John, you ask: "Adam, I fail to see how the proposals are any less realistic
that your stated goal of a world without any money at all and in which all
have everything that they could possibly want. Are you saying that Trots
have to tow to reality but you don't?
Just a thought."
The Trots are unrealistic because they are proposing impossible reforms to
capitalism. If I thought that a world without money was impossible then I
wouldn't be a socialist. If you think it's not realistic then you're not a
socialist but an anti-socialist in the same boat as the ineffable John
Henry.
Just another thought.
Adam

Hi,

It is available online at www.trotskyism.org (ETOL).

If you are stuck, email me and I can send you stuff out(I have a
huge trotzkyite archive).

If youre talking about News Line, they are Workers Revolutionary.
They are the International Committee Of The Fourth Internaitonal -
or so they say.  There was a 'split' in 1985, and the News Line
group went with this guy called Gerry Healy, and the WSWS people
(whom you like) went with Slaugher and Banda.

There are 3 groups that call themselves the 'Fourth International'.
I don't know about Jospin.  I can't remember - Ill look around for
you.

But he was in a group that called itself Trotzkyite and he joined
the SP France as a mole.

The end of the Trotzkyite is the establishment of themselves as a
new ruling class.  They wish to deceive workers into supportimng
them with their unattainable reforms.

Don't worry about asking questions, we all do it.  I don't think we
have much in common with the WSWS people.  And we have a hostility
clause, so we can't work with them, because they aren't socialist.

They are for state-administration of the economy, state capitalism.
We are for socialism, the abolition of the wages system and the
withering away of the state(not abolition - we're not anarchists).

What do you mean by if capitalism fails?  If you mean if it will
collapse, well it won't so we don't have to worry about that.

We are not interested in our group taking power - if WSWS turns out
to be socialist - which it won't, I assure you, we will make steps
to merge with them.  But if they are non socialist, which they are,
we will be hostile to them, and we are already 'slugging it out' for
the support of the working class anyway.

I don't know if ive said anything pertinent, or if this is
irrelevant drivel, but I hope this helps.

BTW, my name is richard.


>
> Dailypressuk,
>
> That sounds very interesting.
> No, I have not read anything official from the
> Trots; is it available online? I would think that
> they would keep internal matters away from the eyes
> of the public, unless it's all been exposed by
> defectors from the organization(s). Which brings me
> to another point; what is the name of their official
> party - worldwide, GB, US, France, etc? The forward
> from Lutte Ourviere seemed to indicate that this was
> a splinter group from former Trots. Is there a single
> entity that is trotskyite? Did Lionel Jospin belong to
> it before joining the Partie Socialiste mainstream?
>
> You make me imagine the motives of the people involved,
> since you imply that they are deceptive - to what end?...
>
> Sorry for the lazy questions. I guess I could nuzzle
> around and find answers for myself. I ask them, though,
> in the larger hope of some sort of coalition of like-minded
> socialists in the world at large. Do you have ANYTHING in
> common with these folks? Are they more of a danger to the
> ideals that you support than the unwashed ignoramuses like
> me? If capitalism fails, will you have to slug it out with
> them for dominance?...
>
> John F.
>
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@y..., "dailypressuk" <rcpglasgow@h...> wrote:
> > What Stuart Watkins was saying was that Trotzkyism has a mass
line
> > and a party line - in not as many words.
> >
> > Has Mr Full ever read the Transitional Programme?  If so he will
> > know that Trotzkyites have a system of transitional demands
which
> > they use to get their support.
> >
> > Inside their party, they have a 'party line', which is their
real
> > intentions.
> >
> > If you read News Line, see how many times they call for a
general
> > strike.  Then read their book, 'Lenin In 1917: A study For
Today',
> > and you will see that they say that general strike simply means
> > armed insurrection.
> >
> > It is deception, it is manipulation, and the SPGB is having none
of
> > it.

Hi,

You should read the Transitional Programme first.  that is basically
their call for support for their 'wicked ends'.

Then you should probably read something like 'The Class Nature Of
the Soviet State'(I have 2 copies, so if you cant find one e me and
let me know).  and also 'In Defence Of Marxism', which is a long
attack on the Marxist position that the USSR was capitalist.

Then you should read some of their journals and papers I suppose.
And perhaps the Trotzkyite position on war, 'War and The Fourth
International', which was reprinted in 'Marxist Review'(news line
group) a few months ago.

And of course, read some of Lenin.

His 'What Is To Be DOne?', 'State and Revolution' and 'Left Wing
Communism' will be a good place to start.

I have copies of all of these, so if you cant find one just email me
and we can lend you one or something.

good luck anyway

richard
acger

Hi Stuart

Well, this is turning out to be an interesting debate....

On racism, you say:

"Yes, of course I agree that social relationships
include (have internal relations with) an ideological
component. What I was arguing against was the idea
that this component is in some way autonomous from the
others, and therefore amenable to change whilst
leaving the other components unchanged. Sorry if you
don't like it or if it sounds like it's coming from an
SWP trot, but that just IS liberalism. In fact, if I
was asked to define liberalism, that's probably how
I'd do it. Perhaps I could be kinder and just say that
it's "common sense" thinking (ie, bourgeois ideology)."

But I wasnt suggesting that racism was somehow an autonomous component!!  I
no more subscribe to this idea than its opposite:  the completely
deterministic notion that racism is  somehow a mere reflective epiphenomenon
of capitalist economic relations.  My original point, if you recall, was
differentiate anti-racism from reformism as an activity.  The focus of one is
the ideological domain; the focus of the other, the economic domain.  I never
suggested at any point that these two domains are autonomous with respect to
each other.  Indeed, that would be contrary to the whole thrust of my
argument against the apocalyptic/millenarian notion of socialist revolution
espoused by some comrades- the idea that capitalism would remain more or less
the same in scope and extent right up to the very day socialism was
"enacted".  Clearly, the growth of socialist consciousness in the ideological
domain is going to have a profound effect on society well before the arrival
of socialism proper and this effect will not be restricted to the political ,
cultural and ideological aspects of society; it will be felt also in the
economic domain

You also say

"As another example of "common sense" thinking, you
tell me that it's "obvious" that you cannot abolish
racism if racists haven't "changed their minds". That
is indeed obvious. You then conclude that therefore
these minds must be changed, and that "changing minds
entails convincing people otherwise". But this
doctrine must, surely, divide society into two parts,
one of which is superior to society? Who educates the
educators, Robin? A load of pious liberal moralists
preaching the evils of the wrong sorts of thinking?
Marx's answer, and I agree with it, is that
"the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and
of human activity or self-changing can be conceived
and rationally understood only as revolutionary
practice".

But with respect, this is straying somewhat from the point.  I wasn't
particularly concerned with dwelling on the process by which racists come to
change their minds which  you now concede is obviously indispensable to the
process of eliminating racism. What I was concerned  with your bald statement
- although you seem to have changed your mind here ;-) - that you  did  not
"not think that you can abolish racism by convincing racists to change their
minds".  This seemed to me to totally disregard or downplay the role of
ideological persuasion - or "deprogramming" as DB puts its - for want of    a
better term. Prima facie it appears to lend credence to the crackpot SWP
theory that the way to deal with racists is to drive the scum from the street
  having given them a good bollocking beforehand.

As it happens I agree  that simply saying to racists that racism is morally
repugnant is not enough.  It is through effectively waging the class
struggle, by uniting workers irrespective of their so called race, that we
can make progress in pushing back racism.  But this too is an ideological
struggle, Stuart.  We can't do much about the poor housing and lack of jobs
that are often a breeding ground of racism but we can, by helping to explain
how such problems arise, contribute to the mitigation of racism itself.  It
is not a question of either "preaching against the evil of racism" or
engaging in the class struggle.  To suggest so is black-or-white thinking
again.  Moral disapproval of racism is part and parcel of what it means to be
a revolutionary socialist engaged in the class struggle


Finally you say:

"In short, there is absolutely no way that racists are,
on mass, going to become non-racists through a moral
propaganda campaign. The only possible way this can
happen is in a real class movement that abolishes the
present state of things, ie, that abolishes the social
relations which include, as an integral part of what
they are, racism."

Well I agree with you here up to the point at which you say racism is an
"integral part" of the social relations of capitalism.  You see, this is my
problem.  You use words like "integral" but fail to realise the implications
of what you are saying. My Concise Oxford English dictionary defines
"integral" as being "necessary to the completeness of the whole" . In other
words you can't have capitalism without racism according to you.  Well if
that is the case then I put it to you yet again - how the hell are you ever
going to get rid of capitalism in that case?  Racism  is a formidable barrier
to working class unity and without this working class unity you wont get rid
of capitalism which according to you cannot exist without racism.  This is a
vicious circle that you have locked yourself into.  The only way out is to
recognise that racism is NOT an integral part of capitalism but is rather
historically contingent.  It will diminish as the socialist movement gathers
pace within capitalism itself

On the subject of racism , I suggest you read Merle Lipton's classic book on
"Capitalism and Apartheid"

On to "reformism":

> Well, you suggested that, according to my definition
> of reformism, the
> firefighters strike could be called "reformist"
> which is plain nonsense.
Well, the firefighters' trade unionism aims at putting
pressure on the state to alter the economic behaviour
of capitalism, doesn't it? It fits your definition of
what "reformist" activity is, doesn't it?

Not at all.  Making a pay claim against the state does not al all constitute
an attempt to "alter the economic behaviour of capitalism". For one thing,
the FBU is obviously - and unavoidably - approaching this dispute from its
own narrow perspective as a trade union serving the interests of a small
sector of the working class,  whereas reformism
neccessarily implies a system-wide perspective; its tacit, if not explicit,
goal is to seek out ways of mitigating, if not eliminating, specific
shortcomings that arise from the nature of capitalism as an economic system
in order to enhance the performance and viability of the system AS A WHOLE.
For another, refromism implies a structural/managerial approach to
capitalism, the manipulation of economic variables via fiscal and monetary
policies etc which is an altogether different perspective to trade unionism.


Admittedly , trade union leaders may sometimes urge governments to adopt this
or that policy but in so doing it is impirtant to recognise that they are
departing from their role as trade unionists and are merely giving expression
to their own reformist opinions.  But this does not invalidate in any way the
sharp distibnction Ive made between reformism and trade unions.  In the
former case the focus is the economic domain and the field of action is
political i.e. the state; in the later case, the focus is also economic but
the field of action is economic not political.  For trade unionists to become
involved in the politics of refromism will only reduce their effectiveness as
trade unions; they will become tools in the hands of the management for
controlling the workforce.

You also say

"But to try to answer your question a bit more
directly, it is true that I very rarely make use of
the abstraction "reformism". To cover such attitudes
and activities, I tend to find that the abstractions
"liberalism" and "leftism" serve my purposes better. I
realise this hasn't so much answered your question as
given it a new name, but I don't think that pinning
down a dictionary-type definition of a term helps us
much. That's what I was trying to say about your "new
and improved" definition of reformism: it begs as many
questions as it attempts to answer."

Possibly so. But at least it answers a few more questions than the definition
of reformism you espouse.  My point is that for a socialist revolutionary,
you simply cannot get away without having SOME definition of reformism.
Definitions by the very nature tend to pin you down in much the same way as
pegs pin down a tent and give it some semblance of recognisably tentlike
shape.  So I have no problem with that. The issue is not whether we ought to
be pinned down by a definition but rather what kind of defintion we ought to
be pinned down by.

You nail your colours to the WSM mast when it comes to your definition of
reformism:

You say:

"But if you were going to pin me down and force me to
define reformism and whether I supported it, I suppose
I would take a very similar stand to the SPGB (as
defended by Clapham, not Ashbourne Court). I agree,
for example, that reforms in the working class
interest can and should be won, but that
pro-revolutionaries should not get caught up in
reformist politics, as defined in the Introductory
section of the Worldsocialism.org website:

"By that [reformism], we mean that we oppose those
organisations that promise to deliver a programme of
reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order
that the organisation dishing out the promises can
gain a position of power. Such groups, especially
those of the left-wing, often have real aims quite
different to the reform programme they peddle. In
this, they are being as dishonest as any other
politician, from the left or right. The ultimate
result of this is disillusionment with the possibility
of radical change."

But this definition of reformism while technically correct is still too
vague.  For example would it be "reformist" to propose alterations to the
political system that would allow smaller parties like the SPGB access to the
media.  No it wouldn't .  Because such a reform has its focus the political
domain not the economic domain.  That does neccessarily mean one should
actively support such a reform but one could reject it on grounds that it
would be reformist to do so

Ultimately, capitalism is defined as an economic system and reformism can
only be meaningfully understood in these terms that is to say having the
economic domain as its focus.  If you deny or obscure that then you weaken
considerably the case against reforming capitalism

Cheers

Robin

Jew, Christian, Muslim: For Love They Kill Eachother

And Uphold The Word of Jehovah, God and Allah

                                             ....I had a few glasses
of "whine" when we were entertaining the people from Bangladesh last
week - they were bad Muslims: not only were they not doing their
Ramadan, but they were drinking during the month of Ramadan which is
considered to be a mortal sin...tsk tsk tsk.

During one of our dinners, since I had an open-minded Muslim and a Jew
at the same table, I raised the question of why both religions did not
eat pork (to which I knew the official answer) and they both answered me
as I thought, "We are not allowed to eat pork because pigs are dirty,
filthy animals".

I then explained to them that pigs were actually very clean and
discriminating animals and when not enclosed in a small space, they were
actually one of the cleaner species. They then of course argued that
wherever you put a pig, they will always find the dirt and the mud and
wallow in it. I explained to them that just as an elephant, hippopotamus
or many other species, including man, the pigs' skin is very sensitive
and prone to sunburn, which is why they protect themselves with a coat of
mud, just as we protect ourselves with clothes and sunscreen. I think I
made the point, because rather than pursue the subject, the conversation
turned to something else.

I actually looked it up and the torah states as follows:

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he
cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch;
they are unclean to you."

And the Ku'ran states:

" Forbidden to you for (food) are: dead meat, blood and the flesh of the
swine and that which hath been invoked the name other than Allah. "

I found out that the portion in the Torah is actually an excerpt from
the Old Testament - so Christians are also forbidden ... tsk tsk tsk ...
all these hypocritical religious folks ... the Jews have historically
observed it as far back as I can see, the Muslims began observing a few
centuries ago and the Christians just ignored it all along...

Not deliberately, no.  If I did, then I am sorry.  Our case is
sincere, we don't need to smear you, you tend to do that yourself.

History has not shown that 'to be the case' at all.  Give me
examples of this.  There has been no parliamentary test for
socialism.

Hi Gong,
Their position is state-capitalist. Such a position is
just bound to come into conflict with the working
class, regardless of the aims of the people setting
such a system up. There is a reasonable and
interesting critique of Trotsky and Trotskyism which
might interest you in the English section at
www.ibrp.org.
Best wishes,
Stuart

=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Both groups call themselves the ICFI.  They both expelled each
other, and reconstituted the WRP.  Did they tell you that?  Did they
tell you what the split was about?

Now, that is wrong, see News Line 1 May 1999 and you will see that
they called for the victory of Yugoslavia - so much for being pro-
brit imperialist.  anyway, pertaining to the libya thing, I don't
really think it is true - and if it is, well the WSWS have a lot of
responsiblity for it also.

Maybe so, but you haven't really proven them wrong.

They are aiming for the 'best' elements, not the entire working
class to become conscious.  Don't you remember:
Quite early in his career Marx realized, and in this he proved
superior to the other Socialists of his day, that the liberation of
the working class could be achieved only by the working class
itself, that no paternalistic friend from the bourgeoisie, nor a
select proletarian vanguard could accomplish this task for the masses
(Karl Kautsky, Marxism And Bolshevism 1934, Chapter II).

I am not saying that the working class WILL spontaneously become
conscious, but that it CAN do so, something which Marx agreed with,
and Lenin, surprise surprise, didn't.

Whats so important about 60 years?  Why not 25? or 40?

What im saying is that they are dividing the working class into
youth, intellectuals and workers.  WHY?  What is the point?  They
are all workers.  If you do not own the means of production and have
to work to live, or are a retired worker or a dependent of one of
these, you are a member of the working class.

If they want leadership, they don't want class consciousness, thus
they want to establish themselves as a new ruling class.

Lenin said, and this was quoted in Ten Days That SHook The World,
which has an introduction by Lenin that 'the socialist political
party...must not be halted by the lack of education of the mass
average but must lead the masses'.

So the party must lead the masses IF, and only IF they are not
conscious.  (according to Lenin).  Thus, it logically follows that
the working class do not need leadership if they are conscious.

Thus to call for leadership presupposes that the working class are
not conscious.

The fact that you say that the crisis of the working class is the
crisis of leadership and not that the working class still supports
capitalism proves our point.  The other faction of the ICFI said in
their 'Fund'(the last line of it, apparantly an endeavour to inspire
us) "What workers need is leadership."(News Line, 15 April 2002).

If the working class are not conscious, this will lead to the
establishment of a dictatorship not of the working class but of the
conscious minority.  What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?
The working class organised as the ruling class - having won the
battle of democracy.

Engels warned of this, it is in this document somewhere:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/
1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

WSWS wishes to establish itself as a new ruling class.  Don't moan
about it.  Jusst think properly about this.  If you can find proof
that they don't(like, they dont call for leadership - which you
can't) then we will perhaps reconsider our position.

I hope this has clarified matters, and if i sound vicious, then im
sorry

Is that 'Trotsky Trotskyism Trotskyists' by any chance?

I forgot, whats so bad about Stalin anyway?  What, is he the
gravedigger of the Russian Revolution?  Well good, didn't like that
revolution much.

Stalin wrote a rather good pamphlet called anarchism or socialism?,
all of Trotzkyi's pamphlets are just nonsense, at least Stalin wrote
ONE thing good.

Yes I have a vendetta.  Against all those whom want to establish
themselves as a new ruling class but go around endeavouring to
appeal to the masses with transitional demands.  Actually I have a
vendetta against all political opponents of the working class,
whether alleged labour or awowedly capitalist.

The December Socialist Standard is now online at
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

--
Lew

"'Trotsky Trotskyism Trotskyists' by any
chance?"

Yes.
Stuart

=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Hi again Robin,

Thanks for your last email. Here's some questions
which I think pose some difficulties for your
theories.

1. You highlight some of the economic determining
factors that give rise to racism. Let's take one of
your examples, poor housing. You would support a
propaganda campaign explaining to the proles why their
housing is so shite, and would turn up your nose with
disgust at their racist answers to the problem, but
you would also oppose them taking any action to
improve their situation at a systemic level (short of
communism) since "we can't do much" about it. In other
words, we can "contribute to the mitigation of racism"
by talking about it but not by taking any action
against such determining factors as access to decent
housing. Why not?

2. You say that racism is not integral to capitalism.
Could you give me an example of a capitalist society
which has not given rise to racism?

3. You say that when trade unions get involved in
political struggles and in managing the workforce,
they aren't "really" acting as trade unions. Could you
give me an example of a present-day, "real" trade
union (one that doesn't have a role in workforce
management and is not political)?

4. You alter your definition of reformism to now say
something like: "an attempt to alter the economic
behaviour of capitalism on a systemic level". What
about the introduction of the trade unions themselves?
Did this not constitute a (successful) attempt to
alter the economic behaviour of capitalism at the
level of the whole system?

None of the above questions should be taken to reveal
my own political position (though they might). Again,
I'm merely trying to show where the problems lie when
you pin yourself down to opposing "reformist" activity
regardless of the concrete situation in which such
activity is taking place.

And finally, to answer one of your questions:

> For example would it be "reformist" to
> propose alterations to the
> political system that would allow smaller parties
> like the SPGB access to the
> media.  No it wouldn't .

According to your definition of "reformist", I suppose
not. But as you say yourself later on, deciding
whether or not it is "reformist" is a separate issue
from deciding whether or not we should support such a
measure. The latter seems more important to me than
the former.

Best wishes,
Stuart


=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Thanks.  I read that a couple of years ago, it's quite good, but not
as good as I would have written of course!!!

Its funny ,but id never heard of the socialist equality party before and a
few weeks ago I wrote a brief outline of a manifesto for a proposed party, I
call the Equality Party[ didnt want any socail label as i know the terms
socialist is very stigmatised].  Any way ive pasted the manifesto below and
as you can see it does tackle the inequaity at a root level, its radical but
not radical as to alianate the voter[ ie is doest call for end of state
goverment or the abolition of money. Have a look , im interested in your
comments              Please comment on , and/or take away from, and/or add
to , and return , with thanks  x nick                 THE   EQUALITY PARTY
The Equality Party is founded on the basis that all citizens have equal
right and responsibility to the planet.
Respect is the watchword of The Equality Party. Respect for all people, all
life forms and respect for our planet.
The Equality Parties first 4-year manifesto.
Locally; to help and encourage all communities and wards to be as autonomous
as possible. Autonomous in the welfare of all residents from policing to
education and social services. Iniatally these resources will be backed up
and supported by their local council. It is advised that the local primary
school or existing community centre be used as centre of operations. That
all residents be invited to join and help co-ordinate whatever services are
needed by the community. All residents who are elected by their fellow
residents to work full or part time in the community centre are to be paid
two-thirds in Stirling and one-third in local currency [L.E.T.S]. One third
of all local [council] tax can be paid in local currencies.
These iniatives will stimulate a stronger community spirit and stimulate
local trade.                                   NATIONALY; The existing law
that requires registration of the electoral role be amended and will require
citizens to register on to the electoral role at their community centre.
This will ensure that all citizens will at least make one visit to their
community centre once a year.
Replacing the upper house of parliament [the house of lords] with a web
based voting system that all UK citizens can participate in.   This will
ensure that no bill put forward by the lower house [the house of
representatives] will be passed unless the majority of UK citizens wish it.
A complete review of the production, sale and advertising of all
environmentally damaging products.               An increase of the fazing
out of the use of all fossil fuels and a speedier transference of
environmentally friendly power sources.
The creation of a national and international L.E.T.S exchange.
One third of all Inland Revenue bills and one third of all utility [water,
gas, electric, telephone etc] bills to be accepted in local currency.
The promotion and implementation of L.E.T.S will serve as a mechanism to
give all citizens equal access to interest free credit.
Education; emphasis to be put on self, social and environmental awareness
and responsibility.                           INTERNATIONAL; Call for the
immediate ban on the production and possession of all nuclear and biological
weapons. That all existing nuclear and biological weapons be handed over to
the United Nations.     The creation of a world parliament, open to all
earth citizens to debate and vote on any ethical issues that would concern
planetary morality and environmental danger. I.e.; cloning and the
production of GM foods.
[The equality party will come into the public eye as a result of a surprise
but well planned demonstration at a strategic location by members of the
equality party and other anti capitalist sympathisers]

>socialist but an anti-socialist in the same boat as the ineffable John

That's got to be a pretty strange boat. <G>

In any event, I think I would classify myself as a non-socialist rather
than an anti-socialist. That is, I would not voluntarily choose socialism
for myself but have no problem with others choosing it for themselves. As I
understand the WSM program, it hinges upon voluntary acceptance of socialism.

My only problem with socialism is if it is imposed on me or others by
force. However, given the WSM position of abolishing the state, there seems
little danger of this.

While I am non-socialist, I am very much pro-WSM's program of abolishing
the state. However, I would plan to live as a capitalist in that stateless
society.



Best,

John R Henry CPP

Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com

Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at
http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm

Ive said it once ,ive said it a 1,000 times , the reason that political
theory is a turn off[wether its correct or incorrect] is because its a
reductionist theory , we cant reduce man to a purely political/economical
enterty . We are so much more than that. We are creative and evolutionary ,
we live with our feelings and our whole existence is coloured by them.
Also to have a theory based on social unity and at the same time trying to
create social division[ i.e capitalist vs prolatariat] Doest make sense ,
the worker doesnt have to go to work for the capitalist and the capitalist
doesnt have to be a capitalist , but both feel thats what they should do
,neither has much control over their actions , both feel they need to do
what they do . Its only when we realise our free will that we can effectivly
take control of our reality.I dont see how putting the worker against the
boss is going to achieve unity. All wich happens is the boss goes on the
defensive and uses power to be more devious, hence we get allowed to play
the stock market and enjoy a richer life style and the worker becomes
content with this . This has happend. love nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "gong4410" <gong4410@...>
To: <WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Convincing others (T-shirts)


> Printing up bumper stickers and t-shirts can be done by just about
> any group. For every piece of propaganda you produce, some group
> claiming to be "socialist" can print up their own propaganda
> suporting Mao or Castro. Propaganda is important and has its place,
> but what is most important is the political line of an organization.
>
> It is true that most people are not interested in hearing about
> Marx's theories, and you can not expect every person to make a full
> time study of economics and history. This is where the party comes
> in. It is the party's responsibilty to formulate the correct
> political line, based on Marx's theories and based on historical
> experience. People might want to "fight the system," but without the
> proper understanding they can not do so effectively.  The US smashed
> the socialist movement, and in Europe it was subverted, and the same
> thing could happen again. Therefore the party must provide leadrship
> in the form of analysis based on theory and historical experience.
>
> A big problem arises since whoever controlls the press gets to
> distribute the most propaganda, whether it be the corporate
> controlled mass media or other organizations claiming to
> be "socialist." However, the 20th century has provided ample examples
> of why non-Marxist and revisionist Marxist thought is wrong, which at
> least makes the task a little bit easier. If a "socialist" party
> wants to support an imperialist war, the German SPD and WWI can be
> called up as an example. If syndicalists claim that politics should
> be left out the struggle and everything should be done through the
> trade unions, an examination of the corrupt AFL will resonate with
> many people.
>
> I have faith that the truth will always strike a chord with people,
> especially in light of the confusing propaganda they are currently
> fed. The correct political line in conjunction with propaganda will
> be most powerful combination. But if the party does not get its
> political line straight then it will just end up shifting to the
> right and confusing people, as has been shown time and time again in
> the past century. How many organizations have not been able to get it
> through their head that the international working class is the only
> social force capable of the socialist transformation of society? Yet
> look at all the propaganda out there saying that the student
> movement, Yassir Arafat, Fidel Castro, or some other entity will
> bring it about. I don't know if a bumper sticker or a catch phrase
> will convince anyone of anything. Much more effective is to explain
> to them the broader political significance of why people are losing
> their jobs, people are losing their health insurance, people are
> going off to war, airplanes are crashing into the WTC, etc, etc. In
> short, tell them to read sites like www.wsws.org :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>
> While I am non-socialist, I am very much pro-WSM's program of abolishing
> the state. However, I would plan to live as a capitalist in that stateless
> society.
>
> NT; why that then John? Do you believe in exploitation? Do you think its
cool to get the better in a trade transaction? Do you believe you are worth
more than other people ?
>
>
>
> Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com
>
> Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at
> http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Bonjour Richard (as we can now call you),
Good luck with your meeting on Trotskyism for Cyril May. He's certainly got
some learning to do in this field. But be careful not to say that Russia was
state-capitalist with a collectively-owning state-capitalist ruling class
that came to power as a result of a state-capitalist revolution because he
thinks that that is a Trotskyist position and has just accused the SPGB of
adopting this theory to make it "easier . . . to forge links with latter-day
Trotskyists who had also come to the view that Soviet Russia was 'state
capitalist'".
To accuse the SPGB of wanting to forge links with the Trots is the height of
absurdity. As you yourself know from your own recent personal experience on
this forum, SPGBers enjoy nothing better than a bit of Trotsky-bashing and
Lenin-kicking and woe betide any Trotskyist who wanders on to this forum!
It is also absurd to imagine that saying that the Russian revolution was a
state-capitalist resolution would help "forge links" with any Trotskyist.
There are plenty of Trots these days who say that Russia was state
capitalist, but not one that says that the Bolshevik revolution wasn't a
"proletarian revolution". To repudiate that is to cease to be a Trot. Which
is why they don't like us and why they are as hostile to us as we are to
them.
So, as I say, good luck with that meeting. You've a unique opportunity to
refute the absurd idea that the SPGB has somehow gone soft on Trotskyism.
Don't let it pass. And once you've put Cyril May and his friends right on
this, then maybe you can come again to the SPGB Summer school in Birmingham
next July and give the same talk--to a more receptive audience.
Adam

Nobody on this list, as far as I know, agrees with
Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism. My point was
not that the wsws supports a theory of the USSR as
state capitalist. My point was that their whole
programme and outlook is objectively state capitalist,
regardless of their subjective intentions.
Best,
Stuart

  --- gong4410 <gong4410@...> wrote: > Thanks,
I'll have to look into this. As far as I
> know the SEP says it
> does not agree with state capitalist theories, such
> as those by Tony
> Cliff.

=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

I have somewhat enjoyed gong's contributions to these pages. It is amazing
how much an ignoramous can talk politics. Gong of course advertised himself
as an ignoramous. (There's nothing wrong in that. It is very honest to say
you don't know.) Of courese, Gong- you are a leninist, and if you don't know
anything, then I know the mobile phone number of Osama bin Laden.

I don't know what you are trying to do- but at least be honest and say
"trotskyists
are us" is to be found at WSMS.
Your repeated spamming is pissing me off.

Yours for a LEADERLESS, NON-LENINIST TRUE SOCIALIST WORKERS MOVEMENT, built
on fact (and utter repudiation) and not half-assed excuses for Bolshevik
brutality. (It isn't trot bashing from my side. To trot bash is to give a
trot an heir of respectibility. No f-ing way! Nazis or trots; what is the
difference? Both are guilty of the vilest crimes.)

graham


>
>
>dailypressuk,
>
>I am completely nonplussed by your stance on leadership. This forum
>has big threads about bumper stickers and t-shirts, as if cute catch
>phrases are going to win over masses of people. SPGB seems to ignore
>the fact that the ruling class controls society through certain
>layers of people (journalists, writiers, artists, etc) who are
>responsible for pushing forth ideology in the mass media. How do you
>propose to counter this? With bumper stickers and t-shirts? No,
>rather a party must be created in order to counter this, comprised of
>the "best" elements of the working class - those with the most
>heightened consciousness, and, most importantly, the best character.
>These people can get involved by writing articles, having
>discussions, running for office, and intervening in workers
>struggles. Consciousness will thus spread in this manner. I can't see
>what the big hang up is with this approach.
>
>Here's a quote from Adam which at least admits what I have been
>observing in here:
>
>> SPGBers enjoy nothing better than a bit of Trotsky-bashing and
>Lenin-kicking and woe betide any Trotskyist who wanders on to this
>forum
>
>Bashing, kicking, but never analysis. I think I'm wasting my time.
>
>Getting back to dailypressuk:
>
>> Yes I have a vendetta.  Against all those whom want to establish
>> themselves as a new ruling class but go around endeavouring to
>> appeal to the masses with transitional demands.  Actually I have a
>> vendetta against all political opponents of the working class,
>> whether alleged labour or awowedly capitalist.
>
>Ok, finally something concrete: you are against transition. But how
>do you propose to go from capitalism to socialism on a world wide
>scale overnight? And you call Lenin a demagogue?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



________________________________________
Få din egen webmail på http://www.sol.dk - gratis og med dig overalt!
Online telefonbog med Kort, oplysninger om Firmaer og Personer på
http://www.eniro.dk

Graham, by posting this sort of rubbish you've already
lost the argument and shown that Gong was right: some
people on this list just are not interested in serious
debate. By our failure to come up with a coherent,
non-hysterical and historical critique of Leninism,
Gong the Leninist wins by default.
Stuart

  --- grahamt@... wrote: >
> I have somewhat enjoyed gong's contributions to
> these pages. It is amazing
> how much an ignoramous can talk politics. Gong of
> course advertised himself
> as an ignoramous. (There's nothing wrong in that. It
> is very honest to say
> you don't know.) Of courese, Gong- you are a
> leninist, and if you don't know
> anything, then I know the mobile phone number of
> Osama bin Laden.
>
> I don't know what you are trying to do- but at least
> be honest and say "trotskyists
> are us" is to be found at WSMS.
> Your repeated spamming is pissing me off.
>
> Yours for a LEADERLESS, NON-LENINIST TRUE SOCIALIST
> WORKERS MOVEMENT, built
> on fact (and utter repudiation) and not half-assed
> excuses for Bolshevik
> brutality. (It isn't trot bashing from my side. To
> trot bash is to give a
> trot an heir of respectibility. No f-ing way! Nazis
> or trots; what is the
> difference? Both are guilty of the vilest crimes.)
>
> graham

=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

John,

How come?  I don't know, just experience.  It realy is because they
say that workers are too stupid to grasp any concept beyond that of
the pay packet.  That is perhaps why I don't really like them - see,
we socialists don't like being patronised.

We don't support either state capitalism or private capitalism.
Both leave the capitalistic mode of production intact and do not
alter the position of the worker as a wage slave.

I don't 'hate' reformists.  But I get what you mean.  Iti s quite
simple, reformism is futile and thus they are endeavouring to gain
support on a program which is futile - it won't lead anywhere.

What exactly did trotzky try to do anyway?  They were all for the
building of a select vanguard of the working class or of some
academic/intellectual vanguard.  That isn't trying to do anything
good for us mere humble wage slaves, that is trying to establish a
new ruling class.

I think you mean WR.  Well actually, they have groups in Sri Lanka,
Zimbabwe and a few other places like Greece etc.

The faction that used the sex scandal was the SEP group.
Hmmm...'worker's aid for bosnia' , never heard of that.  Well of
course they are nationalist!!!  They recognise all this 'national
right to self-determination' nonsense ddon't they...then again,
doesn't the SEP?

'openly renounce Trotzkyism'.  No they don't.  They call themselves
the official Trotzkyites.  R.Athow, in Marxist Review July 2001
attacked the Socialist Alliance For being "enemies of Trotzkyism".

You don't support their political line, then that is fine, cos we
have plenty material to show your sinister motives thanks to your
WSWS website - and of course a lot of old Labour Reviews and News
Lines(from the 80s and all that).

"Nazis or trots; what is the
difference? Both are guilty of the vilest crimes"

AND HENCE THE THEORY OF SOCIAL-FASCISM(WHY I GOT EXPELLED FROM THE
UK LEFT NETWORK)

John,
OK, I concede, you're not as bad as the other John! But you're still not a
socialist. What we have in common with you (but not with the other John) is
that we are both, you and us, looking for the best way to further the
interests of the wage and salary working class, the exploited class of
capitalism. We see the way out as socialism (a world community without
frontiers based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means
of production, with goods produced solely for use not profit and distributed
in accordance with the principle of "from each their abilities, to each
theirs needs", in short, a democratic, leaderless, moneyless, wageless
society). You find this unrealistic and propose instead a capitalism tamed
by a state controlled by a left-wing party with links to the trade unions.
So, it is not a case (as might at first seem) of agreement on ends and
disagreement over means, but a case of disagreement over ends and therefore
also over means.
We suggest that what you propose has been tried many times and each time it
has failed. Labour and Social Democratic governments have tried to tame
capitalism but instead of changing capitalism have all ended up being
changed by it and accepting that, if you want to govern capitalism, you have
to do so by its rules and that means giving priority to profit-making over
all other considerations. Look at the Blair government in Britain. Look at
the Labor Party in Australia. Look at (your particular favorites,
apparently) the NDP in Canada and the so-called Parti socialiste in France.
All have embraced the logic of capitalism and are in practice no difference
from their openly pro-capitalist rival parties for managing capitalism. The
plain fact is that the capitalist system, although it may be able to concede
some reforms that benefit workers, can never be reformed to work as a system
in the interest of the wage and salary working majority. That's why we say
those committed to furthering the interests of the working class (as you are
as well as us) should work to get rid of capitalism altogether, whether
mad-marketeer private capitalism or some form of government-controlled
capitalism and work for a new society (as defined above).
I can see why you feel a certain affinity with Trotskyism. That's because
their policy is tailor-made for attracting the support of people like
yourself. According to their theory (derived from Lenin) workers are only
capable of attaining a trade union consciousness (like yourself!); therefore
Trotskyists, who want to lead the workers (be their "vanguard" as they put
it), tailor their programme to attract the support of people who think that
capitalism should be reformed in the interest of the workers. They pretend
to believe this (though often end up believing it themselves) and seek
support not for socialism (which anyway is not socialism in our sense but,
as Stuart has pointed out, full-scale state capitalism under the political
rule of a Trotskyist party) but on an attractive programme of reforms
(called "transitional demands", as Richard has explained).
It would be sad if the end-result of your stay on this forum was that you
went away a Trotskyist not a Socialist! But at least it would confirm what
we've always said: that Trotskyists are reformists.
Adam

>-- Originalt brev --
>To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>From: "dailypressuk" <rcpglasgow@...>
>Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:28:14 -0000
>Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: leadership
>Reply-To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> "Nazis or trots; what is the
>difference? Both are guilty of the vilest crimes"
>
>AND HENCE THE THEORY OF SOCIAL-FASCISM(WHY I GOT EXPELLED FROM THE
>UK LEFT NETWORK)

I know how strong this may sound, but i really don't care. There has always
been some cherished shibbolith- you cannot accuse the left wingers of anything.
Yet the facts of the so-called socialist regimes are clear for all but the
most myopic to see.

The stalinists spent a good deal of their time defending a red fascism. Even
today, there are stalinists who do not believe that people were brutaly dealt
with by the Stalin regime.

Same goes for Maoists. And have you ever met the tedious runt who is forever
praising Cuba- despite the fact it is a dictatorship?

The trots praise 1917-28 Russia. The fact that Lenin and co. had no qualms
in leaving millions to die of starvation is not mentioned.

And finally, does "The Future Socialist Society" by John Molyneux ( a standard
SWP text) not sound suspiciously like the blueprint for a terrifying fascist
state? There are such beautiful things like: the vote will be denied the
bourgeoisie and their associates; parties will be allowed to exist, so long
as they accept the framework of the revolution; the governing party will
be the party that led the revolution; etc, etc. Only a madman would want
their state capitalist dictatorship, which could only end in the brutality
and bloodshed so well described in the historical record "Communism' Blackbook".

Maybe others are too shy to put it bluntly like I do- that is their problem.

I do not want more decades to go with dictatorship and murder, and all that
laughably in the name of "human emancipation".

Gong has shown his colours on the leadership post he put. He will not receive
kind words from this quarter; why should this stupid prole have to put up
with his ideas of a supposedly intelligent leadership?

Graham
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



________________________________________
Få din egen webmail på http://www.sol.dk - gratis og med dig overalt!
Online telefonbog med Kort, oplysninger om Firmaer og Personer på
http://www.eniro.dk

The point, Graham, is that you can read everything
you've had to say about the Russian revolution and the
"socialist" regimes in The Guardian, in the same
piously moralising language. Marxist critique is
revolutionary because it is true, ie, it is capable of
greater explanatory power than a lefty-liberal rant of
moral disapproval. I don't claim to be any hotshot
when it comes to penning Marxist critiques myself, but
I do claim to be able to tell the difference. Your
writings are wet, liberal rubbish. (You did say you
preferred blunt talking?) It wouldn't matter so much,
but you do claim to be talking on behalf of an
avowedly Marxian organisation. As a representative of
the anti-Leninist Marxian tradition, you are bringing
us all into disrepute.
For communism,
Stuart

> I know how strong this may sound, but i really don't
> care. There has always
> been some cherished shibbolith- you cannot accuse
> the left wingers of anything.
> Yet the facts of the so-called socialist regimes are
> clear for all but the
> most myopic to see.
>
> The stalinists spent a good deal of their time
> defending a red fascism. Even
> today, there are stalinists who do not believe that
> people were brutaly dealt
> with by the Stalin regime.
[snip]

=====
For Communism: www.geocities.com/~johngray/
www.geocities.com/nowar_buttheclasswar/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

> Reg
> Where do you get the idea that states are run in
> he interests of employers?   The state is run in
> the interests of the state itself.


> Don
> There is one major prerequisite before a worker (I
> assume that you are a worker because as capitalist
> would not make such a fallacious statement


It's not a fallacious statement, it is a simple
(indeed blinding) truth.  The state's overriding
agenda is to preserve and expand itself and benefit
those who occupy its offices.








__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com