Socialism

[popper]

You are correct Sackville but Trotskyists explain all the nasty things that took place under Lenin and Leon as necesscary to fight the Civil War.

In fact a more plausible theory is that the Bolsheviks, as a minority within the anti-Czarist revolution, actually brought the Civil War on themselves and destroyed a democratic revolution in the pursuit of dictatorial power. Had it not been for the Bolsheviks the Russian Revolution might well have turned out not unlike the democratic revolutions that took place in Germany and elsewhere after WWI which overthrew old oligarchies and established the foundations of what later became social or christian demoracy. That process was destroyed, or rather retarded, by totalitarians of the left in Russia and by totalitarians of the right in Italy and Germany.

Engels, if you don't beleive that any of the revolutions that described themselves as such were socialist then really there's not much point in arguing. It is a position similar to small Christian sects who deny that anyone other than whatever little group they belong to are true believers, and that anything done or said by any other 'christians' is heresy.

[commentator]

So the crimes of the SU were essentially one mans fault

Maybe I should form a fascist party and write books about how that bloody Adolf fellow ruined everything with his perverse haterid of the Jews. I could tell people that even though I use the term 'Fascist' i have nothing to do with that evil Dictator who hijacked corporatist ideals and twisted them into his own perverse agenda, and fooled most of the German population into following him. No really.. there are some people believe these sort of things can happen...

The difference being that were you to go down that road you might end up languishing in prison whilst apologists for Communism (you know the good non stalinist version we haven't seen yet) continue to campaign with impunity.

[stringjack]

You are correct Sackville but Trotskyists explain all the nasty things that took place under Lenin and Leon as necesscary to fight the Civil War.

To be strictly accurate, one can distinguish between a party that is totalitarian in principle and a state that is totalitarian in practice. Arguably, prior to Stalin, the government of the Soviet Union didn't possess the power or institutional means to make the state genuinely totalitarian in practice (which is not to say it wasn't seeking to acquire those means).

[popper]

You are correct Sackville but Trotskyists explain all the nasty things that took place under Lenin and Leon as necesscary to fight the Civil War.

To be strictly accurate, one can distinguish between a party that is totalitarian in principle and a state that is totalitarian in practice. Arguably, prior to Stalin, the government of the Soviet Union didn't possess the power or institutional means to make the state genuinely totalitarian in practice (which is not to say it wasn't seeking to acquire those means).

The Soviet State already had all the institutions of totalitarianism in place prior to Stalin coming to power: the Cheka, prison camps, censorship and so on. It is true that it took them some time to be in a position to impose that on the entire territory under their control although it could be argued that they were in this position by 1922. Certainly Lenin and Trotsky were ruthless in suppressing internal opposition once they had gotten the upper hand in the Civil War.

You make an interesting distinction between parties that are totalitarian in principle and a state that is totalitarian in practise. That begs the question of modern Marxist parties. They have not given up on the totalitarian principles that underlie the Leninist approach to creating revolution. Democratic centralisim does not tolerate internal party opposition and if that was transposed to a situtaion where say the Sp or SWP had state power that would be extended to the whole of civil society.

[Worldbystorm]

I'm sure you wont be surprised that I don't agree with you on democratic centralism. It seems to be a feature of ex WP members (I think you said you were, someplace else) to be opposed to DC. I've heard Colm Breathnach rant about Leninst parties on a number of occasions. I was never a member of the WP but I am aware of some of the problems in the party though I don't think that because a method is wrongly implemented makes it a wrong method - the WP were in effect the Irish equivalent of the communist party in the Soviet Union and took their organisational form from there so inevitably probelms re democracy were inevitable.

The SP is run on a DC method and it is absolutely democratic in my mind.

I disagree with you on Lenin's checks and balances he outlines points in "State and Revolution" precisely to avoid the crystallation of a bureaucracy and to prevent the rise of people such as Stalin - "no official to receive higher wages than skilled workers", admin duties to be rotated within the state apparatus to prevent bureaucracy etc etc I'm sure you've read it.

Engels, I guess I do see this rather differently to your good self. I've swiped Wiki's definitions to run through my own particular objections to DC. Lenin was happy enough to use DC to stop factions within Bolshevism from 1921 onwards so it's hard to see him as innocent in all this. Anyhow,
1. Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed. (okay, no particular problem there)
2. Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures. (not sure why a distinction is necessary)
3. Strict and conscious discipline in the party -- the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed. (and here we begin to encounter problems. My experience inside WP, and DL as well (on the issue of Northern Ireland) was that minority opinions were ignored because policy had already been set, say on the North, and that was the point that was continually referred back to. Hence it was all but impossible to bring forward an issue again. Many was the time I saw elements of the Northern WP trying to provide a more 'republican' tinged analysis only for it to be rebuffed by reference to previously agreed party positions)
4. Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures. (On one level what's the problem, on another it makes for a centralised top down command style. Policies are formulated at central committee (or equivalent level) and then disbursed downwards. Not the other way. And because the central committees are so influential and powerful this has an incredibly repressive effect on - for example - the fashioning of motions at Ard Fheiseanna. Moreover the central committees select what motions go forward, thereby creating another level of censorship)
5. Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create. (A really dangerous one this. It negates individual autonomy. Again it is hierarchical, top down and frankly leads to the development of elites within a party structure. Moreover in order to foster this the usual drudgery of selling newspapers/raising money is foisted upon members. Per se I have no real problem with it, but in retrospect I see it as a part of a socialisation process akin to drilling in an army)

Every step of the way power is ceded back to core groups within a party to direct, abitrate policy, censor countervailing tendencies, ensure discipline and so on. The real problem of course arises when someone with Stalinist tendencies arrives at the pinnacle of this power structure. Quite simply there are no obvious means of stopping such an individual once they have taken over the apparatus. Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that the Socialist Party is in the grip of tyranny or liable to be, but I would have thought as a group influenced by Trotsky you might take a more critical approach to DC.

As a libertarian marxist I now find these top down structures difficult to defend. And I'd point out that these structures are replicated to a greater or lesser degree in almost all parties of left, centre or right. But the difference has to be the appalling history that DC has as a tool of political organisation in the Soviet Union and China.

I knew Colm B back in the day, indeed in DL we both served on the International Committeeuntil we both left the party at more or less the same time, and although we had (and were I to meet him still would have) disagreements over many issues he was a thoughtful and committed socialist whose aversion to DC structures was born of a similar experience to my own. I don't think the WP was more uniquely 'stalinist' than any other left organisation I was a member of, including DL and British Labour or various unions. Indeed my problem with DC is that it is, of it's nature, antithetical to pluralism both within and outside of a party. I'm also conscious of the necessity for a party to have core values which differentiate it from other parties and non-members. However DC seems to be a way to micro-manage too many aspects of the party life. Incidentally, it's nature is born of a revolutionary era within a semi-clandestine party. Surely not the best mode for an open party in a (however faulty) democracy?

Tangier, the problem with your post is that it completely ignores the differing historical circumstances of and differing natures of Fascism and Communism. To put it as simply as possible simply because both resulted in practice in crimes is not to say that they are 'the same coin'. Or let's put it a different way. I don't believe that simply because democratic states have been involved in crimes in the 20th century (the US in Vietnam, the UK in Kenya) that invalidates democracy (or indeed those states on a broader level). And I bet neither do you. Popper, I understand your point regarding how downplaying the crimes of communism should not be more acceptable than Irvings antics, and I don't think Stalin's crimes, or those of Mao should ever be forgotten.

However, there are differences between communism and fascism in practice and theory and they're not incidental differences. Indeed, while we're at it there are significant differences between Italian fascism and National Socialism.

My reading of the State and Revolution is that it's amazingly shallow for such an important issue and that to describe it as outlining checks and balances is simply incorrect. Indeed we're talking about a fundamental aspect of communist society, yet what Lenin does is essentially make statements that beg questions which are not answered.

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.
"The Commune," Marx wrote, "made the catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditure--the army and the officialdom."
From the peasants, as from other sections of the petty bourgeoisie, only an insignificant few "rise to the top", "get on in the world" in the bourgeois sense, i.e., become either ell-to-do, bourgeois, or officials in secure and privileged positions. In every capitalist country where there are peasants (as there are in most capitalist countries), the vast majority of them are oppressed by the government and long for its overthrow, long for "cheap" government. This can be achieved only by the proletariat; and by achieving it, the proletariat at the same time takes a step towards the socialist reorganization of the state."

It's not Gramsci, is it?

Now even a cursory reading of this indicates that it is built on no empirical basis, even if one accepts that it was written with very specific instances in mind. For example, how is it 'self-evident' that these measures '[unite] the interests of the workers and the majority of peasants, at the same time leading from capitalism to socialism'? I don't see it, even in it's own context that these would unite interests. He's stating a proposition, but not justifying it - except by recourse to Marx, which is simply inadequate. But worse again, this is written for a socio-political context utterly different from the advanced capitalist liberal democracies which we live in. The model of society which he considers which had a tiny elite who can rise out of the mire of their original class position (which was to some degree a stereotype even at the time in say Britain or Germany, although possibly more accurate in the atrocious conditions of Tsarist Russia) is hardly true of contemporary society where many 'become either [reasonably] well-to-do, bourgeois, or officials in secure and privileged positions'. In other words I'd argue that it's impossible to apply Leninist philosophies to contemporary socio-political contexts. Indeed it's arguable that Leninism impeded the growth of a democratic Marxist influenced alternative during the 20th century as the great oppositional poll to unfettered capitalism and fascism.

[Engels]

You are correct Sackville but Trotskyists explain all the nasty things that took place under Lenin and Leon as necesscary to fight the Civil War.

To be strictly accurate, one can distinguish between a party that is totalitarian in principle and a state that is totalitarian in practice. Arguably, prior to Stalin, the government of the Soviet Union didn't possess the power or institutional means to make the state genuinely totalitarian in practice (which is not to say it wasn't seeking to acquire those means).

The Soviet State already had all the institutions of totalitarianism in place prior to Stalin coming to power: the Cheka, prison camps, censorship and so on. It is true that it took them some time to be in a position to impose that on the entire territory under their control although it could be argued that they were in this position by 1922. Certainly Lenin and Trotsky were ruthless in suppressing internal opposition once they had gotten the upper hand in the Civil War.

You make an interesting distinction between parties that are totalitarian in principle and a state that is totalitarian in practise. That begs the question of modern Marxist parties. They have not given up on the totalitarian principles that underlie the Leninist approach to creating revolution. Democratic centralisim does not tolerate internal party opposition and if that was transposed to a situtaion where say the Sp or SWP had state power that would be extended to the whole of civil society.

The Socialist Party operates on a democratic centralist basis and I can assure you it does allow in ternal opposition. I can't speak for the SWP.

[tangier]

Oh for crying out loud, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, Workers Party etc.. The only difference between you all is the degree to which you are willing to dip your foot onto the bucket of blood thats at the centre of your communal filthy totalitarian ideology. It's bizarre to hear a marxist telling us that democratic dissent is allowed in his party (well thats comforting to know) and then trying to educate us about how great Trotsky was, the real caring Trotsky! It really beggars belief that an articulate adult falls for and then keeps a strait face while regurgitating this rubbish.

Socialism is just the purgatorial stop over on the dissent to the hell we call communism. (I like that one!)

[teanganua]

My polish friends all rue the fall of communism: before there was no food in the shops: it was in the peoples homes.

Today, there is lots in the shops, becuase people cannot afford to buy it.

In Ireland, bread is 80c to €1, the VERY SAME in Poland, though wages are ONE FIFTH OF OURS.

Relativly speaking, that is €4.00 to €5.00 per loaf of bread in the cities.

Capitalism how are you!

Many products are affected the same way. Thats why all are coming to Ireland.

Its the dicatorship aspect of Communism they dont miss: the personal freedom.

In the past there was bread queue ecause there was bread. They cant afford the bread anymore.

By the way, some complain that Irish think their nations technologically backward. There is runnning water and TVs n the ex USSR and East Block! Wake up pig heads!

[Engels]

Oh for crying out loud, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, Workers Party etc.. The only difference between you all is the degree to which you are willing to dip your foot onto the bucket of blood thats at the centre of your communal filthy totalitarian ideology. It's bizarre to hear a marxist telling us that democratic dissent is allowed in his party (well thats comforting to know) and then trying to educate us about how great Trotsky was, the real caring Trotsky! It really beggars belief that an articulate adult falls for and then keeps a strait face while regurgitating this rubbish.

Socialism is just the purgatorial stop over on the dissent to the hell we call communism. (I like that one!)

There is little point to this debate - your irrational zealotry is quite amusing on one level - BTW I'v never stepped in any buckets of blood nor do I support mass terror or killings. Your ignorance is astounding I think the CP would love you for comparing them to the SP!!!

Not sure who "WE" are - but for a significant percentage of the world's population, they are living in a hell hole - its called capitalism - endless poverty, famine, war and despair - fair description of hell to me!