This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jul 14 10.44am | |
---|---|
Quote DanH at 17 Jul 2014 9.31am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jul 2014 12.17am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jul 2014 11.21pm
TUSC are a 'broad coalition', who according to this press release are supported by the Socialist Workers Party: This is something randomly pulled up from the Internet about the Socialist Workers Party which is no doubt written by the 'right wing oppressors' to undermine the comrades:
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jul 14 10.53am | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 17 Jul 2014 9.19am
You have misunderstood me or maybe I didn't express myself well. I know what Trotsky believed in (and agree it wasn't a constant)and would certainly have supported Trotsky v Stalin in the 1920's/30's. I can't think of a better credo either. As to whether Trotskyism or something else represents the essence of socialist principles...I wasn't going anywhere near that hot potato. I was commenting (following the previous poster pointing out that the OP had got his "Trotskyist" groups mixed up) that (as is true and as I think many who have mixed in such circles at one time or another have seen) that Trotskyism has been characterised by groupings being obsessed by minor ideological differences with other similar groups and often becoming embroiled in venomous and silly internecine squabbles as to who was the true inheritor/standard bearer of the pure "faith"(anyone remember the SWP,IMG and WRP back in the day?). I was supporting the poster's point that it would be wrong and naïve to say that the Socialist Party and the SWP are the same entity... Edited by legaleagle (17 Jul 2014 9.26am) I'd say that the error generally is believing that Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin could be considered to be any better than each other. The failure of the soviet union and its casual slide into genocide was its belief in creating a 'new person' and the 'greater good'. Their reduction of the individual to 'machine parts' of a greater whole, dehumanised and created a credo by which genocide was justified. Attempts to implement mass change in a short period are almost always doomed to disaster, both in capitalism and socialism. Marx's always presented the shift as being a gradualised awakening of the working classes to the inequalities coupled with a failing of capitalism creating an change in people, not one that was forced ultimately resulting in a revolution. Attempts to pre-empt this generally failed to produce a 'better world' resulting in an almost religious tyranny, in which Marxist Leninism/Stalinist/Maoism resulted oppressive regimes that served the party elite, rather than society as a whole. China and Russia saw whole scale massive change, but at a terrible price paid by the very people these systems claimed to promote the interests of.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Red-Blue-Yellow Surrey 17 Jul 14 1.37pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 17 Jul 2014 9.19am
You have misunderstood me or maybe I didn't express myself well. I know what Trotsky believed in (and agree it wasn't a constant)and would certainly have supported Trotsky v Stalin in the 1920's/30's. I can't think of a better credo either. As to whether Trotskyism or something else represents the essence of socialist principles...I wasn't going anywhere near that hot potato. I was commenting (following the previous poster pointing out that the OP had got his "Trotskyist" groups mixed up) that (as is true and as I think many who have mixed in such circles at one time or another have seen) that Trotskyism has been characterised by groupings being obsessed by minor ideological differences with other similar groups and often becoming embroiled in venomous and silly internecine squabbles as to who was the true inheritor/standard bearer of the pure "faith"(anyone remember the SWP,IMG and WRP back in the day?). I was supporting the poster's point that it would be wrong and naïve to say that the Socialist Party and the SWP are the same entity... Edited by legaleagle (17 Jul 2014 9.26am)
I also enjoy posting on: Love Everton Forum, the Acceptable Face of Scouse Football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Red-Blue-Yellow Surrey 17 Jul 14 1.48pm | |
---|---|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jul 2014 10.53am
Marx's always presented the shift as being a gradualised awakening of the working classes to the inequalities coupled with a failing of capitalism creating an change in people, not one that was forced ultimately resulting in a revolution. Attempts to pre-empt this generally failed to produce a 'better world' resulting in an almost religious tyranny, in which Marxist Leninism/Stalinist/Maoism resulted oppressive regimes that served the party elite, rather than society as a whole. China and Russia saw whole scale massive change, but at a terrible price paid by the very people these systems claimed to promote the interests of. The historical paradox of Marxist theories being put into practice in states far from ready for them, rather than in Britain or Germany( for it was those developed industrial nations that Marx addressed)has led inexorably to the discrediting of Socialism generally. Far from creating a socialist state, all that was achieved was the building of disguised dictatorships...badly disguised dictatorships....and conformist, centralised beaurocracies backed by ruthless internal security organizations. Economic 'miracles' achieved by endless suffering. It was WW1 that really de-railed what would perhaps have been inevitable and a German strategem(shipping Lenin off to St.Petersburg) that diverted the course of socialist development.
I also enjoy posting on: Love Everton Forum, the Acceptable Face of Scouse Football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 17 Jul 14 9.55pm | |
---|---|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jul 2014 10.53am
[I'd say that the error generally is believing that Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin could be considered to be any better than each other. The failure of the soviet union and its casual slide into genocide was its belief in creating a 'new person' and the 'greater good'. Their reduction of the individual to 'machine parts' of a greater whole, dehumanised and created a credo by which genocide was justified. Attempts to implement mass change in a short period are almost always doomed to disaster, both in capitalism and socialism. Marx's always presented the shift as being a gradualised awakening of the working classes to the inequalities coupled with a failing of capitalism creating an change in people, not one that was forced ultimately resulting in a revolution. Attempts to pre-empt this generally failed to produce a 'better world' resulting in an almost religious tyranny, in which Marxist Leninism/Stalinist/Maoism resulted oppressive regimes that served the party elite, rather than society as a whole. China and Russia saw whole scale massive change, but at a terrible price paid by the very people these systems claimed to promote the interests of. Fair points to throw into the mix. But with the benefits of hindsight as opposed to the brave new world in the 1920's...
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Jul 14 11.27pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 17 Jul 2014 9.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jul 2014 10.53am
[I'd say that the error generally is believing that Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin could be considered to be any better than each other. The failure of the soviet union and its casual slide into genocide was its belief in creating a 'new person' and the 'greater good'. Their reduction of the individual to 'machine parts' of a greater whole, dehumanised and created a credo by which genocide was justified. Attempts to implement mass change in a short period are almost always doomed to disaster, both in capitalism and socialism. Marx's always presented the shift as being a gradualised awakening of the working classes to the inequalities coupled with a failing of capitalism creating an change in people, not one that was forced ultimately resulting in a revolution. Attempts to pre-empt this generally failed to produce a 'better world' resulting in an almost religious tyranny, in which Marxist Leninism/Stalinist/Maoism resulted oppressive regimes that served the party elite, rather than society as a whole. China and Russia saw whole scale massive change, but at a terrible price paid by the very people these systems claimed to promote the interests of. Fair points to throw into the mix. But with the benefits of hindsight as opposed to the brave new world in the 1920's...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we should learn from history. All that Lenin achieved was the transition from one form of oppression to another, with millions dead, and creating the environment into which Stalin came to kill tens of millions more. The Mensheviks disagreed with the idea of Marxist Leninism, and rejected the idea of a vanguard. They were convinced that socialism/communism could not succeed in Russia until the historical transformation of a bourgeoisie revolution and a failure of capitalism before a revolutionary movement could effect a true transformation to socialism or communism. They originated from the schism of the Social Democratic Party that formed the Bolsheviks.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Mar 15 8.08pm | |
---|---|
Fair coverage? Unlikely I feel. Let's see what happens...
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
on me shed son Krakow 06 Mar 15 8.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 06 Mar 2015 8.08pm
Fair coverage? Unlikely I feel. Let's see what happens...
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
on me shed son Krakow 06 Mar 15 8.53pm | |
---|---|
Quote on me shed son at 06 Mar 2015 8.41pm
Quote nickgusset at 06 Mar 2015 8.08pm
Fair coverage? Unlikely I feel. Let's see what happens...
Sorry, I meant Nathalie Bennett. Lucas seemed to interview better.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 06 Mar 15 11.31pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 06 Mar 2015 8.08pm
Fair coverage? Unlikely I feel. Let's see what happens...
Just saying.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 06 Mar 15 11.57pm | |
---|---|
Pro USA & Israel |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 07 Mar 15 9.18am | |
---|---|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jul 2014 12.17am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jul 2014 11.21pm
TUSC are a 'broad coalition', who according to this press release are supported by the Socialist Workers Party: This is something randomly pulled up from the Internet about the Socialist Workers Party which is no doubt written by the 'right wing oppressors' to undermine the comrades: Interestingly the Socialist is the newspaper of the British Socialist Party, which is not the same as the Socialist Workers Party (in fact the two have a long history of disagreement). The socialist party has always really been a separate organisation stemming from Militant within the Labour Party.
Fcuk off we're The Judean People's Front!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.