Author	Message
The Greenman	Posted: 05 Jul 2007 05:10 am    Post subject: All Things Lenin Not that I am hung up on this ass hole but it appears that far too many are. Why is it that there is so many are at the point of worship of him as the god man messiah who will emancipate the worker? Socialist are more silent than ever than they were at the beginning of the 20th centurey. The Leninist are brutal wanting to force everyone into a carbon copies of each other being slaves of the Party.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Jul 2007 11:42 am    Post subject: John, Can you give us an example of what Lenin wrote or actually did (and the circumstances) as opposed to what his slavish worshipers say?
The Greenman	Posted: 05 Jul 2007 03:07 pm    Post subject: Just that his his party took up where the Czar left off. Executions without trial, prisoners were tortured and many sent to the gulags in Siberia. I am worried that the working class would be wooed by their flattery of words. We end up with something worse than capitalism. Sorry Dave, I just see way to many Leninist on the internet. Perhaps its a cyber raid.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Jul 2007 05:58 pm    Post subject: I didn't know what to think about Lenin until I learned of a particular event in 1918 where he ordered that a hundred random people be arrested and executed, any hundred members of the landowner class. The Russian government post-Gorbachev disclosed the fact as part of declassifying a lot of documents. It shows that Lenin believed in guilt by association and control by fear, two common features of a totalitarian state. I see that a google search on the phrase "execute 100 kulaks" finds some references to it.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Jul 2007 07:17 pm    Post subject: http://www.wsws.org/correspo/1998/mar1998/leni-m06.shtml
The Greenman	Posted: 07 Jul 2007 03:18 pm    Post subject: I see that the Leninist had a fit close to a heart attack. Why is that Leninist resort to ridicule when historical accounts are questioned? The Bolsheviks were actually unpopular and were ruthless. The Soviet Archive is on the internet and here is an excerpt. Having come to power in October 1917 by means of a coup d'‚tat, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror. This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's "revolution from above" sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html Entire archive: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html I am sure because it is a government link the Leninist will cry foul, unfair, unscientific, etc.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Jul 2007 05:15 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: I am sure because it is a government link the Leninist will cry foul, unfair, unscientific, etc. Evidence against the Bolsheviks is in the archive, but we would have to separate that evidence from U.S. government propaganda. The intr.html article deplores "Stalin's 'revolution from above'", and yet the U.S. has never lifted a finger to inform its own population that "revolution from below" is possible. Just try to find the phrase "Marxist democracy" in any textbook accepted for use in public schools, or in the transcript of any news broadcast. So the U.S. government operates the strictest conspiracy of silence about all proposals for revolutionary movements that advance human rights, and then it complains loudly when people calling themselves revolutionaries are repressive. While the Bolsheviks, as the article points out, "employed ruthless methods", what was going on in the U.S. at the time? Under Wilson, ten years in prison was the standard penalty for someone who said publicly that they disagreed with U.S. entry into World War II. This was still in the age when, if workers in the U.S. went on strike, the government would send in the army to shoot them or bayonet them. The commentators fail to give us the whole story about how violent the 20th century was, on all sides of national boundaries. Their term "forced collectivization" is complete gibberish. Any institution of property ownership is forced on the people who are born into that age of history, and any property redistribution that may occur is forced on them as well. There is no parallel universe available for each individual to hide in. All people are wept along by the times in which they live. The so-called communists, the article says, "ruled by decree, enforced with terror." Gee, I thought that phrase was about the U.S. government's genocidal "war on drugs", during which millions have been unjustly imprisoned. The article says, "there was little input from below." In other words, the Soviet government modelled itself on the form of a U.S. corporation, where a suggestion for improvement voiced by a worker is regarded as a dangerous act of disloyalty. The article discusses the people's hardship of being required to industrialize so rapidly. But if they hadn't industrialized so rapidly, then countries like the United States would have invaded and conquered them. The article concludes, "After seventy-four years of existence, the Soviet system crumbled." No, it didn't crumble. Its ruling class decided to abolish the nominal forms to make themselves rich. The state officials just took the state-owned industries and sold them to themselves as individuals, so now they would be full-fledged Exxon-style capitalists. Actual evidence against Lenin and Stalin does exist in that archive, but any new commentary appended to it is mostly garbage.
The Greenman	Posted: 08 Jul 2007 03:12 am    Post subject: Mike, I am just going to say that I am going to believe half of what is presented on that web-site. I know you don't hate everything in American. We can pretty much say what is on our minds, travel without restriction and live where ever we want to. I know the government is on the side of the capitalist but no, I can not accept your brushing off Bullshitvic atrocities which took millions of lives. Try to compare that to the imprisonment of drug users is uncalled for. It is just not the same. Those brave men who challenged the system in the U.S. were either imprisoned or died but they fought for the working class and they got results. Those who died in Russia just died unknown. The Bullshitvics did employ terror and were very unpopular. They imprisoned, tortured or brutally killed any who disagreed with their policies. They just took control and had the backing of the military. They were no working class heroes. They declared war on all political parties because, like the Anarchist, they opposed parliamentary government. But unlike the Anarchist they required a strong centralized government with no input from anyone outside the party bureaucracy and any worker who questioned was considered disloyal. So I applaud the website because no country should have to go through that sort of shit ever again. Propaganda or not. :twisted:
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Jul 2007 07:09 am    Post subject: I don't have a way to know the extent of what the Bolsheviks did. If they murdered or oppressed even one person, that would be too many, but how could I ever know what actually happened if all of the available reporting amounts to a simplistic us-good them-evil? Even if Lenin or Stalin were to jail a gangster the U.S. media would still say that it was for political dissent; conversely, when the U.S. jails a political dissident it gets reported that it was for a common crime. I don't know of a source that can tell me what the Soviet officials did, because there's no available service that I would dignify with a name like journalism or education. In my earlier post mentioning Lenin's memo to hang a hundred kulaks, I could express disapproval because it was Lenin's own words, but if some modern commentator with an us-good them-evil perspective had reported it in the form of paraphrase, I wouldn't bet a nickel on the accuracy of it.
The Greenman	Posted: 08 Jul 2007 04:57 pm    Post subject: The Soviet way of reporting had a lot of misinformation. It was a society that frowned on free speech. I would tend to believe the reporting here in the U.S. over the Soviet reporting. We can pretty much know how to separate the facts from fiction. It not us-good, them-evil. The Soviet system was repressive and used slave labor for mining and other dangerous operations. I am not saying the American system is without guilt but we never had it as bad as those in the former Soviet Union.
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Jul 2007 05:35 pm    Post subject: I agree with what you said when we're talking about specific facts. For example, if the Washington Post were to report some particular guy merely expressed himself at a CP USSR conference and so they shot him, now we have a fact. I'm not going to go around the world to check it, but I would believe the news report. I believe that Stalin murdered his political rival Kirov. The reports about Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov are specific facts. I believe them. Some of the reports of religious persecution cited by the Jewish Defense League were about specific events, so I believe them. However, when they say "millions were slaughtered" that's not a specific fact. Who can tell us how was the count tabulated? Did they tag each skeleton so that it wouldn't get counted into the total numerous times? Even when actual facts are being reported, there are reports that get repeated but are nevertheless false. The "legends, lies and cherished myths" series of books by historian Richard Shenkman describes some of them. The fact is, the Pilgrims didn't land at Plymouth Rock. Horace Greeley never said "Go west, young man, go west." P.T. Barnum never said "There's a sucker born every minute." Teddy Roosevelt never charged up San Juan Hill. How do I know how far this goes? When they report that the Soviet government killed people by the "millions", how do I know that someone didn't add an extra three zeros to the number just for dramatic storytelling effect? Reports from the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras tend to be a lot more specific and therefore more verifiable than reports from the Lenin and Stalin eras.
The Greenman	Posted: 08 Jul 2007 06:16 pm    Post subject: You had me worried. Reports from the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras tend to be a lot more specific and therefore more verifiable than reports from the Lenin and Stalin eras. I do expect thing to be a bit blown out of proportion for dramatic effect when reporting is done in the U.S. However, it is based on fact. So a person has to dig deeper to find the actual number or cause of what happened. However, the point is not to have another strong centralized government based on the corporation. The new society has to be based on workplace democracy. Mike quote: Quote: The article discusses the people's hardship of being required to industrialize so rapidly. But if they hadn't industrialized so rapidly, then countries like the United States would have invaded and conquered them. Not likely, Germany needed Russia backwards to maintain its own economic advantage. The industrialization made the Soviet Union a threat to Germany and the not the U.S.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 05:12 am    Post subject: "Centralized" is a sticky point that needs more attention. If a government is highly centralized, and if is also the people's own democratic instrument, the measurement of the will of the people, that's one thing. However, if it highly centralized, and it also rules over the people like a master, neglecting the will of the people, that's another thing. In that case, why didn't we focus only on whether a government is the democratic self-expression of the people or whether it's a master over them? How did we acquire the habit of focusing on whether it's centralized? In discussing centralization, I think the first thing that needs to be said is that some tasks to be done naturally imply either centralized or decentralized procedures. For example, farm produce implies the efficiency of decentralized methods. For freshness as well as for avoiding the unnecessary expense of transportation, try to eat food close to where you grow it. Transport oranges and lemons, however, because they won't grow in certain places. Assembling miniature electronics is the opposite - it's most efficient when it's highly centralized. If we wanted perfect efficiency, all the computer chips in the world should be fabricated in one huge plant and then shipped worldwide. With a mass of less than a gram, the expense of transporting each chip around the world is a negligible fraction of its manufacturing resources. And the chip doesn't rot or lose its freshness. That distinction being made, how about the Soviet government? We remember the newsreels of people standing in long lines to get food. The Soviet government chose to apply centralization to farm produce! They had a political policy that food wasn't to be eaten anywhere near where it was produced, and shipping long distances, sometimes thousands of miles, was mandatory. The rulers had the crackpot idea that this was the thing that would get rid of local forms of nationalism, like the tendency of many people to be patriotic to Azerbaijan or patriotic to Kyrgyzstan, etc. The government rulers thought the rotting of most of the food was the price that had to be paid for the policy that would make everyone patriotic only to the central regime of the USSR. And so people stood in long lines all day to get their beets and turnips. So what do Americans see in the media? Newsreels of the people in the USSR going without food and standing in long lines, with the caption emblazoned across the image, "the inherent failure of socialism." 999 out of 1000 of Americans viewing the newsreel, right after they blame socialism, will next blame centralization. The message most people never got was that it's the use of centralization specifically in the distribution of perishable food that's inefficient to the point of insanity. It's not centralization that's at fault, but the use of it in the wrong economic sector. And what made it occur that centralization was used in the wrong sector? The fact that the government wasn't the people's own instrument of self-expression but rather a master that ruled them. Gee, it apparently makes a big difference when "elections" only have one name on the ballot and open debates are prohibited. It even makes most of the food rot before it can get to the store shelf. In fairness, look at something Mao did. Not to excuse his murders and oppression, or his use of brainwashing either, but one of the economic choices that he made. Most of the people in China had been illiterate for the past thousands of years. By centralizing education, the Chinese government abolished all illiteracy in a single generation. Of course, Mao was a monarch, not the people's delegate. I'm not excusing the making of policy by other than democratic means, but I'm pointing out that our old habit of blaming centralization itself has been misdirected.
The Greenman	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 03:22 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: "Centralized" is a sticky point that needs more attention. If a government is highly centralized, and if is also the people own democratic instrument, the measurement of the will of the people, that's one thing. However, if it highly centralized, and it also rules over the people like a master, neglecting the will of the people, that's another thing. In that case, why didn't we focus only on whether a government is the democratic self-expression of the people or whether it's a master over them? How did we acquire the habit of focusing on whether it's centralized? The Soviet government ruled over the people as a master neglecting the will of the people. Odd how we think about centralized government being Soviet. All part of the propaganda no doubt. The American Civil War was fought over States Rights but we also know it was fought to maintain the slavery institution. The government under Lincoln wanted to centralize the entire government while the Southern States wanted a confederacy of States. I would think each state would function as its own nation and delegates of each state would come together and have congressional meetings. Mike quote: Quote: In discussing centralization, I think the first thing that needs to be said is that some tasks to be done naturally imply either centralized or decentralized procedures. For example, farm produce implies the efficiency of decentralized methods. For freshness as well as for avoiding the unnecessary expense of transportation, try to eat food close to where you grow it. Transport oranges and lemons, however, because they won't grow in certain places. Assembling miniature electronics is the opposite - it's most efficient when it's highly centralized. If we wanted perfect efficiency, all the computer chips in the world should be fabricated in one huge plant and then shipped worldwide. With a mass of less than a gram, the expense of transporting each chip around the world is a negligible fraction of its manufacturing resources. And the chip doesn't rot or lose its freshness. Basically, the idea of centralization and decentralized is a management technique that depends upon production and distribution of products and food. The SIU concept would use differing management techniques of centralization or decentralization and under worker's control. But in the Soviet system the government controlled production, distribution, education, military, law enforcement, and every aspect of the peoples lives in the most undemocratic way. Mike quote: Quote: That distinction being made, how about the Soviet government? We remember the newsreels of people standing in long lines to get food. The Soviet government chose to apply centralization to farm produce! They had a political policy that food wasn't to be eaten anywhere near where it was produced, and shipping long distances, sometimes thousands of miles, was mandatory. The rulers had the crackpot idea that this was the thing that would get rid of local forms of nationalism, like the tendency of many people to be patriotic to Azerbaijan or patriotic to Kyrgyzstan, etc. The government rulers thought the rotting of most of the food was the price that had to be paid for the policy that would make everyone patriotic only to the central regime of the USSR. And so people stood in long lines all day to get their beets and turnips. I sometimes think that it is natural for people to have patriotic sediments when raised in a country. There is a bond with each other and the land despite any government. However, why would the Soviet Government want all the ethnic groups to be patriotic to them? Did they think themselves as gods? Of course people standing in line hungry wont conjure patriotism. Mike quote: Quote: So what do Americans see in the media? Newsreels of the people in the USSR going without food and standing in long lines, with the caption emblazoned across the image, "the inherent failure of socialism." 999 out of 1000 of Americans viewing the newsreel, right after they blame socialism, will next blame centralization. I don't blame them for using this as propaganda. Many in the former USSR did suffer. The Soviet government could not stand for a minute any democratic worker's councils to oversee production and distribution. They wanted to rule with a rod of iron. The decisions they made in the name of socialism did hurt socialist groups world wide. All socialist groups are looked upon as authoritarian, undemocratic and not to be trusted. This is why I believe that Marxist-Leninism should be put in the landfill of history and have the bulldozer cover it over. The only thing that can be learned is not to do what they did. Thank you for the lesson in the economics of centralization and decentralization management techniques. Marx wrote that socialism will come out of capitalism. I don't think he ever meant that a small group would have complete control over everything.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 04:00 pm    Post subject: Another problem when discussing "centralization" is that some who object to it (various anarcho-whatever) really mean that they want market mechanisms to be used. I always ask people this same kind of question as a test case: In the system you envision, how would the shop that makes wooden bookshelves get its wood? How would the plant that makes refrigerators get its sheet metal? They usually answer me: what an odd question, Lepore - they would buy it, of course. That's the clincher. They envision workplace 1 and workplace 2 as separate financial organizations. That means that each separate firm has its income from selling products, and its outgo to pay for labor, tools and materials. I don't know about anyone else but I call that capitalism. I don't care if every shop were run nonprofit and/or worker controlled, it's capitalism. If the workplace has its own income and outgo, its capitalism. I support a system in which the output of workplace 1 is a direct interdepartment transfer to workplace 2. The bookshelf shop doesn't but its wood, and that refrigerator plant doesn't buy its sheet metal. Yes, this would be a high degree of centralization, and I don't have any problem at all with it. It's market competition that I chiefly oppose and blame for most misery. (So in our recent discussions about how socialism might accomodate some private businesses, you can see the source of my culture shock even to consider it. I just can imagine how any workplace could acquire the tools and other resources it needs to continue operating.) If you feel differently about this, don't let me intimidate you. We can think differently about stuff without guilt. But to me, centralization is very basic to human beings directing their own fate.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 04:19 pm    Post subject: Marx is partly to blame for the Soviet monstrosity, because he never wrote a coherent paragraph in his whole life about what kind of new system he thought capitalism should be replaced with. To spend a forty year career criticizing the old system, but never take out a three measly minutes to hint at what he would like to replace it with, this invites all future writers to treat him as an ink blot test. Whatever they may think on their own, they can apparently find support for it in his vagueries. "... an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all free development of all" -- could he possibly be any more vague? With that kind of definition of socialism, we might as well read Nostradamus. Everyone who gazes at a cloud can always find a horsey and a duckie. A Stalinist can read Marx and seem to find vindication. Someone like me, I always point out: Marx never said that there should be one-party "elections" or bureaucratic regimentation. Then the Stalinist can reply to me: and neither did Marx say that there _shouldn't_ be. Yup! To me that cloud looks like a duckie.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 05:00 pm    Post subject: Bakunin tried to warn Marx that there was a danger that a party and a state seizing the means of production in the name of the workers might turn itself into a new kind of ruling class. Marx denied the possibility of it, calling Bakunin "the ass." Marx's background was in Hegel, which means the assumption that "history" always moves toward some inevitable conclusion, and a revolutionary writer is merely a commentator, like a scientist making notes on the growth of a tree. This is the same Hegelian influence that poisoned the modern North American socialist movement. It's viewed as acceptable if socialists isolate themselves and alienate most workers. After all, capitalism is supposedly getting ready to "collapse", after which socialism must inevitably follow like the dawn of a new day. Even if a socialist organization expels most of of its own hard-working members, why have any cause for care, when "history" is on our side? In the name of science, we are dealt some of the most unscientific superstition.
The Greenman	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 05:30 pm    Post subject: Mike quote: Quote: Marx is partly to blame for the Soviet monstrosity, because he never wrote a coherent paragraph in his whole life about what kind of new system he thought capitalism should be replaced with. To spend a forty year career criticizing the old system, but never take out a three measly minutes to hint at what he would like to replace it with, this invites all future writers to treat him as an ink blot test. Whatever they may think on their own, they can apparently find support for it in his vaguenesses. "... an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all free development of all" -- could he possibly be any more vague? You mentioned that before that Marx never would write about what the new society would look like. Just criticize the old system. Old system has religion therefore new society won't have it. Old system exploits at production new society won't. Old system has states and countries new society won't...something like that along those lines. Those who point to Lenin claim he continued where Marx left off--yeah right. The more I read, and I do despite being a novice, that socialism is about work. Marx wrote that socialism does not exploit at the point of production. Well, we have to figure out how to do that and Robert Owen already did. What about "free association of producers"? Daniel De Leon figured that a large organization of the means of production under common ownership just might be the ticket. Even we ourselves talked about the role of a small civil government that just handles law enforcement and courts. Can't have lynch mobs in the new society. None of this resembles the Soviet system of authoritarian government. I do believe the Leninist use The Communist Manifesto to justify their belief of superiority: The Communist, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section that pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariats the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the condition, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. I have had correspondence with Leninist in the past and they never give an answer that is coherent. They always beat around the bush and then ridicule De Leonism as not workable that only a party of professional revolutionaries can lead the proletarians to victory. They talk like a Cold War B movie of out dated terminology that very few understand today. They talk like Boomhower on King of the Hill.
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 06:58 pm    Post subject: ... and De Leonism provides the propane and propane accessories! (Let's see if anyone else has any idea what we're talking about :o)
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Jul 2007 07:02 pm    Post subject: The Communist Manifesto wrote: clearly understanding the lines of march, the condition, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. How odd they should say that, when they didn't even know what their own goal was.
The Greenman	Posted: 10 Jul 2007 04:42 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: .. and De Leonism provides the propane and propane accessories! Darn tootin since it is about production and distribution. But I have no idea what Leninism is about when you can't grasp what they are saying if they are saying anything at all. Mike quote: Quote: After all, capitalism is supposedly getting ready to "collapse", after which socialism must inevitably follow like the dawn of a new day. Even if a socialist organization expels most of of its own hard-working members, why have any cause for care, when "history" is on our side? In the name of science, we are dealt some of the most unscientific superstition. Capitalism not going to collapse. If it was suppose to it would have long time ago. Dawn of a new day like religious faith? The SLP like that? If anything workers are going to have to see the mechanics of socialism. The SIU program shows how it is done. Many people will have to look into it and understand that they can operate everything without the capitalist class.
mikelepore	Posted: 10 Jul 2007 05:26 am    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: The SLP like that? The way the SLP has occasionally put it is something like this: There is no special way to make a speech or write a book that would, if done right, recruit the workers into the socialist movement. Instead, it will take a new "crisis." The only responsibility admitted, therefore, is -- I think this was at the national convention of 1977 (?) -- even if that crisis does occur, there's a danger that the party could be so small that it couldn't get the message to the working class, even when the crisis has made them receptive to that message. So even this crisis theory requires some minimal maintenance for the party. Crisis, yes, and even periodic crises, but I don't believe these crises awaken people. Just the opposite, crises make people desperate and they lose their good judgement. How about that inflation of the currency in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s that got so severe that some people literally carried their money in wheelbarrows to the market? Now there was a crisis. Hmm, I wonder how it turned out. Oh, yeah! I think the Socialist Party of Great Britain hit the nail on the head. From their 1978 pamphlet "Questions of the Day". There they wrote: "The Socialist Party has also made its own contributions to socialist theory, in the light of further developments, going beyond some of the theories of socialist pioneers like Marx and Engels.... Recognition that capitalism will not collapse of its own accord, but will continue from crisis to crisis until the working class consciously organise to abolish it."
The Greenman	Posted: 11 Jul 2007 07:46 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Crisis, yes, and even periodic crises, but I don't believe these crises awaken people. Just the opposite, crises make people desperate and they lose their good judgement. How about that inflation of the currency in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s that got so severe that some people literally carried their money in wheelbarrows to the market? Now there was a crisis. Hmm, I wonder how it turned out. Oh, yeah! I agree. I don't know how many "crisis" in capitalism has happened since I entered the workforce. People don't become awake over it at all. They will move to new locations, go back to school to upgrade their education or trade. None say that the capitalist is ripping them off at the point of production. I also noticed that Americans respect the property rights of the capitalist and their say in production. The SIU concept has to be taught widespread and brought into existence at a future date. What Dave been writing about sounds like the making of a new political party perhaps. What I can understand from both you and Dave is that new avenues has to be taken. There is no "crisis" the capitalist can't handle. The Leninist don't realize this. The capitalist has not much to worry about. The Leninist believe that they can convince people they are different. They are not of course but they are trying to say they were wrong over policy. On the other hand, Socialist Parties don't offer any alternative but a top down form of political government.
The Greenman	Posted: 23 Jul 2007 07:41 pm    Post subject: I am still having problems with those yellow jackets. Though they are not entering the house they just may be getting back into the attic. I just sealed up another entrance and I just noticed they may have found another route. I think Leninist are just like the yellow jackets. They follow a leader, swarm secretly in large groups and worm their way into places where they are not wanted. I had some suspicion that they were in the SP-USA but not to the extent that I have seen, of all places, the Deb's Tendency. Like I have written before, Capitalist don't have very much to worry about. I wonder if it is possible to cross the "Rainbow Bridge" into Valhalla as the "Transitional Bridge" is? JT
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Jul 2007 05:01 am    Post subject: A quote: Quote: And as far as DeLeon and the "social industrial unionism," I have problems with this. What's the difference between this and the Bolsheviks idea that the entire society can be ruled by Soviets--WITHOUT assemblies universally elected for those who don't work, for peasants, etc.? And before the revolution, isn't this just like the CP Stalinists' "red unions"--a form of dual unionism which is divisive? What did he say? SIU no different from vanguard?
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jul 2007 05:58 am    Post subject: I understand the first part. Same as what we said here. It was too simplistic to think that industrial unions can run the whole society -- no government. I don't understand the last part. I don't know the meaning the phrase about the CP's "'red unions'--a form of dual unionism which is divisive".
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Jul 2007 03:04 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: I understand the first part. Same as what we said here. It was too simplistic to think that industrial unions can run the whole society -- no government. But industrial unionism is workers organized to run society with departments and those IUs within each department. The idea sounds simplistic at first but when looked into it makes perfect sense. I understand what "Soviet" is, meaning council. It may have started out having councils but those disappeared. We know that everything was run top down to control everything and everyone. Any worker, peasant, non worker being not a CPSU member had no say in any decision. Mike also wrote: I don't understand the last part. I don't know the meaning the phrase about the CP's "'red unions'--a form of dual unionism which is divisive". Now, I don't feel so all alone now. Here is what was written. I don't know if you have been following the list but here is else that he wrote to me. Quote: This is a wild distortion of what Marx wrote and didn't write. We have his "Critique of the Gotha Program" and his writings on the Paris Commune, his and Engels insistence on democracy for the social republic in the Manifesto and Class Struggles in France, Engels Credos on Communism, etc. etc. The critique of "The Russian Revolution" that Rosa Luxemburg wrote was mostly based upon her understanding that the Bolsheviks violated many of the principles Marx and Engels set forward, in such works as The Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (giving out the land from the feudal estates, for example, rather than creating workers collectives on it.). As for Marx's swipe at Bakunin, this was not because he thought that a one party bureaucracy was impossible--but rather that Bakunin was charging that the mere assumption of state power by the working class MUST lead to it. As for American Socialists vs. Russian Socialists, what American socialists ever MADE a revolution? I like to stay away from these invidious chauvinistic comparisons. I did read that Bukunin was against the use of the political state because those who would take power would become the new rulers. Marx thought he was an idiot. However, the Bolsheviks did become the new ruling elite. The last paragraph sounds as though he did make a chauvinistic comparison. "No American made a revolution"--only Lenin and the Bolsheviks. From what I read, so far, Russia was in turmoil for years. The Czar had a policy of absolutism, pogrom against Jews was in force and dissent was met with force. Police shot at demonstrators and strikers and the economy bordered on Third World standards. Before Lenin came along, Socialist were at least trying to make positive changes in policy. I have not come to the part where Lenin and company stepped in. Now, the U.S. is a advance capitalist nation. We have had De Leon, Debs and other Socialist whose ideas are based on American liberties and on Marx. The ball was rolling. What happened? Another thing that bothers me is that there is way to many here in the U.S. who prefer to follow in Lenin's footsteps and make the U.S. a carbon copy of the Soviet Union. No thanks and crawl back under that rock over there. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jul 2007 05:38 pm    Post subject: Bees are very specific as to species as to their behavious. They are in your attic? Where on the attic window? This is what you need to do about Lenin - forget that he ever existed. believe me John NO one is interested in discussing 100 yearold history of Russia. Honestly when is the last time that you came upon two poeple talokng in the street about the lenin/Trotsky etc situation?? The onkly reason they bring it up is becuase you discuss socialism. It's an excuse for them. IMHO
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Jul 2007 07:16 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: Bees are very specific as to species as to their behaviors. They are in your attic? Where on the attic window? The found a hole into the attic but it is now sealed off Quote: This is what you need to do about Lenin - forget that he ever existed. believe me John NO one is interested in discussing 100 year old history of Russia. Honestly when is the last time that you came upon two people talking in the street about the Lenin/Trotsky etc situation?? The only reason they bring it up is because you discuss socialism. It's an excuse for them. IMHO I did say it was my choice and that I was not interested in Leninism. When did these two characters reach saint hood? :twisted: Another thing Dave. Matt Helm on the Debs list may be the same character that posted here: http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43 John T.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 02:34 am    Post subject: Dave, If I am being an embarrassment then let me know and I will unsubscribe. I am trying to shake this Tom fellow loose but he won't let go and keeps trying to hump my leg. :oops: John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:09 am    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: Here is what was written. Whomever you're quoting, they sound like they're all over the place. Too many "examples" without making final points about them. I don't know what conclusions they're driving at.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:40 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Whomever you're quoting, they sound like they're all over the place. Too many "examples" without making final points about them. I don't know what conclusions they're driving at. Tom who humping my leg from the Debs' list. He believes De Leon is inferior to Lenin and Trotsky when it comes to having a socialist society. He is also upset that I thought Marx was a bit vague on how a socialist society is set up. He does jumps around all over the place and quick to ridicule, as good Leninist do, when a person does not measure up to whatever their standard is. John
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 04:01 am    Post subject: The De Leonist concept of the path to achieving socialism: Working class people have to figure out in detail how they can administer the industries democratically, and they have to publicly declare that this is their intention. The Leninist and Trotskyist concept of the path to achieving socialism: The working class has to march in parades and wave signs. Clench your fists for extra effectiveness. It's especially effective if the words being chanted rhyme correctly.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 04:39 am    Post subject: I do believe I just might have gotten him off my leg. Of course he did, as expected, to ridicule me and he also had to take a few shots at Dave. I am not interested in any theories Lenin or Trotsky had or how they got them: What pisses me off is the deception, ridicule and disregard to other ideas. If we don't include Lenin or Trotsky in all debates then nothing political can be accepted. From the other thread we were talking about why the industrial union concept got abandoned and you wrote: Quote: Mainly because "socialists" told the American workers that socialism means getting political reforms like regulating child labor and establishing old age pensions, so when those things were done there's no more apparent need for a socialist movement. All of their goals were already achieved. The Socialist Party actually complained that F.D. Roosevelt stole its platform. Are you saying the Transitional Program was introduced and from these transitional reforms the American people believed all the more in capitalism? The capitalist system began being responsive to workers with Social Security, FDA-better food quality, the minimum wage, etc. With these goals met the American people became proud of the system that exploits them. Now, here within our borders, are people who think the American people will develop a love for Lenin and the government system he devised. I don't think shooting people will make them number one with a bullet.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 05:14 am    Post subject: Not the Transitional Program, which for most of the 20th century was the talk of the Socialist Workers Party, which never had any practical influence on society. I'm talking about the Socialist Party, which did influence things -- unfortunately. The SP even from day-one had an internal left wing and an internal right wing. The left within the SP were people like Eugene Debs, Henry Slobodon, and Wiliam Haywood, calling for some notion of industrial unionism and a new classless society, at least, despite whatever reform distractions they also played with. The right wing within the SP, which usually dominated when it came to a national convention publishing a national platform, were the pure-and-simple political reformers, opposed to radical-thinking unionism and talk of worker-management. The SP right wing was started mainly by people like Morris Hillquit, Victor Berger, and Algernon Lee. To them, there was no other transition to speak of - socialism IS the addition of some government ownership and regulation under capitalism. They literally claimed that the public school system was a main part of the fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto. They were also attracted to municipal ownership of railroads, and they would think that today's city-operated trains have taken us about halfway to the final revolutionary goal. This is what 11th grade American history class teaches kids is the meaning of the American socialist movement. It's no wonder so many people think that revisiting the subject of socialism is pointless.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:04 pm    Post subject: So the right wing side of the SP just wanted to nationalize one thing after another using the present government. No wonder the Conservatives and Republicans call any government run programs "socialist" despite that most everything is contracted out to capitalist business. Medicare and Medicaid billing is done in the private sector. The government employs people for their offices where people can come off the streets to apply for benefits. This is hardly socialism. When the military needs aircraft carriers or a bomber the government contracts out to the private sector. However, when it comes to social programs we are seeing funding reduced or cut altogether. School vouchers is being held out as an alternative by Republicans et al. We are living in a time where the feeling is that everything should be handled in the private sector for profit. It is a good time to discuss SIU with workers owning the means of production. Educate workers that it is not about the government running all industries or interfering in their social life or locking them up for being a suspect counter-revolutionary or reactionary because someone heard them criticize the government. Rather they run society. John
The Greenman	Posted: 25 Aug 2007 04:09 pm    Post subject: When I read the Debs' list or read the revleft discussion board I often wonder why is Trotsky's (aka Lev Bronstein) theories considered superior over all other socialist thought. They View De Leonist as having cobwebs for brains or having fuddled thinking. Trotskyism is Leninism with some slight differences and I wonder what could be the attraction? I don't see Leninism all that much different being that they are the new rulers of society. However they say they are Communist. :roll: :roll:
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Aug 2007 07:20 pm    Post subject: I wonder if it's a feel-good neurotransmitter high, like the effect of certain drugs. When you're talking to an audience, you know you can get cheers and applause if you will just say what they want to hear. For example, if you're talking to a college student group, and you would just say "our goal is to freeze tuitions", they will cheer and you will feel good. It takes will power to say what people need to hear about the most, even though you anticipate that some in the audience will be scratching their heads in bewilderment after you say it. The Trotskyist program gives them an excuse to pander to the audience. The program says the audience isn't smart enough to understand the sentence, "Capitalism is defective, in so many ways, that reforming it substantially isn't feasible, so let's talk about adopting an entirely new social system." They're only smart enough to understand "freeze tuitions" or whatever, so that's what you tell them. The obvious problem there is that people aren't being prepared to exercise self-government.
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Aug 2007 11:33 am    Post subject: Okay then, they are the superior ones who have to lead the inferior workers, like sheep, to the promise land and some of the sheep will get sheared and others, who stray, complain or demand, imprisoned or slaughtered. Having wrote this I see something that may have been overlooked. We have people who are either Communist or different shades of Marxist-Leninist--I don't know that much about the Anarchist. By association of membership they have considered themselves superior. They understand things the regular Joe and Jane doesn't. They set themselves up as the final authority and determined they are the "new rulers" to lead the stupid sheep into so-called Communism. My question is: What makes them any different from those on Stormfront dot org? Those on Stormfront feel they are superior when it comes to race, religion, etc., and feel they have the right to rule over people "different" from themselves and kill those who stray, complain or demand. those on revleft are all against those on Stormfront and yet want to do the same thing but with in a different context. Sounds hypocritical to me. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Aug 2007 06:03 pm    Post subject: A fascists wants to make humanity achieve what they consider new heights, new achievements, by a competitive process between those who are biologically smarter, stronger, faster with those who are biologically weaker. It's like the Roman Empire's idea of a great civlization, where many people have to be trampled over. Inequality is attributed to biological differences. The Lenin-Stalin-Mao don't believe that the destined "leaders" have natural superiority. They just have what seems to me a very odd belief about how people learn new ideas. It's true, as we can all see, that some people have knowledge that other's don't, for example, I know something about electronics and physical science, but I can't fix a car at all, if it's anything more complicated than a dead battery. The bad habit of "vanguardism" isn't in the belief that some people have something to teach others. That much is true, and it's also true for sociology, which includes socialism. The "vanguardism" is related to a theory about how people learn. In any other subjects besides the study of human society, the Leninist would probably concede that information and skills can be shared rather directly, by explaining, practicing, etc. But with social issues, for some reason, the stupid masses of the people must be educated with carefully selected doses of information, like spoonfeeding a baby who can't digest solids. Supposedly, if you talk about everything else under the sun, like race and gender and nationality issues, and about once per hour you sneak the word "socialism" into the speech or article, that's the best way to teach people about the theory of socialism. I can't see it. I think they're just wasting time. It seems to me, if you want to explain something to somebody, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is electronics or socialism, you have to stick to the point for some block of time. The reformist left can never lead to a democratic outcome, because there will always be the excuse that the leaders are so wise compared to the "masses".
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Aug 2007 07:11 pm    Post subject: I just amazing that the Leninist think the masses are just brain dead to socialism but everything else like science, chemistry, agriculture, biology, etc., can be comprehended by different individuals. Yet they think that they have to dictate the behavior of the masses by small doses. That is the most ignorant thing I ever heard. :? Reminds me of what Pentecostals believe: They believe that anyone can be saved but if an individual has not the spirit and speak in tongues then they can't learn the deeper meanings of scripture, just simple truths.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Aug 2007 08:34 am    Post subject: How they use sentence structure at revleft still confusing at times. I got to go back to the library and get Lenin's Tomb. The author of the book mentioned a speech, some Party official gave, and he said that explanations were often long responses. In other words no use of simple sentences. I have a thought...If everyday people cannot understand Socialism but have to be spoon fed in small doses, then the capitalist class can counter all those doses with their much stronger counter dose. If that the case then the capitalist class has nothing to worry about. Might as well forget about SIU or PCS because the masses are just dumb asses and no one can make blind men/women see. Why don't we just throw in the towel?
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Aug 2007 07:21 pm    Post subject: Even the small doses are badly prescribed ones. They don't even explain to anyone that socialism includes all the other subjects that have to do with problems and solutions. They make it sound as though socialism is one of the items in a list of goals. This conceals the fact that, if socialism were the single objective, then all of the other items would be unnecessary to mention at all. For example, they say they demand better corporate unemployment benefits and hiring practices and more taxes on the rich and stricter regulations on the corporations and socialism. The inclusion of socialism in a list of other goals that imply continued capitalism ensures that the whole speech or pamphlet will have zero educational value. You get only a political party composed of confused people, and another bunch of confused people who vote for them, read their newspaper, and send them contributions. Full of emotions and understanding very little. Well, that's all that is need if one's idea of real change is to have an all-powerful emperor like Mao or Castro.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Aug 2007 07:39 pm    Post subject: I'm not famaiiar with that kind of sentence structure you mentioned. However, one thing I did notice is the left's tendency to pile on a bunch of leaders names and pseudo-intellectual junk. They say things like they want a revolutionary movement illuminated by the light of Fidel and Che and Uncle Ho and the great dialectical struggle for whatever. It reminds me of John Lennon's lyric about ism-ism-ism. The real socialist message is very simple. If you divide a pie between an owner and a worker, to say the owner gets a big slice is the same thing as saying the worker gets a small slice. Socialism wouldn't have an owner who absconds with a big slice, so the workers would get to keep the pie. There's no information superior to that simple truth to be found anywhere in Chairman Mao's stupid little book of quotations.
The Greenman	Posted: 29 Aug 2007 08:34 am    Post subject: Well, I just been over there on revleft and read the excuses that it will take unbearable conditions, not any sort of education or running candidates, for the people to change the current system. I wrote this sometime ago that the capitalist sleep very well and have not all that much to worry about. It's not the people who are dumb but the Commies and Anarchist who believe, as you said, that a great dialectical struggle (a great depression) has to happen first. Then, by magic, class consciousness awakens the masses and they swear allegiance to a small core of professional revolutionaries to lead them. I am reading Animal Farm and I see that the professional revolutionaries are the superior pigs. They, the animals (workers of various stripes), threw off man (capitalist) but came realize they changed one ruler for another and in the end could not see much of a difference between them. Speaking of totalitarians of a different stripe, ever read the crap over at Stormfront? Despite the racism and in fighting among various groups they do hand out of flyer's and promote education. Even though the government watches them and infiltrates their ranks and the Commies and Anarchist oppose them whenever they have an open rally; they are winning white people over to their side and are running political candidates. It could be very possible that they could end up as the majority, if they keep pushing their revisionist education and seeking converts, and have candidates win elections.
mikelepore	Posted: 29 Aug 2007 05:10 pm    Post subject: I don't read their web sites, but I'm familiar with the new breed of "white nationalists". They poke their noses into newsgroups that are related to other subjects, such as sci.physics or sci.astronomy. They pop in to post off-topic messages about how some controversy is to be blamed on the "knuckle draggers" (races which they believe to lower than others on the evolutionary scale).
The Greenman	Posted: 30 Aug 2007 01:36 am    Post subject: Besides all the conspiracy Jewish stuff they wear down shoe leather to win people over. The Communist, Anarchist, whatever "ist" or "ism" don't do nothing. They mostly scare me because they want a vanguard to lead, rule or control the masses so that they will elicit proper thoughts and behaviors and not to question authority. However, they believe that they have to wait for some sort of calamity, Great Depression, chaotic upheaval, before they can be a shoe in. They are a bunch of motherfuckers who promote, like Dave said, dead theories. It's the 21st century and not the late 19th century when the idea of Communism was fairly new and exciting until Lenin showed up with his dogmatic program.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Aug 2007 02:06 am    Post subject: Another thing that gets me, this fascination the revleft people have with Che Guevara. In Cuba, Che lived in the mountains and came down to town occasionally to blow something up. Is that what the left thinks is a suitable program for the U.S. today? Then Castro's movement wins, and Castro gives Che the job of being the military officer in charge of the firing squads that shoot thousands of people. Then Che travels to the Congo and tries to incite the poeple there, but the same people that he was trying to incite chase him out of the country, running for his life. Then he goes to Bolivia and achieves nothing more but to get captured and killed. Oh, what a great hero to emulate ... on our t-shirts and our dormitory wall posters....
The Greenman	Posted: 30 Aug 2007 11:46 am    Post subject: Violence and blowing up things is what they believe to be revolution. Gotta have armed workers to seize the state. They think that playing by the rules is just so bourgeoisie. I took this tid bit from revleft: Quote: The political tradition of Jacobinism has been it's service in providing a strategy for future generations of revolutionaries. It exposed the rules of power politics and utterly rejected the same spineless, Kantian morality that social democrats and liberals espoused today - bourgeois morality, call it what you will. As long as you play by rules that the bourgeoisie prescribes but does not itself follow, ever, you will be a loser, in a personal and historical sense. As so, Robespierre, and other Jacobins, should not be remembered for the heads that were sliced under their supervision, but rather their contribution to revolutionary politics. Revolutionary politics is just a institution of terror. It appears they don't like Kant and I could imagine that would also include John Stuart Mill or John Locke. I don't really like Leninism and I have not really become all that involved in reading his material but by picking up what the attitude is then I am all the more incline to believe that they are anti-democratic. I am pretty sure the idea of democratic concepts in a Communist society--past or present--would not exist. It all about the vanguard in control over every person. From what I have read about the general behavioral displayed in the former Soviet Union I could liken it to trained circus animals. The vanguards are the trainers and those animals that refuse to be trained or elicit the behaviors of the trainers can find themselves having a visit from the secret police (circus clowns). When it comes to voting time the animals can vote for either the same trainer or a different one within the circus. What ever happened to the circus? The animals decided to become human beings and used the material conditions to outlaw their masters from the political arena and took charge. Of course they went over to capitalism which showed what these people preferred that over Leninist form of government. The Commies want it all back and think that by adding one social program after another they will achieve their end results. They believe when social programs are slashed or eliminated the people will awakened to the sound of the whip, become class conscious and pledge allegiance to the circus masters and have a bloody revolution. A pig named "Squealer" will be the propaganda spokesman of the trainers. Ain't Communism good. I get chills thinking about it.
The Greenman	Posted: 22 Nov 2007 01:33 am    Post subject: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yKPzqTOqAMg I have no idea why this short film was call Zionist Bolshevik. Good film despite the name.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Nov 2007 10:00 am    Post subject: My nomination for stupidest quote from the video: "Stalin's regime had turned human beings into savage animals, just as communism had intended."
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Nov 2007 10:14 am    Post subject: I just posted this reply on the youtube page: pajamanista said, "Stalin didn't 'kill 40 million people.'" - Anti-Soviet propaganda like this adds in all the people killed by famine, disease, blizzard, civil war, riots, and attacks by Hitler's military, and make it sound as though Stalin just lined them all up against the wall and shot them.
The Greenman	Posted: 22 Nov 2007 03:52 pm    Post subject: Oh I get it... Quote: Of course the people with the money, Jewish Zionist bankers, were the ones financing this communist movement which really amounts to slavery. Guess all the world's problems, revolutions and other thing the nasty Jew is to blame. Never could understand the ruckus some people make over the Jews. That and re-writing Soviet history for propaganda purposes.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Nov 2007 07:43 pm    Post subject: If there are more Jews who are successful in business than one would expect from a random distribution, it's only because Jewish culture includes pressuring children to get as much college education as they possibly can, which is a very good parenting practice.
The Greenman	Posted: 23 Nov 2007 12:23 pm    Post subject: I can tell they are more educated. The forum I visit often the Jews are well versed in Hebrew and the Christians on the forum haven't been able to counter their arguments from any topic. Aside from this I still reading about late 19th early 20th century Soviet era. Lenin's idea behind the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was for it to be a party dictatorship of professional revolutionaries. Lenin opposed Parliamentary government but other Socialist were in support of elected representative form of government. I figure this is why Dave is opposed by the Communist on revleft is because those there would say that it would be offensive for a Communist to sit in the White house. It would be offensive for any Marxist to actually run for political office. Why would it be if Socialist sat in Congress and Senate representing workers rights and civil liberties? Is this not the peaceful settlement of disputes? What I read so far from these old books is that the Socialist who wrote them had high regard for universal suffrage of the population and the election of representatives for a parliamentary government. The thing about the SIU is that workers elect their managers and shop floor supervisors and elect representatives for the ALL Industrial Congress. On the other hand, people would want to have political representation and elect those people to maintain law and to protect their civil liberties. We cannot have one without the other. We already know that a one Party dictatorship tends to represent the will of the professional revolutionary. By having just an economic organization we would have no political protection of rights and civil liberties and who would arrest the criminals when they cause harm to another? Another thing that I been thinking about. The professional revolutionaries try to create society after their image and will use violence to get there. Right or wrong? However, if we had both SIU and civil government then it is more likely society would be created after the ideas and willing participation of the people themselves. Society may turn out completely different than Marx envisioned but who said that every word written was suppose to be part of the new society. I don't think most people would read Marx now or in the future. People do want political reform here in the US and that would be that they could elect their representatives. That is not a bad thing since our government pretty much has restricted itself to two parties. Those on revleft believe that violent revolution would happen here which would secure themselves a throne to sit on. I think the days of revolution are over and I really do believe that.
davesearles	Posted: 23 Nov 2007 02:03 pm    Post subject: JT: Another thing that I been thinking about. The professional revolutionaries try to create society after their image and will use violence to get there. Right or wrong? However, if we had both SIU and civil government then it is more likely society would be created after the ideas and willing participation of the people themselves. Society may turn out completely different than Marx envisioned Dave: You know me and my skepticism about references to Marx.
The Greenman	Posted: 23 Nov 2007 02:38 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: You know me and my skepticism about references to Marx. Yes I do and I would think people are not going to be in the bar discussing Marx or anyone else but watch the football game or relate how the job went or problems at home. It not all that often that politics get spoken about like religion.
mikelepore	Posted: 23 Nov 2007 04:40 pm    Post subject: Marx was so vague, it's hard to say what kind of society he envisioned. We can say more about what he didn't want (people wearing the "chains" imposed by economic distribution) than what he did want. But his arguments with Bakunin and Proudhon, and his speeches to the International, induced him to start getting more specific about methods (political parties and trade unions). How odd to get specific about methods before getting specific about a goal. I think that was unfortunate.
mikelepore	Posted: 23 Nov 2007 04:47 pm    Post subject: I don't care whether people ever mention Marx, but there can't be any further social progress until people learn how to connect cause and effect. People need to start saying: (a) We want to get rid of pollution; (b) the cause of pollution is the profit motive; (c) if you want to get rid of an effect you must get rid of it's cause; (d) therefore, by simple substitution, we know that industry needs to stop using the profit motive. People don't know how to do that. People will agree with all of the steps by themselves, but then not agree with the tautology that combines them. Historical progress is stalled on that.
davesearles	Posted: 24 Nov 2007 12:38 pm    Post subject: I am not so sure that a need to connect cause and effect is not more of a Mike Lepore thing than a generalizable trait across the human species. Sometimes we merely bumble into doing what is beneficial to us without a valid connection of cause and effect. Association is more powerful as a human motivator I believe.
The Greenman	Posted: 24 Nov 2007 03:35 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: I don't care whether people ever mention Marx, but there can't be any further social progress until people learn how to connect cause and effect. People need to start saying: (a) We want to get rid of pollution; (b) the cause of pollution is the profit motive; (c) if you want to get rid of an effect you must get rid of it's cause; (d) therefore, by simple substitution, we know that industry needs to stop using the profit motive. People don't know how to do that. People will agree with all of the steps by themselves, but then not agree with the tautology that combines them. Historical progress is stalled on that. Haven't Socialist and the Left been trying to point to what the cause and effect of Capitalism has been doing for over 150 some odd years now? People don't know how not to use the profit motive. That is because no other economic structure exist and what did exist still used banks, loans and wages. The economic structure of the Socialist Industrial Union (we are past the concept of collective bargaining and we should let the existing unions worry about that) should be explained as an alternative to the profit motive. Yes, workers need to understand that collective ownership of production and distribution would be which Dave will introduce to the American public. People would want to know the layers of the Industrial Organization of Labor, what income level each branch of industry would have. How the whole thing would work. I don't think that just saying Capitalism and the profit motive causes pollution. People would want to know where to turn to.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Nov 2007 12:32 am    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: I don't think that just saying Capitalism and the profit motive causes pollution. People would want to know where to turn to. I didn't mean to imply that what I said before is sufficient. Necessary but not sufficient.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Nov 2007 12:42 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: that a need to connect cause and effect is not more of a Mike Lepore thing than a generalizable trait People might not word it that way, but they know subconsciously. No one says: If my gall bladder is about to erupt, just give me a pain killer so we can all forget about it. They know the cause has to be repaired. Socialists are just people who do the same thing when they look at social problems. Every time someone mentions unemployment during the depression, every socialist immediately thinks: something wrong with the system that produces this symptom, something basic that must be fixed or else the symptom will continue. Until we started doing that we were liberals or conservatives. The day we learned how to reason with social problems what we already knew how to reason with gall bladders, we became socialists.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Nov 2007 01:08 am    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: Haven't Socialist and the Left been trying to point to what the cause and effect of Capitalism has been doing for over 150 some odd years now? I don't think so, not when most of the leftist literature has always made it sound as though "socialism" means "capitalism with reforms tacked onto it". The reformist programs have made people incapable of seeing a common thread in things, incapable of what engineers call "taking a systems approach".
davesearles	Posted: 25 Nov 2007 02:22 pm    Post subject: ML: People might not word it that way, but they know subconsciously. No one says: If my gall bladder is about to erupt, just give me a pain killer so we can all forget about it. They know the cause has to be repaired. DS: I am glad that we are discussing this topic. Yes your example makes perfect sense under those conditions - getting someone to do something that will fix (hopefully) a problem that requires very little in the way of voluntary basic change in the lifestyle of the subject. I happen to be am a prime example of the reverse as applies to contolling a behaviour to prevent significant foreshortening of life
The Greenman	Posted: 25 Nov 2007 03:41 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote after my quote: Quote: The Greenman wrote: Haven't Socialist and the Left been trying to point to what the cause and effect of Capitalism has been doing for over 150 some odd years now? I don't think so, not when most of the leftist literature has always made it sound as though "socialism" means "capitalism with reforms tacked onto it". The reformist programs have made people incapable of seeing a common thread in things, incapable of what engineers call "taking a systems approach". Most Leftist literature has offered reforms to Capitalism and made some references that it is a problem. I do agree that many Socialist make Socialism out to be Capitalism with reforms. Marx explained how Capitalism works and how it exploited workers and what he thought would not exist under Communism--if such a stage of social development can ever be achieved. I believe that the Socialist who offer reforms to Capitalism have no idea of any economic structure to put in place. On this site we say SIU which has worker owned and operated economic structure. Presenting Capitalism as a problem is one thing but we have to be very clear about the new economic structure to replace it. Problem with Communist critics is that they say SIU and Time Labor Vouchers is just another form of Capitalism. yet they only offer a political dictatorship. I don't understand why a parliamentary form of government is so looked down upon by them.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 04:31 am    Post subject: Now that I'm here, at least there can be a more balanced discussion on "all things Lenin." :) "Vanguardism" Revisited “We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.” (Karl Marx) ...
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 05:02 am    Post subject: Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. ibid http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm#p144
Jacob Richter	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 05:36 am    Post subject: ^^^ Point being (i.e., regarding my blog)? :?
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 06:03 am    Post subject: While we're all quoting ourselves and occasionally quoting our favorite dead authors with beards, how about my pearl of wisdom that I wrote in revleft on may 28 to neatly dispose of the vanguard question ... mikelepore wrote: Hyacinth wrote: That is, is the working class able to achieve class consciousness without any assistance from a vanguard? And even if so, what role is a vanguard suppose to play? And do the costs of having one outweigh the benefits? There is a need to teach concepts. Suppose that human survival depended on the population learning to understand astronomy, then it would be logical for a bunch of astronomers to get together and cordinate how they're going to teach everybody. Well, that's what a socialist organization should be --a collection of people who know some concepts that it's vital for everyone to learn. If that's what people mean by "vanguard", then we certainly need it. But some people seem to use the term "vanguard" to mean the new leaders. I recommend caution. Under no circumstances should the revolutionaries, the teachers, those who point the way, become the leaders after a revolution. And who are they, who do this? To identify them, look for someone whose speeches don't have much to do with teaching fundamental concepts, but are full of "you should make us the new leaders."
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 06:14 am    Post subject: Jacob - ifyou have something to say in this forum say it. I didn't participate in the rev left discussion you linked to so I won't discuss here what you wrote there. Moreover the server at my worksite will not even allow me to access the rev left server - I think it had to do with the key words racism and hate that the server will automoatically restrict access to. Again, if you have something to say, say it here and I'll comment on it directly. However the bit of Marx you quoted above seemed to need a fuller reading. When you post here it would be helpful to give a link to that which you have posted so that we don't have to google everything to find it. Believe it or not as a matter of habit I practically always check cited text that I am not familiar with just to see if it's accurate (e.g. "double duth") or to see whether it ought to be more fully quoted.
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 06:36 am    Post subject: as to VANGARD istm that this is in the category of metaphor substituting for thought. If we accept the analogy for the cases in which a vangard is a useful concept (essentially as in the head of a penis or some brave small group leading an army into enemy territory) what valor! - who could resist the idea that we ougt have a vangaurd! But that's if we mindlessly accept the metaphor of the head of a following shaft. In order to maintain the brutal criticism that Marx talks about above we ought to always beware of the unexamined presumptions that metaphorical thought can intoduce into our and into other's thinking.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 09:04 am    Post subject: Dave, if "vanguard" is a metaphor, and if you don't like calling it by a metaphor, what would you like to call it? Some members of the working class are among the first one to become class conscious and advocate fundamental change, when most of the working class is conservative. No one knows why it turned out to be them! I reckon that a long time in the future, when science knows how the brain works, we may understand why it was certain people and not others. Whatever the reason, a few joined up first, while the many haven't. Some people call them the vanguard. The debate is about what their role should be. I say: NOT leaders! I think they should be self-appoined teachers. It's as if the world is still fooled by Ptolemy and they are Galileo. They must study some educational theory, rhetoric, logic, etc. so they can prepare good lessons. I believe Marx and Engels performed poorly at educating others. They even seem to have tried to be obscure, with those insertions of Latin and Greek phrases, etc. And congratulations to any reader who can make head or tail of Anti-Dühring. They must always tell the truth. They must never conceal their revolutionary purpose for the sake of attracting people. On the contrary, the more shocking the communication seems to the learner, the more learning has taken place. Therefore, "everything you know is wrong" should be a common theme.
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 12:05 pm    Post subject: ML: what would you like to call it? Some members of the working class are among the first one to become class conscious and advocate fundamental change, when most of the working class is conservative. DAS: van guard the leading division or units of an army (leading as in at the head of a column marching into a battle.) a farmer plants corn. Some pf the seeds happen to germinate faster that the others. Are the later germinating plants following the example set by the first ones, or do they independnetly germinate and just take longer than the first ones. a couple of working class kids from Beacon NY come across some socialst literature and become the first in that region and for a long time the only to strictly advocate an industrial governement with workers in total charge of the means of production. Were those two former kids in the "VANGUARD". And in what sense? More like the leading unit of an adVANcing army or more like the humble example of first germinating seeds? Since this topic is on Lenin, in what sense did Lenin use the word? References please.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 01:54 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Jacob - ifyou have something to say in this forum say it. I didn't participate in the rev left discussion you linked to so I won't discuss here what you wrote there. Moreover the server at my worksite will not even allow me to access the rev left server - I think it had to do with the key words racism and hate that the server will automoatically restrict access to. Again, if you have something to say, say it here and I'll comment on it directly. LOL @ political correctness of "hate" :roll: [at your server, not you] Here ya go: “We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.” (Karl Marx) All over the Marxist spectrum, there is a crisis over the word “vanguard.” Historical events have tainted that word, such that it is now synonymous with Blanquist elitism: the notion that a secret group of conspirators enacts violent revolution and imposes its rule over everyone else. To a lesser extent, various modern “vanguard” circles have emphasized “leadership” over “the masses” at every step of the process. On the other hand, spontaneism is back in vogue, and honest defenders of the original “vanguard” concept have found themselves ill-educated to properly counter this old reductionism of worshipping spontaneity. Only recently has someone – a politically inactive historian – “rediscovered” the long-ignored history of the original “vanguard” concept. Said Lars Lih: Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed. How “profoundly true,” as Lenin would say, but what is this “process” which Lars Lih referred to? In writing What Is To Be Done?, Lenin quoted Kautsky, and actually reiterated Marx (as quoted at the beginning of this chapter section): Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without […] and not something that arose within it spontaneously […] Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. If that is the case, then why is “socialist consciousness […] something introduced […] from without” – and from where is it introduced? Immediately before the quote above, Lenin tried to provide an answer, again quoting Kautsky: Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [...]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Unfortunately, both Kautsky and Lenin have ignored the former’s remarks regarding “educated proletarians” (as quoted in Chapter 2), and both Marx and Engels were petit-bourgeois intellectuals, not bourgeois intellectuals. What then, is the role of individual proletarians in the development of “scientific knowledge”? Said Lenin in a footnote: This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known. What, then, is the modern significance of all the quotes above? The profound answer is three-fold: 1) Only those who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of class struggle), support revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” developing proletarian class consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”), according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless” through having little free time or through being unemployed. 2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of proletarian class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.” 3) When the revolutionary process of introducing class consciousness to the proletarian masses begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians.” This third point is “profoundly true and important,” because modern “vanguard” circles today act as ordinary workers in trying to spread class consciousness. This is the main reason why they have been ineffective! However, because of the third point, the genuine class separation that existed between the non-proletarian intellectuals and the proletarian masses has been replaced by an artificial “theory gulf” between different groups of proletarians, so to speak. Socialist theoreticians can overcome this gulf by connecting their dynamic-materialist knowledge with the material conditions of the proletarian masses as a whole, thereby finding real expression of the newfound knowledge. One more question arises: what form should this organized vanguardism take? The lengthy quote that ends this chapter best reiterates the original “vanguard” concept, as well as its organized form. It describes how to overcome the gap between Marxist theory and the proletarian masses, thereby solving the crises of theory. Following is the central theme of this thesis, the most important paragraph ever written by the real founder of “Marxism,” as well as the most important paragraph ever memorized by his most well-known disciple: one that is found in Chapter 5 of The Class Struggle (as translated, without “bowdlerized abridgement,” by Lars Lih, due to its central importance): In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of 1847 they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy [as a party] is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim. REFERENCES: Letter to Arnold Ruge from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, September 1843 by Karl Marx [http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm] The “Vanguard” [http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html] Spontaneity, class consciousness, and “vanguardism” [http://www.revleft.com/vb/spontaneity-class-consciousness-t81312/index.html] Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context by Lars Lih [http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0] What Is To Be Done?: Burning Questions of Our Movement by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/] The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm]
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 05:13 pm    Post subject: DAS wrote: Moreover the server at my worksite will not even allow me to access the rev left server - I think it had to do with the key words racism and hate that the server will automatically restrict access to. Again, if you have something to say, say it here and I'll comment on it directly. JR responded: LOL @ political correctness of "hate" [at your server, not you] DAS responds: In case you don't understand Jacob I will explain it to you - The network I respond through has filters for certain keywords. I do not know what they are specifically. the revleft post that you linked to I saw in the link information the words racism and hate (I believe that's what they were I only saw it for a split second) after a second the server returned a message telling me that the network will not allow me to visit that site. Also it seems to be a poor practice because the revleft site may at any point may become inaccessible as it did for at least several weeks during the winter as I recall. Since you have no way of knowing that your posts at reveleft will be accessible at any given time it becomes a pointless exercise to comment upon them here. quotes at the Marxists.org website are exceptions because that material is available elsewhere. I can see you probably don't have a lot of experience of people checking your references for example in your direct quotation of Lars Lih you might have provided a page number. The second reference to Lars Lih (chapter 5 of apparently a book by Lih entitled Class Struggle) is not to be found by Googling Lih and Class Struggle. We have no idea if this is an actual quotation from a verifiable source or as in your "double duth" that it's merely a misinterpretation of something you thought was correct. Also in your apparent quotation of Lenin you provide no indication whatsoever where in that extensive writing one may begin to find the quotation that you gave us without once again having to resort to google.. Also at one point you quote Lenin with no quotation marks or other indications of it's beginning and end and all of a sudden we're reading you as if you're channeling for him. You also allude to "Blanquist elitism" as if acceptance of that term is universal. You know Jacob I think I finally see what you are about. These writings of yours are very reminiscent of poorly written college papers that students load up with all sorts of uncheckable allusions and references for the shear bulk of it so the poor professor can't possibly wade through it all by the time the final grade has to be issued. Again, Jacob if you yourself have something to say here you should say it and when you do actually say something to back it up specifically such as your statement: "All over the Marxist spectrum, there is a crisis over the word 'vanguard.' " Who is in a CRISES over the word "vanguard"? Sounds great but it's full of nothing. And since we're on Lenin (remember him?) what did he have to say specifically on this word? You give us nothing except you turning the words of Lenin inside out on the issue: Lenin: the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. Richter:If that is the case, then why is “socialist consciousness […] something introduced […] from without” – and from where is it introduced? DAS: "consciousness OF ITS POSITION" "consciousness OF ITS TASK" In rummaging through the Marxist archive in a matter of minutes I came upon a very interesting article entitled: Lenin and the Vanguard Party by C. L. R. James 1963 http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1963/lenin-vanguard.htm Mr. James in that article made a very interesting observation: "The theory and practice of the vanguard party, of the one-party state, is not (repeat not) the central doctrine of Leninism. It is not the central doctrine, it is not even a special doctrine." DAS continues - Lenin did not in anyway state that the working class could only obtain the consciousness required for the revolution FROM ANY PARTICULAR GROUPING of individuals. "Social democracy" here was used in the widest possible terms. Lenin: But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology, to its development along the lines of the Credo programme; for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia. Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm DAS continues - So according to Lenin it appears that social democracy includes "revolutionary youth armed with social democratic theory who strain towards the working class. Gee why didn't Lenin use the word Vanguard? If the question is ought we have youth armed with social democratic theory who strain toward the working class? Sure good idea. This hardly implies that Lenin in any sense meant to convey that workers with a plethora highly developed communications systems electronic archives at their instant disposal and could not pick up amongst themselves and readily available writings the required social democratic theory sufficient to impel them toward a socialist reconstruction of society. At this late date of material development the very idea of an "intelligentsia" from which ideas must flow in order for the working class to acquire class consciousness is simply an anachronism, it would seem to me.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 08:21 pm    Post subject: "Vanguard" doesn't only mean the leading division of an army. It means anything that comes before a lot of additional things, so it's an early indicator of a new trend. Note the "avant garde" (French for the same word) works of art. Abstract expressionist painting and free-form poetry were once believed to be avant garde.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 08:42 pm    Post subject: Jacob Richter wrote: and both Marx and Engels were petit-bourgeois intellectuals, not bourgeois intellectuals. Not exactly. Engels' father owned a textile factory in Manchester. Marx was in the lowest stratum of the working class, permanently unemployed and relying on the charity of friends just to stay alive.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 09:01 pm    Post subject: In _What is To Be Done_, I believe it was chapter 2 section A, Lenin wrote that the working class "exclusively by its own efforts" can only develop "trade union consciousness." First, the phrasing is wrong, because it implies that revolutionaries aren't part of the working class, which they are. So he should have said something like: the majority of the working class will only retain trade union consciousness unless they receive educational information from the minority of the working class whose aspirations go beyond trade union consciousness. Nothing unusual there. This is true of all new ideas. We could likewise say: A society that has chattel slavery, or monarchy, etc;, and where this institution has popular support, will not abolish this institution until the many come to be influenced by the arguments of the few who oppose that institution. Secondly, I'd like to comment on the confuison that appears in the SLP's pamphlet _After the Revolution, Who Rules?_ The SLP says it is unlike Lenin, who asserted that, without the vanguard, the working class will be limited to "trade union consciousness." In truth, Lenin says that this necessary educational role is the job of A POLITICAL PARTY. This posiiton, that it's a political party that points the right way, and the working class needs to learn from it, is EXACTLY what the SLP also says. The SLP bashed Lenin for saying the same thing that the SLP also says. I believe the SLP writers were sincere but misunderstood Lenin's point. The SLP thought that Lenin was saying that the workers are dumb sheep and can only follow leaders blindly. I don't know whether Lenin thought the workers are sheep, but that isn't what he said in this pamphlet. He said the same thing the SLP says: that an initially small political party has to be a source of education, which the majority can come to look to for a program.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 09:21 pm    Post subject: As for servers that block revleft: I believe it's because Net Nanny and those similar censorship services have revleft listed as a hate and violence site. It's no wonder why they do. When a couple of guys suggest the peaceful and constitutional method of instituting social change, and everyone else immediately jumps all over them and informs then that assassination and terror should be used instead. And when a poll that asks whether religion should be declared illegal attracts over four dozen people who argue in the affirmative. revleft bans people if they are suspected of "telling a sexist joke" or some other political incorrectness at the limit of being laughably trivial, but advocating Stalinist terror and death camps is considered just fine and gets no one banned. Duh! For what Net Nanny and Cybercop are trying to accomplish, revleft _IS_ a hate site.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jun 2008 09:30 pm    Post subject: Dave, I believe you asked Jacob where Lenin used the word "vanguard". I case you weren't aware of this google syntax, the syntax for typing into the search box at google, to find the word "vanguard", and make it look only in marxist.org's "archive/lenin" directory, would be: vanguard site:marxists.org/archive/lenin/ You'd go to google.com and type that search criterion into the white box.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 01:09 am    Post subject: Dave, in regards to my references, I don't think you're Googling properly. You need to google in-sequence words that are actually quoted (i.e., in italics). [If there is a generational gap between the two of us, then I understand. :( ] For the first Lih quote, try "makes vanguardism almost inevitable," and you will most assurely get as your first result a site called Google Books. Mike, I was referring to the class origins of Marx and Engels, not so much their class status as they wrote. By today's standards, owning only one small factory would make someone petit-bourgeois. Mike, also the term "trade-union consciousness" is misunderstood. As in my RevMarx thread on Workers' Movements, and as per Lars Lih, Lenin was referring to a "nothing but the trade unions" attitude that was gaining ground in Germany: Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei. He wasn't belittling the struggle WITHIN trade unions as much as he was "nothing but the trade unions": http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/638/lenin.htm http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Reviews/ReviewLeninRediscoveredPart1.html [I suggest reading the reviews of Lih's work above to get a better sense of what Lenin was writing about.] Both of you need to read my work-in-progress (preferrably by e-mail).
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 03:34 am    Post subject: There's a lot of historical detail in these articles and reviews. How about a summary of the "point" of it all: What is the proper role of the party - what is the proper role of the unions - What is socialism supposed to look like - How do these organizations get us there. Right now I have too much wood to cut with my chainsaw to think about who wrote what a hundred years ago.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 04:33 am    Post subject: ^^^ Depends on WHICH unions you're talking about, don't you think? I don't know how analogous the "socialist industrial unions" are to factory committees: http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520 On the other hand, typical run-of-the-mill TRADE unions like today have absolutely LITTLE potential for raising class consciousness, though they should NOT be ruled out: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=107 Dave, hopefully the Kasama link isn't a "hate" site. :)
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 08:57 am    Post subject: Me: "what is the proper role of the unions?" You: "Depends on WHICH unions you're talking about" I mean the whole idea of workers on the job saying hey fellow workers let's get together this afternoon and have a meeting and organize something. What should they meet and organize primarily to do? For a long time most workers may have no greater dream than higher wages and other job conditions. But what must happen eventually, if we are ever to have socialism? I believe: what must eventually happen is the workers have that meeting with the consciously adopted agenda of: the meeting we have _is_ rightfully the management around here, we have the right to own the place, and we do intend to declare ownership of the place as soon as we're strong enough to pull it off. That is what has to be the agenda explicitly selected for the workers' meeting. Add to that, the activity of electing representatives to several nested layers of constituency, that is, local and national intra-industry and inter-industry representatives, which will be needed later for the network of workers to step in and run things. They're just waiting for the majority of the people to express their mandate through the political process, then the workplace organization will be fully prepared to take over as the new management. That in a nutshell is what "socialist industrial unionism" means. If that summary corresponds well to what other people have meant when they said "factory committees" or "workers' councils" or other names, that's fine with me. Regardless of the name, that summary of basic concepts is what I believe is required for success. link to pretty diagram
Jacob Richter	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 01:55 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: I mean the whole idea of workers on the job saying hey fellow workers let's get together this afternoon and have a meeting and organize something. What should they meet and organize primarily to do? For a long time most workers may have no greater dream than higher wages and other job conditions. But what must happen eventually, if we are ever to have socialism? I believe: what must eventually happen is the workers have that meeting with the consciously adopted agenda of: the meeting we have _is_ rightfully the management around here, we have the right to own the place, and we do intend to declare ownership of the place as soon as we're strong enough to pull it off. That is what has to be the agenda explicitly selected for the workers' meeting. Add to that, the activity of electing representatives to several nested layers of constituency, that is, local and national intra-industry and inter-industry representatives, which will be needed later for the network of workers to step in and run things. They're just waiting for the majority of the people to express their mandate through the political process, then the workplace organization will be fully prepared to take over as the new management. That in a nutshell is what "socialist industrial unionism" means. If that summary corresponds well to what other people have meant when they said "factory committees" or "workers' councils" or other names, that's fine with me. Regardless of the name, that summary of basic concepts is what I believe is required for success. link to pretty diagram I don't see any problems with the diagram, except... 1) However, you may wish to drop the word "union." Workers kinda get suspicious about the nature of trade unions (and their reactionary bureaucracy). Also, "industrial" to most people refers to manufacturing. What about service organizations? BTW, the "factory committee" was just a historical example. I prefer "workplace committee" myself. :) 2) Oh, and why organize just on industry? In Russia, the local factory committees elected a Central "Soviet" of Factory Committees, bypassing the regional level.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 04:45 pm    Post subject: We use the word "industries" for all useful activities, as the IWW does. An musician works in the entertainment industry. A teacher works in the education industry. A nurse works in the health industry. Why is it a "union"? The important concept is that organizing in the work venue is being specified to contrast it with the kinds of organization that people do everywhere else, such as the political party, the street, or artistic representations. The idea is a meeting at the workplace that is held among people who work in the same workplace -- for that reason the word "union" ordinarily comes to mind. If the word "union" has unintended connotations then another word may be used. Lately I have found myself more often saying "the workplace organization." "Industrial union" is a technical term that contrasts with "craft union", two different strategies that were debated in the U.S. starting in the late 1800s. In a craft union, your subdivision is defined according to the kind of work you do personally. In an industrial union, your subdivision is defined according to the output of the site. For example, a steel mill has a cafeteria for the employees to have lunch, and suppose you're the cook. According to craft unionism, you're a food worker. According to industrial unionism, you're a steel worker. You're a cook, but the pruduct that the site outputs is steel. So the name "socialist industrial unionism" was adopted originally because the early writers offered some arguments why the craft union method should be abandoned, and the industrial union method used instead. For these reasons the lousy nine-syllable name "socialist industrial union" describes the strategy in technical terms, but it can be given a more pleasant sounding name to actually call it by. A lepidoptera is a butterfly, but the technical name is harder to say, and it isn't what people call the thing on a daily basis.
davesearles	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 04:50 pm    Post subject: JR: Dave, in regards to my references, I don't think you're Googling properly. You need to google in-sequence words that are actually quoted (i.e., in italics). [If there is a generational gap between the two of us, then I understand. ] For the first Lih quote, try "makes vanguardism almost inevitable," and you will most assurely get as your first result a site called Google Books. DAS: How much older than I do you think you are? Thanks for the tips on googling but no thanks. When you cite something it should not be for everyone to try to track it down. It's a matter of common courtesy not a generational issue. (Unless you're actually trying to blow smoke.) JR: Both of you need to read my work-in-progress (preferably by e-mail). DAS: Why don't you ask Mike to post what you have so far in our text archive? And if you have some favorite posts over at rev left that you want to refer to from time to time, I'm sure Mike could add them as well to the deleonism.org archive. I'd just as well never have to go there. Sometimes I get the idea that some of those assholes over there are paid agent provocateurs.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Jun 2008 04:50 pm    Post subject: Jacob Richter wrote: 2) Oh, and why organize just on industry? In Russia, the local factory committees elected a Central "Soviet" of Factory Committees, bypassing the regional level. In what sense is "bypassing the regional level" not a case of organizing "just on industry"? I hope you didn't take the chart literally, as if to think that it's a fundamental argument that there has to be an assemblage of Detroit, Cleveland and Los Angeles into a national automobile council. The artist made that up as an example of a general idea. The main idea is to have functions nested within other functions.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 28 Jun 2008 12:01 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: Lately I have found myself more often saying "the workplace organization." Then I don't see any fundamental differences in our respective positions. :) Quote: "Industrial union" is a technical term that contrasts with "craft union", two different strategies that were debated in the U.S. starting in the late 1800s. In a craft union, your subdivision is defined according to the kind of work you do personally. In an industrial union, your subdivision is defined according to the output of the site. For example, a steel mill has a cafeteria for the employees to have lunch, and suppose you're the cook. According to craft unionism, you're a food worker. According to industrial unionism, you're a steel worker. You're a cook, but the pruduct that the site outputs is steel. So the name "socialist industrial unionism" was adopted originally because the early writers offered some arguments why the craft union method should be abandoned, and the industrial union method used instead. I dunno, though. I want some clarification on these particular examples: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_union#The_persistence_of_craft_unionism 2) The Labour Movement: Professional Workers “But sooner or later the aristocratic tendency of even the most highly skilled class of laborers will be broken. As mechanical production advances, one craft after another is tumbled into the abyss of common labor. This fact is constantly teaching even the most effectively organized divisions that in the long run their position is dependent upon the strength of the working-class as a whole. They come to the conclusion that it is a mistaken policy to attempt to rise on the shoulders of those who are sinking in a quicksand. They come to see that the struggles of other divisions of the proletariat are by no means foreign to them.” (Karl Kautsky) Imperative to the demise of sectoral chauvinism and the realization of class consciousness amongst professional workers is unionization. Indeed, as early as 1998, some contract employees at the corporate headquarters of Microsoft formed the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (or WashTech) for permanent and contract info-tech workers. On their web page Unions: Myths and Realities, they have even – albeit unconsciously – repeated the words of Kautsky above from Chapter 5 of The Class Struggle: The problems facing IT workers aren't so different from other parts of the work force - long hours, poor benefits, limited job security and career mobility. The number of white collar professionals in unions has been increasing steadily over the last several decades. Engineers at Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, researchers with advanced degrees at the University of California, and professional airline pilots are some examples. Even medical doctors have started their own union, to act collectively in negotiations with HMO's. As the high-tech economy slumps and megamergers are on the rise, high-tech workers need the collective power of a union to make sure their interests are represented. IT unions find common cause with other trade unions across the country, and work together to fight for the rights of all employees. At present, the organization’s primary concerns is the outsourcing of info-tech jobs, both the typical outsourcing to other countries and the more newsworthy outsourcing to foreign workers in the United States (“newsworthy”