic of Lenin's statement' REALLY that 'a large peasantry necessitates a proletarian dictatorship'? I was shocked when I finally found that quote in the 45 volumes of Lenin's Collected Works, because Lenin wasn't AT ALL talking about what A.P. said he was.

Kautsky had written a pamphlet entitled "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". His data indicated an effective 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie' instead of a 'PROLETARIAN dictatorship over the bourgeoisie'. In rebuttal, Lenin argued that the USSR was indeed a PROLETARIAN dictatorship, not a PEASANT dictatorship. Beside that, the fact that the peasants historically vacillated between the proletariat and bourgeoisie taught Lenin the need for a PROLETARIAN dictatorship.

While doing the research for his 1931 pamphlet, could A.P. have possibly avoided detecting the fact that Lenin observed a PROLETARIAN dictatorship in Russia vs. Kautsky's PEASANT dictatorship? If I was able to figure out what Lenin was talking about, then a political party leader should have been able to figure it out as well, because my personal history didn't include anywhere near the scholarship to be expected of a top party leader. What made that phrase so appealing to A.P. was that Lenin phrased his words just the right way to entice illegally borrowing them to create a false impression of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'. Then the dearth of American peasants could be used as an argument against using a proletarian dictatorship in a country as devoid of a peasantry as the USA. Such is the essence of A.P.'s lie, at least that one particular lie. The material cannot be studied without having to conclude that 'Petersen lied INTENTIONALLY about the meaning of Marx's proletarian dictatorship, as a cheap and dirty trick to steer readers away from using Marx's proletarian dictatorship in the USA.' Anyone who wades through the material here and at the web site, and still thinks that 'Petersen didn't intentionally lie' is no better than an apologist for a liar. This issue is so clear cut that there can be no gray area.

Mike: "There are some incorrect statements in SLP literature. (I'm not sure if they came from Petersen.) For example, some SLP articles have said that Gotha Programme contains the only Marx-Engels use of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", and now that nearly the complete works of M&E are in electronic form, searches show the phrase in a few other places."

Yes, the late Hal Draper documented M+E using "proletarian dictatorship" about 9 or 10 times, which can easily be corroborated by searching the CD of Collected Works. The obscure term 'dictature' also shows up at least once.

Mike: "I don't think that was a lie. I think it was an error."

My experience is that the gross intellectual dishonesty of this political sector prevents any one of its members from having anything at all proven to them, so I may have wasted my words once again. -KE

Posted: 26 Mar 2005 03:33 pm Post subject:

I don't now what Marx thought about peasants. That may be because, if I were reading Marx and came across a reference to peasants, I would start quickly skipping ahead in the reading until I was once again in the midst of a subject that I consider relevant.

I do now that reading plain words can leave a reader with an interpretation opposite to what was written. Countless millions of people are ready to kill other people for Jesus, which is their interpretation of the words "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies." If human beings have that degree of reading deficiency, there's no telling what SLP personnel might have interpreted to be Marx's viewpoint about a good proletarian policy toward peasants.

SLP writers made up their own interpretation of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", which may be very different from M&E's use of the phrase. The SLP has always regarded Marx as the author of something that was complete and readily applicable regarding some topics, but in several other areas, a developer of primitive science, blinded by his misfortune of having lived before De Leon's revelations.

It's not even clear to me what M&E meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat", since it was really Louis Blanc's phrase, which M&E occasionally quoted. It might have been a tongue-in-cheek use of someone else's phrase, as when modern people repeat phrases like "politically correct" or "it's the economy, stupid."

To me, "dictatorship of the proletariat" means when the socialist movement acquires political power and uses the coercive agencies of the state (police and military) to enforce socialism against insurrection by the loyalists of capitalism. It consider it to be a necessary step. I think this phase would have to last for a duration of probably three or four days. If people in the SLP think it will be unnecessary, then I disagree with them. I think De Leon was nearsighted when he made his famous "sine die" remark, implying that socialists would take control of Congress and also abolish the Congress on the same day.

Posted: 26 Mar 2005 10:01 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

My experience is that the gross intellectual dishonesty of this political sector prevents any one of its members from having anything at all proven to them, so I may have wasted my words once again.

Dave replies:

There being a sufficient quantity of Ken Ellis words and Dave Searles words available to the seventh generation, you or I never have to worry about wasting our words, Ken.

That you may include me in a group that you believe all of its members to be "intellectually dishonest," puts a smile on my face. That you think you are incapable of proving anything to anyone of the group - you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Maybe if you improved your presentation and reined in the hyperbole a little, people (even in this group of misanthropes) just might find what you have to say of some interest.

Now I want to ask you, Ken about the great lie -

Apparently you doing study sometime in the late 70s came upon facts that led you believe that the facts that you were perceiving led you to one conclusion and that Comrade Petersen presumably from those same facts wrote something so different from what you perceived to be true that you assumed not only that a reasonable person could not have come to conclusions similar to Comrade Petersen's, but that for a person to write the conclusions that Comrade Peterson wrote, those conclusions necessarily would be a "lie".

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was a lie?

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was inaccurate?

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was not supported by the facts available at the time?

Dave

Posted: 26 Mar 2005 10:59 pm Post subject:

Dave: "What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was a lie?"

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion.

Dave: "What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was inaccurate?"

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion.

Dave: "What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was not supported by the facts available at the time?"

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion, but I have no idea just how the members reacted to the pamphlet when it first came out in 1931. A search for Petersen's pamphlet yielded only 13 hits on the internet, and no site but mine is critical. But, who knows what kind of buzz would have been generated if the internet had been available in 1931?

OK, Mr. Intellectually Dishonest, What the devil is keeping you from looking at THE ACTUAL ISSUE of Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx, and providing us with an opinion of PRECISELY THAT, instead of creating a scad of opinions about the mentality of Petersen's critics? You have no idea how well you've been trained to be perfectly vacuous about real issues, and to always change the issue around to something that is totally irrelevant to the task of helping workers understand real issues. -KE

Posted: 27 Mar 2005 12:26 am Post subject:

I just remembered something that I hadn't thought about in a long time ... I recall the SLP asserting that "dictatorship of the proletariat" was an idea that applied to an age before fully-developed capitalism, but no longer applies now that fully-developed capitalism is here. Ken, is this the Petersen assertion that you're referring to? If so, then I would agree that this doesn't come anywhere from Marx. As to whether the SLP falsely attributed it to Marx, or whether the SLP thought that the ambiguity and incompleteness inherent in Marx was wide enough to cover it, I don't know.

You don't have to keep saying that people in the De Leonist sector are too stubborn to admit certain things. I'm telling you the honest truth: I have been trying to understand you for a long time, and I am genuinely confused about what you're telling us. Okay, I'm dense, but I'm not as a matter of principle hesitant to find fault with Petersen or the other SLP maharishis. Perhaps if you found another way to rephrase what you're saying, I have better comprehension.

Posted: 27 Mar 2005 02:03 am Post subject:

Ken wrote to Dave: "How do you know that 'Petersen did not lie' if you constantly refuse to examine Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx?"

My three questions to Ken:

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was a lie?

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was inaccurate?

What is the earliest documentation that you know of, of anyone expressing the opinion that what Comrade Petersen wrote on this specific subject was not supported by the facts available at the time?

Ken's answers:

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion.

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion.

I've seen no evidence of anyone else bothering to critique A.P. in a systematic fashion, but I have no idea just how the members reacted to the pamphlet when it first came out in 1931. A search for Petersen's pamphlet yielded only 13 hits on the internet, and no site but mine is critical. But, who knows what kind of buzz would have been generated if the internet had been available in 1931.

Dave responds:

No idea. I can see that.

Such a lie such as that and no one either in the party or not took advantage of the opportunity to expose Petersen as the great liar that he was. He was a slick devil wasn't he?

Such a lie as that and not detectable to anyone except through systematically fashioned critique. Diabolical, truly.

Mr. Intellectually Dishonest a.k.a. Dave

Posted: 27 Mar 2005 02:12 am Post subject:

Ken wrote to Dave:

OK, Mr. Intellectually Dishonest, What the devil is keeping you from looking at THE ACTUAL ISSUE of Petersen's attribution ...

Dave writes:

In honor of Ken I have decided to adopt a new screen name for myself for this topic:

"Mr. ID"

Posted: 27 Mar 2005 03:48 am Post subject:

Ken wrote these gems at his website entilted:

Left Wing Lies!!!

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/parte.html

Mainsprings of human progress will not be found in a state ownership model, nor in an anarchist 'replacement of the state with an administration of things', nor in any other scenario that includes the forceful abolition of private property. It may very well be time for a post-Marxist synthesis which recognizes that, in a republic, democracy can be welcomed as an opportunity for lower classes to wield influence, if only they had a party that represented their interests, and if the party wasn't encumbered with the kind of confusion that results from program elements like 'expropriation of the rich', or the 'abolition of the state'.

And:

Capitalist economic freedom (rather than dictatorship) makes sense as a free market in which consumers and producers freely produce, buy and sell anything they want. The idea of the free marketplace is an indispensable part of capitalist ideology: The fewer the impediments to the flow of money and commodities, then the better the economy is considered to be working. So, how can anyone make sense out of an 'economic dictatorship'? It sounds almost like a system in which workers have to wait in long lines for hours on end to buy a loaf of bread, as in the old Soviet Bloc.

Mr. ID observes:

I do belive that our dear Mr. Ellis is a Republican!

Henceforth I shall refer to him as Mr. GOP!!

Mr. ID (Dave)

Posted: 27 Mar 2005 03:03 pm Post subject:

Also go to Mr. GOP's (Ken's) website:

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/index.html

with the main heading:

"Welcome! This web site is designed to help people
understand why the traditional versions of socialism,
communism and anarchism didn't conquer the world
of ideas, and to help people find fresh inspiration with:

LIBERATION CAPITALISM"

Also of interest is the description of his discussion
group at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/commondiscussion/

Description:

"Common Discussion is open to all who would like to
discuss politics, especially from a progressive point of
view. Discussion is especially encouraged on the
inadequacies of 19th century modes of social change
such as revolution, and on the effects of the ongoing
technological revolution on past modes of struggle."

Mr. ID responds:

Now I can see why Mr. GOP now says that he really
never believed that much in SIU. A mid-life
conversion to a more lucrative ideology no doubt.

But notice - Mr. GOP refers to "revolution" as:
an inadequate 19th century mode of social change,
but in the very same breath he talks about the
"effects of the ongoing technological revolution!!

I have always had this queer idea that revolutions in
the process of wealth production necessarily alter
the foundations of society as a whole. The only
question that seems open to me is when that revolution
will occur in the minds of the majority of the actual wealth
producers.

Oh well.

Happy Easter everyone from a slowly
thawing Vermont where last week the first bunch of
crocuses were in in blossom on a south facing
bank in Rutland.

All power to the SIU!

signed:

Mr. ID (Dave) (Who according to Mr. GOP has been trained
to be perfectly vacuous about real issues, and to always
change the issue around to something that is totally irrelevant
to the task of helping workers understand real issues.

(which is why I deviously raised the issue of the crocuses)

Posted: 28 Mar 2005 12:36 am Post subject:

Mike: "I recall the SLP asserting that "dictatorship of the proletariat" was an idea that applied to an age before fully-developed capitalism, but no longer applies now that fully-developed capitalism is here. Ken, is this the Petersen assertion that you're referring to?"

No, that one is new to me.

Mike: "If so, then I would agree that this doesn't come anywhere from Marx. As to whether the SLP falsely attributed it to Marx, or whether the SLP thought that the ambiguity and incompleteness inherent in Marx was wide enough to cover it, I don't know."

Like I say, that isn't my issue, so speculation would be tangential. What interests me is whether anyone lied in the service of attracting people to the SIU by steering them away from Marx's proletarian dictatorship.

Mike: "You don't have to keep saying that people in the De Leonist sector are too stubborn to admit certain things. I'm telling you the honest truth: I have been trying to understand you for a long time, and I am genuinely confused about what you're telling us. Okay, I'm dense, but I'm not as a matter of principle hesitant to find fault with Petersen or the other SLP maharishis. Perhaps if you found another way to rephrase what you're saying, I have better comprehension."

You got very close to the mark last time when you were on the fence about agreeing that Petersen was wrong to attribute a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx (and Lenin). Today, however, you seem to be backtracking into vaguities. All that's needed (as a first step) is to agree or disagree that 'Petersen was wrong to attribute a proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry to Marx (and Lenin).' Then we could go from there. Dave could do the same thing. -KE

Posted: 28 Mar 2005 04:31 am Post subject:

Mr. GOP previously wrote:

Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program.

Mr. ID responds:

You have not shown this to be the case for the SLP anymore. Additionally there are no facts from which to conclude that any of Petersen's writings mean anything to anyone in this venue.

Now Mr. GOP writes:

All that's needed (as a first step) is to agree or disagree that 'Petersen was wrong to attribute a proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry to Marx (and Lenin).' Then we could go from there.

Mr. ID responds:

As a first step? You must be joking. You have already indicted and convicted (several times) everyone and anyone who now advocates SIU as sucking up to the ghost of Arnold Petersen.

You say you started your systematic study on this issue almost 30 years ago - don't you realize that before you can judge Petersen a liar or even wrong, you have to go back into the writings of the time and see what other writers thought on this same topic? Legitimate historical analysis requires at least that.

Mr. ID

Posted: 28 Mar 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote on 10/26/04:

"(Arnold) Petersen's possible uncertainties about the revolutionary propensities of the Russian peasantry have nothing to do with his credibility. Petersen's credibility was destroyed when he used a few words from Lenin out of context. While Lenin was counterpoising his 'PROLETARIAN dictatorship over the bourgeoisie' to Kautsky's 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie', Petersen seized upon a snippet of text to illegally make Lenin appear to be advocating a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry in a country in which small peasant producers predominate.' That was a very dishonest thing for Petersen to foist on SLP members, as well as foist on the world

Mr. ID writes:

Doing just a quick search on Google I found at least one writer seemingly stating that dictatorship of the proletariet applied to the peasants among others:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/works/1926/09/peasants_dictatorship.htm

From an article by Antonio Gramsci in 1926:

"There exist today in Russia socialist elements which are preponderant, and elements of petty-bourgeois economy which theoretically can develop, just as theoretically the socialist elements which existed in Italy before fascism could develop. But in Italy the proletariat has not conquered State power. The old capitalist organization, at a certain moment, put an end to the concessions it had made to the cooperatives, the unions, the socialist local councils: i.e. to the working class. In Russia, the working class in power - the working class which regulates and manages the essential parts of the national economy, the control-levers of the whole economic structure of Russian society - has made and does make concessions: not to the old society of the capitalists and big landowners, which was overthrown arms in hand and has been stripped of all property and all political rights, but to the peasant masses from whom theoretically the new capitalism could emerge.

And:

"What is essential for the policies of the working class in Russia is that the central mass of peasants, through legislative provision, should achieve the results which the workers' State proposes: i.e. should become the basis for the formation of national savings which will serve to sustain the general apparatus of production in the hands of the working class, allowing this apparatus not just to maintain itself, but to develop. There does, however, exist this 4 or 5 per cent which develops beyond the limits foreseen by the legislation of the workers' State. And in a country like Russia, where the peasant masses represent a population of 100 million inhabitants, this 4 or 5 per cent becomes a social force - which can appear quite massive - of 4 or 5 million inhabitants. But if the working class, which in Russia today numbers at least 20 million inhabitants, retains its links to the great mass of peasants, which numbers scores of millions, the figure represented by the enemies of socialism is reduced to its just proportions in the overall picture, and the relatively peaceful victory of the socialist forces over the capitalist forces is ensured. We say relatively peaceful, because in fact in Russia the prisons are in the hands of the workers, the courts are in the hands of the workers, the police is in the hands of the workers, the army is in the hands of the workers. In other words, in Russia there exists a dictatorship of the proletariat, a socialist element which we are so foolish as to judge just a tiny bit more important than it is judged to be by the friends of the Perrone brothers, of Max Bondi, of Count Matarazzo and of Commander Pecoraino!"

Mr. ID asks of Mr. GOP:

Was Antonio Gramsci also a liar?

Mr. ID

Posted: 28 Mar 2005 03:42 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID states:

Just so we remember what is going on here:

Arnold Petersen and the SLP and any advocate of SIU that I have ever spoken to have maintained that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not something that ought to be established in the US. That it is not a prerequiste to the workers establishing the Cooperative Industrial Government of Labor over the means of production.

I think it is safe to say that we believe that the industries of this country, and practically over all of the world now are sufficiently developed that when the SIU is established there would be no need for the state.

Mr. GOP believes that Petersen's statements concerning what Lenin wrote on dictatorship of the proletariat were flawed.

Mr. GOP also stated (10/17/04)

"I may have seemed to be reacting to 'SLP inflexibility and dogmatism' many years ago, but a party that would propagate and defend a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' has problems that go deeper than mere dogmatism and inflexibility."

Mr. ID asks:

Does this mean that the purpose of Mr. GOP's remarks are to instead advocate the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat in this country (a country with essentially no peasant class) prior to the workers establishing the Cooperative Industrial Government of Labor over the means of production?

Mr. GOP states at his website:

"this web resource is designed to help progressive activists find a program that makes sense for modern democracies. Expropriatory ideologies have faded, leaving an ideological vacuum."

And:

"anarchist revolutionaries would 'abolish the state (or political government) upon victory, common interests to be overseen by a classless, stateless, and non-political workers' organization'."

Mr. ID comments:

From this and other statements at his website, Mr. GOP apparently refers to all who advocate a classless, stateless, and non-political workers' organization as the basis of society as Anarchists.

From there he proceeds:

Anarchist ideology is no more useful to workers today...

Mr. GOP without reference stated at his website:

Marx looked to a revolution occurring in Russia, which event was expected to spark more revolutions in Europe; and so it happened in 1917, though the lesser revolutions in Europe soon reversed themselves. The fact that Europe did not go communist before the less-developed countries of the world shows that Marx's theories had to have been fatally flawed right from the beginning...

Mr. GOP stated here (10/31/2004):

Marx's dictatorship over the bourgoisie can be defended against Petersen's warped dictatorship without having to advocate Marx's dictatorship, which recently was irrevocably proven obsolete. Marx's revolutionary goal for the most developed countries was plausible for a span of about 70 years, between 1848 and 1917, but faded after Europe failed to support the Bolshevik revolution with a sweeping European revolution.

Mr. GOP stated (10/31/04):

I have not been advocating 'replacing the SIU with Marx's proletarian dictatorship'. I've mainly been exposing the folly of believing that 'Marx's proletarian dictatorship was over the peasantry.'

Mr. ID states:

Mr. GOP is not in favor of "a classless, stateless, and non-political workers' organization" in any form as the basis of society with or without a preceding dictatorship of the proletariet. He is instead in in favor of maintaining Capitalism.

I just wanted no one to become confused into thinking that Mr. GOP was advocating socialism as any of us understands the term. Mr. GOP believes that current Capitalism ought to chug right along with the means of production operating for profit instead of human need, with the means of production held as private property by the capitalist class. He believes that somehow, some way under capitalism industry is going to become so advanced that little robots will make everything that WE need, including more little robots thereby nullifying the need for labor or the exploitation of labor. WE should not advocate for SIU before that time. Capitalism will bring this all about .

Do you or your children do not have proper medical care? Don't have decent housing? etc. Tell them about the robots. The robots are coming to help them. Doctor robots. House building robots. Land creating robots. on and on. Don't worry until then. Don't starve until then, find sustainence in the idea that the robots are coming. Don't be homeless until then, reside in the idea of the robots. Don't sell your soul to the credit card companies until then, charge everything to the idea that the robots are coming. . Just keep saying the robots are coming. The robots are coming. All is well becuase the robots are coming to help us! Mr. GOP told us that the robots are coming to help us!

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 06:16 pm Post subject:

Dave: "What I am saying is that of all the People besides yourself who actually, knew Petersen I never heard anyone say that he was not honest - that does not give me cause to "believe" in his honesty."

I met Petersen the year before he died, so I 'knew' Petersen too. At that particular time, I don't remember having a strong opinion of him, except of having been rather disappointed with his "Marxism vs. Soviet Despotism" pamphlet. But, I was just as willing to blame myself for my inability to read it with the glee with which I read many other SLP pamhlets, such as 'Two Pages From Roman History'.

Dave: "It does give me reason to discount what you say especially when this great lie of yours has never been proved - that apparently Petersen, with an intent to deceive the entire party and the entire working class attributed to Marx the idea that dictatorship of the proletariat apparently applied exclusively to the peasantry."

Whaddaya mean by 'Petersen's lie has never been proved'? Did he not take words from Lenin out of context in order to help attribute a bizarre 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx and Lenin?

Dave responds: "That's it? "Petersen's attribution of a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx?" This is the big lie that you uncovered?"

That same lying proposition supposedly enables Americans to reject the proletarian dictatorship in favor of the SIU.

Dave: "Ken actually believes that: "Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program."

Dave responds: "The nub of the SLP's program is SIU. SIU is what I advocate - to that extent the SLP's program and my own are identical."

I was opining on the JUSTIFICATIONS for the SLP's program, not its 'nub'. Please try to get things straight. You grab onto suspected weak points and jump all over them, but your half-baked methods discredit you.

Dave: "Even though I was in the party for a spell I really never made a study on the question of to what extent others in the party based their own commitment to SIU based solely upon what Arnold Petersen had written. However I never saw any evidence of it. To me SIU was always adequately supported without resort to any writing of Arnold Petersen (whose writings I always thought were of no value). So as usual your premises are way off."

Petersen's 'Proletarian Democracy vs. Dictatorships and Despotism' pamphlet was a totally dishonest attempt to reconcile the SIU with Marxism and Leninism, something that was never before attempted in SLP literature with any degree of rigor. The bulk of my internet book deals with the many, many lies Petersen told while trying to reconcile the SIU with Marxism.

Dave responds to the piracy issue: "Sure, the footnotes say what you state that they did - but the point is, the footnotes do not support the fact that is alleged. Where did the person writing the footnote get the information - how is the translation attributed to Vogt and DeLeon - especially when DeLeon was not made editor until 1892 or 1893?"

Do you want to use the fact that 'De Leon did not become editor until 1892' as the proof that HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE PARTY UNTIL THEN? Omigod. What an argument. The Workmen's Advocate (the forerunner to the People) somewhat illuminated De Leon's career with the SLP, and here's where De Leon becomes OFFICIALLY involved:

"The January 10, 1891 edition of the Workmen's Advocate reported that the New York Section had been reorganized, and that, during the election of officers, De Leon had been elected as "Agent". ... The January 24 edition reported that De Leon would tour the country for the Party, speaking in English."

Engels didn't complain about the translation of his 'Socialism: Utopia to Science' pamphlet until September 30, 1891. Don't you think that De Leon had time to translate 'Socialism: Utopia to Science' between his January 'agent' election and the reprint's appearance in the late summer edition of the People?

The footnotes and the history certainly do seem quite compatible. I wish there was something I could say that could wake you up. I was awakened by reading the NEC Reports of 1915-35, where Petersen's extreme hostility to thinking, feeling, and sincere members was made perfectly apparent to me at a time when I was desperately seeking causes for the decline of the party. The NEC Reports sank my opinion of Petersen very low, but I had yet to acquire proof of him actually LYING to the party until I took apart his 'Proletarian Democracy vs. Dictatorships and Despotism' pamphlet. If only a way of connecting you to those NEC reports existed. Then you would see for yourself how Petersen operated, and you would be apalled. -KE

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 06:23 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID previously quoted Mr. GOP's statment of 10/26/04:

"(Arnold) Petersen's possible uncertainties about the revolutionary propensities of the Russian peasantry have nothing to do with his credibility. Petersen's credibility was destroyed when he used a few words from Lenin out of context. While Lenin was counterpoising his 'PROLETARIAN dictatorship over the bourgeoisie' to Kautsky's 'PEASANT dictatorship over the bourgeoisie', Petersen seized upon a snippet of text to illegally make Lenin appear to be advocating a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry in a country in which small peasant producers predominate.' That was a very dishonest thing for Petersen to foist on SLP members, as well as foist on the world

Mr. ID writes:

In 1928 Leon Trotsky wrote that the term used by the Bolshevists: "Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasants" in practice meant "dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it", and that this was a basic idea of "Marx and Lenin."

The Permanent Revolution, Chap 10

http://www.internationalist.org/whatis.html

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 08:05 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

Whaddaya mean by 'Petersen's lie has never been proved'? Did he not take words from Lenin out of context in order to help attribute a bizarre 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx and Lenin?

Mr. ID responds:

Comrade Petersen in 1931, Leon Trotsky in 1928 and Antonio Gramsci in 1926 used Lenin's words out of context?

Comrade Petersen's alleged misusage in 1931. Leon Trotsky's in 1928 and Antonio Gramsci's in 1926 must be very very important to Mr. GOP. Because, as we recall, he wrote at his website:

"Marx looked to a revolution occurring in Russia, which event was expected to spark more revolutions in Europe; and so it happened in 1917, though the lesser revolutions in Europe soon reversed themselves. The fact that Europe did not go communist before the less-developed countries of the world shows that Marx's theories had to have been fatally flawed right from the beginning."

According to Mr. GOP:

"Marx's theories had to have been fatally flawed right from the beginning."

Mr. ID observes, well someone's theories have been fatally flawed.

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 08:17 pm Post subject:

Oh back to the important footnotes:

Mr. GOP first asserted that DeLeon and Vogt of the SLP had a pirate edition of Socialism - Utopia to Science published - why because he read it in a footnote to a collection of Marx and Engels works (an unauthorized collection of their works) The author of the footnote gave absolutely no indication of how it was known that it was DeLeon and Vogt as opposed to the litterally hundreds of German speakers available to the Socialistic Labor Party at the time. Mr. GOP in turn reported that piracy here as if it were an established truth that DeLeon and Vogt were responsible. Now Mr. GOP merely says that it could have been DeLeon instead of that it was DeLeon. Most persons consider these to be two different things. Not Mr. GOP.

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 08:36 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote: "Petersen's theories remain the main operable justifications for the SLP's program." And then he partially quoted my response. My full response was:

Mr. ID responded:

Even though I was in the party for a spell I really never made a study on the question of to what extent others in the party based their own commitment to SIU based solely upon what Arnold Petersen had written. However I never saw any evidence of it. To me SIU was always adequately supported without resort to any writing of Arnold Petersen (whose writings I always thought were of no value).

Mr. GOP now states:

I was opining on the JUSTIFICATIONS for the SLP's program, not its 'nub'. Please try to get things straight. You grab onto suspected weak points and jump all over them, but your half-baked methods discredit you.

Mr. ID responds:

I said that while I was in the party that I NEVER SAW ANY EVIDENCE of party members basing their belief solely upon what Petersen had written.

I also stated that to me SIU was always adequately supported without resort to any writing of Arnold Petersen. There is nothing that Mr. GOP has written that shows that SIU is in anyway would lack justification in the absence of any writing of Arnold Petersen.

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID writes: "Doing just a quick search on Google I found at least one writer seemingly stating that dictatorship of the proletariet applied the peasants among others:"

In Russia, and in other developed countries, of course the dictatorship involved the peasants, some going so far as to call it a 'dictatorship of the proletariat AND the peasants'. Just as the anarchists can't distinguish between states that shoot workers and states that shoot bosses, Mr. ID can't distinguish between a 'dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants' and a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasants'. -KE

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 12:10 am Post subject:

Mr. ID asks: "Does this mean that the purpose of Mr. GOP's remarks are to instead advocate the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat in this country prior to the workers establishing the Cooperative Industrial Government of Labor over the means of production?"

Mr. ID gets so few things correct that it probably won't do any good to repeat myself, but I will anyway: I do not advocate replacing democracies with proletarian dictatorships, nor does the SIU make any more sense than trying to establish a proletarian dictatorship. Human labor will soon be abolished, paving the way for the abolition of class distinctions, thereby creating the conditions for a classless and stateless administration of things.

Mr. ID comments: "From this and other statements at his website, Mr. GOP apparently refers to all who advocate a classless, stateless, and non-political workers' organization as the basis of society as Anarchists."

No. Anarchists advocate the abolition of the state prior to the abolition of class distinctions. That being the Marxist test for anarchist ideology, it can be seen that the SIU scheme is nothing better than an anarchist, or an anarcho-syndicalist scheme. Calling the SIU 'socialism' doesn't erase its anarchist origin.

Mr. ID: "Mr. GOP is not in favor of "a classless, stateless, and non-political workers' organization" in any form as the basis of society with or without a preceding dictatorship of the proletariet. He is instead in in favor of maintaining Capitalism."

There's another ill-informed opinion. After the abolition of class distinctions, the 'classless and stateless administration of things' will replace political and class-based democracy. This has been my position for a decade. I've often written about the irony of right-wingers campaigning against Marxist ideas at the same time society relentlessly evolves precisely towards a classless and stateless administration of things. Where Marx went wrong was in including human labor in his vision of a classless and stateless administration of things. The technological revolution, and projections of where it will take us in the future, make it obvious that the future will have no use for human labor.

Mr. ID: "I just wanted no one to become confused into thinking that Mr. GOP was advocating socialism as any of us understands the term. Mr. GOP believes that current Capitalism ought to chug right along with the means of production operating for profit instead of human need, with the means of production held as private property by the capitalist class. He believes that somehow, some way industry is going to become so advanced that little robots will make everything that WE need, including more little robots therby nullifying the need for labor or the expropriation of labor. WE should not advocate for SIU before that time. Capitalism will bring this all about ."

That contains a few half-truths that are not worth separating out from the figments of Mr. ID's over-active imagination. I wonder when he last got anything right.

Mr. ID: "Do you or your children do not have proper medical care? Don't have decent housing? etc. Tell them about the robots. The robots are coming to help them. Doctor robots. House building robots. Land creating robots. on and on. Don't worry until then. Don't starve until then. Don't be evicted until then. Don't sell your soul to the credit card companies until then. Just keep saying the robots are coming. The robots are coming. All is well becuase the robots are coming to help us! Mr. GOP told us that the robots are coming to help us!"

Guess what? The robots are coming. -KE

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 12:35 am Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

In Russia, and in other developed countries, of course the dictatorship involved the peasants, some going so far as to call it a 'dictatorship of the proletariat AND the peasants'. Just as the anarchists can't distinguish between states that shoot workers and states that shoot bosses, Mr. ID can't distinguish between a 'dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants' and a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasants'.

Mr. ID writes:

But Trotsky could:

"Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants."

Mr. ID writes:

The "some" who called it 'dictatorship of the proletariat AND the peasants' included Lenin. However, the context that I read him describing it that was was in 1905 prior to the revolution. Trotsky wrote extensively that in fact it was a dictatorship of the proletariet LEADING the peasants.

Trotsky wrote:

"With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses. "

"Lenin's old formula (dictatorship of Proletariat AND peasants) did not settle in advance the problem of what the reciprocal relations would be between the proletariat and the peasantry within the revolutionary bloc. In other words, the formula deliberately retained a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience. However, the latter showed, and under circumstances that exclude any kind of misinterpretation, that no matter how great the revolutionary role of the peasantry may be, it nevertheless cannot be an independent role and even less a leading one. The peasant follows either the worker or the bourgeois. This means that the `democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry' is only conceivable as a dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it."

" A democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the
dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in the case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petit-bourgeois democracy – a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests – especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years – an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants' party is the petit-bourgeoisie's lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petit-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between two extreme poles. Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants. "

"The Comintern's endeavor to foist upon the Eastern countries the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, finally and long ago exhausted by history, can have only a reactionary effect. Insofar as this slogan is counter posed to the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it contributes politically to the dissolution of the proletariat in the petit-bourgeois masses and thus creates the most favorable conditions for the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie and consequently for the collapse of the democratic revolution. The introduction of this slogan into the programme of the Comintern is a direct betrayal of Marxism and of the October tradition of Bolshevism. "

signed:
Mr. ID

p.s.

All of the quotes from Leon Trotsky are from Chapter 10 of Permanent Revolution found at:

http://www.internationalist.org/whatis.html

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 01:17 am Post subject:

Mr. GOP says that we should not advocate for SIU.

According to Mr. GOP the benevolent robots will create wealth for all of us. So much so that there will be no need for anyone to work.

That, according to Mr. GOP will eliminate class divisions - just like increased productivity to date is tearing down class divisions. (Except between the rich and the poor that is.)

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 02:01 pm Post subject:

It's obvious that Mr. ID's role here is to cast aspersion on ME, as if I wrote the pack of lies that the SLP members must adhere to, or be expelled.

Trotsky (of all people) is quoted at length, as if to lend some credibility to the false notion of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasantry', but Mr. ID never tells us the reason for all of the long Trotsky quotes. Or, maybe he likes to partake in what Stan Karp long ago denigrated as the process of 'reasoning by quotes'.

Mr. ID should tell us of the significance of the hammer and sickle on the old Soviet flag. Did it symbolize a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'? -KE

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 02:13 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

"Anarchists advocate the abolition of the state prior to the abolition of class distinctions. That being the Marxist test for anarchist ideology..."

Mr. ID states:

When Mr. GOP claims Marx as a source for for justifcations would it be too much to ask that he give a citation at least to title and year and with a web address if one is handy?

Is Mr. GOP saying that during the period of "class distictions" it is anarchistic advocate the simultaneous institution of the Industrial Republic of Labor with the dismissal of the state?

Or is Mr. GOP saying that we can advocate it without being anarchists during this period but that it would be anarchistic to actually institute the Industrial Republic of labor with the simultaneous dismissal of the state prior to the end of the period of class distinctions?

In either case it appears that Mr. GOP would have been of the opinion that during the period of chattel slavery it would have been anarchistic to advocate the slaves be recognized as free by society without any compensation to their "owners".

Mr. GOP's website states:

It may very well be time for a post-Marxist synthesis which recognizes that, in a republic, democracy can be welcomed as an opportunity for lower classes to wield influence, if only they had a party that represented their interests, and if the party wasn't encumbered with the kind of confusion that results from program elements like 'expropriation of the rich', or the 'abolition of the state'.

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 03:39 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP writes:

Trotsky (of all people) is quoted at length, as if to lend some credibility to the false notion of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasantry', but Mr. ID never tells us the reason for all of the long Trotsky quotes. Or, maybe he likes to partake in what Stan Karp long ago denigrated as the process of 'reasoning by quotes'.

Mr. ID responds:

Mr. GOP has repeatedly held forth from his position that Comrade Peterson was WRONG to have apparently expressed the view that "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the Soviet Union meant a dictatorship of the proletariat of the peasants over or in leadership of the peasants. Apparently this is one of the "Left Wing Lies" that he writes about in his "book" at: http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/parte.html

As to the "long Trotsky quotes," maybe Mr. GOP missed this point - In Mr. ID's post containing a Trotsky quote (3/29/05 6:23 p.m.) that quote was a short one:

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasants" in practice meant "dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it", and that this was a basic idea of Marx and Lenin."

But then Mr. GOP stated (3/29/2005 11:26 p.m.):

"Mr. ID can't distinguish between a 'dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants' and a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasants'. "

That is when Mr. ID quoted Leon Trotsky more extensively (3/30/05 12:30 a.m. This was done to underscore the idea that he certainly was not taking Leon Trotsky out of context and that writers other than Petersen (and I) could in fact distinguish a combined dictatorship by the peasants and proletariat and a dictatorship exclusively of proletariet in the lead.

A while ago I asked Mr. GOP if he had gone back to see what other writers of the period had said about the same subject - because to date we have only seen what purports to be analysis by Mr. GOP, done apparently 45 years and later after the time of the Petersen pamphlet.

Apparently Mr. GOP doesn't need to find any other writer of the period agreeing with him - its enough for Mr. GOP to cite the Soviet flag containing the hammer AND the sickle. Wow, when was that flag designed and when was adopted by the Soviets?

Mr. ID did two quick searches on the internet and found two authors of the period just prior to the time of Petersen's pamphlet apparently in line with the Petersen usage.

The two writers being Antonio Gramsci and Leon Trotsky, and their writings in 1926 and 1928 respectively. As to verifying meaning of usage it really doesn't matter what one thinks of either of these two writers. They are recognized writers of the period, Can Mr. GOP cite other writers of this period (say within a decade of Petersen's 1931 writing) whose writings would lead one to believe that post 1917 "dicatorship of the proletariet" could not considered in a Marxian or Leninist sense to include a dictatorship of all elements of society not strictly proletarian?

The Lenin writing quoted by Mr. GOP himself at:

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/parte.html

was that that dictatorship of proletariat in the S.U. was to be a dictatorship by:

"the urban workers and the factory, industrial workers in general ... to lead the whole mass of the working and exploited people in the struggle to throw off the yoke of capital, in actually carrying it out, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist social system and in the entire struggle for the complete abolition of classes."

This clearly seems to be in line with the writing of Trotsky and Gramsci that I quoted. (And with Petersen’s usage.)

Mr. GOP originally charged that:

Petersen should be exhumed and shot for putting a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the PEASANTRY' into Marx's mouth.

Mr. GOP also charged:

Petersen seized upon a snippet of text to illegally make Lenin appear to be advocating a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry in a country in which small peasant producers predominate.' That was a very dishonest thing for Petersen to foist on SLP members, as well as foist on the world

Mr. ID responds:

On the first charge: the premises are that Petersen DID "put a dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasantry," into Marx’s mouth, and that Petersen's work at the time was out of line with what others at the time wrote on this same topic.

On the second charge: the premises are that Petersen actually misquoted Lenin and that the misquote was dishonest; and that Lenin did not in fact appear to advocate "proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry in a country in which small peasant producers predominate."

None of the premises have been supported that Mr. ID has seen. Perhaps Mr. GOP would like to try to start all over again - to lay out his proofs with objective facts if he is able to. (Also it would be appreciated if a web address of the pamplet in which Petersen supposedly made these agregious errors was given. If there is none available on the web, does anyone have a copy of the pamplet so that it can be put on line? Is there a copywrite restriction on a 1931 work?)

But again there seems to be no dispute that Petersen was not advocating that dictatorship of any sort be established in the US by the advocated for socialist revolution. The point that Mr. GOP seems to be trying somehow to get at is that there should be no socialist revolution - that we all should wait until class disticintions melt under capitalism. Or is Mr. ID putting words into Mr. GOP's mouth that Mr. Id will have to be exhumed after he dies and shot for?

signed:

Mr. ID

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 04:23 pm Post subject:

Whilst we are on this issue I would like to ask a question to Mike.

I found a post you made to a discussion forum back in 2001, in which you wrote:
"First, dictatorship of the proletariat" was Blanqui's
term -- Blanqui had called for senseless violence."

I have been reading about Blanqui as I am hoping to write a short pamphlet on his as this is 200 years since his birth. Do you have any evidence that he called for 'senseless' violence?

regards

Richard

Posted: 30 Mar 2005 10:41 pm Post subject:

Mike might still be off on a break. The exact phrase "senseless violence" shows up 66,000 times on the Internet, but nowhere was it connected to Blanqui or Blanquist. It's hard to believe that Blanqui could have called for such a thing while still attracting Marx's respect. Blanqui was in prison during the Paris Commune, so was rendered harmless. Marx thought that he would have provided the Commune with effective leadership, had he been free to roam. -KE

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 12:08 am Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

Trotsky (of all people) is quoted at length, as if to lend some credibility to the false notion of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat over the peasantry',

Mr. ID observes:

We'll just have to put him on the list of people who need to be exhumed and shot (again).

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 12:24 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

It's obvious that Mr. ID's role here is to cast aspersion on ME, as if I wrote the pack of lies that the SLP members must adhere to, or be expelled.

Webster wrote:

"Asperse: to attack with evil reports or false injurious charges."

Mr. ID replies to Mr. GOP's "cast aspersion" implication:

If Mr. GOP would provide quotations of anything that Mr. ID wrote about Mr. GOP that Mr. GOP believes are false, Mr. ID will reconsider those statements and issue an apology where warranted.

Mr. ID asks of Mr. GOP:

According to a previous statement by Mr. GOP it seemed that the "lie" charged by Mr. GOP by Comrade Petersen was so devious that it could not have been detected, except by a top party official, without systematic analysis that only Mr. GOP was capable of. Can Mr. GOP provide documentation of a SLP member expelled for not adhering the idea that dictatorship of the proletariat as sanctioned by Lenin in the S.U. did not include the proletariat leading the peasants or the proletariat over the peasants?

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 01:34 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

"It's obvious that Mr. ID's role here is to cast aspersion on ME ..."

Harry Truman said two things that apply here:

"People think that I give them hell. I don't. I merely tell the truth, and they think it is hell."

"If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 02:56 pm Post subject:

On Blanqui:

I did a similar search on a meta-search engine and came up with:

http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/part6-4.html

and

http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/Terrorism/Terrorism.htm

Both websites refer to what had been described as "Blanquism," a term used by Lenin. How closely what is termed "Blanquism" corresponded to the deeds or writings of the actual Blanqui is of course a topic for research.

Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 06:15 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID denies having cast aspersion on me, but how quickly he forgot that he accused me of joining the SLP under false pretenses. I admitted that my grounding in SIU lore wasn't as thorough as I had wished it had been when I joined, which admission somehow earned me this injurious charge against my character, as though only an SIU zealot was worthy of admission to the SLP.

This old 'false pretense' charge has not been retracted, in spite of my having encouraged him to confer with people who knew me back then, such as Bob Bills.

I hereby request an apology for having been charged with joining under false pretenses. I would in the meantime accept some kind of assurance that Mr. ID will follow through with this process and actually seek out opinions from those who knew me in the 1970's. -KE

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 06:38 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID previosly wrote:

If Mr. GOP would provide quotations of anything that Mr. ID wrote about Mr. GOP that Mr. GOP believes are false, Mr. ID will reconsider those statements and issue an apology where warranted.

Mr. GOP writes:

Mr. ID denies having cast aspersion on me, but how quickly he forgot that he accused me of joining the SLP under false pretenses.

Mr. ID responds:

As the quotation above shows, Mr. ID did not deny (or admit) any statement deemed by Mr. GOP to be false. If Mr. GOP provides quotes as requested - material within those quotes shall be recondered, and an apology shall be issued if warranted.

Mr. GOP can "hereby" request an apology for anthing that he likes - but Mr. ID will only reconsider statements, as previously offered - which are specifed in direct quotes from what Mr. ID has written.

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 08:37 pm Post subject:

Mr. ID wishes to help Mr. GOP along in developing his accusation of a false writing on the part of Mr. ID regarding the pretenses of Mr. GOP in joining the SLP:

On March 12, 2005, 6:00 p.m. Mr. GOP wrote:

What's so good about the SIU? Do you buy Petersen's assertion that 'the Marxist theory of the state was flawed, and needs to be replaced with a new social form representing the classless and stateless administration of things?'

Mr. GOP also wrote in that same post:

I waste my words. SIU advocates don't care how badly they were swindled by anarchists cleverly disguised as socialists.

On March 16, 2005, 12:32 a.m. Mr. GOP wrote:

Everyone who left the SLP for one reason or another seems (unlike me) to have retained faith in the SIU. I seem to be unique in losing 100% of the respect I once had for it, though it never STRONGLY attracted me in the first place. I was mainly looking for socialists who seemed similar to me. Members of other parties seemed much too far-out for my liking.

In that same post Mr. GOP also wrote:

They (ex-SLP members) refuse to consider the possibility that the SIU rests on a foundation of lies. I used to want to convert them by showing how badly they'd been lied to, but I now realize that such a task is impossible. My communications with them have had absolutely no effect.

On March 16, 2005, 3:13 a.m. Mr. ID responded to Mr. GOP’s post:

… for all of the Party's faults, the SIU has been THE program of the SLP at least since 1905. You note that it is almost universal among even those who have left the party, that they remain advocates of the SIU. You say that you joined the party because you thought the party contained socialists like you, instead of you agreeing with the central tenant of the organization. Then you say that YOU lost respect for the SIU. I don't think you had any respect for yourself to join an organization in which you did not strongly believe in its goal.

On March 19. 2005, 9:05 p.m. Mr. GOP responded:

That 'instead of' could imply that I might have willingly adhered to notions about socialism that contradicted the SLP definition, perhaps even with the intent of stirring up trouble. But, at that green stage of my life, how was I to distinguish between the different versions of socialism?

Mr. GOP further on in his post quoted from Mr. ID:

"Then you say that YOU lost respect for the SIU. I don't think you had any respect for yourself to join an organization in which you did not strongly believe in its goal."

Then Mr. GOP responded:

Well, sometimes decisions have to be made. I liked the members so much that I really wanted to be part of their club …

On March 20, 2005, 4:28 a.m. Mr. ID wrote:

There wasn't any ambiguity in the SLP's program - it called for SIU and just about every issue of the People very patiently explained what it meant by SIU… .Ken, you would not have gotten into the party if you had stated any reservations what-so-ever about the SIU program. As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only goes to impeach your credibility.

Mr. ID concludes:

Mr. ID hopes that this is helpful to Mr. GOP. If there is anything here or elsewhere that Mr. ID wrote that is false, Mr.GOP merely needs to point it out in quotations and Mr. ID shall reconsider the statement and shall issue an apology if warranted.

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 09:47 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only goes to impeach your credibility."

As *I* suggest? Did *I* suggest that I joined the party under a false pretense? Just exactly what was the false pretense? Nobody held a gun to my head demanding perfect allegiance to the SIU, beside what little was demanded on the membership application, which I willingly signed. I believed in the SIU at the time. I just didn't believe in it STRONGLY. I wasn't grabbed by it like I was grabbed by Marxian economics, the materialist conception of history, and the class struggle. Plus, I liked the people in the party. Right there are several good reasons to join the SLP. Now, precisely where is the false pretense? Nobody demanded that I adhere to the SIU more than I should adhere to the people in the party. What kind of automaton would put loyalty to a party program above loyalty to the membership? I didn't think that I was joining THAT kind of a party, if any such exist. If they do exist, then I certainly wouldn't want to be part of one. Does the SLP hold loyalty to its program to be higher than loyalty to the members? Where does the party literature say that? If I were to get in trouble, the program wouldn't come down and help me out. My loyalty was to the people in the party, and the fact that I wrote a book explaining my side of the story shows how much faith I had in the membership, who have all turned out not to give a damn. Maybe they DO hold loyalty to the program higher than loyalty to one another, which could explain my book's poor reception. Maybe I was working under the illusion that I was joining a little subset of SOCIETY instead of some kind of a horrible little cult of the SIU, De Leon and Petersen. Tell me I was working under an illusion, Dave. Tell me that there was no hope that I might have run into some real caring, thinking, feeling people while I was there.

Does all of the above mean that I was a traitor to the program when I joined the party? -KE

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 10:21 pm Post subject:

Mr. GOP quotes Mr. ID:

"As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only goes to impeach your credibility."

Mr. ID responds:

Mr. ID has reconsidered the quoted material.

Mr. ID does not believe that it is false.

On March 16, 2005, 3:13 a.m. Mr. ID responded to a prior post by Mr. GOP by stating to Mr. GOP:

… for all of the Party's faults, the SIU has been THE program of the SLP at least since 1905. You note that it is almost universal among even those who have left the party, that they remain advocates of the SIU. You say that you joined the party because you thought the party contained socialists like you, instead of you agreeing with the central tenant of the organization. Then you say that YOU lost respect for the SIU. I don't think you had any respect for yourself to join an organization in which you did not strongly believe in its goal.

On March 19. 2005, 9:05 p.m. Mr. GOP responded:

That 'instead of' could imply that I might have willingly adhered to notions about socialism that contradicted the SLP definition, perhaps even with the intent of stirring up trouble.

Mr. ID observes:

As Mr. GOP states - take the "instead of" phrase out of Mr. ID's sentence and add language that Mr. GOP suggests:

You (Mr. GOP) say that you joined the party because you thought the party contained socialists like you, but instead you might have willingly adhered to notions about socialism that contradicted the SLP defintion perhaps even with the intent of stirring up trouble.

Mr. ID concludes: based upon a description of the truth specifically put forth by Mr. GOP in his own words - it was not false of me to state to Mr. GOP:

"As you suggest, you may have joined the Party under false pretenses but that only goes to impeach your credibility."

Therefore Mr. ID believes that there is nothing for Mr. ID to apologize to Mr. GOP about. Thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight however.

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 31 Mar 2005 10:41 pm Post subject:

Well, I'm not going to beat this 'false pretense' issue to death. It's clear to me that you'll never change your mind about it, no matter what I say.

Your position about 'false pretenses' mirrors your inflexibility on other issues, showing that it doesn't do any good to argue with you.

A few other little matters remain to be illuminated, which I will continue to work on, hoping that someone out there will not find my input as outlandish as you find it. -KE

Posted: 01 Apr 2005 12:41 am Post subject:

Mr. ID replies

Outlandish - is a curious word - ideas that those in the outlands might have. Mr. ID does not think that any of Mr. GOP's writings should be styled outlandish - for he is sure that outland folk would display more integrity.

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 01 Apr 2005 12:56 am Post subject:

Mr. GOP wrote:

A few other little matters remain to be illuminated, which I will continue to work on ...

Mr. ID states:

Mr. ID is looking forward to anything that Mr. GOP might put out there. And no doubt Mr. GOP will try to practice to use more objectivity and less invective.

signed:
Mr. ID

Posted: 01 Apr 2005 10:55 pm Post subject:

Notice that I have signed on as davesearles again. I am quite willing to discuss Ken's book in an intelligent manner - but I will not put up with leaps of logic such as - oh you believe this then you must also believe something else and bla blah blah - that kind of stuff is going nowhere.

Ken seems to think that Comrade Petersen lied about the peasants and the dictatorship of the proletariat - fine if you want to discuss fact – let’s do it - but let us keep at least the rudiments of disciple about ourselves in drawing conclusions –

In Section A of the book there is nothing remarkably different from your experiences with the SLP and my own. After the 1968 “disruption” the SLP was in a death spiral – everyone knew it or ought to have known it. I was young – I didn’t believe it – but still all of the evidence was there. The party wasn’t fooling anyone or trying to fool anyone as far as I could see. I hung my hat there because I am an idealist or a cock-eyed optimist or whatever. But I never got the idea that anyone was trying to pull anything on me. The handwriting was on the wall, I simply chose to ignore it as practically everyone did.

The SLP is/was an organization made up of individuals. It does not matter how lofty or correct the goals of an organization are – an organization is born, matures, becomes decrepit and eventually dies. If the goals are met before it dies so much the better – but if it dies it is not because of its goals. There is a whole branch of psychology devoted to organizational behavior – very very few organizations are ever able to take to heart lessons to be learned from it – the SLP was/ is no different. It would seem that the SLP failed to thrive almost because of the loftiness of its goal that no one thought that the garbage needed taking out or the toilets needed cleaning (from a janitor's perspective).

In Section A here is where Ken makes some mistakes, I think:

In describing the National Executive Committee reports:

"At first, presiding National Secretary Arnold Petersen seemed able to slay any dragon with his mighty pen, and I enjoyed the way he draw upon history, philosophy, and other social sciences to seemingly make fools of his opponents …

"As I read on, A.P.'s arguments began to appear more and more bombastic, vituperative, and increasingly devoid of the soundness of logic that a member would expect of a National Secretary….

" 'By the time I had gotten to the mid-(nineteen) twenties of the reports, I had had it with A.P. I was rather upset with his isolationism in dealing with other parties, pushing isolationism as a principle…

"I was struck by the dogged stubborn persistence of A.P. in sticking to theoretical errors in the field of economics….

"'As I plowed through those twenty years of NEC Reports and came across the most amazing errors in judgment on the part of A.P., it became logical to think that errors were being made on purpose in order to alienate members who had acquired an intelligence and independence of thought so that the intelligent members may one day rebel and either be expelled or quit in disgust, and drag the more intelligent members out of the Party with them, so as to retain in the Party only those who agreed with the dogmatic, shallow platitudes of A.P…

"To my total amazement, it was admitted that, while Arnold Petersen might have been bad enough, he was not the origin of the problem. So, if it wasn't A.P., who was it, Olive Johnson? (She was Editor of the Weekly People for a few years after De Leon passed away.) Or, was it the modern founder of the Party himself, Daniel De Leon? I gasped at the thought of the overwhelming task of having to read Party documents going back to 1890 in order to try to find out where the problem really originated. (Little did I know at the time that I would do precisely that and more.)…

Dave responds:

I do not disagree with a single factual thing that you present. Where I disagree with you is that you practically insist that because the SLP came to this sad state of affairs that there had to have been a reason other than that which was smacking you right in the face – that the SLP was already in a persistent vegetative state and had gotten that way simply because the great swell of labor unrest that had brought it to life had practically disappeared. (As an example – I’m sure that no one reading this can say without checking who the current head of the SCLC is and many won’t know what those initials stand for – but if this were the early sixties you would know. That organization is almost defunct because the popular swell that brought it to prominence is long over just like the SLP – not because of any inherent deficiency in its goals or bad intent by its leaders.

So those are my observations for part one. You can digest them, you can disagree with what I say but unless you want to go back to Mr. ID and Mr. GOP you will not attack me because of what I say – and you will not generalize as to my intellect or my integrity or the intellect or integrity of people simply because they agree that SIU still is the way to go... After we get done very dispassionately talking about what appears in Section A we can proceed to the next section, if you wish.

Signed:
Dave

Posted: 01 Apr 2005 11:57 pm Post subject:

Dave: ... "the SLP was already in a persistent vegetative state and had gotten that way simply because the great swell of labor unrest that had brought it to life had practically disappeared."

Welcome back, Dave. For the longest time, I thought maybe you had disappeared, and that a Mr. Hyde had taken your place. Well, first of all, we do have major points of disagreement, which maybe need to be tackled even before we further discuss the 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry'. It might have been too high a hurdle for you to leap over right away, though to me it's become a rather simple proposition (but only after years of thinking about it and refining it). Maybe it's better to think about other things for awhile.

Reasons for the SLP's vegetative state: You say 'labor unrest disappeared', and I certainly can relate to that, from what I've read about the Depression era. But, I would rather say that the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief, simply because, as Marx himself recognized, 'labor creates property', and the institution of private property cannot be gotten rid of at the same time that labor is so industrious in the creation of new private property. But, 'property' is a term loaded with perhaps a largely unappreciated meaning. Profit is also property, and that manifestation of property can be diminished by means of winning shorter work days and shorter work weeks, a form of struggle well endorsed by M+E. In an 1880 article entitled 'Trades Unions', struggling for higher wages and shorter hours were the only palpable and concrete methods for abolishing the wages system that were ever mentioned by Marx or Engels.

Dave: "So those are my observations for part one. You can digest them, you can disagree with what I say but unless you want to go back to Mr. ID and Mr. GOP you will not attack me because of what I say – and you will not generalize as to my intellect or my integrity or the intellect or integrity of people simply because they agree that SIU still is the way to go... After we get done very dispassionately talking about what appears in Section A we can proceed to the next section, if you wish."

I'll be very happy to discuss this dispassionately, and thank you very much for returning.

About Petersen's pamphlet. It is on file as a Microsoft Word document at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/files/

That Word Doc isn't compatible with my iMac, but maybe your computer will be able to read it OK. Other than that, a copy is available at Bolerium Books in San Fran for $10.00, and others can be found at other bookstores as well. Of course, nearly the whole pamphlet is dissected at my web site. -KE

Posted: 02 Apr 2005 02:18 am Post subject:

Dave states:

No there wasn't any Mr. Hyde it was always me. "Mr. ID" came from your (Ken's) post. I merely ran with the idea.

I wished to discuss that which you wrote in Section A

Ken stated:

But, I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP entering into a persistent vegetative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief, simply because, as Marx himself recognized, 'labor creates property', and the institution of private property cannot be gotten rid of at the same time that labor is so industrious in the creation of new private property.

Dave states:

I responded to what you wrote in Section A. In Section A you offered observations as to why you thought the party was withering essentially because of the "bullshit" quality of the party literature, poor management style under the then current National Secretary and worse under the previous one - things like that - typical organizational miasma - stuff that occurs in all organizations. Truly it is.

You then talk about your attempt to essentially suggest a purge of Petersenism at a State SLP Convention in CA. They gave you the courtesy of the floor and you spoke. Apparently there was no second to the motion but they let you speak to see if there was going to be a second. There being none they happily went on to other business.

You then talked abut your determination to redeem yourself, to prove that they should have gone along with you at the convention so you started to read the Petersen pamphlet and you started to find inconsistencies. (In hindsite you probably should have done that work prior to making a fool out of yourself at the State Convention.)

Ken wrote in Section A of his book:

With so much of my life riding on the verification of whether A.P. had deliberately falsified Marxism, and that the Party of which I was a member was spreading A.P.'s lies, the proof that I had found also caused me to withdraw socially. To me, it was a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. It was an irrevocable confirmation of my worst suspicions of having completely wasted my time once again in my life, and, what was worse, I was also betraying my class, making the lives of others worse by my participation in Party work, by helping the Party distribute lies. Obviously, I was plagued with guilt, along with so many other negative emotions.
The discovery of the dishonesty also threw me on the horns of a dilemma: whether to quit right away to avoid further dishonoring myself by associating with a basically dishonest program, or to remain with the Party and try to work legally within it to force the issue to the Party's attention, and to split off the professional liars from what I felt to be a basically honest majority of members....

Dave continues:

I read Section A. In Section A you very plainly offered suggestions based upon the specific experiences that you were writing about as to the whyfore of the party's problems. In Section A you did not talk about any basic flaw in the party's goal ... (as you suggest in your answer ...expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice)

I am willing to discuss your book if you maintain some semblance of discipline in the discussion as to subject. You gave a theory based upon the facts presented in Section A. Based upon those same facts I offered an alternative explaination - but in your reply you talk about flaws in the basic goal. We can discuss basic goal when we get to that part of your book. I would like you to reply to my comments on Section A - confining yourself to ideas based upon what you wrote in Section A.

signed
Dave

Posted: 02 Apr 2005 02:17 pm Post subject:

Ken: "I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP enteirng into a persistent vegatative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief, simply because, as Marx himself recognized, 'labor creates property', and the institution of private property cannot be gotten rid of at the same time that labor is so industrious in the creation of new private property."

Dave states: "You seem to also feel that it had something to do with the times."

Yes, there was optimism from 1848 until around the time when Lenin died, but Europe stubbornly refused to support the Russian revolution with many more long-lasting revolutions, preventing creation of the grand unified proletarian dictatorship that would have been immune to bourgeois counter-revolution. Democratization in Europe was mostly achieved relatively peacefully; the grand battles for republics did not materialize the way Marx visualized in his 1872 Speech at the Hague, and European communists were robbed of opportunities to capitalize on several republican successes by going further and expropriating the means of production. Such a collapse of Marx's theory enabled his 'simultaneous revolutions in the most developed countries' to give way to Stalin's 'socialism in one country' without much resistance.

In 1994, deep into writing and editing my book, the great light that shone for me was the observation that: expropriation was feasible after overthrowing absolute monarchies, or after liberating colonies, but was never feasible after communists and socialists merely won elections in Western democracies. Why unfeasible? Because after merely winning elections, socialists and communists never had anywhere near the brute power available to Lenin and Trotsky after the Bolshevik Revolution, when they could more or less do with private property whatever they wanted. This further revealed to me that, as a long-term human goal, expropriation was nowhere nearly as important to humans as was their thirst for the democratic republic. This was even proven to a certain extent during the Paris Commune, when the Communards wanted to compensate factory owners for the use of the factories that were confiscated after the bourgeoisie left town. This also indicates that the masses have far more respect for private property than their would-be communist leaders. Those who are interested in expropriation seem to be a few people on the fringe of society, especially after post-1989 events showed that expropriation was and is truly doomed.

Dave asks: "So this in fact had nothing to do with whether or not Comrade Pertersen lied?"

That is correct. Petersen's lies have relatively nothing to do with all of the real history lived by real people since 1848. It wouldn't have mattered if Petersen had lied or told the truth every minute of every day: the threat of forcible or sudden expropriation has been proven by the flow of history to be but one of the many dreams that will never be realized. But, like Marx believed, I also believe that private property is perfectly doomed. It will begin to lose its importance after human labor is rendered superfluous to the production of necessities, and it will gradually fade away altogether. -KE

Posted: 02 Apr 2005 03:30 pm Post subject:

Ken our posts must have crossed.

Your post of April 2, 2005 2:17 pm gmt ansered my post of last night (est). But since that time I edited that post to what appears there now. The last edit of that post was done sometime this morning EST. (Some times it shows in the post when it was editid and sometimes not. We'll have to ask Mike when he gets back why that is.) Anyway in my latest edit I entirely rewrote that post.

If you would take a look at that and respond to it, I would appreciate it.

Dave

Posted: 02 Apr 2005 08:56 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "Apparently there was no second to the motion but they let you speak to see if there was going to be a second. There being none they happily went on to other business."

In that particular bloc of time at the Convention, the Nat'l Sec'y tried to create an atmosphere of open and free discussion, so lots of members felt encouraged to sound off on their favorite subjects, and many did just that. To the best of my now weak recollections, that was the agenda at that particular moment, and I don't recall any motions being made then.

Feel free to skip the rest of this paragraph, cuz I wrote it before fully digesting the gist of your latest message: Yes, it's true that in 1976 I had few opinions on the feasibility of expropriation, and I only occasionally mentally wrestled with that problem during the 15 years between quitting in 1977 and beginning to write seriously in 1992. From 1976-7, I considered Petersen's lies to be so damaging to the Party and its program that I personally KNEW the lies to be the secret of our lack of success. But, I didn't know why the movement to expropriate was ALSO doomed, nor would I have been able to guess why in those early days. As profound was the change that occurred in me in 1976, an equally profound change occurred when I discovered in 1994 that 'expropriation was feasible after overthrowing absolute monarchies, or after liberating colonies, but was never feasible after merely winning elections'. In 1994, I then felt as though I could have easily predicted the fall of the Soviet Bloc well ahead of time IF I had begun writing my book in 1977, instead of in 1992.

Again, my humble apologies for going beyond part A. Now that I am sure that you would like to discuss this a step at a time, I will dilligently try to stick to that plan from now on. Plus, I thank you for your interest, and will do everything I can to try to make this a comfortable experience.

Thanks also to Mike for opening up this venue for us. -KE

Posted: 02 Apr 2005 09:36 pm Post subject:

We have established that at the time you thought that it was Petersen lying about dictatorship of the proletariat that the SLP was failing to thrive. But now you say that if Petersen had told the 100% truth about dicatorship of the proletariet that it would not have made a difference in the Party thriving or not?

In my comments I posed my own explaination - essentailly that it was dying a natural death becuase the labor unrest that brought it to relative prominence was essentially over. The SP, an entirley different organization with different principals (without an "expropriationist" platform) also suffered the same fate - What about that? Perhaps if the SLP were a little more open and had a better management style things probably would have gone a little better, but by the time you or I came around it's day had essentially passed; that in all likelihood, even if the party could have chugged along on somewhat of an even keel, that the '68 "disruption" spilled the party's last viable pint of blood. (no matter who was right or wrong) Is this a fair assumption?

Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 12:53 am Post subject:

Dave: "We have established that at the time you thought that it was Petersen lying about dictatorship of the proletariat that the SLP was failing to thrive. But now you say that if Petersen had told the 100% truth about dicatorship of the proletariet that it would not have made a difference in the Party thriving or not?"

Oops, different context. I was thinking more along the lines of: 'Petersen's honesty or dishonesty would not have made any difference to the arrival or non-arrival of a revolution in the USA.'

Now, as for his honesty or dishonesty affecting SLP prosperity: That's not an easy one. In my book, which hasn't been edited since about 2001 or so, I leaned toward 'his honesty making a big difference', but lately I would lean toward 'his honesty NOT making a big difference', and I base that change on my experiences in recent years in the forums. I find so many people so willing to believe in all kinds of crap, and they raise the roof when the crap is challenged. Those who think they've been so smart to replace their capitalist ideologies with socialist ideologies end up accepting bogus and unworkable versions because they never really do much more than memorize a bunch of party propaganda without ever really STUDYING it.

Dave: "In my comments I posed my own explaination - essentailly that it was dying a natural death becuase the labor unrest that brought it to relative prominence was essentially over."

I think that has a lot to do with it. With median incomes now over $40K, and with SUVs, houses, boats, beer, etc. so readily at hand, what the devil does the average worker need socialism for? I witness the great successes of my niece and nephews, the fact that they've accumulated more stuff than what my grandparents could have imagined, and surely the fact that we are living in different times has to make an impression on our intellects. The big depression is over.

Dave: "The SP, an entirley different organization with different principals (without an "expropriationist" platform) also suffered the same fate - What about that?"

Well, yes, I think that the same argument applies, no matter what the name of the socialist, communist or anarchist party, and no matter how near or far their ideologies might adhere to, or stray away from, Marx. Hardly anyone seems to need Marxism or socialism any more.

Dave: "Perhaps if the SLP were a little more open and had a better management style things probably would have gone a little better, but by the time you or I came around it's day had essentially passed; that in all likelihood, even if the party could have chugged along on somewhat of an even keel, that the '68 "disruption" spilled the party's last viable pint of blood. (no matter who was right or wrong) Is this a fair assumption?"

I see LOTS of merit in it. '68 was very traumatic. Not long after Mike, Bud and I quit in '77, we paid a visit to a victim of '68, Nick Simon, for a confab. He spoke of Section Palo Alto's activism that got them in so much trouble with Petersen, and how Petersen sent N. Karp across the country to 'reorganize' the section. What a joke. Just like you imply, the best and the brightest got the axe. How could that happen? How could the party become so narrow-minded as to prevent its members from being active? It must have been a bizarre period of time to be a member. -KE

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 03:25 am Post subject:

So as to the party thriving or not thriving - talking about the people in the party - no one else thought that Petersen was lying. And while I do not think that he lied - and I haven't been able to check the quotes out from Petersen, so I really wouldn't know yet if he was even inaccurate - but I have to agree with you, if there were at least inaccuracies no one would have really cared - probably becuase they did not think that the inacuracies were significant, if they did exist: not because they were bad people, but to me because that's how organizations work (or fail to work).

Had members of the party been more inquisitive and more challenging, who knows what may have happend - they could have advanced the cause by 50 years or they could have fallen apart 50 years sooner. No one can say but anyone can theorize.

In a prior life I was an engineering student- we studied why a walkway in a hotel collapsed one New Year's eve killing a dozen people or so. As it turned out, the original blue print was perfect, but they couldn't get the length of material they needed to build it so a substitute plan was offered by the contractor. That substitute plan went up and down the line, approved by otherwise competent engineers at every level except that the substitute design on its face contained an obvious error in it's basic design that simply no one caught. I am sad to say it - its the nature of the beast - we are a gregarious specie - we most often go along with the crowd. That doesn't make us hopeless, merely pathetic - all of us.

I was also at the 1976 Detroit convention - George Taylor a delegate from the Philadelphia area spoke about the topic of self-criticism which was then in vogue. As I recall it, he said - "The main problem with self-criticism is that my position always turns out to be right!

Lackadaisical acedemics is rife everywhere - Arnold Petersen and the bunch that elected him term after term were no better and no worse than everyone else - despite our lofty principals.

But I detect a waffle in your statement and I want you to own up to it. You talked about the SLP failing to thrive because of its expropriationist goal. Then I pointed out the S.P. which has had the same problems in failing to thrive could hardly be termed expropriationists at all. (Norman Thomas was a preacher at the Marble Church in NY for gods sakes.) But when I bring up the S.P. then you backed of of the expropriationist reason and instead shifted the reason to that the SLP's program is anarchistic - that the SLP failed to thrive but now supposedly because of its anarchist goal (abolition of the state prior to the elimination of class distinctions -- as you termed it in a prior post) That was a waffle. Your statement was very clear that the reason was the party's expropriationst goal but when that was challenged you switched the reason to anarchism.

And the anarchist tag doesn't fit the SP either does it?

I'm going to give you examples of two other very notable "enlightenment" movements that also failed to thrive during the 70s and 80s one political and one cultural - tell me why you think that they failed to thrive:

The Equal Rights Amendment and the U.S. Metrificiation Project.

I see what you are putting forth about the conspicuous consumption (driven to a frightening degree by credit card debt) as a reason for the lack of any detectable revolutionary drive in today's working class population. That "good times" do not ferment revolutions. But a
number of years ago there was an article in Smithsonian Magazine (or was it the magazine of the NY Museum of Natural History) on a historical study of slave revolts in the Caribbean. Contrary to what our instincts would tell us - slave revolts occurred mostly during relatively good times, not bad times. (Perhaps because of rising expectations) So who knows what could spark a revolution? My answer is: no one.

What do you say?

Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 03:24 pm Post subject:

Dave: "So as to the party thriving or not thriving - talking about the people in the party - no one else thought that Petersen was lying. And while I do not think that he lied - and I haven't been able to check the quotes out from Petersen, so I really wouldn't know yet if he was even inaccurate" ...

May I assume that this honesty question will be resurrected when you reach part B?

Dave: "if there were at least inaccuracies no one would have really cared - not because they were bad people, but to me because that's how organizations work (or fail to work)." ... we most often go along with the crowd. That doesn't make us hopeless, merely pathetic - all of us."

Yes, that seems to be one of life's lessons, and one that has taken me a long time to learn. The apathy with which people accept lies is not pleasant to contemplate. It's pretty obvious that GWB is a lying President, and yet he keeps on getting into the oval office, one way or the other, voter fraud having helped him immensely. Still, that so many millions of Americans can be drawn to him is a sad reflection on us all.

Dave: "I was also at the 1976 Detroit convention - George Taylor a delegate from the Philadelphia area spoke about the topic of self-criticism which was then in vogue. As I recall it, he said - "The main problem with self-criticism is that my position always turns out to be right!"

George was a little flamboyant at times, what with his beret and cape. I don't recall N. Karp expressing respect for ANY of the NEC members, least of all for Henning, due to his failures to manage party business in a timely fashion.

Dave: "But I detect a waffle in your statement and I want you to own up to it. You talked about the SLP failing to thrive because of its expropriationist goal. Then I pointed out the S.P. which has had the same problems in failing to thrive and they can hardly be termed expropriationists at all."

Two ways to expropriate lie within the bounds of Marxist morality. 'Expropriation without compensation' was practiced by the Bolsheviks, while 'expropriation with compensation' was practiced when European social democracies bought out and nationalized utilities and industries. The SP falls within the civilized 'expropriation with compensation' branch.

While 'socialism' is less objectionable than 'communism' or 'anarchism', it still it elicits a reaction amongst Americans, which sort of dooms any 'socialist' party to being marginalized. Thus, 'socialist' parties generally fail to thrive in the present political milieu, which moved to the right after the 1960's, and doesn't show much sign of going left.

Dave: ... "when I bring up the S.P. then you back off of the expropriationist talk but instead shift gears into the anarchist talk - that the SLP failed to thrive but now supposedly because of its anarchist goal (abolition of the state prior to the elimination of class distinctions -- as you termed it in a prior post) The anarchist tag doesn't fit the SP either does it?"

The SP and the whole rest of the 'expropriation with compensation' crowd are more in tune with the Western value of 'respecting private property rights'. The SLP is different. Henning explained that 'morality is flexible, and what's right for one era can be superseded when enough people agree on a new way of doing things', which is a rough paraphrase of his explanation of how our 'expropriation without compensation' could be accepted as a new value when the SIUs take over. When I first heard that, it seemed vaguely plausible, but at the same time it sort of shocked me. Abolish private ownership of the means of production in the USA? Still, I figured that Henning had to know what he was talking about, and I had no other yardsticks by which to measure his words. So, I wasn't about to quibble. But now I can see that the institution of private property will remain alive and well, at least until the human labor basis of private property is abolished. Let me know how you feel about Henning's approach to this moral issue, and your reaction when 'expropriation without compensation' was first intoduced to you.

Dave: "A number of years ago there was an article in Smithsonian Magazine on historical study of slave revolts in the Caribbean. Contrary to what our instinct would tell us - slave revolts occurred mostly during relatively good times, not bad times. So who knows what could spark a revolution The answer is no one."

Given the history of Western Civ, violent revolutions seem very remote. 'Expropriation without compensation' can also be safely retired to the museum. -KE

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 06:37 pm Post subject:

From Ken’s post of April 2, 2005 2:17 p.m.:

Ken: "I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP enteirng into a persistent vegatative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief….”

Dave wrote April 2, 2005, 9:36 p.m.

The SP, an entirley different organization with different principals (without an "expropriationist" platform) also suffered the same fate - What about that?

Ken wrote: April 3, 2005, 12:53 a.m.:

Well, yes, I think that the same argument applies, no matter what the name of the socialist, communist or anarchist party, and no matter how near or far their ideologies might adhere to, or stray away from, Marx. Hardly anyone seems to need Marxism or socialism any more.

Dave states:

Now it’s not “expropriationism”, now according to Ken its simply because of parties which are simply identified as socialist, communist or anarchist: NO MATTER HOW NEAR OR FAR THEIR IDEOLOGIES MIGHT ADHERE OR STRAY FROM MARX they were not going to thrive because “hardly anyone needs Marxism or socialism anymore”.

According to Ken, no matter what the SLP did or didn’t do – no matter how near or far its ideology strayed from Marx – it wasn’t going to make a difference as to whether or not it was going to thrive becuase it was a "socialist" party in a time when "harrdly anyone needs Marxism or socialism anymore.".

I just wanted to get that out.

Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 06:56 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

I see what you are putting forth about the conspicuous consumption (driven to a frightening degree by credit card debt) as a reason for the lack of any detectable revolutionary drive in today's working class population. That "good times" do not ferment revolutions. But a
number of years ago there was an article in Smithsonian Magazine (or was it the magazine of the NY Museum of Natural History) on a historical study of slave revolts in the Caribbean. Contrary to what our instincts would tell us - slave revolts occurred mostly during relatively good times, not bad times. (Perhaps because of rising expectations) So who knows what could spark a revolution? My answer is: no one.

Ken responded:

Given the history of Western Civ, violent revolutions seem very remote. 'Expropriation without compensation' can also be safely retired to the museum.

Dave answers:

Violent revolution has never been advocated Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things get into the conversation?

Also:

Turn the clock back to 1862. Is Ken Ellis in favor of not dispropriating the slave holders of their slaves without compensation? Where does Ken Ellis stand on the Emancipation Procaimation? That document provided for no compensation to the slave holders. Where does Ken Ellis stand on the 13th Amendement to the U.S. Constitution which abolishes slavery without compensation to the slaveholders? Was Congress correct in requiring ratifaction of the 13th Amednment as condition to re-entry of representatives of the former confederate states into Congress even when the slaveholders had not been compensated?

signed:
Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 08:22 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

"I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP enteirng into a persistent vegatative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief

Dave asked Ken:

I'm going to give you examples of two other very notable "enlightenment" movements that also failed to thrive during the 70s and 80s one political and one cultural - tell me why you think that they failed to thrive.

Ken didn't respond.

My point in bring this up is this:

I suggested that the reason that the SLP and SP hadn't thrived was that the labor unrest that gave them birth (in the 1880s and 90s) had long ago come to an end.

Ken first stated that such organizations failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals and then that no one wanted Marxism of socialism anymore.

I was just wondering if had a theory as to why the ERA and metricication died out in the 70s and 80s. They both seemed like worthwhile goals - and while some people did have some fear was going to require same sex bathrooms and the like, what the heck fault couldanyone find with metrification? Ths is where I'm going with this. A person when asked can give an educated sounding answer such as the SLP and SP failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals - but who knows, they just may have failed to thrive for the same reason metrification failed to thrive - in other words, we don't actually know.

Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 09:22 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

"I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP enteirng into a persistent vegatative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief

Dave asked Ken:

I'm going to give you examples of two other very notable "enlightenment" movements that also failed to thrive during the 70s and 80s one political and one cultural - tell me why you think that they failed to thrive.

Ken didn't respond.

My point in bringing this up is this:

I suggested that the reason that the SLP and SP hadn't thrived was that the labor unrest that gave them birth (in the 1880s and 90s) had long ago come to an end.

Ken then stated that such organizations failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals and then that no one wanted Marxism of socialism anymore.

I was just wondering if he had a theory as to why the ERA and metrification died out in the 70s and 80s. They both seemed like worthwhile goals - and while some people did have some fear that the ERA was going to require same sex bathrooms and the like, what the heck fault could anyone find with metrification? This is where I'm going with this. A person when asked can give an educated sounding answer such as the SLP and SP failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals - but who knows, they just may have failed to thrive for the very same reason metrification failed to thrive - in other words, we don't actually know.

Dave

Posted: 03 Apr 2005 09:56 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

Henning (Blomen) explained that morality is flexible, and what's right for one era can be superseded when enough people agree on a new way of doing things', which is a rough paraphrase of his explanation of how our 'expropriation without compensation' could be accepted as a new value when the SIUs take over. When I first heard that, it seemed vaguely plausible, but at the same time it sort of shocked me. Abolish private ownership of the means of production in the USA? Still, I figured that Henning had to know what he was talking about, and I had no other yardsticks by which to measure his words. So, I wasn't about to quibble.

Dave responds:

First you weren't all that strongly attracted to the SIU program – then you were “sort of shocked” to learn that a basic part of the SLP’s goal was to abolish private ownership of the means of production in the USA. But you accepted it based on Henning Blomen’s words because you figured that he knew what he was talking about. Asking, parenthetically, who were you to quibble?

Boy, you don’t take responsibility for anything, do you? You could have asked questions. You could have asked a priest or a clergy person if you had any kind a question about the morality of the SLP’s goal. Hell, Boston had more ethics professors than stray cats who would have been happy to talk to you about this- but once again – Ken goes along and now that you’ve changed your political stripes you want to pretend that you had nothing to do with it, that you weren’t responsible for joining an organization with a questionable moral position on a basic right of this society.

You are such a bullshitter! I mean it. Anyone reading Section A of your book would have assumed that you were 5 years old when I gave you that Weekly People in 1972 and that the bad old SLP simply brainwashed you into joining when you were aware of but were not strongly attracted to its goal and also had questions about the morality of “expropriation without compensation” of the means of production.

Signed:
Dave

Posted: 04 Apr 2005 01:25 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "So who knows what could spark a revolution? My answer is: no one." Ken responded: "Given the history of Western Civ, violent revolutions seem very remote. 'Expropriation without compensation' can also be safely retired to the museum."

Dave answers: "Violent revolution has never been advocated Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things get into the conversation?"

Ha, ha, ha. As if you or I could possibly find that idea attractive. Was that idea ever lain out or proposed as a potential agenda item? Have I been 'sent here to lure you into advocating a violent revolution so that I can send in the blue meanies and have you arrested'? Well, consider this: If the topic of violent revolution cannot be frankly discussed in a scholarly manner by 2 middle age guys in an open forum, then that really makes it difficult to discuss the subject of revolution at all. Maybe it would help if you would recognize that people like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. did live on this planet, and that it 's entirely possible for Westerners to discuss their theories without becoming advocates for their theories. I have never advocated violent revolution for the USA, due to the impossibility of finding a single good reason in favor of violent change, unless one were to be so foolish as to wish to 'expropriate without compensation'. Plus, I constantly argue against doing a single thing about property relations. As I've stated for years, private property in the West is inviolate during the era of human labor, so 'trying to expropriate' will get a revolutionary nowhere. Now, does that look like it could possibly be twisted into advocacy of either violent revolution or 'expropriation without compensation'? I'm sure that if Petersen were still around, he could find a way ...

Dave wrote: "Turn the clock back to 1862. Is Ken Ellis in favor of not dispropriating the slave holders of their slaves without compensation?"

My dictionary doesn't recognize 'disappropriate', so maybe you mean 'expropriate'. If so, that particular term doesn't apply, because it is simply a case of liberation, rather than expropriation. Expropriation implies slaves going from one owner to another owner, whereas liberation is a matter of going from an owner to freedom.

Dave wrote: "Where does Ken Ellis stand on the Emancipation Procaimation? That document provided for no compensation to the slave holders. Where does Ken Ellis stand on the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which abolishes slavery without compensation to the slaveholders?"

As slavery is almost universally regarded as wrong or immoral, I have no problem with the concept of 'emancipation without compensation'. Certainly the slave owners lost their assets, but those assets were immorally acquired in the first place, not very different from 'stolen goods'.

Dave wrote: "Was Congress correct in requiring ratification of the 13th Amendment as condition to re-entry of representatives of the former confederate states into Congress even when the slaveholders had not been compensated?"

Yes, due to the great moral question involved. It isn't right for humans to own other humans, so slaveowners could not expect much protection from the government. -KE

Posted: 04 Apr 2005 01:41 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote: "I would rather say that (the reason for the SLP enteirng into a persistent vegatative state was) the notion of 'expropriation as a means of acquiring social justice' was the reef upon which the whole ship of socialism, communism and anarchism came to grief" ...

Dave asked Ken: "I'm going to give you examples of two other very notable "enlightenment" movements that also failed to thrive during the 70s and 80s one political and one cultural - tell me why you think that they failed to thrive."

Dave: "Ken didn't respond."

Sorry about that. It got away from me.

Dave: "My point in bringing this up is this: I suggested that the reason that the SLP and SP hadn't thrived was that the labor unrest that gave them birth (in the 1880s and 90s) had long ago come to an end. Ken then stated that such organizations failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals and then that no one wanted Marxism of socialism anymore. I was just wondering if he had a theory as to why the ERA and metrification died out in the 70s and 80s."

No, I don't have a theory, and this seems a bit tangential.

Dave: "They both seemed like worthwhile goals - and while some people did have some fear that the ERA was going to require same sex bathrooms and the like, what the heck fault could anyone find with metrification?"

Maybe because of the money cost of changing over. Think of all of the measuring tools that would have to be replaced. I must have $1,000 worth in my basement alone. In the end, failure to metricize won't make much difference. The nanotech revolution will soon enough moot that whole issue.

Dave: "This is where I'm going with this. A person when asked can give an educated sounding answer such as the SLP and SP failed to thrive becuase of their expropriationist goals - but who knows, they just may have failed to thrive for the very same reason metrification failed to thrive - in other words, we don't actually know."

Some things may forever remain mysteries. -KE

Posted: 04 Apr 2005 04:40 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote that:

Metrification may have failed because of the expense of changing over the instrumentation.

Dave asks Ken:

Do you really think that's the reason why the national weather service reports weather temperature in Fahrenheit - because their electronic thermometers won't read in Celsius? You'll say anything, won't you?

Dave previously asked Ken:

Violent revolution has never been advocated Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things get into the conversation?

Ken responded:

Ha, ha, ha. As if you or I could possibly find that idea attractive. Was that idea ever lain out or proposed as a potential agenda item? Have I been 'sent here to lure you into advocating a violent revolution so that I can send in the blue meanies and have you arrested'? Well, consider this: If the topic of violent revolution cannot be frankly discussed in a scholarly manner by 2 middle age guys in an open forum, then that really makes it difficult to discuss the subject of revolution at all

Dave asks again:

It was a simple question Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things get into the conversation?

Dave asked Ken:

"Turn the clock back to 1862. Is Ken Ellis in favor of not dispropriating the slave holders of their slaves without compensation?"

Ken responded in part:

My dictionary doesn't recognize 'disappropriate', so maybe you mean 'expropriate'.

Dave responds: "Dissapproprate" may not be in your dictionary but it is in Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1913, the first sense being:

To release from individual ownership or possession. Milton.

but "expropriate" will do.

Ken continued his response:

(Expropriation) doesn't apply, because it is simply a case of liberation, rather than expropriation. Expropriation implies slaves going from one owner to another owner, whereas liberation is a matter of going from an owner to freedom.

Dave answers, but it does apply:

Liberation of property, as Ken gives the example of, is a matter of going from an owner to freedom - it is a justification for a deprivation of property rights. I'll give an example:

You are canoeing along a stream and unexpectedly your canoe overturns. The shores along the stream are posted "no trespassing." In order not to drown you pull yourself up onto the closest shore. You cannot be convicted of the criminal offense of tresspass becuase you had justification to ignore the property right of the person with title to the land. Property right does not require that you allow yourself to drown.

As Marxists we believe that in general the mass of workers simply have no choice but to sell their labor power in order to survive - the capitalist keeping and the worker deprived of surplus value. In fact, the very workplaces and machinery in which they are employed and with which they work are the results of surplus value.

Just as a drowning person pulls him or herseft to shore, and in the process may ignore the property right of a landlord - We Marxists believe that the time has come when the workers, in order to gain liberty and to protect their very lives and the lives of their families - that the means of production - which has been observed as property - may be liberated so that the lives of the workers may be liberated.

Expropriation? yes.

Without compensation? - no.

It should not be done without compensation. Any person deprived of a property right by this expropration is entitled to equitable compensation to the extent that the "owner" can show that the means of production were not built, assembled or acquired with surplus value. All of that which was by surplus value will be to compensate the workers for their labor for which they were not able to receive an equitable return.

Of course Ken you will not particpate - you will let yourself go without food- medical care, proper education, etc. until the robots come and rescue you. It's your choice Ken - but somehow when the opportunity arises I belive that you will live and participate in the cooperative society and take your share even if the robots haven't yet arrived. And so will the "expropriated" capitalists.

Dave

p.s.

I've thought more about this. The idea of sovereignty comes to mind. Ken talked about morality. It's an inherent aspect of sovereignty that the sovereign may abolish or alter property relationships and/or to reorder society, for the common weal. The SIU recognizing that the workers have the sole interest in wealth created by surplus value would be a democratic act of sovereignty through the SIU. This would comport with even absolute notions of morality.

Posted: 04 Apr 2005 11:23 pm Post subject:

Dave asks again: "It was a simple question Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things [as violent revolution] get into the conversation?"

I'm amazed that a simple answer would still be required after all I wrote. The simple answer is no, but I'm sure that this denial won't be believed any more than my allegations of Petersen's dishonesty were believed. Mein gott, to think that this dialogue would degenerate into quibbling about my own vouchers for my own integrity. Why can't things that stand a chance of being nailed down with a high degree of certainty be discussed? Pretty soon, the outcome of this dialogue may hinge on the believability of my vouchers for the race of the neighborhood children I eat for breakfast.

Dave asked Ken: "Turn the clock back to 1862. Is Ken Ellis in favor of not dispropriating the slave holders of their slaves without compensation?"

Ken responded in part: "My dictionary doesn't recognize 'disappropriate', so maybe you mean 'expropriate'. "

Dave responds: "Dissapproprate" may not be in your dictionary but it is in Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1913, the first sense being: To release from individual ownership or possession. Milton. But "expropriate" will do."

Hmm, and there I thought that the on-line Merriam Webster was the cat's meow. Oh well, live and learn.

Ken continued his response: "(Expropriation) doesn't apply, because it is simply a case of liberation, rather than expropriation. Expropriation implies slaves going from one owner to another owner, whereas liberation is a matter of going from an owner to freedom."

Dave answers, but it does apply: "Liberation of property, as Ken gives the example of, is a matter of going from an owner to freedom - it is a justification for a deprivation of property rights. I'll give an example: You are canoeing along a stream and unexpectedly your canoe overturns. The shores along the stream are posted "no trespassing." In order not to drown you pull yourself up onto the closest shore. You cannot be convicted of the criminal offense of tresspass becuase you had justification to ignore the property right of the person with title to the land. Property right does not require that you allow yourself to drown. As Marxists we believe that in general the mass of workers simply have no choice but to sell their labor power in order to survive - the capitalist keeping and the worker deprived of surplus value. In fact, the very workplaces and machinery in which they are employed and with which they work are the results of surplus value. Just as a drowning person pulls him or herseft to shore, and in the process may ignore the property right of a landlord - We Marxists believe that the time has come when the workers, in order to gain liberty and to protect their very lives and the lives of their families - that the means of production - which has been observed as property - may be liberated so that the lives of the workers may be liberated. Expropriation? yes. Without compensation? - no. It should not be done without compensation. Any person deprived of a property right by this expropration is entitled to equitable compensation to the extent that the "owner" can show that the means of production were not built, assembled or acquired with surplus value. All of that which was by surplus value will be to compensate the workers for their labor for which they were not able to receive an equitable return. Of course Ken you will not particpate - you will let yourself go without food- medical care, proper education, etc. until the robots come and rescue you. It's your choice Ken - but somehow when the opportunity arises I belive that you will live and participate in the cooperative society and take your share even if the robots haven't yet arrived. And so will the "expropriated" capitalists. PS: I've thought more about this. The idea of sovereignty comes to mind. Ken talked about morality. It's an inherent aspect of sovereignty that the sovereign may abolish or alter property relationships and/or to reorder society, for the common weal. The SIU recognizing that the workers have the sole interest in wealth created by surplus value would be a democratic act of sovereignty through the SIU. This would comport with even absolute notions of morality."

You mistakenly believe that property ownership oppresses workers, whereas workers are really oppressed by both competition and overwork, which is why the shorter work hour movement was so important to M+E, because it simultaneously relieves workers of both competition and overwork. Workers could organize into SIUs, but would still have to go to work under the very same conditions the very next day, so where the hell is the relief? Changing ownership, by itself, solves no working class problems. -KE

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 01:45 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

"Dave asks again: "It was a simple question Ken. Are you an agent provocateur, paid to make sure that such things [as violent revolution] get into the conversation?" I'm amazed that a simple answer would still be required after all I wrote. The simple answer is no but I'm sure that this denial won't be believed ...

Dave states:

It doesn't make any difference if I believe you or not. I wanted the information of how you were going to react. And frankly the question was more intended to be a word to the wise.

Ken wrote:

Mein gott, to think that this dialogue would degenerate into quibbling about my own vouchers for my own integrity.

Dave states: You like that word a lot don't you? Quibbling. Such as you didn't want to ask Henning Blomen further about the "morality" of the party's goal because you didn't want to "quibble".

Ken wrote:

(Expropriation) doesn't apply, because it is simply a case of liberation, rather than expropriation. Expropriation implies slaves going from one owner to another owner, whereas liberation is a matter of going from an owner to freedom.

Dave wrote:

essentially, that if the majority of society belives that it would benefit society to recognize that the workers have the sole interest in surplus value then society has a soverign right to do that - that society has a right to terminate property rights over the means of production if it believes that doing so would benefit the common weal; that if society determined that terminating property rights would liberate the workers from the wages system that it was perfectly free to do so and it would not violate even absolute notions of morality.

Ken answered:

You mistakenly believe that property ownership oppresses workers, whereas workers are really oppressed by both competition and overwork ...

Dave replies:

Yes, I very well may be mistaken - but you asked me (if you will recall) about the morality issue. Morality is not affected if society makes an honest mistake in trying to pursue the common weal.

Dave continues - I do not believe that property ownership per se oppresses anyone, but even Shakespeare recognized that "He who owns the means whereby I live, owns me."

Sure sure Ken, none of us has to work anymore because you have a trunk of little robots that will do all of the work necessary to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, educate, protect us all. But until you choose to share them with the rest of us - I think the prudent thing for me to do, and the rest of us to do, would be to continue to advocate for the SIU. If we're wrong, were wrong. What harm does it do? And besides, if you are so much against it - that's a pretty good argument to me to keep on supporting it.

signed,

Dave

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 02:27 pm Post subject:

Ken you had originally raised the question of morality regrding expropriation without compensation . It seemed to me that you were holding to a absolutist moral position and that you were questioning the legitimacy of Henning Blomen's explaination of expropriation from a relative moral stance.

My explanation was that if sovereignty were to be invested into the SIU - that the SIU could exercise sovereign authority comparable to eminent domain to alter the property relationships and recognize that the workers had sole interest in "surplus value" even in retrospect. And that "owners" of the means of production were entitled to compensation (essentially in labor vouchers) for everything in the means of production that was not from surplus value.

You really didn't answer any of that except to say that it was a mistake to think that workers were "exploited" under the current situation. But that doesn't get to the morality issue that you yourself raised. Whether it's a mistake or not is not the subject - the subject is IF the workers establish a SIU instead of the state as the "administration of things" wouldn't the SIU have the moral authority to rearrange the property relationships concerning the means of production to advance the common weal as long as the "owners" we're equitably compensated for the means of production after the workers were compensated for surplus value contributed over the years.

Would this arrangement satisfy your moral questions? If Hennning Blomen had told you this (assuming that he didn't) would you have not joined the party back in the 70's, all else being the same? Assuming that this to be the way that it would be done under the SIU, when established (assuming that the workers reject your other objections to the SIU) would it satisfy your concern that things be done morally? If not, specifically how would it not be moral under your understanding of the term?

Signed,
Dave

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 03:38 pm Post subject:

Dave states: ... "frankly the question [Are you an agent provocateur?] was more intended to be a word to the wise."

I don't understand how either the question, or my denial, could help educate the wise. It is nothing short of ABSURD to associate an agent provocateur with someone who is trying to carry on a scholarly discussion about revolution. This isn't 1921, and we are not in the middle of the Palmer raids. I had already suggested that only a fool would think seriously about fomenting a violent revolution. But, knowing, as I do, how badly SLP members were 'eddicated', you probably maintain a deep suspicion of me that won't go away.

Ken wrote: "Mein gott, to think that this dialogue would degenerate into quibbling about my own vouchers for my own integrity."

Dave states: "You like that word a lot don't you? Quibbling. Such as you didn't want to ask Henning Blomen further about the "morality" of the party's goal because you didn't want to "quibble"."

I never worried much about the morality of expropriation at the time, nor is it an issue today. The most important issue with program elements is the issue of feasibility. If expropriation is feasible, then morality can be considered secondarily. When I first heard Henning's explanation, I was SHOCKED that a party would dare propose a type of action that goes so directly against the sacred cow of 'private property'. I vaguely sensed big problems with it, but the whole subject was new to me, and I could not articulate an argument for or against it, because I had no knowledge or historical perspective with which to deal with that subject, so I contented myself with the prospect of possibly thinking about it later. I wanted in with the SLP, and didn't want to appear to be asking a bunch of dumb and uniformed questions, which was the way I handled much of my curiosity in the old days.

Dave wrote: "I think the prudent thing for me to do, and the rest of us to do, would be to continue to advocate for the SIU. If we're wrong, were wrong. What harm does it do? And besides, if you are so much against it - that's a pretty good argument to me to keep on supporting it."

I also think that organizing workers into an SIU is a good idea. But, do you really think that the SIU could be used as an instrument of expropriation during the era of human labor? What do you think about Marx's observation that 'labor creates property'? Can the property relation be abolished while human labor is increasingly productive in producing and reproducing private property? -KE

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 03:42 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: ... "if the majority of society belives that it would benefit society to recognize that the workers have the sole interest in surplus value then society has a soverign right to do that - that society has a right to terminate property rights over the means of production if it believes that doing so would benefit the common weal; that if society determined that terminating property rights would liberate the workers from the wages system that it was perfectly free to do so and it would not violate even absolute notions of morality."

Very few people see expropriation as a solution to their problems. If they did, then we'd be reading about it in the newspapers, and discussing it in community forums. In my local community, people are currently discussing 'youth violence'.

Ken answered: "You mistakenly believe that property ownership oppresses workers, whereas workers are really oppressed by both competition and overwork ... "

Dave replies: "Yes, I very well may be mistaken - but you asked me (if you will recall) about the morality issue. Morality is not affected if society makes an honest mistake in trying to pursue the common weal."

Society isn't going to repeat a mistake as big as expropriation, especially since they've been trying to correct that very mistake since 1989. The expropriatory left seems to have learned nothing from post-1989 events.

Dave continues - "I do not believe that property ownership per se oppresses anyone, but even Shakespeare recognized that "He who owns the means whereby I live, owns me.""

Preaching to the converted doesn't work very well. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, and I even wore it out.

Dave: "Ken you had originally raised the question of morality regrding expropriation without compensation."

For me, the morality issue has always played second fiddle to the issue of feasibility. Why sweat the morality of something that's unfeasible? I didn't consider the expropriation element of the SIU program to be unfeasible until 1994. From 1976-94, my critique of expropriation didn't really exist.

Dave states: ... "It seemed to me that you were holding to an absolutist moral position and that you were questioning the legitimacy of Henning Blomen's explaination of expropriation from a relative moral stance."

No. My shock at Henning's words was over the feasibility of bucking people's tenacious hold on their property. In the news not long ago, a contractor's helper killed another helper over suspicion of theft of a $20.00 portable radio. Think how hard the bosses would fight to maintain control over their factories, and think how loyal their employees would be to their bosses' property.

Dave: "My explanation was that if sovereignty were to be invested into the SIU - that the SIU could exercise sovereign authority comparable to eminent domain to alter the property relationships and recognize that the workers had sole interest in "surplus value" even in retrospect. And that "owners" of the means of production were entitled to compensation (essentially in labor vouchers) for everything in the means of production that was not surplus value. "

As if meddling with property relations could possibly attract anyone, especially after post-1989 events.

Dave: "You really didn't answer any of that except to say, I think, that it was a mistake to think that workers were "exploited" under the current situation."

No, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that, because I just finished explaining on other forums that 'the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value', which can easily be verified in several of Marx's writings. What kind of bird brain would assert that 'workers are not exploited'? I just finished arguing in vain with a Libertarian correspondent who believed that very thing! This proves that you don't have the slightest idea where I am coming from, but you seem desperate to pigeon-hole me in the wrong pigeon-hole, which pigeon-hole seems to change from one day to another.

Dave: "But that doesn't get to the morality issue that you yourself raised. Whether it's a mistake or not is not the subject - the subject is IF the workers establish a SIU instead of the state as the "administration of things" wouldn't the SIU have the moral authority to rearrange the property relationships concerning the means of production to advance the common weal as long as the "owners" we're equitably compensated for the means of production after the workers were compensated for surplus value contributed over the years."

Very few yearn to do that. Seek them out and join up with them, and maybe your movement will grow.

Dave: "Would this arrangement satisfy your moral questions?"

Expropriation has to be feasible before morality can become an issue, so don't forget this vital observation: Expropriation was FEASIBLE after overthrowing absolute monarchies, or after liberating colonies, but was never feasible after merely winning elections. This also demonstrates that expropriation is incompatible with democracy, which the Soviet experience proved well enough.

Dave: "If Hennning Blomen had told you this (assuming that he didn't) would you have not joined the party back in the 70's, all else being the same? Assuming that this to be the way that it would be done under the SIU, when established (assuming that the workers reject your other objections to the SIU) would it satisfy your concern that things be done morally? If not, specifically how would it not be moral under your understanding of the term?"

It's not easy to speculate about what happened so long ago. What happened did happen, and it isn't very constructive to go back, change one little aspect, and try to determine if the same history would repeat itself. -KE

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 05:38 pm Post subject:

On April 3, 2005 Ken wrote:

The SP and the whole rest of the 'expropriation with compensation' crowd are more in tune with the Western value of 'respecting private property rights'. The SLP is different. Henning explained that 'morality is flexible, and what's right for one era can be superseded when enough people agree on a new way of doing things', which is a rough paraphrase of his explanation of how our 'expropriation without compensation' could be accepted as a new value when the SIUs take over. When I first heard that, it seemed vaguely plausible, but at the same time it sort of shocked me. Abolish private ownership of the means of production in the USA? Still, I figured that Henning had to know what he was talking about, and I had no other yardsticks by which to measure his words. So, I wasn't about to quibble. But now I can see that the institution of private property will remain alive and well, at least until the human labor basis of private property is abolished. Let me know how you feel about Henning's approach to this moral issue, and your reaction when 'expropriation without compensation' was first introduced to you.

Now Ken writes:

For me, the morality issue has always played second fiddle to the issue of feasibility. Why sweat the morality of something that's unfeasible? I didn't consider the expropriation element of the SIU program to be unfeasible until 1994. From 1976-94, my critique of expropriation didn't really exist.

Dave responds:

Now you state that the question of morality plays second fiddle to the issue of morality – but you joined the SLP with its open goal being that the workers should, as you termed it expropriate the owners of the means of production without compensation – a goal that you did not think unfeasible until 1992. You report a conversation that you had with Henning Blomen back in the early 70s where you specifically remember talking about rightness and morality concerning ‘expropriation without compensation’, and that you were “shocked”. Then you asked me how I felt when I first hear of this. It seemed that you were now raising a moral objection to “expropriation without compensation.”

When I question you about the morality of disapropriating the slaves without compensation you try to dodge the question by trying distinguishing that liberating slaves as property does not put them into ownership of another. You did that Ken to avoid the result that disappropriation may be a perfectly moral solution to a pressing social problem.

I also asked:

Where does Ken Ellis stand on the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which abolishes slavery without compensation to the slaveholders?"

As slavery is almost universally regarded as wrong or immoral, I have no problem with the concept of 'emancipation without compensation'. Certainly the slave owners lost their assets, but those assets were immorally acquired in the first place, not very different from 'stolen goods'.

Dave responds:

Ken also acknowledged that Marx wrote more than once that: 'the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value',

Dave responds – the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value. Why is that? Taking surplus value by Capitalists through the wages system is exploitation? The means of production were acquired through exploitation? Then isn’t it moral to take it back? Ken will agree that it was moral to free the slaves but not the working class taking back that which was taken from them though exploitation.

Ken’s continuing argument for why it is unfeasible for the workers to form SIUs to disapproriate from the Capitalists that which they dissapropriataed from the workers is because the workers haven’t done it yet. That is reason enough - for people like Ken.

signed Dave

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 05:45 pm Post subject:

Ken what did you mean by the clause:

how badly SLP members were 'eddicated'

especially the use of 'eddicated' ?

What does that refer to?

signed Dave

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 07:39 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

"Ken you had originally raised the question of morality regarding expropriation without compensation . It seemed to me that you were holding to a absolutist moral position and that you were questioning the legitimacy of Henning Blomen's explanation of expropriation from a relative moral stance.

"My explanation was that if sovereignty were to be invested into the SIU - that the SIU could exercise sovereign authority comparable to eminent domain to alter the property relationships and recognize that the workers had sole interest in "surplus value" even in retrospect. And that "owners" of the means of production were entitled to compensation (essentially in labor vouchers) for everything in the means of production that was not from surplus value.

"You really didn't answer any of that except to say that it was a mistake to think that workers were "exploited" under the current situation. But that doesn't get to the morality issue that you yourself raised"

Ken answered:

No, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that, because I just finished explaining on other forums that 'the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value', which can easily be verified in several of Marx's writings. What kind of bird brain would assert that 'workers are not exploited'?

But in fact Ken wrote:

You mistakenly believe that property ownership oppresses workers, whereas workers are really oppressed by both competition and overwork, which is why the shorter work hour movement was so important to M+E, because it simultaneously relieves workers of both competition and overwork.

Dave observers:

Which is why Marx wrote in Capital - “The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”

And which is why Marx wrote in the Manifesto: The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

According to Marx it was Capitalist private property and extraction of surplus value …

But according to Ken -The workers ARE REALLY oppressed by competition and overwork

Oh, OK .

Signed Dave

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 12:11 am Post subject:

Ken writes:

What do you think about Marx's observation that 'labor creates property'? Can the property relation be abolished while human labor is increasingly productive in producing and reproducing private property?

Dave responds:

Marx wrote that labor does not create ANY property for the laborer, only Capital for the owner.

"But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour." (From Karl's Magnificent Manifesto, Chap. 2)

signed Dave

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 02:03 am Post subject:

Dave states:

... "frankly the question [Are you an agent provocateur?] was more intended to be a word to the wise."

Ken replied:

I don't understand how either the question, or my denial, could help educate the wise.

Dave responds:

It is possible that you may not.

signed Dave

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 10:33 pm Post subject:

On April 3, 2005 Ken wrote: "Henning explained that 'morality is flexible, and what's right for one era can be superseded when enough people agree on a new way of doing things', [blah, blah, blah]. Let me know how you feel about Henning's approach to this moral issue, and your reaction when 'expropriation without compensation' was first introduced to you."

Ken now adds: If you had bothered to take notice of what I was saying, you would have noticed that the morality question was not such a big deal. But, as we got deeper into this issue, that which actually SHOCKED me was the enormity of the task of expropriating private property in a country which so prizes its private property. You have yet to separate the morality question from the feasibility question, which are quite separate.

Dave: "When I question you about the morality of disapropriating the slaves without compensation you try to dodge the question by trying distinguishing that liberating slaves as property does not put them into ownership of another. You did that Ken to avoid the result that disappropriation may be a perfectly moral solution to a pressing social problem."

STOP accusing me of dodging questions, and just say what you want to say, and let me know what you want me to comment further on. You are SO impolite. Maybe you are paying me back for accusing you of evading commenting on Petersen wrongly attributing a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx.

Back to the issue: Liberating (or expropriating) slaves, and doing the same thing for private property, are 2 different kettles of fish. Slavery wasn't regarded anywhere nearly as kindly as ownership of land and other means of production. So, when the South foisted the Civil War upon the nation precisely over the question of the future of slavery, as Marx made clear in his many newspaper articles on our War, it became inevitable that slavery would be abolished if the North won the War. That outcome was made possible by the fact that slavery stunk, plain and simple. Can the same thing be claimed about private property? Ha. Tell that to the near billion of people who didn't resist privatization after the USSR and the Eastern Bloc fell. If you want to waste the rest of your life shoveling shit against the tide, then it's your life, and it might be smart to invite as many others as possible to help you in your labor of Sisyphus. But, look at it this way: private property is indeed doomed, but its doom is 100% dependent on the previous abolition of human labor, which can't last much longer than 15 years or so, if some predictions are to be believed. I'm PERFECTLY confident that this script will be followed as Marx's predictions are realized.

Dave: "Ken also acknowledged that Marx wrote more than once that: 'the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value' - Why is that?"

Volumes could be written on the topic of 'why is that', and still not touch upon whatever connection you are failing to make between exploitation and surplus value. If you have reservations about Marx's equation of exploitation with surplus value, please try to verbalize those reservations, and I'll try to address them.

Dave: "Taking surplus value by Capitalists through the wages system is exploitation?"

That's it! That's how Marx equated them.

Dave: "The means of production were acquired through exploitation? Then isn’t it moral to take it back? Ken will agree that it was moral to free the slaves but not the working class taking back that which was taken from them though exploitation."

Original accumulation was not acquired by means as civil as extraction of surplus value. Engels wrote in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State": "The lowest interests - base greed, brutal appetites, sordid avarice, selfish robbery of the common wealth - inaugurate the new, civilized, class society. It is by the vilest means - theft, violence, fraud, treason - that the old classless gentile society is undermined and overthrown. And the new society itself, during all the two and a half thousand years of its existence, has never been anything else but the development of the small minority at the expense of the great exploited and oppressed majority; today it is so more than ever before."

Originally, the means of production were NOT acquired by civil means. Just consider the way Europeans treated native Americans, not so very long ago.

Dave: "Ken’s continuing argument for why it is unfeasible for the workers to form SIUs to disapproriate from the Capitalists that which they dissapropriataed from the workers is because the workers haven’t done it yet. That is reason enough - for people like Ken."

There you go, slurring me yet again. If you repeat the comment without slurring me, then I'll reply.

Dave: "Ken what did you mean by the clause: how badly SLP members were 'eddicated' ... especially the use of 'eddicated' ? What does that refer to? "

'Eddicated' was a denigrating term Engels applied to many members of his German Social-Democratic Workers' Party, referring to the shallowness of their learning.

Dave then repeated a bunch of useless party propaganda, and stated: "You really didn't answer any of that except to say that it was a mistake to think that workers were "exploited" under the current situation. But that doesn't get to the morality issue that you yourself raised"

Ken answered: "No, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that, because I just finished explaining on other forums that 'the rate of exploitation is the rate of surplus value', which can easily be verified in several of Marx's writings. What kind of bird brain would assert that 'workers are not exploited'?"

But in fact Ken wrote: "You mistakenly believe that property ownership oppresses workers, whereas workers are really oppressed by both competition and overwork, which is why the shorter work hour movement was so important to M+E, because it simultaneously relieves workers of both competition and overwork."

Dave observes: "Which is why Marx wrote in Capital - “The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” And which is why Marx wrote in the Manifesto: 'The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.'

Marx was an expropriator, that's for sure. But, he ALSO fought vigorously for a shorter work day, placing the 8 hour struggle at the top of the demands in the program of the First International.

Dave: "According to Marx it was Capitalist private property and extraction of surplus value ... But according to Ken -The workers ARE REALLY oppressed by competition and overwork. Oh, OK ."

Well, I'm not sure what you are driving at here, but perhaps you are not distinquishing between exploitation and oppression. 'Exploitation' for Marx was strictly an economic term, identical with surplus value. Are workers exploited? Very much so, and the rate of exploitation increases as productivity rises as a function of time, and as more efficient new machinery is introduced.

Oppression, on the other hand, seems very different. For someone to say that 'American workers are oppressed', I would ask: 'WHICH American workers? The Hewlett Packard workers at the Palo Alto campus with the sports facilities and the nice cafeterias, the high wages, excellent benefits, etc.?' To me, H-P workers are NOT oppressed, relatively speaking. I have no doubt, however, that they ARE exploited, because otherwise H-P wouldn't make a profit. But, they shouldn't be counted in the ranks of the oppressed along with the WalMart workers who aren't allowed to form into unions, and who don't make enough $ to buy health care insurance, etc. Similarly with many agricultural workers. -KE

Ken writes: "What do you think about Marx's observation that 'labor creates property'? Can the property relation be abolished while human labor is increasingly productive in producing and reproducing private property?

Dave responds: "Marx wrote that labor does not create ANY property for the laborer, only Capital for the owner.

I wouldn't draw too too many far-reaching conclusions from that quote. How would you reconcile it with what Marx wrote in 1844? "We can also see that wages and private property are identical: wages, which is the product, the object of labor, for which labor sells itself, are the necessary consequence of the estrangement of labor, just as in wage labor work itself is not an end in itself, but rather appears as a servant of the wage."

Just think: 'wages and private property are identical.' That's pretty absolute. Another web site quotes Marx as saying: "only when labor is grasped as the essence of private property can the economic process as such be penetrated in its actual concreteness"

And to think that you would abolish private property. Ha. Better get started abolishing human labor, and then you might have a fighting chance of succeeding. -KE

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 03:46 am Post subject:

Ken writes: "What do you think about Marx's observation that 'labor creates property'? Can the property relation be abolished while human labor is increasingly productive in producing and reproducing private property?

Dave responds: "Marx wrote that labor does not create ANY property for the laborer, only Capital for the owner.

Ken responds:

I wouldn't draw too many far-reaching conclusions from that quote.

Dave interrupts:

Notice that Ken’s Marx quote (if it is one) and my quotation from the Communist Manifesto are not contradictory. Labor does create property – but under capitalism, labor creates no property for itself only capital for the owner.

Ken continued:

How would you reconcile (the quotation from the Manifesto) with what Marx wrote in 1844?

Here Ken quoted from an unfinished manuscript by Marx written in 1844:

"We can also see that wages and private property are identical: wages, which is the product, the object of labor, for which labor sells itself, are the necessary consequence of the estrangement of labor, just as in wage labor work itself is not an end in itself, but rather appears as a servant of the wage."

And then Ken stated further:

Just think: 'wages and private property are identical.' That's pretty absolute.

Dave observes:

“Identical” in mathematics is absolute, meaning the same as, in all respects. In other contexts the word may mean having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same. But here’s where I think Ken runs into a problem – identical can also mean having the same cause or origin. The problem is compounded that Marx probably didn’t write the manuscript in English. I think the gist of what was written was that the wages system and private property spring from the same cause – the estrangement of labor from the means of production. Marx wrote elsewhere in that same manuscript:

“Political economy conceals the estrangement in the nature of labor by
ignoring the direct relationship between the worker (labor) and
production. It is true that labor produces marvels for the rich, but it
produces privation for the worker.”

Dave continues:

The profits portion of what labor produces is described as “marvels for the rich” while the wages portion is not described as Private property (as would be the case if wages and private property were mathematically identical) but PRIVATION for the worker.

Therefore I think it likely that Marx meant that the wages system and private property both spring from the same cause, or as Marx wrote in the same manuscript:

“Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labor, and estranged
labor is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls,
then the other must fall too.”

Signed Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 04:11 am Post subject:

Ken quoted Marx:

Another web site quotes Marx as saying: "only when labor is grasped as the essence of private property can the economic process as such be penetrated in its actual concreteness"

Ken followed that quotewith the statement:

And to think that you would abolish private property. Ha. Better get started abolishing human labor, and then you might have a fighting chance of succeeding.

A more fuller quote of that same passage from Marx would be:

To say that the division of labor and exchange are based on private property is simply to say that labor is the essence of private property -- an assertion that the political economist is incapable of proving and which we intend to prove for him. It is precisely in the fact that the division of labor and exchange are configurations of private property that we find the proof, both that human life needed private property for its realization and that it now needs the abolition of private property.

Signed: Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 06:49 am Post subject:

OK, Dave, I see that you want to abolish private property and the wages system. How are you going to do that? Expropriate?

As for the abolition of the wages system, you've previously been informed that the only concrete and tangible means of doing so was described in Engels' 1880 article entitled "Trades Unions": by struggling for higher wages and shorter work hours. Are you ready to struggle for either of those, or are you just going to concentrate on expropriation?

Oh, and thanks very much for not abusing me in those last 2 messages. -KE

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:29 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

OK, Dave, I see that you want to abolish private property and the wages system. How are you going to do that? Expropriate?

Dave responds:

I advocate that society recognize that surplus value belongs to the workers.

The property relationship of labor to capital thereby ceases to exist.

I did not say that all private property be abolished - Marx's distincion in the manifesto that I quoted above are quite acceptable to me:

"'The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.'"

Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:49 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

"As for the abolition of the wages system, you've previously been informed that the only concrete and tangible means of doing so was described in Engels' 1880 article entitled "Trades Unions": by struggling for higher wages and shorter work hours. Are you ready to struggle for either of those, or are you just going to concentrate on expropriation?"

Dave answers:

Of course Ken paraphrases what he thinks that Engels wrote but he does not, as is often the case with Ken, provide us with a quote and a web address of the document. I think I found the publication that Ken was referring to. In my own estimation it seems that the work Ken referred to contained at least two passages wherein Engels seems to have written something opposed to what Ken represented him to have written:

From Engels at:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/28.htm

"it is through the action of Trades Unions that the law of wages is enforced as against the employers, and that the workpeople of any well-organized trade are enabled to obtain, at least approximately, the full value of the working power which they hire to their employer; and that, with the help of State laws, the hours of labor are made at least not to exceed too much that maximum length beyond which the working power is prematurely exhausted. This, however, is the utmost Trades Unions, as at present organized, can hope to obtain, and that by constant struggle only, by an immense waste of strength and money; and then the fluctuations of trade, once every ten years at least, break down for the moment what has been conquered, and the fight has to be fought over again. It is a vicious circle from which there is no issue. The working class remains what it was, and what our Chartist forefathers were not afraid to call it, a class of wages slaves. Is this to be the final result of all this labour, self-sacrifice, and suffering? Is this to remain for ever the highest aim of British workmen? Or is the working class of this country at last to attempt breaking through this vicious circle, and to find an issue out of it in a movement for the ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM ALTOGETHER?"

And:

"Thus there are two points which the organized Trades would do well to consider, firstly, that the time is rapidly approaching when the working class of this country will claim, with a voice not to be mistaken, its full share of representation in Parliament. Secondly, that the time also is rapidly approaching when the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages and short hours, and the whole action of Trades Unions as now carried on, is not an end in itself, but a means, a very necessary and effective means' but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether."

Once again, what Ken represented to have been said by either Marx or Engles has not turned out to be anything like that which he represented. Is he putting false words into the mouths of Marx and Engles to cover up for a deficiency in a program (or lack thereof) -

signed:

Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 08:11 pm Post subject:

I came upon another instance of Ken representing one thing about the writing of either Marx or Engels, but then when you check out the source, it is not what Ken said. I came upon what appears to be a glaring example:

Ken wrote:

"In his book on "The condition of the Working Class in England in
1844", Engels didn't blame the problems of poor workers on
private property or capitalism, but instead put the blame
where it really belongs, on the competition of workers
among themselves to win places in the economy."

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/cor2000may-jun.html

But in fact Engels wrote in the preface to the American edition of that book:

"The causes that brought into existence the abyss between the working class and the capitalist class are the same in America as in Europe; the means of filling up that abyss are equally the same everywhere. Consequently, the platform of the American proletariat will in the long run coincide, as to the ultimate end to be attained, with the one which, after sixty years of dissensions and discussions, has become the adopted platform of the great mass of the European militant proletariat. It will proclaim, as the ultimate end, the conquest of political supremacy by the working class, in order to effect the direct appropriation of all means of production — land, railways, mines, machinery, etc. — by society at large, to be worked in common by all for the account and benefit of all."

Fredrick Engels The condition of the Working Class in England

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

Dave continues:

Ken tell me - if Arnold Petersen had written what you wrote, would it have been a lie for which he should be dug up and shot?

signed
Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 09:59 pm Post subject:

Dave should ask himself why M+E were so interested in expropriation. It was for one major reason: to help make the economy more inclusive. In his 1877 bio entitled 'Karl Marx', Engels wrote: "the productive forces of society, which have outgrown the control of the bourgeoisie, are only waiting for the associated proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring about a state of things in which every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in production but also in the distribution and administration of social wealth, and which so increases the productive forces of society and their yield by planned operation of the whole of production that the satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured to everyone in an ever-increasing measure."

'To enable full participation in the economy' was the reason Engels gave for expropriating, or socializing ownership of the means of production. Engels didn't live to see his dream semi-realized in the old USSR, China, etc., but billions of people were affected by the mistake of rearranging property relations during the era of human labor. The key to full participation (by totally civilized means) had already been stated in Engels' 1880 article on 'Trades Unions', viz., 'the struggle for shorter work hours'. When France adopted a 35 hour workweek, it didn't take long before unemployment fell from double digits to single digits. In spite of this successful solution to the very real problem of 'incomplete participation in the economy', Dave insists on expropriating, but the masses won't listen. -KE

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:02 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

Dave insists on expropriating, but the masses won't listen. -KE

Yes Ken - but that doesn't answer the question that I posed regarding your apparent misrepresentation of Engels.

As I stated Engels wrote:

"The causes that brought into existence the abyss between the working class and the capitalist class are the same in America as in Europe; the means of filling up that abyss are equally the same everywhere. Consequently, the platform of the American proletariat will in the long run coincide, as to the ultimate end to be attained, with the one which, after sixty years of dissensions and discussions, has become the adopted platform of the great mass of the European militant proletariat. It will proclaim, as the ultimate end, the conquest of political supremacy by the working class, in order to effect the direct appropriation of all means of production — land, railways, mines, machinery, etc. — by society at large, to be worked in common by all for the account and benefit of all."

Fredrick Engels The condition of the Working Class in England

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

But Ken wrote:

"In his book on "The condition of the Working Class in England in
1844", Engels didn't blame the problems of poor workers on
private property or capitalism, but instead put the blame
where it really belongs, on the competition of workers
among themselves to win places in the economy."

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/cor2000may-jun.html

Dave asks:

Do you have an explaination for this seeming inconsistency?

signed Dave

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:03 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote: "As for the abolition of the wages system ... the only concrete and tangible means of doing so was described in Engels' 1880 article entitled "Trades Unions": by struggling for higher wages and shorter work hours. Are you ready to struggle for either of those, or are you just going to concentrate on expropriation?"

Dave answers: "Of course Ken paraphrases what he thinks that Engels wrote but he doesn't, as is often the case with Ken provide us with a quote and a web adress. I think I found the publication that Ken was referring to. In my own estimation it seems that the work Ken refered to contained at least two passages wherein Engels seems to have written something different than what Ken represented him to have written: From Engels at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/28.htm

"the struggle for high wages and short hours, and the whole action of Trades Unions as now carried on, is not an end in itself, but a means, a very necessary and effective means, but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether."

Perhaps Dave's hopes were elevated by Engels' claim of 'SEVERAL means towards the higher end of abolishing the wages system'. I challenge anyone to document M+E listing any means other than struggling for high wages and shorter work hours. Those remain the only concrete and practical means M+E ever stated as effective in helping abolish the wages system. Aspersion should not be cast upon my research until other effective means are discovered within the works of M+E. Good luck. -KE

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:

On this 10th page of 'dialogue', I've been accused of 'misrepresenting', covering up for a deficiency in my program, putting false words into the mouths of M+E, being inconsistent, and who knows what will come next?

In the future, I will not answer a message containing attacks upon me. Dave seems to be using this forum as a means of getting even with me for having accused Petersen of having falsely attributed a 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' to Marx. Attacking ME is how he expresses his loyalty to a program whose essence was long ago demolished by Engels. Dave has no interest in the subject of 'whether Petersen lied', which was the main subject of my book. His personal attacks on me have proven totally unproductive of educating people about the flaws of the SLP 'analysis' of Marxism. -KE

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 01:25 am Post subject:

Ken writes:

On this 10th page of 'dialogue', I've been accused of 'misrepresenting', covering up for a deficiency in my program, putting false words into the mouths of M+E, being inconsistent, and who knows what will come next?

Dave writes:

Isn't it ironic? When Ken went on and on about this supposed lie by Arnold Petersen - like anyone gave a damn what that coot did or said in 1931 - I knew underneath my skin that something wasn't just quite right -that's why I kept asking Ken for references to his Marx and Engels quotes the more I checked the more I realized that our boy was trying to mould Marx and Engels to make them say what he truly wanted them to say. Just as he repeatedly and repeatedly has alleged that Petersen has done. A "lie" Ken calls it - that's what he entitled to book - "left wing lies."

He can dish it out but he can't take it.

Ken says that pertersen's lies were so large that theycould only have been told becuase of the infeasibilty of the SIU goal. What kind of stupity is that? Was the Volkswagon not a practical automobile becasue it was advocated by a great liar - Adolph Hitler?

I have downloaded Ken's book and when I get my taxes done (I finally finished doing my third amendment to my 2003 return so I can be able to work on my 2004) But come next week - Ken in participation or not I am going to write about THE GREAT PETERSEN/ELLIS LIE SAGA. I know that you all can't wait.

Will there be things that Petersen said in 1931 that we do not agree with now? I have absolutlely no doubt that will be the case. But Ken is drooling for us to look at it, as if the differnces that will naturally occur over time as more and more factual information becomes available will reveal the daVinci code of working class emancipation that only Ken has been able to see as of this point. (And we must be liars or fools ifwe don't see it with him.)

As to Ken's reply to the "Trades Union" article Ken left out the part where Engels said that:

"it is through the action of Trades Unions that the law of wages is enforced as against the employers, and that the workpeople of any well-organized trade are enabled to obtain, at least approximately, the full value of the working power which they hire to their employer; and that, with the help of State laws, the hours of labor are made at least not to exceed too much that maximum length beyond which the working power is prematurely exhausted. This, however, is the utmost Trades Unions, as at present organized, can hope to obtain, and that by constant struggle only, by an immense waste of strength and money; and then the fluctuations of trade, once every ten years at least, break down for the moment what has been conquered, and the fight has to be fought over again. It is a vicious circle from which there is no issue. The working class remains what it was, and what our Chartist forefathers were not afraid to call it, a class of wages slaves. Is this to be the final result of all this labour, self-sacrifice, and suffering? Is this to remain for ever the highest aim of British workmen? Or is the working class of this country at last to attempt breaking through this vicious circle, and to find an issue out of it in a movement for the ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM ALTOGETHER?"

And then:

Thus there are two points which the organized Trades would do well to consider, firstly, that the time is rapidly approaching when the working class of this country will claim, with a voice not to be mistaken, its full share of representation in Parliament. Secondly, that the time also is rapidly approaching when the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages and short hours, and the whole action of Trades Unions as now carried on, is not an end in itself, but a means, a very necessary and effective means' but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether."

Dave states - Engels stated in this that more than the struggle for high wages and shorter hours needed to occur - that in order to break out of the endless cycle as he put it - the struggle had to become a struggle for the abolition of the wages system altogether - that in addition to struggling for high wages and shorter hours the workers had to utilize their political potential and also organize the unions on an industrial base as opposed to simply along the line of trades.

This is entirely different than how Ken represented what was there that:

"As for the abolition of the wages system ... the only concrete and tangible means of doing so was described in Engels' 1880 article entitled "Trades Unions": by struggling for higher wages and shorter work hours."

Dave

I am going to post one paragraph at a time of Petersen's book. We will take as much time as we need to get through the whole book. We are mainly looking for definite inaccuracies of fact in the text as opposed to whether or not the conclusions drawn from the facts are supported and or valid. To reach an invalid or unsupported conclusion is not a lie. After we sweep the entire text for definite inaccuracies of fact then we will go back and search for unsuported and/or invalid conclusions. After we have done that we will traverse the text one last time to determine if the inaccuraies of fact can be considered lies.

PLEASE REFER TO THE PARAGRAPH NUMBER when responding:

Dave

Proletarian Democracy vs Dictatorships and Despotism
by Arnold Petersen
An address delivered by the Annual De Leon Birthday Celebration, New York City, December 13, 1931. Published in 1932, New York Labor News Company, New York City

(Introduction by A.J. Taylor omitted)

Paragraph 1.

In reviewing the life and work of Daniel De Leon one is impressed with the striking similarity between De Leon's character, achievements and the recognition (or the lack of it) and treatment accorded him by most of his contemporaries, and the character, achievements, etc., of his great predecessor Karl Marx, and, in a more limited sense, of Nicolai Lenin as well. Each of these three outstanding personalities in the Socialist movement sprang from the wealthy bourgeoisie; each gave up a brilliant career to dedicate himself to the cause of the exploited proletariat; each, upon leaving the "sacred precincts" of his class, abandoned the ideology, the principles and the traditions of his class, and accepted unreservedly the principles of the revolutionary working class movement, planting himself squarely and with no thought of eventual retreat, on the basis of the class struggle. Each led a life in poverty and privation, entirely unlike the majority of the so-called intellectuals who, either as lawyers or writers, carried with them into the Socialist movement their special or petty bourgeois ideology and prejudices, frequently using the labor movement to enrich themselves at the expense of that movement.

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 10:41 pm Post subject:

Let's keep in mind that the SLP has withdrawn from publication all pamphlets that include the apocryphal tale of Lenin admitting to Reed that De Leon was the only writer who added anything to Marxism since Marx. They have withdrawn this Petersen pamphlet, and also "Marxism vs. Soviet Despotism", "The SLP and the Internationals", and several others. Therefore, this pamphlet no longer necessarily represents the SLP's "official position" about anything. With that caveat in mind, go ahead and post excerpts from it.

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 03:30 pm Post subject:

Dave writes: "When Ken went on and on about this supposed lie by Arnold Petersen - like anyone gave a damn what that coot did or said in 1931 - "

Since a close exam of Petersen's 1931 pamphlet is on the agenda, his lies will soon be taken up in great detail, I hope. The first 38 pages of his pamphlet contain a few gems, but those pages are relatively barren of easily researchable lies compared to the barrage that begins on page 39. It is there we may have the most fun.

Dave: "I knew underneath my skin that something wasn't just quite right - that's why I kept asking Ken for references to his Marx and Engels quotes the more I checked the more I realized that our boy was trying to mould Marx and Engels to make them say what he truly wanted them to say. It doesn't work that way boys and girls - especially with Marx and Engels."

There you charge me with distorting M+E quotes while failing to inform us of the effect I allegedly am trying to achieve. Real evidence needs to be presented.

Dave: "Ken left out the part where Engels said that:"

Do those 1881 quotes need to be repeated ad infinitum? After presenting a quote, it needs to be tied to a current argument, but that is all too rarely done.

Dave states - "Engels stated in this that more than the struggle for high wages and shorter hours needed to occur - that in order to break out of the endless cycle as he put it - the struggle had to become a struggle for the abolition of the wages system altogether - that in addition to struggling for high wages and shorter hours the workers had to utilize their political potential and also organize the unions on an industrial base as opposed to simply along the line of trades. This is entirely different than how Ken represented what was there."

No, it isn't 'entirely different'. Engels certainly anguished over the endless cycles of economic (union) struggles for higher wages and shorter work hours, but he would have been ecstatic had the workers united into a political party in order to win the Eight Hour Day. As Marx wrote into the Rules of the First Int'l (me22.427): "That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united." The abolition of the wages system depends upon workers struggling POLITICALLY against the capitalist policy of 'as few workers as possible working as many hours as possible'. That capitalist policy needs to be replaced with 'as many workers as possible working as few hours as possible'. Only then can 'full participation in the economy' be fully realized. As Engels' 1877 bio entitled 'Karl Marx' informed us, 'full participation' was the reason for socializing ownership of the means of production in the first place.

Dave: "I am going to post one paragraph at a time of Petersen's book."

Very good, that shows great initiative. If you don't mind, please tell us if your version comes from the public files at the World in Common forum.

Thank you for omitting A.J. Taylor's nerve-grating Introduction. Also, paragraph 1 of Petersen's Foreword can pass without comment for now, though my own comments about his Foreword (that were last edited maybe 4 years ago) are available at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partd.html. -KE

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 05:29 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote- "Engels stated in this that more than the struggle for high wages and shorter hours needed to occur - that in order to break out of the endless cycle as he put it - the struggle had to become a struggle for the abolition of the wages system altogether - that in addition to struggling for high wages and shorter hours the workers had to utilize their political potential and also organize the unions on an industrial base as opposed to simply along the line of trades. This is entirely different than how Ken represented what was there."

Ken wrote:

No, it isn't 'entirely different'. Engels certainly anguished over the endless cycles of economic (union) struggles for higher wages and shorter work hours, but he would have been ecstatic had the workers united into a political party in order to win the Eight Hour Day.

Dave replies:

You will notice the words that I wrote:

"This is entirely different than how Ken REPRESENTED WHAT WAS THERE."

Ken shifts gears once more and now talks about what Engels WOULD HAVE BEEN ECSTATIC ABOUT as opposed to how what Ken said was in the article was untrue.

Beautiful day isn't it?

Dave

P.S. I debated whther to leave A.J. Taylors intr in. But since we're talking about what Comrade Petersen said I thought that we should just stick to his words.

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 05:40 pm Post subject:

Ken writes:

There you charge me with distorting M+E quotes while failing to inform us of the effect I allegedly am trying to achieve. Real evidence needs to be presented.

Dave asks:

So the fact of what you said that Engels wrote is false and that you used the falsified version to support an argument that you were making, was not enough? I'll have to dig a little further.

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 05:44 pm Post subject:

Dave asks:

Ken did you answer my other allegation, or did I miss something? This was the allegation:

Dave writes:

I came upon another instance of Ken representing one thing about the writing of either Marx or Engels, but then when you check out the source, it is not what Ken said. I came upon what appears to be a glaring example:

Ken wrote at his website::

"In his book on "The condition of the Working Class in England in
1844", Engels didn't blame the problems of poor workers on
private property or capitalism, but instead put the blame
where it really belongs, on the competition of workers
among themselves to win places in the economy."

http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/cor2000may-jun.html

But in fact Engels wrote in the preface to the American edition of that book:

"The causes that brought into existence the abyss between the working class and the capitalist class are the same in America as in Europe; the means of filling up that abyss are equally the same everywhere. Consequently, the platform of the American proletariat will in the long run coincide, as to the ultimate end to be attained, with the one which, after sixty years of dissensions and discussions, has become the adopted platform of the great mass of the European militant proletariat. It will proclaim, as the ultimate end, the conquest of political supremacy by the working class, in order to effect the direct appropriation of all means of production — land, railways, mines, machinery, etc. — by society at large, to be worked in common by all for the account and benefit of all."

Fredrick Engels The condition of the Working Class in England

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 06:27 pm Post subject:

Dave referred to Fredrick Engels: The condition of the Working Class in England http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

In his book, Engels wrote: "the supremacy of the bourgeoisie is based wholly upon the competition of the workers among themselves; i.e., upon their want of cohesion."

What exactly did Engels do there? He BLAMED the supremacy of the bourgeoisie upon the lack of cohesion between workers, and their competition among themselves. ANYONE can see that at a glance.

But, what did Dave quote from? The Preface to Engels' book, in which his expropriatory PROGRAM was revealed: "the conquest of political supremacy by the working class, in order to effect the direct appropriation of all means of production — land, railways, mines, machinery, etc. — by society at large, to be worked in common by all for the account and benefit of all."

Where, in that sentence, is the BLAME? Obviously, Dave is having trouble distinguishing between 'program' and 'blame'. So, what else to do except to charge Ken with a 'glaring example' of a literary crime. Dear Dave, is there any hope that you will ever THINK before you go charging me with another literary crime? -KE

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 01:58 am Post subject:

Proletarian Democracy vs Dictatorships and Despotism
by Arnold Petersen
An address delivered by the Annual De Leon Birthday Celebration, New York City, December 13, 1931. Published in 1932, New York Labor News Company, New York City

Paragraph 2.

Each of these three men was largely ignored by the bourgeois officialdom of his time, and by the professional and usually corrupt labor leaders and supposed fellow Socialists. Each was accused of being arrogant, domineering, tyrannical, sectarian, intolerant and what not, and each was abused and vilified solely because of his single-minded devotion to scientific principles and persevering pursuit of correct principles and tactics. Marx and Lenin have achieved a partial recognition, which is bound to increase as the capitalist system in general utterly degenerates. The recognition of De Leon will be, if anything, even more striking and universal once the American working class begins to realize that it must take the road of revolution, and when it begins to understand what means and methods must be employed, and when it becomes thoroughly convinced that there is no traveling back on the road to the past.

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 04:56 am Post subject:

Dave - in case you're just now typing or scanning that ... I have that Petersen pamplet in an MS Word / MS Works file (.doc) -- Do you want me to email it to you? 127,000 bytes.

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 11:50 am Post subject:

Thanks to Dave for sending paragraph 2. Again, there is a lot of stuff in there that can be quibbled with. Petersen tried desperately to associate De Leon's name with those of M+E+Lenin, hoping that the reputations of fame and intellect associated with MEL will rub off on De Leon. But, that effort was in vain, because the average person remains quite ignorant of who De Leon was, simply because De Leon contributed very little positively or negatively, compared to the others.

As I say at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partd.html, "the SLP embraced Marx, Engels and Lenin in words, but they were almost perfectly boycotted in substance." -KE

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 12:23 pm Post subject:

Regarding Pararaph 2-

Ken, this is why I wanted to do this paragrapgh at a time, to specifically identify errors of fact. As far as I know, the only way an error of fact can be isolated is by the presentation of other facts that are reliably accepted as true that disprove the first set of facts.

Is there any fact (as opposed to a conclusion) in paragraph two that you believe is not true.

For example the statement:

"The recognition of De Leon will be, if anything, even more striking and universal once the American working class begins to realize that it must take the road of revolution..."

Is clearly a conclusion since we know that probably Arnold Petersen was not capable of time travel. And the problem here also is that the condition has not happened "that the working class begins to realize ...". Who knows Petersen may turn out to be right yet. Logically speaking - since the predicted recognition of DeLeon hinges upon something else that is speculated shall happen, even if the workers don't "begin to realize ..." in our lifetimes, we would not be able to say that his speculation was wrong. It's all pure speculation.

Unless there is some further discussion on this - I will assume that no one suggests that there is an untrue fact in paragrapgh 2. I will post paragraph 3 later in the day, if that is the case.

Dave

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 12:35 pm Post subject:

Regarding Pararaph 2

Yes, I think that the whole paragraph 2 is really more a matter of Petersen's strong opinions than matters of fact or anything else worth working ourselves into a frenzy over, which is why I am reluctant to dig very deeply into it. We can safely transit to paragraph 3. -KE

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 02:05 pm Post subject:

Before we go on - so so there is no confusion in the future -

Do you agree that you do not see any FACTUAL errors in paragrapgh 2?

If that is the case, and maybe we could speed this process up - would you identify the first paragrapgh where you think there is any FACTUAL error. (please give the first sentence so that I can find it)

This means that if you identify, for example, the 100th paragraph as the first paragraph containing a factual error, that you are agreeing that all of the previous paragraphs contain NO FACTUAL ERRORS. I'd like you to take you time and be very sure.

Dave

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 08:05 pm Post subject:

Dave writes:

I should have written this instead:

If that is the case, and maybe we could speed this process up - would you identify the first paragrapgh where you think there is any FACTUAL error. (please give the first sentence so that I can find it)

This means that if you identify, for example, the 100th paragraph as the first paragraph containing a factual error, that you are agreeing that you have considered each of the preceeding paragraphs and are aware of no factual errors.

For instance -I'm sure that you'll soon get to the statements by Petersen about what Lenin thought about DeLeon, etc. Of these statements, however doubtful they may seem today - it is not likely that the facts can be verified - but it is just as likely that there are no existing facts by which the statments can be shown to not be true, or in either case, justwhat Petersen actually was aware of.. Unless at some time the Kremlin opens the vaults on that era we will never know one way or the other.

Dave

Dave

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 11:01 pm Post subject:

Dave writes: "I should have written this instead: If that is the case, and maybe we could speed this process up - would you identify the first paragrapgh where you think there is any FACTUAL error. (please give the first sentence so that I can find it)"

That looks like an excellent way to proceed, saving us lots of time. I just got back from Boston, so may not be able to post anything for half a day while I catch up with essentials. My cat is starved for love; at least that's what she says.

Dave: "This means that if you identify, for example, the 100th paragraph as the first paragraph containing a factual error, that you are agreeing that you have considered each of the preceeding paragraphs and are aware of no factual errors."

Well, I may suspect a factual error in a paragraph, but also might not be able to readily prove it, in which case I may not bring it up. Or, I may bring it up anyway, but I'll state that 'I can't prove that the suspected error is actually an errror', and may ask for comments. We shall see.

Dave: "For instance -I'm sure that you'll soon get to the statements by Petersen about what Lenin thought about DeLeon, etc. Of these statements, however doubtful they may seem today - it is not likely that the facts can be verified - but it is just as likely that there are no existing facts by which the statments can be shown to not be true, or in either case, just what Petersen actually was aware of.. Unless at some time the Kremlin opens the vaults on that era we will never know one way or the other."

After 1991, Russia actually did open a lot of files to scholars, and Harvey Klehr wrote a series of books in the mid-90's on what he found. Very interesting stuff that illuminated a lot of inner CPUSA shenanigans, and threw a lot of light on the conflicts between anarchists and communists during the Spanish Civil War.

More soon ... -KE

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 12:22 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

Well, I may suspect a factual error in a paragraph, but also might not be able to readily prove it-

Dave replies:

Suspicion of a factual error is merely a suspicion.

The facts that Petersen wrote are in one of three categories:

Proven true
Proven false
Unproven as to true or false

Since we are going after lies - we are looking for proven false statements. After we find the proven false statements then we can consider if those statements can be considered lies.

Dave

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 02:07 pm Post subject:

Here's more of an example of a total absurdity than an outright lie: Petersen wrote on p. 21 of his pamphlet: "The question of taxation was important. To expose the absurdity of the claim that the working class was paying the taxes was to render the movement immune to the reform snares of the petty bourgeoisie."

If the SLP ever wanted to alienate the average person, it would be to tell him/her: 'you do not pay the taxes'. My book further argues:

Why not simplify matters by saying that 'if people take money out of their pockets to give to the government, directly or indirectly, then that person pays taxes', simply as an obvious, face-value transaction, even though an economist could come along, analyze the flow of money, and say that 'the employer pays workers enough extra money to pay their taxes.' In the same way, the argument could be made that 'workers don't really pay their rent if their bosses give them enough extra to pass on to their landlords.' If, on the other hand, the SLP could convince workers that 'they are not paying taxes', and that therefore 'the middle and upper classes are really paying all of the taxes', it would then make the government appear like a purely capitalist institution that workers should not think twice about abolishing. That was the hidden anarchist agenda. Make the government appear as though it is a purely bourgeois institution and has no redeeming value whatsoever to workers, and the chances of workers abolishing the state are enhanced by a part in a zillion. Another way of looking at the 'who pays the taxes' question is to say that 'the producing classes create wealth. They keep part of the wealth they create, another part goes to their employers, and another part is siphoned off in the form of taxes.' So, who pays the taxes? Who else but the producing classes?"

My book at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partd.html has a lot more about taxes. Some of Marx's anti-tax leaflets are reproduced. Why was Marx against taxes? To starve out the absolute monarchy, the only form of government truly worthy of abolition. -KE

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 03:33 pm Post subject:

We're not talking about absurdities but facts proven to be false. Is there a fact proven to be false in this section?

Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?

"A matter, to the bourgeoisie of deep, to the workingmen, however, of very slight concern. That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

Ken wrote at his website:

"Many years ago, while a new member, I used to try to convince 'the man on the street' to that effect, and all I ever succeeded in doing was in discrediting myself and earning ridicule. As much as I tried to explain that they were receiving the value of their labor power, and that they were being compensated for the taxes that they were merely passing on to the government, I could get no one to listen to me after positing that argument, even if the argument was technically permissible. It was almost as though average people only needed to listen to a member try to convince them that they were not paying taxes to prove to themselves that the SLP was irrelevant. Maybe the theory that the SLP was working on was that those who could see its logic, and who could accept the theory willingly, thus passed a crucial test of suitability for SLP membership."

Dave reply:

Ken's main difficulty is that he had a hard time picking his battles. Why would anyone get in such a foolish argument in the first place? Theoretically workers are paid, in general just enough to survive. Ken recognized that. If Petersen chose to bring the topic, that was him and not us. I have never gotten into a discussion with anyone about whether the workers pay taxes . It's sufficient to say that workers are only paid in general an amount to purchase just enough so they can survive. If a worker does have to pay taxes in order to purchase needs for survival, isn't that a part of survival? So what difference does it make to the worker?

What a lot of crap about nothing. Foo on the SLP for bringing it up in the first place, not because it was incorrect, but because there were a lot better things that they could have spent its time on; and foo on you for having nothing better to do but to dwell on it 71 years after the fact.

Get on to identifying Petersen statements of fact proven false.

Dave

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 03:13 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "We're not talking about absurdities but facts proven to be false. Is there a fact proven to be false in this section? Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?" Engels:

"A matter, to the bourgeoisie of deep, to the workingmen, however, of very slight concern. That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

That quote was presented in a spirit similar to the original, but we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time. If only the proletarians were as lucky today.

Dave quoted Ken's website and commented: "Ken's main difficulty is that he had a hard time picking his battles. Why would anyone get in such a foolish argument in the first place? Theoretically workers are paid, in general just enough to survive. Ken recognized that. If Petersen chose to bring the topic, that was him and not us. I have never gotten into a discussion with anyone about whether the workers pay taxes. It's sufficient to say that workers are only paid in general an amount to purchase just enough so they can survive. If a worker does have to pay taxes in order to purchase needs for survival, isn't that a part of survival? So what difference does it make to the worker?"

'What difference does it make?' Lots. Economic well-being depends upon minimizing unpleasant losses (such as taxes) in order to maximize spending on more pleasurable pursuits (such as the 3 b's: boats, broads, and booze). So, taxes mean a lot to workers.

Dave: "What a lot of crap about nothing. Foo on the SLP for bringing it up in the first place, not because it was incorrect, but because there were a lot better things that they could have spent its time on; and foo on you for having nothing better to do but to dwell on it 71 years after the fact.
Get on to identifying Petersen statements of fact proven false."

What a perfectly snotty attitude. Anyway, on we proceed to pp. 21-2, where A.P. went on to present the Party perspective on the question of reform:

"The question of reform or revolution was important in the same sense that the taxation question was important, for so long as the workers were doped with the opium of reform, no class view, and still less revolutionary action could be thought of. It has been well said that reform is a compromise with the past. At any rate, the reform road leads back and never forward."

'Leads back and never forward' is so ridiculous that it can't help but fall into the category of 'a major anarchist lie'. In democracies, reform is the only option, whereas in absolute monarchies, revolution was often the only option. Anarchists never distinguish between monarchies and democracies because they get their fun by urging nincompoops to abolish their states, no matter if those states are useful to workers or not. M+E cannot be found urging abandonment of the reform mechanism. Their advocacy of the 8 hour day would be meaningless in a governmental framework that excluded the possibility of reform. -KE

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 05:22 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote:

…we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time.
Dave writes:

I hate to request a citation here, for doing that might imply that I do not trust your memory of such a condition. (I am much to young to remember it.) No taxes that wage workers had to pay any part of between 1820 and 1895! It will be interesting to see what kind of tap dance that you will come up with to back away from what you wrote without actually saying that you were wrong.

This is from a descripton of just federal taxes in the US during the civil war. (The States had their own taxes.)

"The Union government’s decision to implement a broad system of internal taxation not only insured a valuable source of income, but shielded the northern economy from the sort of ruinous inflation experienced by the South. Despite another $150 million Greenback issue, the overall northern inflation rate reached only 80 percent, comparable with the domestic rates during World Wars I and II. The Internal Revenue Act of 1862, enacted by Congress in July, 1862, soaked up much of the inflationary pressure produced by Greenbacks. It did so because the Act placed excise taxes on just about everything, including sin and luxury items like liquor, tobacco, playing cards, carriages, yachts, billiard tables, and jewelry. It taxed patent medicines and newspaper advertisements. It imposed license taxes on practically every profession or service except the clergy. It instituted stamp taxes, value added taxes on manufactured goods and processed meats, inheritance taxes, taxes on the gross receipts of corporations, banks, and insurance companies, as well as taxes on dividends or interest they paid to investors. To administer these excise taxes, along with the tariff system, the Internal Revenue Act also created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, whose first commissioner, George Boutwell, described it as "the largest Government department ever organized." (from http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm)

Signed:
Dave

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 05:35 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "We're not talking about absurdities but facts proven to be false. Is there a fact proven to be false in this section? Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?" Engels:

"A matter, to the bourgeoisie of deep, to the workingmen, however, of very slight concern. That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

That quote was presented in a spirit similar to the original, but we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time. If only the proletarians were as lucky today.

Dave asks: Did Petersen give the speech in question today or just 35 years after "Engel's time"?

Even you acknowledged and used to argue with the "worker in the street" that they didn't pay taxes. Theoretically speaking I agree with your position then - but not the part of trying to convince people in the street of it.. But now of course you'll say that was one of the things that Henning didn't properly explain to you, but you figured that he knew what he was talking about - so why quibble.

signed
Dave

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 05:43 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Is there a fact proven to be false in this section? Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?" Engels:

"A matter, to the bourgeoisie of deep, to the workingmen, however, of very slight concern. That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

Ken wrote:

That quote was presented in a spirit similar to the original, but we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time. If only the proletarians were as lucky today.

Dave writes:

Was that a yes or a no to the question, "Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?"

Dave

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 05:49 pm Post subject:

Ken quoted Petersen:

"The question of reform or revolution was important in the same sense that the taxation question was important, for so long as the workers were doped with the opium of reform, no class view, and still less revolutionary action could be thought of. It has been well said that reform is a compromise with the past. At any rate, the reform road leads back and never forward."

Ken then wrote:

'Leads back and never forward' is so ridiculous that it can't help but fall into the category of 'a major anarchist lie'.

Dave asks Ken:

Are you identifying "Leads back and never forward" as a statement of fact proven untrue?

If you are, was it proven untrue when Petersen gave the speech?

If so, what is the proof?

Dave

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 07:07 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote: "That quote was presented in a spirit similar to the original, but we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time. If only the proletarians were as lucky today."

Dave writes: "Was that a yes or a no to the question, "Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?""

Ken replies: I may now be having trouble with your way of wording your question, for it seems ambiguous as to whether you are questioning my opinion of the veracity of what Engels wrote, or whether you are questioning my opinion of how Petersen used Engels' words. So, I will answer some possibilities to the best of my ability.

First, Engels wrote for his very own period of time, in which taxes were a relatively negligible to non-existent concern for workers. Today, however, concerns about taxes of all sorts are of considerable concern to workers, so Engels' statement is no longer true, even if it was true for the late 1800s.

Second, Petersen wrote for a period of time in which taxes had still not become anywhere near the burden on workers that they are today, so Petersen cannot be faulted TOO badly for using Engels' words the way that he did. If the SLP had been the vibrant, breathing and vital organism a lot of people wished it had been, or become, then Petersen's statement would perhaps have been more carefully weighed after 1968, and the SLP could have changed its position to reflect the increased burden of taxes on workers. Then, what seems today like an absurd statement by Petersen would not have been allowed to stand and fester for so darned long. But, the SLP seems to have died intellectually a long time ago, so that absurdity remains on the books.

Third, there is still that matter of Petersen using Engels' words to make taxes appear like a purely bourgeois concern, which WAS dishonest. His goal was to try to liberate workers from any sense of tangible involvement in the affairs of state, thereby fulfilling the anarchist objective of enhancing the acceptability of abolishing the state. The overwhelming weight of anarchist sentiment in the SLP has prevented any of its zillion anarchist absurdities from being replaced with more modern and cogent statements. The SLP is a church in which anarchist absurdities have become sacred cows, far too sacred to earn the slaughter they well deserve. So, the absurdities may very well live on unaltered until the nanotech revolution sweeps away all such untenable bits of garbage with one broad stroke.

So, you see how complicated is the issue that Petersen raised, back in 1931. It's very complexity prevents giving a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your question, which I really couldn't fully grasp the meaning of in the first place. For that reason, I had to give a very long answer, which I sincerely hope answered all of your concerns. -KE

Posted: 13 Apr 2005 08:32 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

...would you identify the first paragraph where you think there is any FACTUAL error. (please give the first sentence so that I can find it)

This means that if you identify, for example, the 100th paragraph as the first paragraph containing a factual error, that you are agreeing that you have considered each of the preceding paragraphs and are aware of no factual errors.

Ken wrote:

That looks like an excellent way to proceed, saving us lots of time....

Dave wrote:

"This means that if you identify, for example, the 100th paragraph as the first paragraph containing a factual error, that you are agreeing that you have considered each of the preceeding paragraphs and are aware of no factual errors."

Ken wrote:

Well, I may suspect a factual error in a paragraph, but also might not be able to readily prove it, in which case I may not bring it up. Or, I may bring it up anyway, but I'll state that 'I can't prove that the suspected error is actually an errror', and may ask for comments. We shall see.

Dave replies:

Suspicion of a factual error is merely a suspicion.

The facts that Petersen wrote are in one of three categories:

Proven true
Proven false
Unproven as to true or false

Since we are going after lies - we are looking for proven false statements. After we find the proven false statements then we can consider if those statements can be considered lies.

Ken wrote:

Here's more of an example of a total absurdity than an outright lie: Petersen wrote on p. 21 of his pamphlet: "The question of taxation was important. To expose the absurdity of the claim that the working class was paying the taxes was to render the movement immune to the reform snares of the petty bourgeoisie."

Dave wrote:

We're not talking about absurdities but facts proven to be false. Is there a fact proven to be false in this section?

Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?

"A matter, to the bourgeoisie of deep, to the workingmen, however, of very slight concern. That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

....My book at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partd.html has a lot more about taxes. Some of Marx's anti-tax leaflets are reproduced. Why was Marx against taxes? To starve out the absolute monarchy, the only form of government truly worthy of abolition.

Dave wrote:

We're not talking about absurdities but facts proven to be false. Is there a fact proven to be false in this section?

Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?

Ken answered:

That quote was presented in a spirit similar to the original, but we mustn't forget that proletarians were not taxpayers in Engels' time. If only the proletarians were as lucky today.

Dave wrote:

Was that a yes or a no to the question, "Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?"

Ken replies:

I may now be having trouble with your way of wording your question, for it seems ambiguous as to whether you are questioning my opinion of the veracity of what Engels wrote, or whether you are questioning my opinion of how Petersen used Engels' words....

Dave finally responds:

What I am trying to get at is for you to identify specifically what is the first statement of fact by Petersen that is proven to be false.

Your post of April 12 2:07 p.m. brought up Marx' anti-tax poster - but Petersen did not quote Marx in that section concerning taxes, he specifiaclly quoted Engels in that section, but your post failed to mention that - seemingly (at least to me) becuase the Engels quote weighs in on Petersen's side and not yours.

I simply wanted to bring that quotation up and ask if you thought that quotation was a fact proven false. The way to answer that question is to first ask yourself is it a fact that Petersen faithfully quoted Engel's words.

Because if he did, that seems to answer the absurdity part that your raised

Now Ken acknowledges:

Petersen wrote for a period of time in which taxes had still not become anywhere near the burden on workers that they are today, so Petersen cannot be faulted TOO badly for using Engels' words the way that he did.

Dave observes:

In his post of April 11 2:07 p.m. Ken stated that Petersen's statements (we were talking about Petersen's 1931 speech) were a "total absurdity". Ken also stated that during Engel's time the proletariet paid NO TAXES. Now he back off of that and says taxes were a relatively negligible to non-existent concern for workers how does Ken back that up? The only reason he has for that is Engels quote - that taxes were of negligible or slight concern to the workers because:

That which the workingmen pay in taxes goes, in the long run, into the value of labor power, and, accordingly, must be borne by the capitalists."

Ken takes the first sentence of the Engels quote out of context and ignores the second sentence entirely. Petersen utilized the full quote in context, but according to Ken, Petersen's statement is "totally absurd."

Dave comments further - well we know that at least one of them is.

signed Dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 12:05 am Post subject:

More on taxes. If, as Ken would have us twist the Engels quote, that taxes were so little on the mind of the workers - why was US politics of the last part of the nineteenth century so centered on taxes? The progressive income tax movement was to get rid of the unfair tax burden on the lower classes of the protective tariff. That movement culminated in the 16th amendment in 1912 specificaly authorizing an income tax which the Supreme Court had previously struck down as unconstitutional. The Knights of Labor, the AFL and the People's party all supported a progressive income tax over the protective tarrif.

Dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 12:19 am Post subject:

Dave asked Ken:

Is there a fact proven to be false in this section (concerning taxes)?

Is the Engels passage that Petersen quoted a fact proven false?

Dave states:

There were two questions. Ken ignored the first completely. Again I ask, is there a statement of fact by Petersen in the section dealing with taxes that is proven false?

signed Dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 12:25 am Post subject:

Ken quoted Petersen:

"The question of reform or revolution was important in the same sense that the taxation question was important, for so long as the workers were doped with the opium of reform, no class view, and still less revolutionary action could be thought of. It has been well said that reform is a compromise with the past. At any rate, the reform road leads back and never forward."

Ken then wrote:

'Leads back and never forward' is so ridiculous that it can't help but fall into the category of 'a major anarchist lie'.

Dave asks:

Is that your standard for someone being a liar? That they have a ridiculous idea? Careful Ken. You don't want to go there. The things that I have seen you write make Petersen appear to be actually cogent in comparrison.

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 10:53 am Post subject:

Dave writes:

Ken has yet to state what the first error of fact (and since we are looking for lies we are specifically looking for a statement of fact proven false).

There are other ways to lie in different settings, but not this one.

If you come home and your wife asks you where you have been and you say that you were at the store - when actually you stopped at the store on the way home from your girlfriend's, if you hid the fact that you had been at your girl friend's, that would have been a lie even though there was no statement of fact proven false.

However in the Petersen speech, Petersen was not conveying information that only he would have had access to. It seems that any of the facts that he conveyed or the circumstances surrounding those fact would have been or could have been easily knowable by anyone interested. The speech no doubt was printed in the People, and then it was published for public distribution.

In 1931 there were plenty of people with an ax to grind and would have welcomed any opportunity to use what Petersen wrote and use it against him, as a lie surely would have been. But no. The truth had to wait for a person with unusual powers of induction to come along. Someone with access to the 22 volumes of the works of Lenin and blah blah blah - as if NYC wasn't teeming with people in the 20s and 30s with intimate knowledge of the Russian situation. Hell, Kerenski lived on the upper west side until 1970 and an SLP couple that I know (one has since died), all of their parents were born in Russia.

But of all of the tens of thousands of Russian immigrants in NYC during that time - there is no documented case of anyone charging a lie. No one in the hundreds of CP members or militant SP or ex SLP members with an ax to grind was able to do what Ken did - expose the LIES.

However, we see what a "lie" is in the Ellis lexicography:

something that he has pronounced to be "so ridiculous".

Petersen said in the speech:

It has been well said that reform is a compromise with the past. At any rate, the reform road leads back and never forward."

Ken then wrote:

'Leads back and never forward' is so ridiculous that it can't help but fall into the category of 'a major anarchist lie'.

Dave asks:

Ken - is there no idea in Socialism that you NOW disagree with that you would not classify as an "anarchist lie" ?

And are you ever going to get around to idenifying the first statement of fact by Petersen that is proven false or are you just going to b.s. around?

signed
Dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 01:28 pm Post subject:

All of the previous attacks upon me will remain ignored as we go zipping along looking for Petersen's lies. Dave just wants to attack me for the horrendous crime of EVOLVING so that the relative absence of change in SLP positions can then appear like saintly and scientific rock-steadiness. If Dave will give no critique of Petersen's anarchist perspective on reforms, then on we will go, close to the bottom of p. 25, where Petersen referred to "three main factors to deal with before instituting Socialism proper. First, a powerful and potent, though temporarily beaten, capitalist class; second, a numerically strong petty bourgeois and peasant element, with the actual proletariat everywhere in the minority; and third, an insufficient industrial development."

Petersen added on pp. 25-6: ''Throughout all the writings of Marx and Engels on this subject (and the same holds true of the writings of Lenin, who in industrially backward Russia largely faced the same situation generally prevailing at the time of the Paris Commune), Marx and Engels reverted to that three-fold obstacle to immediate and complete proletarian success.'

The works of neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin contain a 3 fold obstacle theory, so THAT was one of Petersen's major lies. Moreover, his '3 fold obstacle' theory even contradicts his very own 'matter of course transformation into socialism' theory given in his 1947 Preface to Engels' pamphlet 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific', where we find: "He [Engels] assumed, however, that, once the proletariat had "seized political power," the transformation into Socialism would follow as a matter of course."

How can so many generations of socialists have possibly missed the glaring contradiction between 1931's '3 fold obstacle' theory and 1947's 'matter of course transformation' theory? There it was, staring so many socialists right in the face, and nobody said anything! What a bunch of cowards, weaklings, or yes-men (and women). Or else, they didn't care enough about their own ideology to ensure consistency between one of their own pamphlets and the next pamphlet. Or else, they were such died-in-the-wool dishonest anarchists that they didn't care what kind of lies supported their anarchist program. Which theory do you like best, or do you have one of your own? -KE

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 05:58 pm Post subject:

You apparently are no longer of the opinion that reforms lead backwards. I believe that it is impossible to reform capitalism but I advocate that trying to reform it is a step backward. Would that make a person an anarchist liar?

I am wondering, what would make a person a fascist liar?

You say that you evolved. Is your evolution so shakey that everyone who hasn't evolved as you have evolved must be a liar? That would be a very infantile notion.

Are you every going to get to the part where you finally and without any equivocation say – this is where in his speech that I believe is the first instance of a statement of fact by Petersen which is proven wrong? I am begining to belive that you are not up to the task.

signed Dave

Posted: 14 Apr 2005 10:37 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "You apparently are no longer of the opinion that reforms lead backwards."

I recognize that 'reforms lead backwards' was probably part of the catechism I had to repeat in order to get into the party, even though I had no strong feelings about reform one way or the other at that time, just like the SIU. This part of the discussion makes me reflect not too happily on what an amorphous mass of undifferentiated notions I must have harbored at the time that I joined. I do hope I can be forgiven for having been such a marshmallow at that time. Naturally, I took well to Marxian economics and the class struggle, but it took lots and lots of research before I could sort out the more complex parts of socialism, especially those parts that tend to steer people into sectarian directions. Eventual clarification of some socialist lore made me understand that I was in the wrong sect, but no other sect seemed much more appealing, which is why I never joined anything after 1977, at least not until the Labor Party was formed in the mid-1990s. I just happened to be a member of United Electrical at that time, so it was natural to join the LP and go to their founding convention in Cleveland in 1996. Then I moved East at the end of 1997, lost my UE contacts, and didn't keep up with the LP anymore. In Massachusetts, I eventually joined the Greens and attended one convention, but quickly tired of their infantilism and no longer have anything to do with them. Now I have no more political affiliations. Maybe something will come up again.

Dave: "I believe that it is impossible to reform capitalism but I advocate that trying to reform it is a step backward. Would that make a person an anarchist liar?"

How the heck is capitalism reformed? Laws are reformed or new laws are written, but this notion of 'reforming capitalism' never made much sense. Is 'reforming feudalism' imaginable, or 'reforming ancient slavery', or 'reforming primitive communism'? See what I mean about the absurdity of 'reforming capitalism'? It just doesn't make sense. A law in the USA can be reformed while having no effect at all on what goes on in France. But, because that one particular law was reformed, does that mean that 'capitalism was reformed'? We now know that our bankruptcy laws were reformed today. What effect does that reform have on the viability of capitalism? This whole 'reform capitalism' thing needs to be tossed out as nonsensical. Holders of views such as 'reforming capitalism' may not be sophisticated enough to mount an effort as complex as 'perpetrating an anarchist lie'. There's a big difference between repeating lies and perpetrating them, so I always cut lots more slack for repeaters of lies than for perpetrators. What Petersen did to us was unforgivable.

Dave wrote: "I am wondering, what would make a person a fascist liar?"

I don't know. Last I knew, fascism wasn't a topic of discussion.

Dave wrote: "You say that you evolved. Is your evolution so shakey that everyone who hasn't evolved as you have evolved must be a liar? That would be a very infantile notion."

I agree that that would be a very infantile notion. I know that others have not evolved the same way I have evolved, so I try to cut them lots of slack, and don't accuse all of them of being liars, even if they repeat lies. But, Petersen was very different, as his '3 fold obstacle' of 1931 vs. his 'matter of course transformation' of 1947 should make clear to you. Did you get anything of value out of what I wrote about it?

Dave wrote: "Are you ever going to get to the part where you finally and without any equivocation say – this is where in his speech that I believe is the first instance of a statement of fact by Petersen which is proven wrong? I am begining to belive that you are not up to the task."

Perhaps a little internet research on your part may prove that Petersen's '3 fold obstacle' was a pure figment of his imagination designed to help him score an anarchist point about the alleged worthlessness of purely political victories. It helped Petersen steer workers away from the very Marxist goal of seeking political victories. Petersen's '3 fold obstacle' theory is A VERY BIG LIE, and I will not equivocate on that point the way I equivocated on other topics in the first part of his pamphlet. His '3 fold obstacle' theory is diametrically opposed to Marxism, even though he tried to attribute his lie to none other than Marx, Engels and Lenin. Try not to give Petersen's lie too short a shrift. The more detailed analysis in my book might provide you with additional valuable insights. -KE

Posted: 15 Apr 2005 12:17 am Post subject:

Davewrote: "I believe that it is impossible to reform capitalism but I advocate that trying to reform it is a step backward. Would that make a person an anarchist liar?"

Ken wrote:

How the heck is capitalism reformed? Laws are reformed or new laws are written, but this notion of 'reforming capitalism' never made much sense.

Dave replies:

I believe I said that it is impossible to reform captialism. However people do try. I think that it is a step backward becuase it is impossible to do and that if a group did have enough power to force a "reform" through Congress or even by amending the Constitution then that group, had it been organized properly just might have enough power to get rid of capitalism altogther.

I just spent the last 10 years fighting for my children to get appropriae public educations under both the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act. (Two Federal laws) Just because Congress passes a law doesn't guarantee that even public agencies are going to follow it, let alone private individuals.

Ken writes:

Holders of views such as 'reforming capitalism' may not be sophisticated enough to mount an effort as complex as 'perpetrating an anarchist lie'. There's a big difference between repeating lies and perpetrating them, so I always cut lots more slack for repeaters of lies than for perpetrators. What Petersen did to us was unforgivable.

Dave writes:

What Petersen did, was to have a principle and state it. I can see where you would have such a hard time with that.

Dave wrote: "I am wondering, what would make a person a fascist liar?"

Ken replied:

I don't know. Last I knew, fascism wasn't a topic of discussion.

Dave replies:

If Petersen was an anarchist liar, then I have to wonder what kind of a liar you are- becuase I see you doing the same sorts of things that you accuse Arnold Petersen of doing.

Dave wrote: "Are you ever going to get to the part where you finally and without any equivocation say – this is where in his speech that I believe is the first instance of a statement of fact by Petersen which is proven wrong? I am begining to belive that you are not up to the task."

And of course Ken again cannot tell us - he tels us where he thinks there is a LIE. But that hardly helps us becuase to him everything about Socialism that he no longer believes is of coures a lie to him.

So once more I beg Ken to simply point out to us a factual error where Petersen stated a fact which is proven false.

I'll help you out a little. A fact is an actual ocurrance or an actual condition. A statement of fact sets forth an actual occurance or an actual condition.

This is a statement of an actual occurance: John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Whther it is proved true or proved false of course has been a topic of conversation for over 40 years.

This is a statement of an actual condition: Within an hour of the shooting, John F. Kennedy was dead.

Both of these are statements of fact. There is very strong proof for the latter being true. The proof is not quite as strong for the former.

In all of Petersen's speech can you find a single instance where Petersen stated a fact for which you can convincingly prove the statement to be false? If you can, please identify the first instance in the speech that such a statement occurs and specifically what is your proof?

Can you do it or not?

signed Dave

Posted: 15 Apr 2005 12:18 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

"I believe that it is impossible to reform capitalism but I advocate that trying to reform it is a step backward. Would that make a person an anarchist liar?"

Ken wrote:

How the heck is capitalism reformed? Laws are reformed or new laws are written, but this notion of 'reforming capitalism' never made much sense.

Dave replies:

Didn't I say that I believed that it is impossible to reform captialism? However people do try. I think that it is a step backward becuase it is impossible to do and that if a group did have enough power to force a "reform" through Congress or even by amending the Constitution then that group, had it been organized properly just might have enough power to get rid of capitalism altogther.

I just spent the last 10 years fighting for my children to get appropriae public educations under both the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act. (Two Federal laws) Just because Congress passes a law doesn't guarantee that even public agencies are going to follow it, let alone private individuals.

Ken writes:

Holders of views such as 'reforming capitalism' may not be sophisticated enough to mount an effort as complex as 'perpetrating an anarchist lie'. There's a big difference between repeating lies and perpetrating them, so I always cut lots more slack for repeaters of lies than for perpetrators. What Petersen did to us was unforgivable.

Dave writes:

What Petersen did, was to have a principle and state it. I can see where you would have such a hard time with that. Again you have not specified if Petersen made a statement of fact which you can prove false.

Dave wrote: "I am wondering, what would make a person a fascist liar?"

Ken replied:

I don't know. Last I knew, fascism wasn't a topic of discussion.

Dave replies:

IF Petersen was an anarchist liar, then I have to wonder what kind of a liar you are (for you perhaps "reactionary" fits better than facist) becuase I see you doing the same sorts of things that you accuse Arnold Petersen of doing.

Dave wrote: "Are you ever going to get to the part where you finally and without any equivocation say – this is where in his speech that I believe is the first instance of a statement of fact by Petersen which is proven wrong? I am begining to belive that you are not up to the task."

And of course Ken again cannot tell us - he tells us where he thinks there is a LIE. But that hardly helps us becuase to him everything about Socialism that he no longer believes is of course a lie to him.

So once more I beg Ken to simply point out to us a factual error where Petersen stated a fact which is proven false.

I'll help you out a little. A fact is an actual ocurrance or an actual condition. A statement of fact sets forth an actual occurance or an actual condition.

This is a statement of an actual occurance: John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is a statement of an actual condition: Within an hour of the shooting, John F. Kennedy was dead.

Both of these are statements of fact. There is very strong proof for the latter being true. The proof is not quite as strong for the former.

In all of Petersen's speech can you find a single instance where Petersen stated a fact (an actual occurance or an actual condition) for which you can convincingly prove the statement to be false? If you can, please identify the first instance in the speech that such a statement occurs and specifically what is your proof?

Can you do it or not?

signed Dave

Posted: 16 Apr 2005 04:36 pm Post subject:

Dave replies: "if a group did have enough power to force a "reform" through Congress or even by amending the Constitution then that group, had it been organized properly just might have enough power to get rid of capitalism altogther."

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but believing that 'socialism threatens capitalism' ranks alongside believing in the tooth fairy and santa claus. In the few remaining decades of the era of human labor, capitalism will entertain no substitute. Capitalism will demolish human labor, after which socialism will arrive, but socialism will not be based on human labor. One need not be a rocket scientist to detect that the masses have no interest in meddling with 'who owns what'.

Ken writes: "Holders of views such as 'reforming capitalism' may not be sophisticated enough to mount an effort as complex as 'perpetrating an anarchist lie'. There's a big difference between repeating lies and perpetrating them, so I always cut lots more slack for repeaters of lies than for perpetrators. What Petersen did to us was unforgivable."

Dave: "What Petersen did, was to have a principle and state it. I can see where you would have such a hard time with that."

Petersen stated a principle? Which principle was that? The '3 fold obstacle to immediate socialist transformation'? Or, was it the 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry and middle classes'? Or, was it 'Engels didn't know the difference between socialism and state capitalism'? Please provide us with a worthy Petersen principle.

Dave: "Again you have not specified if Petersen made a statement of fact which you can prove false."

I've twice already pointed out the erroneous nature of his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' theory, and I even showed where Petersen contradicted himself by adopting Engels' 'matter of course transformation' theory in 1947, but you seem to be refusing to comment on Petersen's discrepancy. What's the hold-up? I'm DYING to get your reaction. Please don't let me down. Be brave and say something. Revolutionaries are supposed to be brave.

Dave wrote: "I am wondering, what would make a person a fascist liar?"

Ken replied: "I don't know. Last I knew, fascism wasn't a topic of discussion."

Dave replies: "IF Petersen was an anarchist liar, then I have to wonder what kind of a liar you are (for you perhaps "reactionary" fits better than fascist) because I see you doing the same sorts of things that you accuse Arnold Petersen of doing."

Mein gott, Dave, this represents a ferocious escalation of hostilities. What brought this on? Which alleged lie (that I allegedly told) precipitates this charge?

Dave wrote: "Are you ever going to get to the part where you finally and without any equivocation say – this is where in his speech that I believe is the first instance of a statement of fact by Petersen which is proven wrong? I am begining to belive that you are not up to the task." Later: "And of course Ken again cannot tell us - he tells us where he thinks there is a LIE. But that hardly helps us because to him everything about Socialism that he no longer believes is of course a lie to him."

Holy cow. Have you not been around when Petersen's '3 fold obstacle to immediate socialist transformation' was identified by me as a major Petersenian lie? A major lie about which there is no equivocation? A lie so foul that even Petersen abandoned it when more political capital could be generated by adopting Engels' 'matter of course transformation' theory? Please pay attention.

Dave: "So once more I beg Ken to simply point out to us a factual error where Petersen stated a fact which is proven false."

I did. I did. Didn't I?

Dave: "I'll help you out a little. A fact is an actual ocurrance or an actual condition. A statement of fact sets forth an actual occurance or an actual condition. This is a statement of an actual occurance: John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald."

That's debatable, because Oswald's rifle might not have been capable of the accuracy needed for such a shot.

Dave: "This is a statement of an actual condition: Within an hour of the shooting, John F. Kennedy was dead. Both of these are statements of fact. There is very strong proof for the latter being true. The proof is not quite as strong for the former."

OK, thanks for equivocating. Now you are getting closer to a reasonable position on Oswald's role.

Dave: "In all of Petersen's speech can you find a single instance where Petersen stated a fact (an actual occurance or an actual condition) for which you can convincingly prove the statement to be false? If you can, please identify the first instance in the speech that such a statement occurs and specifically what is your proof? Can you do it or not?"

Tell me if 1947 Petersen's refutation of 1931 Petersen helps clarify the fact that his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' theory was a big lie. -KE

Posted: 16 Apr 2005 05:04 pm Post subject:

On we march towards the next instance of a major lie in Petersen's pamphlet. Near the bottom of p. 28, Petersen partially quoted De Leon:

"He emphasizes the fact that the working class has no knowledge of, and no interest in, capitalist law-making, except to "sweep the vermin [of capitalist law] into the ash-barrel of oblivion.""

Is this to say that the worker has no interest in the Fair Labor Standards Act that provided, among many other things, for time and a half after 40? That particular law didn't exist in 1931, but Petersen and De Leon were being so absolutely anarchist in this instance, that one cannot help but conclude that they must have been totally against all of the other labor laws that had ever been passed up until 1931.

Unequivocally, any worker who has ever benefited from laws that protect them from greedy slave-driving bosses will have to judge this pronouncement as a major lie. This absolutist anarchist position in itself contributes a lot to the explanation of why workers never flocked to the SLP. It is so dead wrong, that the average worker cannot help but reject it as a bourgeois lie, designed to serve the greed of the bourgeois task-master. And to think that a socialist could go along with such a pronouncement? Those who acquiesce to such bourgeois ideology have to be very special 'socialists' indeed. Where is the outcry from SLP members and sympathizers to get such bourgois ideology replaced by ideology more in tune with workers' interests? -KE

Posted: 16 Apr 2005 11:36 pm Post subject:

Yes I see,. Ken. Ideas that you no longer agree with - those are lies.

Ken wrote:

I've twice already pointed out the erroneous nature of his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' theory,

Dave writes, you can point it out 10 times. I did not see that Petersen stated a theory there. Also I did not see where you pointed out even an error of fact. You have a hard time with that concept don't you?

But it is interesting that Ken says that in the 40s Petersen said something different than he said in the 30s so that is a lie. Like I said Ken, If Petersen is a liar for this you are the champion liar.

You missed the principle that was stated by Petersen? I thought that you would. The principle is that the working class wastes its time if it attempts to reform capitalism.

You now disagree with that - therefore yet another lie.

Dave wrote:

A statement of fact sets forth an actual occurrence or an actual condition. This is a statement of an actual occurrence: John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald."

Ken wrote:

That's debatable, because Oswald's rifle might not have been capable of the accuracy needed for such a shot.

Dave relies:

Ken - all statements of fact are debatable.

Reform is good.

Reform is bad.

Reform is good and bad.

There is no such thing as reform.

It doesn't mater which of these statements that you agree with. It does not matter which of these statements you think is right or wrong. None of the statements is a statement of fact. They are mere opinions. A person, not even you, not even Petersen, can state a fact proven untrue merely by stating an opinion.

My question to you, once again is, can you find a statement of fact proven untrue in Petersen's speech. It very well may be that there is none.

signed Dave

Posted: 17 Apr 2005 02:08 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote: "Yes I see, Ken. Ideas that you no longer agree with - those are lies."

When are you going to get real about analyzing what PETERSEN wrote? You are just stalling. I deliver Petersen's lies to your door, and you just ignore them, preferring to pick on me instead. Who do you think you are fooling? Because of your loyalty to the SIU, you can't possibly seriously face Petersen's lies, so you hide your analytic capabilities under a blanket of subterfuge.

Ken wrote: "I've twice already pointed out the erroneous nature of his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' theory,"

Dave writes, "you can point it out 10 times. I did not see that Petersen stated a theory there."

'No theory'? Petersen wrote: "For he, as well as Engels and his contemporaries, proceeded on the assumption that the victorious proletariat would have three main factors to deal with before instituting Socialism proper."

Now, isn't 'proceeding on an assumption' similar to 'proceeding in accord with a theory'? The online dictionary says that 'theory' and 'assumption' are related words.

"Also I did not see where you pointed out even an error of fact. You have a hard time with that concept don't you?"

Tell me why 'pointing out an error of fact' should take precedence over 'pointing out a lie'. Aren't we supposed to be looking for Petersen's lies? Or, have you suddenly changed the agenda to 'pointing out errors of fact'?

Dave: "But it is interesting that Ken says that in the 40s Petersen said something different than he said in the 30s so that is a lie."

The discrepancy in theories between 1931 and 1947 wasn't the lie. The lie was 1931's '3 fold obstacle' theory. It cannot be found in the works of M, E, or L, so Petersen lied when he attributed that '3 fold obstacle' theory to them. You couldn't have read my critique without being aware of exactly what I labeled as a lie.

Dave: "Like I said Ken, If Petersen is a liar for this you are the champion liar. You missed the principle that was stated by Petersen? I thought that you would. The principle is that the working class wastes its time if it attempts to reform capitalism."

Here we go again with 'reform capitalism', just as impossible as 'reforming primitive communism', 'reforming ancient slavery', or 'reforming feudalism'. You simply refuse to learn for very long before reverting back to your old comfortable ways. 'Reform capitalism' can't possibly appeal to anyone with a mental age greater than 4.

Dave: "You now disagree with that - therefore yet another lie."

'NOW disagree'? When did I NOT disagree with 'reform capitalism'? I can't EVER remember agreeing with it. Was it part of the SLP membership quiz that I can't help but believe that I must have failed miserably? Maybe that should be a badge of honor, and maybe I should proudly wear a button stating 'I failed the SLP membership quiz.' But, I still got in. Maybe they were desperate for warm bodies.

Dave wrote: "A statement of fact sets forth an actual occurrence or an actual condition. This is a statement of an actual occurrence: John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald."

Ken wrote: "That's debatable, because Oswald's rifle might not have been capable of the accuracy needed for such a shot."

Dave relies: "Ken - all statements of fact are debatable."

That 'JFK was shot by Oswald' was never any better than a theory, so I don't see how that theory can rightfully be labeled as a 'fact', especially if our divergent views of the JFK assassination prevent us from stipulating to that 'fact'. For 'fact', the online dictionary gives: "the quality of being actual". In the JFK assassination, what actually happened? We may never agree, so that's why I have so much trouble with the 'fact' you presented.

Dave: "Reform is good. Reform is bad. Reform is good and bad. There is no such thing as reform. It doesn't mater which of these statements that you agree with. It does not matter which of these statements you think is right or wrong. None of the statements is a statement of fact. They are mere opinions. A person, not even you, not even Petersen, can state a fact proven untrue merely by stating an opinion. My question to you, once again is, can you find a statement of fact proven untrue in Petersen's speech. It very well may be that there is none."

Be patient. You seemingly have changed the agenda from 'tracking down lies' to 'tracking down errors of fact'. But, your wish has magically been granted: On p. 28, just before the subtitle 'Union Mission Defined', Petersen subtracted 1891 from 1931 and got 30 years instead of the more mathematically precise 40 years. So, there's an error of fact. And think how many reprintings and new editions that pamphlet went through. I personally use and quote from the 1968 Sixth edition. The SLP was never interested in correcting its mistakes, not even its typos and minor errors of fact. Think how many opportunities Petersen must have had between 1931 and 1968 to correct that tiny error of fact. How many people must have written him to point it out? Or, did nobody at all ever read that pamphlet? Well, I'll tell you right now: I read that pamphlet many times, and you are now reading it. What kind of mountain should be made out of this molehill of a 10 year error? -KE

Posted: 17 Apr 2005 03:05 pm Post subject:

Ken wrote (4/16/04 16:36) I've twice already pointed out the erroneous nature of his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' theory....

Dave wrote (4/16/04 23:36):

I did not see that Petersen stated a theory there. Also I did not see where you pointed out even an error of fact. You have a hard time with that concept don't you?

Ken wrote (4/17/04 14:08):

'No theory'? Petersen wrote: "For he, as well as Engels and his contemporaries, proceeded on the assumption that the victorious proletariat would have three main factors to deal with before instituting Socialism proper."

Now, isn't 'proceeding on an assumption' similar to 'proceeding in accord with a theory'? The online dictionary says that 'theory' and 'assumption' are related words.

Dave writes:

Then can we interpret your use of the word theory in your post about Petersen as being the equivelent of:

"I've twice already pointed out the erroneous nature of his 1931 '3 fold obstacle' assumption...."

Yes or no.

signed Dave

Posted: 17 Apr 2005 03:54 pm Post subject:

Ken writes:

Tell me why 'pointing out an error of fact' should take precedence over 'pointing out a lie'. Aren't we supposed to be looking for Petersen's lies? Or, have you suddenly changed the agenda to 'pointing out errors of fact'?

Dave writes:

You use of "precendence" is excellent here. In analyizing whether or not something is a lie the FIRST thing that needs to be done is to look at the precise statements to determine if any fact set forth or alleged has been proven false. In that regard fact analysis, becuase it must be done first, does take precedence.

Also if you were awake you will notice that on 4/9/05 22:00 I proposed a method by which we could search for lies.

"I am going to post one paragraph at a time of Petersen's book. We will take as much time as we need to get through the whole book. We are mainly looking for definite inaccuracies of fact in the text as opposed to whether or not the conclusions drawn from the facts are supported and or valid. To reach an invalid or unsupported conclusion is not a lie. After we sweep the entire text for definite inaccuracies of fact then we will go back and search for unsuported and/or invalid conclusions. After we have done that we will traverse the text one last time to determine if the inaccuraies of fact can be considered lies.

To which Ken responded 4/10/05 15:30:

"Very good, that shows great initiative. If you don't mind, please tell us if your version comes from the public files at the World in Common forum."

Dave observes:

This is the procedure and the AGENDA that Ken agreed to.

This is a very important procedure especially because everything about Socilaism that Ken no longer believes in is NOW A BIG FAT LIE. We would literally be here forever, otherwise.

I can't help but make this observation - Do you remeber in "To Kill a Mocking Bird" where the young woman who had invited the black man Tom into her shack, and who kissed him but was found out by her father - then turns around and accuses Tom of raping her - and Tom was convicted of rape even though the doctor had testified that he had not physically examined the young woman - This is what you remind me of Ken. All of the things that you once belived you must now term them LIES whether there are any factual errors or not.

As I have pointed out. It is possible yo lie without a statement of fact proven wrong - but it is much harder - there would have to be asituation that the person accused had concealed information.

So all you have to do here Ken, so that we can proceed on the basis that you agreed to - is to point out where in the text of the speech that Petersen alleged an actual occurance or actual condition or state that was false.

I think what is happening here is that Ken at first thought that he was going to be able to pull out dozens of statement of fact by Petersen that he could prove false - becasue that is how he charaterized the speech in his mind - as being just riddled with lies. Now on closer inspection it turns out that the 1931 speech is just a comprehensive statement of SLP priciples that Ken does not want to be reminded that he once believed so he must attempt to destroy Petersen in his mind just as Ella had to destroy Tom.

Phychobabbling on.

signed Dave

Posted: 18 Apr 2005 06:09 pm Post subject:

Ken writes: "Tell me why 'pointing out an error of fact' should take precedence over 'pointing out a lie'. Aren't we supposed to be looking for Petersen's lies? Or, have you suddenly changed the agenda to 'pointing out errors of fact'?"

Dave writes: "Your use of "precedence" is excellent here. In analyzing whether or not something is a lie the FIRST thing that needs to be done is to look at the precise statements to determine if any fact set forth or alleged has been proven false. In that regard fact analysis, because it must be done first, does take precedence. Also if you were awake you will notice that on 4/9/05 22:00 I proposed a method by which we could search for lies. "I am going to post one paragraph at a time of Petersen's book. We will take as much time as we need to get through the whole book. We are mainly looking for definite inaccuracies of fact in the text as opposed to whether or not the conclusions drawn from the facts are supported and or valid. To reach an invalid or unsupported conclusion is not a lie. After we sweep the entire text for definite inaccuracies of fact then we will go back and search for unsuported and/or invalid conclusions. After we have done that we will traverse the text one last time to determine if the inaccuraies of fact can be considered lies." To which Ken responded 4/10/05 15:30:

"Very good, that shows great initiative. If you don't mind, please tell us if your version comes from the public files at the World in Common forum."

Dave: "This is the procedure and the AGENDA that Ken agreed to. This is a very important procedure especially because everything about Socialism that Ken no longer believes in is NOW A BIG FAT LIE. We would literally be here forever, otherwise."

On and on you go with your own big fat lie about the kinds of things I consider to be big fat lies. Like Petersen, you will forever resist or prevent being corrected. Or, maybe like 'pope' De Leon, you now possess the aura of infallibility. That too was one of the things I liked about my own SLP membership, while it lasted. The members conferred an aura of infallibility on themselves. I somewhat enjoyed it, even while not feeling totally secure about it.

I never read "To Kill a Mocking Bird", nor is reading it on my agenda. Nor did I see the movie. Furthermore, the analogy you drew was awful. You defame me with ill allusions, and you grow increasingly inventive all of the time. Long have I seen what this has been turning into, simply because you refuse to look into Petersen's errors of fact, never mind look into his lies. You will probably never comment about as manifest an error as his inability to arrive at 40 while subtracting 1891 from 1931. Did he not commit an error of fact? Why did his error go uncorrected over so many fresh editions and reprintings? Didn't anyone in the SLP care about accuracy in simple matters?

Dave: "As I have pointed out. It is possible to lie without a statement of fact proven wrong - but it is much harder - there would have to be a situation that the person accused had concealed information."

Earth to Dave: Is your abstraction more related to Petersen, yourself, or to me?

Dave: "So all you have to do here Ken, so that we can proceed on the basis that you agreed to - is to point out where in the text of the speech that Petersen alleged an actual occurance or actual condition or state that was false."

What about subtracting 1891 from 1931 and arriving at 30 years instead of 40? Didn't Petersen commit an error of fact? Sigh. I might as well shout into the wilderness. No matter how glaring the errors, Dave will always think of Petersen as infallible.

Dave: "I think what is happening here is that Ken at first thought that he was going to be able to pull out dozens of statement of fact by Petersen that he could prove false - because that is how he charaterized the speech in his mind - as being just riddled with lies."

Our job here is nowhere finished, and already you want to wrap it all up with a grand false conclusion! Maybe this process irks you more than I expected. Maybe the task of digging up new ways to defame me is proving more arduous and time-consuming than you'd originally thought.

Dave: "Now on closer inspection it turns out that the 1931 speech is just a comprehensive statement of SLP priciples that Ken does not want to be reminded that he once believed so he must attempt to destroy Petersen in his mind just as Ella had to destroy Tom. Phychobabbling on.

As a representative of Petersen principles, your behavior in this forum does a better job of destroying Petersen and his principles than what I could ever muster.

On to Petersen's lies. The rest of Part One of Petersen's pamphlet can be set aside so that we can turn to Part 2. On p. 40, Petersen wrote: "There is, in itself, no potent charm in the phrase "Proletarian Dictatorship." Marx used it as the one best suited at the time to express his idea of working class supreme power, stripped of the capitalist Political State, and all the better suited because it brought into contrast the actual fact (though denied in theory) of capitalist economic dictatorship."

How was the alleged "economic dictatorship" manifested, and who was denying that theory? What IS a functioning economy but the civil and non-coerced process of exchanging money for commodities and services, commodities and services for money, commodities for commodities, etc.? Where does the dictatorship come in? The phrase "economic dictatorship" could not be found in the CD of Collected Works.

Secondly, Petersen's 'political state' was mischaracterized as 'capitalist', whereas in Engels' essay "On Authority", the political state was portrayed as the proletarian dictatorship (me23.425): "All socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed."

Unlike Petersen, Engels was far more interested in abolishing the class distinctions that give rise to the state than in simply abolishing the state. Petersen could not have helped but KNOW that he was contradicting Marx, but wrote as if Marx would have approved of it all. -KE

Posted: 19 Apr 2005 11:50 am Post subject:

Ken:

Thank you for taking time to discuss your book. At this point it appears that there is nothing to gain from my continued participation in this topic. Regardless of politics try to pick up a copy of "To Kill a Mocking Bird" by Harper Lee (as I recall). The movie is also excellent - just the music by Elmer Bernstein could stand by itself.

Our pens no doubt will cross elsewhere. But at least for the time being I am signing off here.

Dave

Posted: 19 Apr 2005 04:52 pm Post subject:

Gosh, Dave, your withdrawal from this topic is totally unexpected, a complete surprise. Thank you for your participation. It gave me lots of ideas, some of which I may use during the May 7 conference on De Leonism. I hope that you will be able to make it over to Jersey City then.

Now that I have have been dredging up Petersen's lies for a few weeks, continuing to do so in partial preparation for the May 7 conference might be good practice for me, so don't be surprised if I continue to 'think out loud' in this space until that date.

Best wishes, -KE

Dave wrote: "At this point it appears that there is nothing to gain from my continued participation in this topic. ... Our pens no doubt will cross elsewhere. But at least for the time being I am signing off here."

Posted: 19 Apr 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:

Ken, would you please write a summary? Here's what I got out of it all, and I'm not even sure I'm saying this right: Marx proposed dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants; as a result the SLP has had anarchist tendencies ever since. Did I say that right? Briefly, what else? Thanks.

Posted: 20 Apr 2005 03:18 am Post subject:

We who advocate the SIU believe that the state is kaput uponnt with the establishment of the industrial workers' democracy. The workers now in full and unchallengable direction of the industries - class distictions in fact are only a memory becuase the bais for class distiction shall have been eliminated.

But Ken wrote:

3/23/05 16:23

"Anarchists commonly misinterpret M+E as advocating a quick abolition of the state."

And:

3/30/05 00:10

"Anarchists advocate the abolition of the state prior to the abolition of class distinctions. That being the Marxist test for anarchist ideology, it can be seen that the SIU scheme is nothing better than an anarchist, or an anarcho-syndicalist scheme. Calling the SIU 'socialism' doesn't erase its anarchist origin."

Dave states:

To Ken, the commencement of the SIU and the simultaneous elimination of the state is anarchist because, he apparently believes, that this would mean that the state was gotten rid of BEFORE the abolition of class distinction.

He takes a reference to "M + E" (without citation) and makes that an operational definition as to what is "anarchist". This is the same process that one can "prove" that Ray Charles was God.

God is love,
Love is Blind,
Ray Charles was blind,
Ray Charles was God.

But then Ken tells us that in 1889 anarchists took over the SLP (3/24/05 00:42):

"My research showed that: At the time of the 1889 takeover by the anarchists, De Leon was still with Bellamy's Nationalist movement, and did not make much of an impact on the Workmen's Advocate until its final publication weeks in 1891."

Dave continues:

What operational defintion, if any, Ken employs here for the word "anarchist" is not known.

Here is what Ken says is the Petersen lie in the context of the peasants.

Ken wrote (4/15/05 22:37):

Petersen invented a fictional 'proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry' (which he incorrectly attributed to Marx and Lenin) in order to be able to point to the relative absence of an American peasantry, and to conclude from their relative absence that 'a proletarian dictatorship (over the peasantry) would be superfluous in the USA.'

Dave comments:

Petersen's "invention" had been around a long time before Petersen's 1931 speech.

Ken's writing imply that dictaorship as used by Lenin was strictly of Proletariet AND Peasant - but this is merely to totally gloss over history.

In 1905 Lenin wrote

( http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch10.htm#v09zz99h-077-PAGE_BREAK_GUESS
)

about a TEMPORARY dicatorship of the proletariet and Peasants to overthow tsarism but:

"The fight against the autocracy is a temporary and transient task of the Socialists, but to ignore or neglect this task in any way would be tantamount to betraying Socialism and rendering a service to reaction. The revolutionary-Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry is unquestionably only a transient, temporary aim of the Socialists, but to ignore this aim in the period of a democratic revolution would be downright reactionary."

And:

"The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end and the period of democratic revolution will be over in Russia; then it will be ridiculous to talk about “singleness of will” of the proletariat and the peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat and deal with it at greater length. But at present the party of the advanced class cannot but strive most energetically for a decisive victory of the democratic revolution over tsarism. And a decisive victory means nothing else than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry."

signed Dave

Posted: 20 Apr 2005 09:44 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote: "Ken, would you please write a summary?"

A summary is a good idea, but it'll probably have to wait until after May 7.

Mike: "Here's what I got out of it all, and I'm not even sure I'm saying this right: Marx proposed dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants; as a result the SLP has had anarchist tendencies ever since. Did I say that right? Briefly, what else? Thanks."

'As a result' isn't quite right, as the SLP's anarchist tendencies began taking shape after our 1889 'revolution in a socialist tea-pot', as Engels characterized our internal coup. Petersen created a total fog around the meaning of anarchism so as to try to convince his membership that 'the SLP is not anarchist.' Years ago, not much worse could be imagined than being labeled an anarchist, so Petersen claimed that 'anarchists want to abolish the state, but have nothing with which to replace it', but the truth is that the anarchists have always wanted to replace the state with an administration of things, bypassing the dotp, exactly the same as the SIU theory. Can you imagine Petersen's fictional anarchists being so stupid as to have nothing at all with which to replace the state? In spite of the blatant falsehood of so much of what Petersen wrote, quite a few people took his words for gospel.

Now for the next installment of questionable ideas from Petersen's pamphlet: In the beginning of Part 2 of his pamphlet, on pp. 39-41, Petersen falsely portrayed the politics of both Russia and the USA as similarly democratic, and falsely portrayed them as economically opposite, instead of the other way around, i.e., the way it really was - politically opposite, but economically similar. A.P. used the alleged polar opposition of the two countries in the economic sphere to 'prove' that 'America is ripe for economic revolution, while Russia is not (because of their large peasantry)', instead of using the real facts of the old political situations to conclude the obvious, viz., that America already had its democratic revolution, while Russia badly needed to replace its monarchy with democracy, peacefully or not. More later. -KE

Posted: 21 Apr 2005 12:15 am Post subject:

Dave writes:

Ken, since you presented your post above as a summary, the information that I have requested below ought to be readily available to you.

Ken wrote:

Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants'

Dave asks:

Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Petersen specifically said this?

Ken wrote:

"the SLP has had anarchist tendencies ever since."

Ken also wrote:

"the SLP's anarchist tendencies began taking shape after our 1889 'revolution in a socialist tea-pot'

Dave states:

My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "anarchist" as one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power or one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy esp. one who uses violent means to overthrow established order. It defines "anarchism" as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups or the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles.

Dave asks:

If you do not agree with these definitions would you please quote and cite a dictionary definition of these words that you do agree with?

Dave also asks:

Would you please provide quotations and citations of how you determined , #1 that there were anarchist tendencies within the SLP starting in 1889, #2 that Arnold Petersen's 1931 speech had any effect on the continuation of these tendencies?

Ken wrote:

"as Engels characterized our internal coup"

Dave asks:

Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Engels specifically said this?

Ken wrote:

"Petersen claimed that 'anarchists want to abolish the state, but have nothing with which to replace it'"

Dave asks:

Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Petersen specifically said this?

Ken wrote:

"anarchists have always wanted to replace the state with an administration of things"

Dave asks:

Would you supply evidence of as many anarchist that you can think of who advocated that they wanted to replace the state with an administration of things with quotes and citations?

Ken wrote:

"exactly the same as the SIU theory"

Dave asks:

Please provide quotations and citations to the works of the anarchists that you can think of who proposed that the workers form a workers government with industrial constituencies.

Ken wrote:

Petersen falsely portrayed the politics of both Russia and the USA as similarly democratic, and falsely portrayed them as economically opposite, instead of the other way around, i.e., the way it really was - politically opposite, but economically similar.

Dave asks:

Would you please provide the quotation? The text of the speech that you provided a refence to does not have page numbers.

Ken wrote:

A.P. used the alleged polar opposition of the two countries in the economic sphere to 'prove' that 'America is ripe for economic revolution, , while Russia is not (because of their large peasantry)'

Dave asks:

Would you please provide the quotation? Words that you place in quotes as apparently coming from the 1931 speech do not come up on my word search of the text.

Thank you
Dave

Posted: 21 Apr 2005 11:41 am Post subject:

I don't know what "abolition of the state" means anyway. When I was a teenager, I thoroughly understood it. When I was about thirty, I thought I understood well enough. Now that I'm in my fifties, I don't know what it means.

Posted: 21 Apr 2005 05:16 pm Post subject:

Dave states: "To Ken, SIU and the simultaneous elimination of the state is anarchist because, he apparently believes, that this would mean that the state was gotten rid of BEFORE the abolition of class distinction. According to Ken, apparently, because with the dawn of the SIU there may be some remnants of class distinction here and there - that to eliminate the state until every last vestige of class distinction is stamped out according to "M+E" is ANARCHIST. We should allow the state to continue or attempt to continue after the establishment of the SIU until such time that it is determined that every last trace of class distinction has been eradicated."

Dave writes in the context of the inevitability of the SIU, but any proposal that includes a classless and stateless administration of things during the era of human labor is a mistake that humans will never make. Human labor creates private property, the creation of new private property gives rise to the state, and the state precludes the classless and stateless administration of things. Therefore, the SIU will not be created during the era of human labor, which also means that an expropriatory SIU will never be created at all.

Dave: "To me it is simply a case of name calling based upon an unwarranted application of "M+E" apparently taken wholly out of context. It has nothing to do with what Petersen said about the dictatorship."

What part of M+E did I allegedly take out of context? Did Bakunin not propose the abolition of the state before the abolition of class distinctions? Engels explained the differences between Marxism and Bakuninism to Theodore Cuno in 1873 (me44.306): "Bakunin has a singular theory, a potpourri of Proudhonism and communism, the chief point of which is first of all, that he does not regard capital, and hence the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through the development of society, as the main evil to be abolished, but instead the state. While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes - landowners and capitalists - have provided themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that the state has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. And since the state is the chief evil, the state above all must be abolished; then capital will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Abolish capital, the appropriation of all the means of production by the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: the abolition of the state is nonsense without a social revolution beforehand; the abolition of capital IS the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production."

Hopefully, Dave will now appreciate the great importance to M+E of abolishing class distinctions, instead of trying to immediately replace the state with a classless and stateless administration of things. The dictatorship of the proletariat was precisely the era M+E intended for abolishing class distinctions.

Dave: "According to Ken the anarchists took over the SLP in 1889 (3/24/05 00:420): “My research showed that: At the time of the 1889 takeover by the anarchists, De Leon was still with Bellamy's Nationalist movement”

Dave: "This had nothing to do with the peasants."

It's true that the 1889 takeover had nothing to do with the peasants. But, what necessitated mentioning that irrelevant fact at this point in time? -KE

Posted: 21 Apr 2005 08:04 pm Post subject:

Ken Elllis escribió:
> Human labor creates private property, the creation of new
> private property gives rise to the state, and the state precludes
> the classless and stateless administration of things. Therefore,
> the SIU will not be created during the era of human labor, which
> also means that an expropriatory SIU will never be created at all.

You seems to be saying there that any legal protection of private property requires a state, that is, if society has a law that says that no one can steal my shirt, then society can't be stateless. Is that how you see it? If that's what "state"means, I don't think that society can ever be stateless, not in ten thousand years. I have always understood the SLP's use of the term to be this: when government is no longer in the business of protecting the power of a ruling class, from that moment, society is stateless, according ot the specialized, tehcnical use of the term taken from Marxism. A stateless society will continue to have both private property and law enforcement.

You guys who are using words like 'state' and 'stateless' had better define your terms precisely. Otherwise, this topic is impeded by confusion.

Posted: 22 Apr 2005 12:45 am Post subject:

Ken writes:

Human labor creates private property, the creation of new private property gives rise to the state, and the state precludes the classless and stateless administration of things. Therefore, the SIU will not be created during the era of human labor, which also means that an expropriatory SIU will never be created at all.

Dave states:

Again with the Ray Charles is God routine.

God is love – love is blind – Ray Charles is blind – Ray Charles is God

Ken wrote:

“Human labor creates private property”

Dave writes:

Human labor creates wealth. Wealth, however is not always private property.

Ken wrote:

the creation of new private property gives rise to the state

Dave writes:

I think Engels demonstrated that its not the rise of private property per se that gave rise to the state from tribal governments but the producers loosing control of their products gives rise to class division and class division then gives rise to the state:

“The Iroquois were still very far from controlling nature, but within the limits imposed on them by natural forces they did control their own production. Apart from bad harvests in their small gardens, the exhaustion of the stocks of fish in their lakes and rivers or of the game in their woods, they knew what results they could expect, making their living as they did. The certain result was a livelihood, plentiful or scanty; but one result there could never be -- social upheavals that no one had ever intended, sundering of the gentile bonds, division of gens and tribe into two opposing and warring classes. Production was limited in the extreme, but -- the producers controlled their product. That was the immense advantage of barbarian production, which was lost with the coming of civilization; to reconquer it, but on the basis of the gigantic control of nature now achieved by man and of the free association now made possible, will be the task of the next generations.
Not so among the Greeks. The rise of private property in herds and articles of luxury led to exchange between individuals, to the transformation of products into commodities. And here lie the seeds of the whole subsequent upheaval. When the producers no longer directly consumed their product themselves, but let it pass out of their hands in the act of exchange, they lost control of it. They no longer knew what became of it; the possibility was there that one day it would be used against the producer to exploit and oppress him. For this reason no society can permanently retain the mastery of its own production and the control over the social effects of its process of production unless it abolishes exchange between individuals.
Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Chap. 5

signed Dave

Posted: 22 Apr 2005 12:55 am Post subject:

Kenstates:

Dave writes in the context of the inevitability of the SIU.

Dave states. I was speaking in suppositional terms. No one is more aware that humanity may poison itself into extinction under capitalism and not see a dawning of the SIU.

signed Dave

Posted: 23 Apr 2005 12:01 am Post subject:

ken wrote:

"Human labor creates private property, the creation of new private property gives rise to the state, and the state precludes the classless and stateless administration of things. Therefore ...."

Dave replies again (there are some other things from Ken's post that I am also going to reply to in the next couple of days - but I wanted to get back to these statements by Ken.)

I had written that the sentences were like the Ray Charles is God routine, but I could have gone a little deeper into why Ken's statments are a failure of logic .

The most common failure in logic is to assume that the word "is" and the word "equals" have the SAME meaning. For instance:

7 days equals 1 week.

1 week equals 7 days.

In this context we would be just as correct to write:

7 days is 1 week.

1 week is 7 days.

In the Ray Charlse example we are correct to say that:

Ray Charles is blind.

We would also be correct to write:

Blind is Ray Charles.

But not correct in writing either:

Ray Charles equals blind or blind equals Ray Charles.

RayCharles was far far more than his disability so he could not be equal to blind.

Also an equals statement can always be reversed such 7 days equlas one week and one week equals 7 days and it will not affect the correctness or the incorrectness of the statement. Is statements only sometimes can be reversed without affecting correctness or incorectness.

"7 days is 1 week" can be reversed to "1 week is 7 days" without affecting correctness or incorrectness.

But "a dog is a mammal" cannot, because a mammal is not necessarily a dog.

Go up to what Ken wrote:

Human labor creates private property.

This statement is no more correct than saying a mammal is a dog.

Using Ken's statement, the form that is most correct is that:

Private property is created by human labor. (I say most correct becase there are things that can be "private property" that are not a result of any labor, such as title to real estate created by declaration of the soverign.)

It would be unwarranted to state or imply that everything created by human labor is private property. But this is how Ken used it above. And as that is the basis for his conclusion - the conclusion is not logically supported.

Dave

Posted: 23 Apr 2005 01:41 pm Post subject:

'Bad news for me' announcement: a MAJOR transmission leak in my lesser (but still very important) vehicle is forcing me to temporarily abandon further participation in this forum until this situation is resolved. Since I can't afford to let anyone else fix it, I'll have to take whatever time is necessary to fix it myself. It could take anywhere from a few days to a month or more to correct. Dunno. Boy, am I pissed. At least the following message was ALMOST ready to be inflicted upon the world, and it didn't take a LOT of time to be polished off:

Dave sort of quoted me: "Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants"

Dave asks: "Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Petersen specifically said this?"

Well, glory be. There doesn't seem to be a place where Petersen directly attributed the 'dotp over the peasantry' directly to MARX, though he did directly attribute the 'dotpotp' to Lenin, and in 2 separate places pointed out the similarity of the conditions faced by Marx to the conditions faced by Lenin in Russia. On p. 41, Petersen wrote: "What does De Leon here imply by the phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"? Clearly nothing more than that the "precious legislatures" will be superseded by the organized power of the proletariat, i.e., the integral Industrial Union. And it was in the identical sense (modified by the conditions of the time) that Marx used it, and, indeed, it was in the same sense that Lenin used it, modified by the conditions in Russia."

Similarly, on p. 43, Petersen wrote: "The lack of industrial development is one of the cornerstones, in fact, the chief one, upon which rests the particular application of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" by Marx, Engels and Lenin."

Throughout Petersen's pamphlet, it was alleged that the attitudes expressed by Marx, Engels and Lenin toward the peasantry were practically identical, so I can't be made to feel TOO guilty for (technically incorrectly) saying that 'Petersen attributed a proletarian dictatorship over the peasantry to MARX'. Petersen directly attributed the dotpotp to Lenin. On p. 42, Petersen quoted Lenin quite loosely, and added his own summary:

"To defeat the great, centralized bourgeoisie is a thousand times easier than to 'defeat' millions and millions of small owners who in their daily, imperceptible, inconspicuous but demoralizing activities achieve the very results desired by the bourgeoisie, and restore the bourgeoisie." ("Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder.") Property interests are bound to dominate the actions of such groups, and they must be convinced that it is in their interest to support the proletarian revolution, or be subjected to forcible repression in the interest of that revolution. This condition, as I have intimated, prevailed also in Russia in 1917."

The worker-peasant alliance was totally ignored, and instead hostility was alleged between proletariat and peasantry, along with the direct threat of 'forcible repression'. It should be noted that the concept of 'forcible repression against the BOURGEOISIE' was never indicated anywhere nearly as directly as forcible repression against the PEASANTRY, leaving us with the unmistakable impression that 'Marx, Engels and Lenin intended their proletarian dictatorship to be exercised against the peasantry.' In Petersen's pamphlet, on p. 58, the bourgeoisie was portrayed as a class of cowards who would supposedly flee (to where?).

Marx and Lenin's underdeveloped conditions in their times were compared to conditions in the USA in 1931. It was noted that our peasantry had been quite thoroughly replaced by agricultural wage labor, and we were encouraged to conclude that 'a proletarian dictatorship over an absent peasantry would be superfluous.' The proletarian dictatorship was thus made to appear inoperative in the USA, thereby requiring devising and implementing a social device (other than a state or a proletarian dictatorship) with which to administer production, leading us to one place only, in that scenario - to the SIU. But, Petersen's case against workers using the proletarian dictatorship was a fabrication, because Marx's dictatorship was directed against the bourgeoisie. However, setting the record straight about that issue doesn't mean that 'our democracy needs to be overthrown and replaced by a proletarian dictatorship.' Marx himself indicated a peaceful use of existing democracies in his 1872 Speech at The Hague. In his speech, peaceful evolution in democracies was juxtaposed to violent overthrow of absolute monarchies on the Continent of Europe, so there can be no no no no no possible HONEST misinterpretation of Marx's intent by the leader of a party whose roots go back to the First International. Petersen knew exactly what he was doing, what he was fabricating, and was thinking of little else than fulfilling a compelling agenda. Corraling workers into the SIU was the main objective before which all ethical considerations were thrown to the wind. Sort of the way in which Bush got our troops into Iraq.

Dave states: "My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "anarchist" as one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power or one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy esp. one who uses violent means to overthrow established order. It defines "anarchism" as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups or the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles."

Dave asks: "If you do not agree with these [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] definitions [of "anarchist"] would you please quote and cite a dictionary definition of these words that you do agree with?"

Webster's does a good job of defining 'anarchist', but for the task of differentiating Marx from Bakunin, Webster's definition needs to be supplemented with extra information, such as Marx's own summary of the 'abolition of the state' issue. It should be noted that, in my own personal search for a valid definition of socialism, I searched dictionaries, encyclopedias, books, and all kinds of sources, but always felt short-changed. That is why I decided to seek a definition of socialism from a PARTY of socialism. So, if anyone thinks that a dictionary is going to give an adequate definition of anarchism - good luck.

Dave also asks: "Would you please provide quotations and citations of how you determined, #1 that there were anarchist tendencies within the SLP starting in 1889, #2 that Arnold Petersen's 1931 speech had any effect on the continuation of these tendencies?"

Re #1: My reading of the Workmen's Advocate at http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/parth.html indicated increasing friction between the politically minded members and the trade union minded members, culminating in the 1889 coup in which the union tendency won out. Here's a relevant passage: "50 charges ... were brought up against the whole National Executive Committee ... three individuals were accused of adhering to "the socialistic political policy decided upon by the party last year, as against the trades union economical policy advocated by the New York Volkszeitung, and supported by the majority of the Executive at that time."

Theirs was labeled a 'trades union economical policy', but what does that mean? I'm sure that the trades union advocates provided fertile enough ground on which De Leon's anarcho-syndicalist program could be grown.

Ken wrote: "as Engels characterized our internal coup"

Dave asks: "Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Engels specifically said this?"

"internal coup" is my own term for it, but here's Engels' take on what happened:

ENGELS TO HERMANN SCHLUTER IN NEW YORK
(MESC, p. 389) London, Jan. 11, 1890
... "The fact that you have got rid of Rosenberg and Co. is the main point about the revolution in your American socialist tea-pot. The German party over there must be smashed up as such, it is the worst obstacle. The American workers are coming along already, but just like the English they go their own way. One cannot at the outset cram theory into them, but their own experience and their own blunders and the evil consequences of them will soon bump their noses up against theory - and then it will be all right. Independent nations go their own way, and of them all the English and their offspring are surely the most independent. Their insular stiff-necked obstinacy is often enough annoying, but it also guarantees that what is begun will be carried out once a thing has been set going."

This demonstrates at least SOME optimism over the big change in the SLP, but Engels' optimism didn't seem to last very long.

Ken wrote: "Petersen claimed that 'anarchists want to abolish the state, but have nothing with which to replace it'"

Dave asks: "Would you please provide the quote and a citation where Petersen specifically said this?"

That was implied in two separate places in Petersen's 1947 Preface to the SLP edition of Engel's "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", and was also stated DIRECTLY at the bottom of p. xiii of that same pamphlet: "Criticizing the anarchists for wishing to destroy the State out of hand, with nothing to take its place, Engels (in a letter written in 1883) said:"

This can be read at: http://www.geocities.com/kenellis2020/partc.html

Ken wrote: "anarchists have always wanted to replace the state with an administration of things"

Dave asks: "Would you supply evidence of as many anarchist that you can think of who advocated that they wanted to replace the state with an administration of things with quotes and citations?"

At http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001634.html it is claimed that anarchists would "replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary."

At http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/text/sectionI.txt it is claimed that "Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be
"perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism
has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,
leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers and getting more
wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth."

Whether it's called an administration of things, self-management, or spontaneous forms of organization, it surely amounts to a lot better than the completely empty "nothing" that Petersen falsely attributed to the anarchists. Petersen HAD to sully anarchism in order to make the SIU and the SLP look so good in comparison. But, anyone who's taken more than a cursory look at the subject can see that the SIU is just another anarchist scheme. Anarchists ought to get together and DEMAND that the SLP apologize to them for the insult Petersen leveled at their intelligence. 'Nothing to take its place', indeed. Who could believe that?

Ken wrote: "exactly the same as the SIU theory"

Dave asks: "Please provide quotations and citations to the works of the anarchists that you can think of who proposed that the workers form a workers government with industrial constituencies."

Aside from the IWW's One Big Union, I can't think of another, but 'industrial' wasn't the point I was trying to make. It was 'administration of things' I was driving at, and the 2 web sites mentioned above prove that the anarchists certainly had more smarts than to want to 'destroy the State out of hand, with nothing to take its place'.

Ken wrote: "Petersen falsely portrayed the politics of both Russia and the USA as similarly democratic, and falsely portrayed them as economically opposite, instead of the other way around, i.e., the way it really was - politically opposite, but economically similar."

Dave asks: "Would you please provide the quotation? The text of the speech that you provided a refence to does not have page numbers."

On p. 41, Petersen wrote: "the "precious legislatures" will be superseded by the organized power of the proletariat, i.e., the integral Industrial Union. And it was in the identical sense (modified by the conditions of the time) that Marx used it, and, indeed, it was in the same sense that Lenin used it, modified by the conditions in Russia."

'Modified by different conditions', indeed. But, do we ever get a hint that pre-revolutionary Russia was a brutal absolute monarchy that needed to be overthrown and replaced? No. Petersen went right on developing his 'preponderance of the peasantry' theme:

"When Marx referred to the "Proletarian Dictatorship," capitalism as a whole was still in process of development, that is, it was as yet far from having exhausted the possibilities for normal growth. We know that the working class (the proletariat) in continental Europe constituted a minority. In "The Gotha Program" Marx says: "......'the working population' in Germany consists, in its majority, of peasants and not of proletarians."

What with the 'precious legislature' comment, see what I mean by projecting a sense of 'identical political conditions between the days of Marx, Lenin, and the USA in 1931'? In Petersen's pamphlet, where is the outcry over the crimes of the Romanovs? Missing. As for the 'opposite economic conditions', well, those references abound. Since they are so abundant, I will give only the clincher: Immediately after a reference to 'developing the productive forces', Petersen wrote on p. 44: "We may then logically deduce that where the conditions are the direct opposite of those which confronted Marx in 1871, and Lenin in Russia in 1917, the transition period mentioned by Marx and Engels is not only unnecessary, but it is even impossible, in reason, to conceive of it."

So, there you have 'direct opposite economic conditions' between the USA and Russia. You'd think that Americans didn't have to go to work! That's what I would call 'direct opposite economic conditions': them having to plow their fields with a horse and plow, while Americans don't have to work at all. What a load of nonsense. If both the Americans of 1931 and the Russians of 1905 had to get up in the morning to go to work, then that's close enough to 'identical economic conditions' from a working class standpoint. They all had to work most of the day.

Ken wrote: "A.P. used the alleged polar opposition of the two countries in the economic sphere to 'prove' that 'America is ripe for economic revolution, while Russia is not (because of their large peasantry)'"

Dave asks: "Would you please provide the quotation? Words that you place in quotes as apparently coming from the 1931 speech do not come up on my word search of the text."

Petersen compared the ripeness of the USA for economic revolution to Russia near the bottom of p. 44: "The lower the industrial development, the more that form (in the event of proletarian victory) must partake of the nature of the old society; the higher the industrial development, the more the form must partake of the nature of the new society; in the perfect flowering of capitalist industrial development the form, i.e., the instrument or means of revolution, merges logically into the very governmental structure of the new society itself, or, in other words, the Industrial Union becomes the very framework of the Socialist Industrial Republic of Labor."

Clearly the impression was conveyed there of American ripeness for an SIU revolution, whereas Russia was ... what? Russia certainly could not be declared ready for POLITICAL revolution, because Russia was all along being portrayed as democratic as the USA, what with its alleged 'precious legislature'. As for its ripeness for economic revolution, Russia's standing was ... exactly where? It was described as a low organism at the bottom of p. 49: "If this were true in Russia, if in such a low economic organism the union played so important a role" ... So, if Russia was too democratic for a political revolution, and too low for an economic revolution, then what the devil was the Russian revolution all about? We are left to scratch our heads in wonder. SIU advocates ought to demand an answer from SLP leaders. They have a right to know what the Russian revolution was all about, if 'it was too democratic to be political', and 'too low an organism to be political'!

Signing off for now, except maybe to occasionally convey the briefest of messages while my pickup truck is kaput, best wishes to all, and see you on May 7. -KE

Posted: 24 Apr 2005 02:18 am Post subject:

Ken wrote:

The worker-peasant alliance was totally ignored, and instead hostility was alleged between proletariat and peasantry, along with the direct threat of 'forcible repression'. It should be noted that the concept of 'forcible repression against the BOURGEOISIE' was never indicated anywhere nearly as directly as forcible repression against the PEASANTRY, leaving us with the unmistakable impression that 'Marx, Engels and Lenin intended their proletarian dictatorship to be exercised against the peasantry.'

Dave writes:

You can repeat your mantra as many times as you want Ken. Worker-peasnt alliance had to do with the overthrow of the tsar- However Lenin, Marx and Engels and Trotsky all pointed out that the two classes had antagonist interests in the establishmenmt of socialism. (Oh maybe they were all lead astray bu the Petersen speech. I never thought of that.)

Dave

Posted: 24 Apr 2005 02:53 am Post subject:

Ken wrote (4/20/05 17:44):

Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants; as a result the SLP has had anarchist tendencies ever since.

Dave writes:

When I asked Ken (4/21/05 00:15) to give a quotation for this he could not.

There doesn’t seem to be any point at all when there is little or no integrity in what people say. This was one of Ken’s main tenets for weeks and weeks that Petersen wrongfully put into the mouth of Marx a dictatorship OVER the peasantry but when you ask for a quote it doesn’t exist..

Ken wrote (4/23/05 13:21):

Well, glory be. There doesn't seem to be a place where Petersen directly attributed the 'dotp over the peasantry' directly to MARX…

Dave

Posted: 24 Apr 2005 10:17 am Post subject:

Before you heap abuse on ME for something I allegedly said, you ought to check your source. You were actually quoting MIKE, not me. I couldn't possibly have said anything like "Petersen claimed falsely that Marx meant a d.o.t.p. over the peasants; as a result the SLP has had anarchist tendencies ever since." That was MIKE's attempt at a summary. -KE