The Transition into Communism

[des-esseintes]

Lol guys, please calm down, nobody has insulted anyone. We are having a civilised discussion, no need to be hot headed

There is clearly a difference between the present bougeois democracy of Blair, Bush & co. and the military-police dictatorship of Pinochet or the fascist dictatorship of Hitler. Honestly, if we can't see the differences between these forms of bourgeois domination we are doomed to complete impotence.

It doesn't even have to do with the number of victims. It has to do with the composition of the state. Specifically, when fascism triumphs it annihiliates all elements of workers democracy in the bourgeois state .  If a million workers demonstrated against war in Germany, 1943, do you really think the result would be the same as when they demonstrated in Germany, 2003 ???

To fully grasp the theory would require lots of reading, but here is a brilliant summary:

"At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium -- the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

"From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job; once it has resorted to methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini -- the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism...."

[mir]

There are good and bad elements in all classes, period.  And when war comes, and someone wants to exterminate you, It's your duty to defend yourselves.  In the first World War, it was easy for many Marxists to be pacifists and shy away from the war, but what about the oppressed minorities in Europe under Austria-Hungary and Germany.  Now, I sound like I don't take into account the colonies of the western powers.  I do, and the colonies themselves should rebel against their own masters.  So, why should Marxists advocate pacifism if the subjected people of the colonies are trying to liberate themselves.  Maybe, they don't want them to be an example to the colonies controlled by the country they exist in!  I know this has little to do with the actual arguement but it kind goes together with Petrels post that people can't relate to situations in foreign places.  I mean, how would an English Marxist relate to the Independence struggle in the Balkans.  I believe that today however, many Marxists in western Europe see the world as it is.

[richard]

Petrel,

A bit vicious, one must say.

I didn't put anything in your mouth, but said 'If you are saying that', as you quote.  I didn't not assume you had said it, but thought you may be leading in that direction, so it was better to get to the point.

You make it out as thought I am a non-proletarian element.  I am not a member of the landed aristocracy (if my father decides to give me his estate then perhaps the situation will be different).

Of course the killing of 6 million Jews matters.  What I am saying is that we shouldn't support one form of capitalism over another.  

Richard

[mir]

I can see your point Richard but I must say that Hitler's regime was a little different than todays Blair's or Bush's regime.  How can we support the working class if they are getting killed!?

[richard]

Of course Hitler's regime was different from Britain today.  But it is not fundamentally different, as it is simply another form of capitalist dictatorship.

The supporting of one form of capitalism over another is not the road to abolishing the proletariat as a subject class.

Richard

[des-esseintes]

richard

I can see your point that they are both bourgeois dictatorships. But if we don't defend all workers rights against attacks we don't deserve to be called socialists. If you were living in a fascist state you would have secret police knocking on your door by now for propagating subversive material on the internet. If the BNP attempted a coup tomorrow and the workers fought it off, the workers would not be defending the present bourgeois dictatorship but the elements of workers democracy that exist in this dictatorship. You are basically saying that free speech, freedom to assembly etc. don't exist today. Well its true that they are constantly being perverted and twisted by capital. But it's no less true that they do, in fact, exist.

Identifying Bush or Blair with Hitler is an insult not only to the victims of Hitler but to Hitler himself :p

[richard]

Hello,

I hope all is well with you.

"if we don't defend all workers rights against attacks we don't deserve to be called socialists".  Our struggle is not about bourgeois 'rights', but is about class emancipation.  

If I were living in Hitler Germany I would have secret police knocking on my door.  The capitalist class at this point tolerate dissent.  Sometimes they do not, during the First and Second World War, the SPGB was attacked.  In WWI our head office was raided by police, and our members chased across the country to try and get them to join the armed forces.  Our journal was banned from being sent overseas as it was considered to demoralise soldiers and act detrimentally to the war effort.  In WWII, our Canadian party's journal was outlawed as it said the war was a war of the capitalist class, to which the censor wrote "I am sure you will understand that such writing is not conducive to our war effort".  Like the SPC cared about their war effort!

Workers do have rights to organise and assemble etc.  The freedom of speech is conditional on them having access to the mass media.  "Those who do not have control of the means of mental production are subject to it" (German Ideology).

The only way to get rid of such threats as the BNP is to get rid of capitalism.  

The SPGB has said:
“It cannot be emphasised too much that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism, and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy”
(Socialist Standard, June 1939).

“Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and expanded to the extent that the workers adopt the socialist standpoint.  The renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended, means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy”(Questions of the Day, 1942 Edition).

richard

[des-esseintes]

Hello,

"Sometimes they do not, during the First and Second World War, the SPGB was attacked. In WWI our head office was raided by police, and our members chased across the country to try and get them to join the armed forces. Our journal was banned from being sent overseas as it was considered to demoralise soldiers and act detrimentally to the war effort. In WWII, our Canadian party's journal was outlawed as it said the war was a war of the capitalist class, to which the censor wrote "I am sure you will understand that such writing is not conducive to our war effort". Like the SPC cared about their war effort!"

Pardon me but isn't the SPGB the remnants of the Taaffite Militant majority after the 1990 split?

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

Pardon me but isn't the SPGB the remnants of the Taaffite Militant majority after the 1990 split?

No they are called Socialist Party. As far as I know the SPGB got quite mad when the others took the name Socialist Party

[des-esseintes]

Ah I see. Sorry for confusing the two, richard (if your still here)

[richard]

Hi

Yes I am still here.  It is just tha no-one has bee posting!

The SPGB was formed in 1904.  In 1988 Annual Conference chose to rename it "The Socialist Party".

The SPGB is the organisation that refused to go along with this resolution - http://www.spgb.org.uk

The group in the Party which proposed this resolution are at http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb

The Militant Labour group were told specifically by the Gen Sec of the Socialist Party that the name was already taken.  Yet they chose to try and steal it anyway, as they tried in Australia and New Zealand with our companion parties.

regards
Richard

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Im sorry Richard but I cant help laughing when I hear about this.
Ian

[marx_was_right]

Hi Richard,

What were the full reasons behind the SPGB split?

igor

[richard]

IGOR,

See post to IAN below.

IAN,

Why?  What is so funny?  

Do you REALLY want to know the history of Socialist Appeal and the Trotzkyite movement from which it emanated?

1903 - Trotzky splits with Lenin, and joins Mensheviks

1917 - Trotzky joins Bolshevik Party after March revolution

1920's - Trotzky expelled from CPSU

1938 - Trotzkyism splits from 3rd International and forms a 4th International

1940's - formation of British Trotzkyite Party, 'Revolutionary Communist Party', composed of leaders Cliff, Grant and Healy.

1940's - RCP splits into 3 sections under the leadership of Cliff Grant and Healy.  Each goes into the Labour Party

1980's - Militant Tendency, of which Grant is leader, is expelled from Labour Party.  Split in Militant Tendency, with majority leaving Labour Party to form "Militant Labour", and minority staying in Labour to form "Socialist Appeal"

NOW, contrast this with the history of the SPGB.  It was formed in 1904, as a split from the Social-Democratic Federation.  This split was over the issue of reform and revolution, we wanted revolution, whilst the SDF leaders wanted to offer reform palliatives to the working class.  In the early 1960's, many who had been to University joined the Party.  These people, had been tied up in reform movements, and did not think it to be a problem for socialists to struggle for reform.

In 1984, 1988 and 1990 the revolutionary fraction took it's stand.  In 1984, we defended the Marxian proposition that the state withered away and was not abolished.  In 1988, we defended the use of the name 'Socialist Party of Great Britain', as this was the name by which we were known, and this name has a long and proud history.  In 1990, we took our stand on reforms, making it clear that we opposed struggles to establish capitalist political democracy by bourgeois-movements.

In 1991, the revolutionary fraction was expelled.  It was expelled for continuing to refer to the Party as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain".

Splits happen.  We knew it was inevitable, as it is obvious that the formation of a fraction within an organisation signals the degeneration of an organisation.  A socialist organisation cannot have fractions.

Those who captured control of the party paper in the 1970's, may have got control of the Party funds, but it was the revolutionary fraction which got the support of the longest-standing and most hard-working members, some of which had been in the Party since the early 1920's.

So don't laugh.  It isn't funny.  It is a sad, sad business.

regards
richard

[kinetikos]

1903 - Trotzky splits with Lenin, and joins Mensheviks

Wrong. Right from the outset.

It is funny, actually. The way you spell Trotsky. Is funny. The way you continue to refer to your indoctrination. It's funny. And sad.

The way you've been instructed... it's fucking funny.

Who's Cliff Grant? Are you sure he went into the Labour Party? All of him? Or half? And if half, which half of Cliff Grant? Cliff, Grant, and Healy? All in, huh?

Specific, please. ~1920's, Cliff Grant, ~1940's won't do. Cursory knowledge is only enough to hang yourself by.

Tell us more about Trotsky.

I'll tell you a little bit, 'bout Trotzky:

but it was the revolutionary fraction which got the support of the longest-standing and most hard-working members, some of which had been in the Party since the early 1920's.

Even as they were trying to murder him, Trotzky still had the honest wherewithall to see the earnestness, the potential, the hard-working nature of his enemies. He didn't damn them to hell for being misguided by leadership.

So all the most-hard-working joined your side, just like that, eh? Marxist?

How pure.