Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Problems with the movement in Britain

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 05 Jun 2009, 05:12
Quote:
Stalin existed, and was effective in his leadership role. However, Stalinism would refer to comrades with an inability to tolerate opposing views, and comrades with a contempt for proletarian or even elementary democracy.


http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

I hope reading this will get you thinking outside of the box.
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 05 Jun 2009, 18:31
Quote:
I hope reading this will get you thinking outside of the box


Even if every word of this were true, it does not change the fact that modern day Stalinists are enemies of debate and democracy.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 05 Jun 2009, 23:01
Okay...
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 05 Jun 2009, 23:45
What are you being sarky about here? The plain and simple fact is, most people who do identify themselves as 'Stalinists' are not as well read as some of the comrades on here, and the things that they admire are State Power, a willingness to crush dissent and the unquestioned rule of the party.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 06 Jun 2009, 02:05
To be absolutely fair while Stalinism does attract the worst kind of totalitarian absolutists, Trotskyism has drawn many revisionist quasi-socialists (ie coffee-house trots). Its not necessarily the fault of these ideologies, and to some great extent it is the result of propaganda against these ideologies. For instance many coffee-house trots are drawn to troskyism because they (incorrectly) view it as simple anti-stalinism, and pro-stalin absolutists often approve of the iron willed purge-happy view of Stalin. While both are partially true (as is all propaganda) they clearly don't reflect the ideologies properly at all. Revisionism and sectarianism have spread across all of the limbs of marxism, attempting to blame either on any specific group further entrenches that same revisionism and sectarianism.

That said I agree with Sholokhov's suspicions of:
Code: Select all
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 06 Jun 2009, 03:34
Quote:
That said I agree with Sholokhov's suspicions of:


I'm curious as to why.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 06 Jun 2009, 04:43
Because he's a Trotskyist. While I don't agree with the entire article, it cites some very interesting and good sources from Russian historians who have had the opportunity to research the Soviet archives. It also in my opinion encourages people to think about Stalin from a different angle than the normal bullshit.

I personally go with the 70% good, 30% bad view of Stalin and oppose the absolutist views of him, positive and negative.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 06 Jun 2009, 06:02
I dont think gover furr is a stalinist. As far as I can tell, he's an academic who first studied other historical periods, and now studies things like stalin and the USSR.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 06 Jun 2009, 06:14
Quote:
I personally go with the 70% good, 30% bad view of Stalin and oppose the absolutist views of him, positive and negative.


As do I, but in the opposite. Its interesting you mention our 'absolutist' views of Stalin yet your opinion of Trotsky, from what I've read of you posts, seems equally absolutist or otherwise extremely negative. Its always fun to see the constant double-standard employed by Stalinists. Anybody says anything bad about Stalin, its all propaganda, anyone says anything bad about Trotsky (regardless of source) and all of the sudden its irrevocable truth.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 06 Jun 2009, 06:18
Are we really going to fight about stalin and trotsky?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 06 Jun 2009, 06:26
I hope not. I'm talking about the double-standard employed by Stalinists against Trotskyists. And (elsewhere) the two ideologies blaming one another for all of the revisionism and sectarianism when both's members are equally guilty of it.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 06 Jun 2009, 06:55
I thought you might try and exploit that apparent contradiction Dagoth.

The posts about Trotsky I think you're referring to were written a long time ago. My views have changed and developed a lot since I first joined S-E (Indeed, my first post indicates I had a negative or certainly very cautious view of Stalin). That should be the case for anyone claiming to employ a scientific method of analysis (i.e. Marxism). This morning, I bought a book written by a Trot. Admittedly, I don't expect to agree with sections of it, quite possibly large sections, but I will read it anyway.

My view on Trotsky these days is that it's hard to analyse him in the way we can Stalin since he was never general secretary. I don't see him as a 100% negative figure in history any longer. That said, I do still believe he was much more of a political opportunist than Stalin and was in particular not loyal to the principles of democratic centralism when it ceased to go his way. Trot's make the exact same claim in reverse, I realise that.

My main conclusion these days is that Trotsky himself isn't a real problem (not anymore at any rate), but rather a good number of his followers. Demonsing Stalin and the Soviet Union during and after his era are very big errors and show a way of thinking which doesn't bode well for the progressive movement as a whole. I don't like Moaism much for very similar reasons, but I still think some of Mao's theoretical works are very useful. That same can be said of Trotsky.

Going back to Stalin, I agree with what Potemkin said a while back:

Quote:
I think Chairman Mao pretty much summed up my own view of Stalin when he claimed that Stalin was "70% positive, 30% negative". He was a great statesman and an historically important Communist leader, but he committed grievous errors and even crimes, believing them to be necessary at the time. I cannot be uncritical of Stalin, but at the same time I regard the rejection of Stalin's role tout court to be ignorant and self-defeating for a Communist.


Hopefully that clarifies my position somewhat.
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jun 2009, 10:41
For people attempting to suggest the CPGB=ML are in any sense sane:

http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/sep2001/wtc.htm
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Jan 2004, 03:48
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2009, 17:33
There is nothing even slightly crazy about that. It represents sentiments expressed by anti-communist Leftists like Noam Chomsky in his 9/11 book, and even mirrors the strong language of Ward Churchill's essay on Roosting Chickens. Indeed, that you would think such basic and elementary truths are crazy makes me question your sanity (or rather, your claims to being a radical Marxist).
Soviet cogitations: 285
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jul 2006, 18:37
Komsomol
Post 08 Aug 2009, 23:45
Quote:
Its "newspaper" (read: newsletter) is irregular at best.

That's bollocks I buy their newspaper "The New Worker" on weekly basis. And party informations are just small adverts somewhere in the letters to editor page. Mainly it's about national and international politics.

I used to get NW to Claphman newsagents but I' ve realised that they have it in Housemans. I find it as the most interesting left paper here in UK. There is also couple of interesting articles in WW but they tend to take care too much about left itself.

Morning Star is also particular good reading (I buy on the one day of week where there are movement activities listed).

I think you should be more fair in your opinion not to just stick to party line. MS is not actually communist it's genuine left socialdemocracy. Recently they tend to promote more Cooperative Party than the CPB. It is not published directly by the CPB but by the company.

Coresponding to it edition of 1,8 thousands copies to NW is a magnificant thing comparing to their small size and financial abilities.

Any other interesting left press? Don't hesitate to inform me
Image

MLKP!
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Aug 2009, 01:39
Quote:
That's bollocks I buy their newspaper "The New Worker" on weekly basis. And party informations are just small adverts somewhere in the letters to editor page. Mainly it's about national and international politics.


Maybe I'm getting it confused with the "papers" of one of the other "anti-revisionist" rumps.

Quote:
I think you should be more fair in your opinion not to just stick to party line.


I was an independent before joining any party, I made my decision based on my observations and analysis of the Communist movement in Britain, ironically the anti-revisionist splits have become everything they despised in Trotskyism so much.

Quote:
MS is not actually communist it's genuine left socialdemocracy.


What content, exactly, which is lacking in the Morning Star would we find in a genuine communist newspaper? What's your litmus test?

Quote:
Recently they tend to promote more Cooperative Party than the CPB.


Care to find me one example? They support genuine socialist candidates running under the Labour banner, yes, but the NCP and has an unconditional vote Labour policy.

Quote:
It is not published directly by the CPB but by the company.


By the cooperative. And as a result it is able to maintain a full size, high quality newspaper published every day (the largest organisation on the British left, many times our size, can only maintain a weekly, even the French CP had to scrap their daily paper).
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.