Gordon Brown is not - whatever Lord Turnbull would have you believe - a Stalinist. Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili at least advocated socialism in one country. That's one country more than Mr Brown.
Then again, I don't suppose the former permanent secretary to the Treasury was deploying the unflattering soubriquet in that sense. The idea was presumably to draw an intentional parallel with one of history's worst tyrants. That is simply idiotic.
You can agree or disagree with New Labour economic policy, from prudence to the golden rule and back again. But Dawn Primarolo's family has not been sent the bill for a bullet found lodged in the back of her neck. Britain's landowning farmers have not been liquidated as a class. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have not died of famine.
Critical bloggers and publishers of leftwing newspapers don't live in fear of the midnight knock on the door from the state security apparatus. While plenty of people - predominantly Muslims and asylum seekers - are shamefully interned without trial for considerable periods, Campsfield doesn't quite qualify as the Gulag archipelago redux.
In short, a New Labour government under Gordon Brown will not bring about a Koestlerian darkness at noon, although it is interesting to note that such a fear is seemingly genetically hardwired into the DNA of the British bourgeoisie.
But Turnbull's inanities - I thought these guys had Rolls-Royce minds courtesy of their top notch Oxbridge educations? - are symptomatic of the creeping political illiteracy that now forms a threat to public discourse more deadly than the misuse of apostrophes, split infinitives, and even the inability to distinguish between 'fewer' and 'less'.
No, Daily Mail. Political correctness is not the New McCarthyism. No, Christopher Hitchens. Political Islamists are not Islamofascists, or any other kind of fascists. Nor, Nick Cohen, was Saddam Hussein. These words have to be used properly, or they become meaningless. Sign up for the political theory 101 resit, the lot of you.
Israel is brutally repressive towards the Palestinians. But it is not an apartheid state. Those stickers bearing a Star of David, an equals sign and a swastika - published by people in de facto political alliance with sections of the soi-disant far left - are a deliberate racist attempt to be as offensive to Jewish sensibilities as it is possible to be.
To tell the truth, I cannot swear to not having used any of the above formulations myself from time to time. That's sloppy journalism, and I will try to make a point of remembering not to do so again.
But let me end with some advice to Lord Turnbull. If what you really wanted to put across was the notion that Gordon Brown is a rude, domineering, overbearing prick, why not say so in plain English?
Posted at 11:08, 20 March 2007
Comments (88)
Doncha think that 'Stalnism' is turning into the new 'Fascism'? As used by old matey Woolfie Smith?
Though you did forget one Dave: Muslims in Europe are not the new Jews: not seen any attempts to give them a second class legal status, excldue them from education, forcibly confine them to ghettos, or made to wear special clothing.
symptomatic of the creeping political illiteracy that now forms a threat to public discourse more deadly than the misuse of apostrophes, split infinitives, and even the inability to distinguish between 'fewer' and 'less'.
But what about using "and" immediately after a comma?
It's OK to do that Justin. Check out Strunk and White.
It is?
Thank Christ for that. I feel liberated.
I've spent three decades avoiding it, or using dashes instead.
Any news on using commas immediately after brackets? The LRB does it all the time and it fair gets on my nerves.
I have recently put extracts from Gordon Brown's 1975 article in 'The Red Paper on Scotland', entitled 'The Socialist Challenge', up on my blog. It shows that even when Brown was a socialist, he was not a 'Stalinist' (though obviously his vision of socialism was always a form of 'socialism from above').
No Dave
Israel is an Apartheid state, and if you go and visit the occupied teratories this is clear to see.
Seperate and different health system, separate and different road system, separate and different rights to travel. Seprate and different rights to land ownership.
Why isn't that Apartheid?
Err, because the occupied territories are not part of the Israeli state?
Andy is talking about separate systems for Palestinians and settlers living side by side in the West Bank. These separate systems are designed to suit the settlers. Separate raods are an obvious example - the settlers get the best roads and don't have to run the gauntlet of endless checkpoints. There's also a separate legal system for settlers. How is this not reminiscent of apartheid?
Just came across this whilst trawling for summink completely different. Absolutely spot on. I think it is really important to challenge this loose use of language.
In the corner of the world I inhabit (pensions) we get equally tw@ttish comments. The former leader of the trade body for employers running pension schemes described the Govt's reform plans as 'stalinist'. More recently the Tory pensions spokesman described the difference between pension provision in the public sector (mainly final salary) and the private sector (increasingly defined contribution) as 'apartheid'.
Unfortunately we can usually agree that this type of language is wrong when our opponents use it, but are less good at policing ourselves. I think it is much easier to label something we don't like in an extreme way because that gives an excuse to not look closely at it. That would involve having a rational nuanced view of things rather than emotional response, which is far less fun. I have to say calling Israel an Apartheid State is a good example.
PS The only people who can reasonably be called Stalinists are the far left.
Yeah. I'm with Andy Newman here - and so is Jimmy Carter -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026/ref=pd_ka_1/202-0285861-1888618?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174396737&sr=8-1
I think it is much easier to label something we don't like in an extreme way because that gives an excuse to not look closely at it.
...
PS The only people who can reasonably be called Stalinists are the far left.
I love your British deadpan humour.
Andy Newman wrote:
Seperate and different health system, separate and different road system, separate and different rights to travel. Seprate and different rights to land ownership.
the bastardisation of language and political hyperbole which surrounds Israel is astonishing, but never let the facts stand in the way of a "good" slogan eh?
Benjamin Pogrund covers this point in a CiF article:
"Anyone who talks about Israel being an apartheid state must come and look at humanity in practice in hospitals and clinics. It's inconceivable to think of anything remotely like this having been allowed in apartheid South Africa.
The point is so elementary and so obvious to anyone who lived under apartheid. Yet it has to be made time and again because some people are so blinded in their hatred of Israel that they persist in the wrong use of the apartheid accusation."
see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/benjamin_pogrund/2007/02/a_jerusalem_story.html
not a joke Phil.
The CPB, SWP et al still adhere to a Marxist ideology which includes the establishment of a dictatorship. I think it's pretty fair to label proponents of Marxist dictatorship Stalinist.
Like mostleftwing criticism of other leftwingers, that falls into the category of "they say A which has something in common with B, so we'll just say that they say B instead".
That's the point - I don't share that view, and I don't think that anyone who did 'look closely' at the far left would share it. Most of the far left is anti-Communist, and always has been; Stalin's prisons were full of leftists.
As far as I know Turnbull is neither an ex-Trot nor an ex-MI5 spook schooled in the fine point of far leftist ideology - so when he uses 'Stalinist' it is clearly just intended to be an informal metaphorical shorthand for a particular type of top-down, rigidly centralised, authoritarian bureaucratic/managerial politics.
I've heard 'stalinist' similarly used by managers, civil servants, academics and journalists in relation to a wide range of public and private sector organisations - and I'd be pretty sure that in many of those cases the speaker would have had only the vaguest idea of who Stalin actually was and what he stood for politically.
It is certainly a lazy and rather tasteless metaphor but a perfectly clear one in the context of Turnbull's remarks.
I imagine gnostics must get similarly irritated by the frequent use of 'Manichean' to describe simplistic black and white dualistic world-views irrespective of whether the subject actually believes that the universe is in a state of perpetual spiritual conflict between the Lord of Light and the Lord of Darkness.
However that's the downside of having ones cherished beliefs consigned to the dustbin of history.
Indeed ejh, tis is the debating trick of "amalgamation", whereby you impute arguments to someone based upon associations.
For example, the SWP have for limited purposes worked with the MAB over issues they have common ground - an eminently sensible approach to politics. However by amalgamation therefore the SWP can be accused of having the same views as the MAB. A dishonest trick.
The terms Stalinsit impedes debate also by amalgamation, beacsue it implies that anyone who supports some of the positions of the mainstream communist movement, (such as acceptance of the tactic of the popular front, or the potentially progressive role of the bourgeoisie in certain democratic strugles) is also by necessity in favour of gulags and repression of democracy.
This seems to be a particularly British problem.
Indeed, Roger. Although there may be some mileage in saying that there's a tendency among well-off people to vastly exaggerate when they're complaining about Labour governments, and this may be an example of same.
A question to Dave,
is the reference to putting a bullet in the neck of Red Dawn acidental, or a dig at her deep entrist trot past? (and she was such a deep deep entrist - is it too much to hope she is still burrowing)
"That's the point - I don't share that view, and I don't think that anyone who did 'look closely' at the far left would share it. Most of the far left is anti-Communist, and always has been; Stalin's prisons were full of leftists."
err... surely you're not claiming that the SWP and the CPB are anti-communist? I've had plenty of dealings with the far left over the year. I have heard SWPers defend the suppression of the sailors at Kronstadt for example.
My general point is that accusations of 'stalinism' should be restricted to those who adopt or advocate stalinist tactics. I don't think it's unfair to apply that to people who want to establish a communist dictatorship.
@ Andy
The jibe at Red Dawn's expense was one for the cognoscenti. Such as yourself, Andy.
My general point is that accusations of 'stalinism' should be restricted to those who adopt or advocate stalinist tactics. I don't think it's unfair to apply that to people who want to establish a communist dictatorship.
I would have thought it was highly unfair, though not unusual - unless the claim is that they want to recreate the governmental style of Stalin. Simplying saying "communist dictatorship" doesn't do that, except by means of the manouevre set out above.
"I would have thought it was highly unfair, though not unusual - unless the claim is that they want to recreate the governmental style of Stalin. Simplying saying "communist dictatorship" doesn't do that, except by means of the manouevre set out above."
What are the big points of difference between the social and economic structure that the CPB & SWP want to establish and that which existed in the USSR under Stalin? And are we allowed to call anyone on the far left 'stalinist' or do they have to sign a form saying 'I wish to recreate the governmental style of Stalin' before it's a reasonable thing to do?
Using your argument surely we shouldn't call the BNP 'fascists'?
Isn't the answer in the first sentence of your second paragraph?
Tom P - are you for real?
You don't have to be a great fan of either to accept that there are fairly significant differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism.
Apparently Stalin and Trotsky had a bit of a tiff. I read about it somewhere.
I don't think there is an 'answer'. It depends on how many people you think it is reasonable to label stalinists. I would restrict it to communists, you would go further and restrict it to communists who want to implement Stalin's governmental style. that must restrict it to a few hundred at max doesn't it?
And in answer to my previous question you must accept that we shoiuldn't label the BNP 'fascists', since they don't openly advocate the creation of a fascist state.
"You don't have to be a great fan of either to accept that there are fairly significant differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism."
So Trots tell me. Go on then, explain.
"Apparently Stalin and Trotsky had a bit of a tiff. I read about it somewhere."
Cool, I read somewhere that Blair and Brown don't get on. That must be because of really important ideological differences between them.
"Blair and Brown don't get on. They don't have great ideological differences. Therefore if two other political figures didn't get on, they didn't have great ideological differences."
It's pretty poor stuff.
must accept that we shoiuldn't label the BNP 'fascists', since they don't openly advocate the creation of a fascist state.
Not openly, but I think it's what they want. wheras a Stalinist state is not what Trotskyites want. You may think they'd end up with something like it and I might have some sympathy with that view. But that's very far from being the same thing.
"It's pretty poor stuff."
right back at ya:
"Not openly, but I think it's what they want. wheras a Stalinist state is not what Trotskyites want. You may think they'd end up with something like it and I might have some sympathy with that view. But that's very far from being the same thing."
The BNP now publicly say they are a democratic party, and they don't advocate the creation of a corporate one-party state. Whereas the far left still openly advocate a revolution and communist dictatorship.
But against this you say it's OK to label the BNP fascist because you 'think' that's what they want, but it's not OK to label Trots at stalinists because although they openly want the same political and economic strategy the implementation might be different.
although they openly want the same political and economic strategy
But they don't, do they?
"But they don't, do they?"
political - one-party communist state
economic - centrally-planned economy
So is that what they openly want? And is a centrally-planned economy really a particular feature of Stalinism rather than a socialist idea?
You can't just make tendentious connections and expect other people to accept them. That's not analysis - it is, as Andy put it, "amalgamation".
Shorter TomP: "What do you mean, Quakers aren't Catholics? They're all Christians, aren't they? If you think the differences are so important why don't you enlighten me, Papist boy?"
There's a great deal of history which says that Trotskyists and Stalinists are very different things. It may not be a difference that makes much difference to you or me, but it makes an awful lot of difference to them. Anyone who insists on calling Trots Stalinists is either being wilfully ignorant or gratuitously offensive.
Tom, we know the BNP are fascist because of numerous undercover investigations and the study of party documents. Try this:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/BNP2.html
Incidently Dave - why on earth isn't Israel an aparthied state? In many respects its worse than the South African one.
I hesitate to go there, beacsue TomP may be trolling for an argument that the BNP are not facsists.
But specifically did not the Trots support the same economic and political strategy as Stalin? When Stalin made his speech on the Grain Crisis in 1927/1928 wasn't this an adoption of the left opposition's economic policy to aleviate the "sissors crisis"? And didn't this lead to most of the left oposition within the USSR, such as Evgeny Preobrazhinsky supporting Stalin?
The political consequence of that economic policy was increased repression, as well as economic growth. NOr if we read Trotsky's writings from the period when he was central to the government and head of the Red Army, obviously "terrorism and Communism", but also the assorted Military writings, was he actually any more supportive of political pluralism than Stalin.
I see no difference in pronciple between Trotsky's advocacy of "war communism" in the perios immediatley preceding the NEP, and the left turn in economic policy taken by Stalin in 1928 (Stalin did after all explicitly adopt the Trots' economic policy).
So waht we are left with "in defence of Trotskism" is that they were internationalists, wheras Stalin argued for socialism in one country. BUt in the absense of actualy existing revolutionary situations in 1928 onwards this would have been an abstract difference, and had Trotsky been in charge of the USSR, have we any reason to believe things would have been different?
"So is that what they openly want? And is a centrally-planned economy really a particular feature of Stalinism rather than a socialist idea?"
Feel free to challenge me here. Are you telling me the Trots don't advocate dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a centrally-planned economy. If so I am happy to retract what I have said. I genuinely thought that was what they wanted.
"You can't just make tendentious connections and expect other people to accept them. That's not analysis - it is, as Andy put it, "amalgamation"."
And I say bollox.
It is not 'amalgamtion' to claim that people who advocate the creation of a communist dictatorship share common ground with people who used to administer a communist dictatorship. It's stating the obvious. Only in the microcosm of fringe lefty politics does anyone take seriously the idea that Trots would be significantky different in power
"What do you mean, Quakers aren't Catholics? They're all Christians, aren't they? If you think the differences are so important why don't you enlighten me, Papist boy?"
Actually I'll take that, since I think that the attitude of lots of people in the various marxist grouplets is very similar to religious nutcases. constantly quoting from holy texts to prove why their committee to reform the fourth international is the one true way etc.
"Anyone who insists on calling Trots Stalinists is either being wilfully ignorant or gratuitously offensive."
'gratuitously offensive.'
to who?
It is not 'amalgamation' to claim that people who advocate the creation of a communist dictatorship share common ground with people who used to administer a communist dictatorship. It's stating the obvious.
Well, yes it is, Tom, because you're saying they're saying things that in fact they are not saying. Which isn't very good really.
"Tom, we know the BNP are fascist because of numerous undercover investigations and the study of party documents."
how long do you think it would take me to Google some evidence for a convincing case that the SWP are 'Stalinist'? Starting with disgruntled ex-members complaining about the top-down part line....
"I hesitate to go there, beacsue TomP may be trolling for an argument that the BNP are not facsists."
not at all. I think it is - just about - fair to label them fascists. but I think there is less grounds for labelling them fascists than the SWP as stalinists.
"What do you mean, Quakers aren't Catholics? They're all Christians, aren't they? If you think the differences are so important why don't you enlighten me, Papist boy?"
Actually I'll take that, since I think that the attitude of lots of people in the various marxist grouplets is very similar to religious nutcases. constantly quoting from holy texts to prove why their committee to reform the fourth international is the one true way etc
That may be so, but it doesn't make Quakers Catholics, does it? And it doesn't make all Christian believers religious nutcases either.
Insisting that people who are very different are actually the same is a sign of crude thinking and an intolerant mind.
how long do you think it would take me to Google some evidence for a convincing case that the SWP are 'Stalinist'? Starting with disgruntled ex-members complaining about the top-down part line....
I think a fair time if you went about it that way. A top-down party line is scarcely a paticular feature of Stalinism - I'd guess a large proportion of political associations have historically had policy decided and implemented essentially from the top. It's another example of the use of extremely inaccurate language.
Stalinism's main features are an emphasis on building up national sovereignty, a personality cult of the 'leader', a heavily developed state bureaucracy and an emphasis on discipline and law and order. This differs quite a lot from other left and far-left ideologies.
'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' and a centrally planned economy are not Stalinist ideas, even through they might have been implemented or lip service paid to them.
"Insisting that people who are very different are actually the same is a sign of crude thinking and an intolerant mind."
oohh I'll scratch your eyes out!
can I say in return failing to recognise the very blatant similarities between groups that insist they are very different is the sign of a mind that prefes to deal with labels than content.
Well not really Tom, it just involves distinguising ideas from outcomes. Both the free market and the command economy cause many people to live in poverty, but that doesn't make the command economy and the free market the same thing. Both TS Eliot and Dorothy Day believed in a Christian God, but their conceptions and expectations of that God were very different.
The Hamas Charter says they want to set up a non democratic Islamist state in Palestine and that Jews should be killed because of their religion.
Do you believe tham?
"Both the free market and the command economy cause many people to live in poverty, but that doesn't make the command economy and the free market the same thing."
But that isn't anything like what we are discussing, since they are very different economic ideas.
you oppose the use of a pejorative comment about the far left - stalinist - yet you support the use of a pejorative comment about the far right - fascist. yet one could easily make a case that the former is more 'fair' than the latter based on the current manifestos of respective groups. that leads me to believe your assessment is warped by your own politics which I assume must be fairly Trot-friendly.
'gratuitously offensive.' to who?
Trots; Stalinists; anyone with Trotskyist friends, colleagues, comrades or role models, past or present; anyone with Stalinist friends, colleagues, comrades or role models, past or present; and generally anyone who doesn't hold both Trots and Stalinists in contempt. Which includes a lot of people here, although clearly not you.
As I said before, you've basically walked into a Quaker meeting, announced that all Protestants are basically Papists, then challenged us to justify objecting. In short, you're being about as constructive as 'George'.
Trotskyists are Lenninists, as are Stalinists, Trotsky/Stalin is a debate within Leninism - ergo they will share essential features, whilst having essential disagreements. That Leninism is a subset of marxism means anti-bolshevik communists (hello!) and Leninists will share essntial ideas, whilst also having essential disagreements. Marxists and reformists are both types of socialist, etc.
This is called logic. If we all learned to use it, life would be better.
I had no idea that the vanguard(s) of the working class were so touchy. No wonder they are such a serious political force in the UK. I hope no-one passes a strongly-worded resolution against me.
that leads me to believe your assessment is warped by your own politics which I assume must be fairly Trot-friendly.
"Because you disagree with me aboutpeople I am criticising, you must be one of them."
Not very good either.
you could just tell me what your politics are. I'm a pretty moderate labour party member. see! it's easy!
it's just that you don't generally find many people leaping to the defence of Trots.
it's just that you don't generally find many people leaping to the defence of Trots.
It's because of comments like that, that I don't feel the need to define my politics for you. It's not a reaction I like very much - "you're defending them, so I'll say you're one of them unless you tell me otherwise". If I defended anarchists would that make me an anarchist? If I defend Dave Osler (as I have done on another forum recently) does that make me Labour left?
Bollocks to it: I won't accept it off the HP mob and I won't accept it off anybody else.
God justin you can be pompous.
I note you've run away from Modernitys question on the other thread.
Where your pomposity and evasiveness was mammoth.
You going to be trolling on this thread too Tim?
Tom P -
I'm assuming that you aren't trolling and that you genuinely believe what you're saying.
Generally speaking the far left today (including most Trotskyists) favour democratic planning rather than central planning, favour party pluralism rather than a one party state.
Furthermore, the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is generally taken to refer to a condition of class 'dictatorship', rather than one party/one strong man dictatorship. The clue, here is that Marx referred to capitalism as the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. Clearly, he didn't mean that capitalist states are always and everwhere run by a dictatorship in the sense we understand the term today. It means a condition in which the capitalist class is structurally privileged ('one dollar one vote', control over the means of production, ownership of the media and so on). Similarly the dictatorship of the proletariat should be taken to mean a social structure in which the working class are structurally privileged (democratic, collective ownership of the means of production, media etc).
I certainly think that the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is shall we say an unfortunate phrase and I prefer it if socialists didn't use it. It puts people off and gives them the wrong idea.
As ejh pointed out above, in relation to something else, you might very well disagree with the strategy and political theory of the far left - you might indeed think that putting those ideas into practice might very well lead to a 'Stalinist' type society in which democracy is crushed, but it is totally wrong to suggest that what socialists want is what Stalin presided over.
The lack of knowledge you've displayed on this suggests that you haven't spoken to people from the far left, but have picked up a few phrases and run with them. That, or you've met some real idiots (and, lets be honest, that second option isn't so unlikely - we've all met them).
Ed
Thanks for the sensible reply. I was trolling at all when I ended up here. I just thought the launch post was spot on and was rather surprised at the reaction to my suggestion that only communists can be labelled stalinists.
I've never even heard of the term 'democratic planning' so would be interested to learn what that means. Has it ever been put into practice anywhere? I would be interested to hear too about Trots being into a multi-party system. Does that mean that they would allow a marxist regime to be voted out of power?
However I stick with the argument that it's as least as fair to label today's communist left stalinist as it is to label the BNP fascist.
"it is totally wrong to suggest that what socialists want is what Stalin presided over."
it certainly is. it's definitely not what I want.
was rather surprised at the reaction to my suggestion that only communists can be labelled stalinists
That's not what you said at all. Actually that's very much what I said. You said that only "the far left" can be called Stalinist - and "the far left" covers an enormous amount of ground, most of which isn't Stalinist at all.
If you're interested, I loathe the SWP - I think they're a blot on the face of the Left. But describing them as Stalinists is just wrong, in the same way that describing Ian Paisley as an Anglican is wrong - come to that, in the same way that describing Irn Bru as beer or Showaddywaddy as a punk band is wrong. Trotskyists are not Communists. Communists are not Trotskyists. If you tell me you're a Trotskyist, I know for certain that you're not a Communist, and vice versa.
Maybe you didn't know that before this thread. Fair enough; I realise that not everyone is aware of the finer details of Marxist taxonomy. Well, now you do.
Well now I am reassured that TomP isn't trolling, and thanks for the clarification TomP, and well done to Ed Rooksby for adding light and taking heat away.
BUt I feel that my point therefore needs answering that the unfortunate aspects of Stalinism that people rightly condemn: the forced collectivisation and breakneck industrialisation were actually Trotsky's policy as well - or specifically the party of Trotsky's allies the left opposition within the USSR. And when trotsky was head of the Red Army he showed himself no more intersted in political pluralism or democracy than Stalin, with the added significant fact that Trotsky wrote a book "Terrorism and Communism" (Originally published in English as "In defence of Terrorism" (by which he meant state terror) advocating the one party state and forcible supression of disloyal political currents.
I would also point out that - certainly in the English speaking world - the trotskyist groups have adopted a model of party organisation indistinguishable from the worst aspects of the Comintern parties. but without their redeeming quality of being mass organisations, or the excuse of the historical context.
So whether or not trotsky represented a historical alternative to the actually existing socialist regimes is one of history's unanswered questions, and I am far from convinced of it. We cannot re-edit the film and find out.
Just wondering. who will the SWP be supporting on Saturday?
Phil: Trotskyism is Bolshevism, pure and simple> whether or not it's "communism" depends upon whether you think Stalin's anti-Bolshevik revisions (notably "socialism in one country") represent "communism": eventually, it becomes a semantic argument. But what is *not* open to argumant is that Trotsky upheld Bolshevism against Stalin's revisionism.
As for Dave's broader point about the prevalence of light-minded bandying of terms like "fascism", "Stalinism", etc, in present-day discourse, and the danger that this devalues those terms: I agree. And, like Dave, I will admit to having been guilty of such light-minded usage of these terms in the past. Clearly, Thatcher was *not* a "fascist", just as Gordon Brown is *not* a "Stalinist". However, I would disagree with Dave about the term "Islamo-fascist": all differences between advanced capitalist societies with developed labour movements (the basis of classic, European fascism) and backward, peasant-based Middle-Eastern societies granted, I would still argue that to describe Wahabi, Salafist and other fundamentalist political-Islamist movements as "fascist" is close enough to the mark as to be valid.
Trotskyists are not Communists.
Eh?
"That's not what you said at all. Actually that's very much what I said. You said that only "the far left" can be called Stalinist - and "the far left" covers an enormous amount of ground, most of which isn't Stalinist at all."
That's what I meant. Fair enough it was loosely defined. I obviously wouldn't describe anarchists as stalinists.
I don't see how you can claim that trots aren't communists though?
Andy - no problem with any of that. I'm defending a much more fundamental point, which is that the people generally known as Trotskyists and Communists aren't the same people. Obviously you already knew this perfectly well (cf. references to "the trotskyist groups" and "the Comintern parties").
Volty - it's really quite simple. Not everyone on the 'far left' is Leninist (I'm not myself) but those that are divide into two basic groups - the ones whose family tree begins
Marx->Lenin->Trotsky
and the ones who write it as
Marx->Lenin->Stalin
If the line runs through Trotsky, they're Trotskyists. If the line runs through Stalin, they're... wait for it... Communists. We can subdivide the Communist school further into
M->L->Stalin->Khruschev: 'official' Communists
M->L->Stalin->Mao: Maoists
M->L->Stalin->just Stalin: Stalinists
Trots aren't Communists and therefore aren't Stalinists. Which is why, if I ever feel moved to denounce the way Trots organise, I attack them as Leninists.
To try and drag the discussion from the true apostolic line of succession from Lenin and Marx back to what Dave actually said about what Turnbull said about Brown...
What Turnbull said (as well as a lot of rather interesting stuff about the changed role of the Treasury which has been almost completely ignored) was that Brown had displayed an almost admirable stalinist ruthlessness when dealing with his cabinet and bureaucratic enemies.
Interpreting this as a comment on Brown's ideological predelictions (after all it's Reid and Mandelson and the clutch of Blairite ideologues at Demos etc who are the real ex-stalinists)or as the bubbling up of some kind of subconscious bourgeois great fear of a leftist resurgence is just bollocks.
Looking closely at the FT report I am now inclined to retract my earlier argument that that like many non-leftists he was using 'stalinist' as a synonym for 'rigid', 'inflexible', 'top/down management', closed-minded', 'authoritarian' etc.
The implication may well be there but all the Sir Humphrey actually said was 'stalinist ruthlessness' so that's probably all that he meant.
This is just the way non-leftists now talk and it signifies nothing other than how completely unthreatening we've now become to them.
The distinction between Trotskyists and Stalinists has become a lot more complicated since, probably, the late sixties. There are, and have been, Trotskyists whose organisations closely resemble stalinist parties: rigidily centralised around mini-Stalin cult figures. Let't not forget that some of the original Trotskyist figures in the West, such as James P Canon, were originally Zinoviests who took from him ideas which were fairly close to Stalin's conception of the Party. At the opposite extreme you have a party like the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire which is more democratic than any mainstream social democratic party, with its members opnely supporting in the present French presidential elections a candidate, Jose Bove, standing against the LCR's own Olivier Besancenot.
Stalinism too is pretty complex: the BCP is not the French PCF (which has open tendencies nowadays). or the Italian Refoundation Communists, who have their own demcoratic lfie and practices, and electoral influence to take into account if we want to go into this further.
This is just one aspect. But I would argue that the division between Trotskyists and Stalinism ahs radically altered over the decades and alcks full meaning today.
I would argue that the division between Trotskyists and Stalinism ahs radically altered over the decades and alcks full meaning today
To be honest, I tend to agree - apart from anything else, the fact that the SWP can work with the CPB suggests they've managed to bury the
ice-phatchet. But there's still a big difference between saying "when you look at it there's not much difference between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines these days" and saying "Ghibellines? What's that about? Naah, they're all Guelphs, and don't you tell me any different. Had that Pope Boniface in the back of the cab the other day. Proper gent he was."While I'm here I'll agree with Roger, too - I don't think for a moment that Turnbull was actually accusing Brown of Stalinism. It's just an intensifier for 'ruthless' ("Giles stitched up the squash club management committee with almost Stalinist ruthlessness").
Tom P
As you can see from the above people on the far left are a fractious bunch and often disagree.
It's difficult to point to an instance/description of democratic planning that all (perhaps even most) others on the far left would accept/agree with.
With that qualification out of the way, in relation to democratic planing there's a wonderful worked out economic theory of democratic planning in Pat Devine's 'Democracy and Economic Planning: the Political Economy of a Self-Governing Society' (1988) (Cambridge, Polity). Devine's an academic economist and it's a bit hard going (and probably quite difficult to track down. But, Alex Callinicos' 'An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto'Callinicos, A (2003) (Cambridge, Polity) includes an accessible synopsis of the fundamentals of Devine's democratic planning system. I imagine Callinicos' book is a lot easier to get hold of.
Michael Albert's Participatory Economics, too, is pretty highly thought of. There's a website where he and others describes a democratic planning system
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
In regards to the question has such a system ever existed in reality - that's a toughie. Depends who you talk to. Such a system has certainly never existed for more than a few months and in embryonic form - maybe in parts of Spain under the anarchists, maybe in parts of Portugal in 1974. Many Leninists will tell you it existed in parts of Russia in 1917.
"I would be interested to hear too about Trots being into a multi-party system. Does that mean that they would allow a marxist regime to be voted out of power?"
I'm not a Trot (or a Stalinist!!) but most Trots and certainly most non-leninist socialists are in favour of multiparty-democracy. Yes a Marxist party could be voted out of power - of course. The thing to point out is that a 'Marxist regime' is a slippery concept. Power in a properly socialist regime would be a lot more devolved than it is under capitalism. In theory - it would be the working class and their allies who would be, collectively, 'the marxist regime' (we return to democratic planning) and not a bunch of guys in uniforms and dark glasses in the presidential palace. Obviously, if the majority decide they don't want socialism anymore then the whole thing falls apart.
Well maybe that is what we wuod like to happen Ed, but it is to a certain extent an idealist rather than materialist recipe.
Capitalism is driven by the market economy, and socialism will be the replpacemetn of that with a planned economy to meet human need rather than profits.
But the semi-anarchist belief that this transformation must necessarily come "from below", or that such a societyy will be more democratic are undecided questions. Perhaps they won't be.
If human society was organised so that no child went hungry, that everyone had a meaingful job, that our economy was environmentally sustainable and there was no war, no racism, no sexism or homophobia, then would I realy care if the restorationist capitalist parties were banned?
In the real context of actually existing politics socialists do not come to power in an ideal way, and are under pressure from day one from the pressure of the capitalist world. having achieved sate power then i think it woulr be irresponsible to relinquish it (although that might have been the better option for the CPSU than either Stalin or Trotsky, and would have been the logic of the Bukharinist Right opposition)
Failure to recognise these real world pressures leads to underestimation of the difficulties of those socialists who have held state power..
Andy Newman wrote:
But the semi-anarchist belief that this transformation must necessarily come "from below", or that such a societyy will be more democratic are undecided questions. Perhaps they won't be.
which seems to suggest that it is possible to implement socialism "from above", and that such a "socialism" is even desirable?? Is that really so?
rather strange view given that nearly all examples of "socialism from above" have failed and are probably destined to fail because they treat the vast majority of the working class as objects, rather than agents (and equals) in any process of change
Well we don't know what will happen in the future, do we Modernity.
The question here is seprateing out what we know to be true, from what we suspect may be true.
Using the historical materialist method we can analyse existing society, and seek to act according to our analysis, but we don't really know that a socialist transformation of society "from below" is possible (even if we desire it as preferable), nor do we actually know that socialism from above is impossible (even if we think that less preferable and recognise the disadvantages)
There is a lot of discussion about marxism, for axample the transformatioon of the working class from the object to the subject of history that is actually philosphical speculatioon - that we may wish to be true, but we don't know to be true, unless we accept it as a question of religious faith.
You yourself (quite correctly BTW) say "all examples of "socialism from above" have failed and are probably destined to fail" - they key cooncpet is probably not definitley.
Also there is no reason why socialist givernments shoudl not transcend that category to involve mass activity from beloow. Welcome to Venezuela.
I would quallify my approval of your statement :
"all examples of "socialism from above" have failed "
to the extent that Cuba clearly still has a socialist government, and has not yet "failed", despite 40 years of destabilisation, provocation, terrorism and sanctions froom the USA.
The fact is that a centrally planned command economy (which you seem to be suggesting is the only alternative to capitalism) does not work.
You don't have to be a Hayekian to realise that central planners cannot possibly plan production and distribution for advanced economies in which tens of millions of people live. There is no such thing as perfect knowledge.
It's this which makes democratic planning necessary, not only a nice thing. Planning cannot possibly work unless it has daily input from diverse grassroots organs and unless the plan is continually modified and is highly flexible. Gosplan did not work and will not work.
IN relation to the banning of parties. Of course real world circumstances might dictate that under conditions of emergency parties which openly called for the violent overthrow of socialism must be banned. But what I meant is that there is in principle no reason why such parties should not exist (and just as importantly, that many different parties committed to socialism existed - not just one 'vanguard').
I'm rather perplexed by the way that you've described the possible banning of capitalist restorationist parties. If they campaigned like any other parties and didn't use force - then why ban them? If these parties can win over the majority in a democratic socialist party then that is democracy isn't it. What's the alternative? We're back to the guys in dark glasses and uniforms in the presidential palace. Do you really think that socialism can be forced on the majority and maintained by force? We know that Stalinism can - but who the fuck would want that?
andy newman wrote:
Well we don't know what will happen in the future, do we Modernity
certainly not, and we should remember that all shades of socialists have a rather dismal record of predicting future events
actually I wrote "nearly all examples of "socialism from above" have failed" not "all examples", a slight but subtle distinction
but that wasn't necessarily the question: is "socialism from above" even desirable?
I think that any fair reading of history would suggest that "socialism from above" is naturally destined to failure, and didn't Marx say something like "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself"??
or do modern day "Marxists" just cherry pick Marx's words when it suits them?
Modernity: you say "didn't Marx say something like "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself"?? or do modern day "Marxists" just cherry pick Marx's words when it suits them?"
But that supports my point, the historical materialist method is a scientific method of analyis of society, from which certain conclusions can be drawn.
BUt the actual "words" that Marx wrote have no predictive value, and while "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself" may be true and desirable, we don't actually know that it is.
I don't have a quasi religious faith in marxism that settles issues by reference to the scared texts.
Ed - i am not suggesting that a centraly planned command economy is the *only* alternative to capitalism, but equally I am not sure that it isn't *an* alternative to capitalism, even if less desirable.
On the issue of restriction of liberties, you see the issue is more complicated, because socialism is not only undermined by overthrow by force, but also undermined by individual selfishness, and the tendency of market forces to assert themselves. The question of the economics of th transition period where socialism coexists with capitalism is a difficult one, and there was an interesting book about it by Bukharin and Preobrazinsky. It may be necessary not only to supress parties seeking to overthrow by force, but also those seeking to undermine the planned aspects of the economy by deceitful black arts intended to boost the market parts of the economy, and undoubtedly encouraged from those parts of the world still under coaitalist rule.
The example of the DDR in the 1950s for example showed that the West German state's use of subsidies to exageratedly boost the West Berlin economy - for political and not economic reasons, and exagerated propaganda about the living standards achievable in the west - led to a bleeding of skilled workers out of the DDR. We see the similar processes at work in Cuba and Venezuala today.
So the SED were faced with a choice of either building the wall or facing the collapse of their economy. Of course the societal model of the USSR was also disastrously copied by the SED, and many of the restrictions of freedom were excessive and self inflicted. But the negative features of the DDR were partly the result of deliberte manipulation from Bonn and Washington, as well as mistakes in Berlin and Moscow.
Some of the processes at work to undermine the DDR would also be at work to undermine any society that was outside the capitalist camp, however democatic the original coming to power and however pluralistic your intentions.
Ed: "You don't have to be a Hayekian to realise that central planners cannot possibly plan production and distribution for advanced economies in which tens of millions of people live. There is no such thing as perfect knowledge. "
But this also applies to the banks and capitalist corporations, so a centraly planned economy can be as efficient as capitalism.
Modernity: "didn't Marx say something like "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself"??"
On a world scale to move to a stable sociaetyy this is probably also true, but in the trasniation period where socialist governments co-exist with capitalist ones it alost certainly is an over simplification.
For example, Russia was not socialism from below, ever since the introduction of war communism in 1920 (?) or earlier. But many of us assume that the degenertaion could have been stopped if there has been a workers' government in Germany, so as a holding operation "socialism from above" has its place.
And given that the transition form feudaism to capitalism took 1000 years, who is to say how long a holding opertaion might need to take.
Phil;
I'm not being funny, but you seem not to quite understand what "communism" in the original Marxist sense, actually is.
No, VP, I'm well aware of how Marx used the word 'communism'. My point is just that people who call themselves Communist are usually in the Comintern tradition (just as people who call themselves Leninists are usually Trots and people who call themselves Marxist-Leninists are generally Maoists). Put it this way, I'm sure many SWP members are 'communists' in the sense of believing in communism as a (very distant) post-revolutionary goal - and I'm sure many SWP hacks are 'Stalinists' in the sense of being unscrupulous machine politicians. But they're not Communists in the sense that Nina Temple was a Communist, and they're not Stalinists in the sense that Enver Hoxha was a Stalinist.
In any case, if we were using Lenin's own vocabulary presumably we'd call ourselves Social Democrats...
andy newman wrote:
BUt the actual "words" that Marx wrote have no predictive value, and while "the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself" may be true and desirable, we don't actually know that it is.
It is fairly clear that Marx’s sentiment in the above phrase is to suggest that emancipation (socialism) is the product of the working-classes’ own actions and not the gift of dictators to bestow.
Marx clearly believed in socialism from below, which is in stark contrast to the notion of “socialism from above”.
Marx probably appreciated that the concentration of power in the hands of a few was corrupting and would lead to degenerate regimes.
Surprise, surprise, attempts to bring socialism about from above have resulted in mass murder, millions displaced, famine, force industrialisation, etc and power concentrated in the hands of a few.
So all in all, his words were very prophetic.
But Marx’s sentiments didn't seem to sink in, and now the notion of socialism is tainted and associated with the memory of corrupt dictatorships, mass murder and repression.
Perhaps people should have listened to Marx’s words in the first place, and the sooner that part of the Left jettison their admiration and nostalgia for past Stalinist regimes, the better.
The issue is, Modernity - whatever Marx may or may not have believed, and whether or not we agree with him, is not as important as whether the actually existing historical process, (includung our conscious human partipation in history) supports that conclusion.
Like it or not the crimes of Stalin, the gulags, the forced collectivisation and the suppresion of the oppressed nationalities within the USSR are part of our movement.
I have no admiratioon or nostalgia for those crimes, but equally I don't think the trot cop out of "it wasn't anything to do with us, it was the Stalinists" isn't very convincing.
So either we draw the conclusion that we abandon the socialist project altogether because of the risk of tyranny, or we contextualise, understand, and counter these tendencies within the left.
I agree with Andy on most of these points. I also think that socialists would do well to consider the policies and prospects of Bukharin's "right oppostion" in the 1920/30s. A good starter is Steve Cohen's Bukharian and The Bolshevik Revolution.
Its my opinion that this was the only tendency that really offered any historical alternative to what became known as Stalinism in that period.
Thanks Simon.
Certainly Nickolai Bukharin is the most humane and likeable of the old Bolsheviks, and a much more formidable theoretician than he is given credit for now. His visit to Britain in 1931 had a huge impact in attracting intellectuals to the party.
I would recommend another book from what at first sight looks like a strange source, but SWP member Mike Haynes wrote a very excellent book about Bukharin, very sympathetic to the project of the right opposition. Indeed I remember the SWP called a special day school to root out the heresy!
andy newman wrote:
or we contextualise, understand, and counter these tendencies within the left.
countering these tendencies is surely the point, and that cannot be done if you take "socialism from above" as either your starting point or as a desirable quest
the tyrantical tendencies are inherent in "socialism from above", and people would do well to understand Marx's sentiment and the historical record which proves his point.
time after time power is placed in the hands of a few, a noble, heroic few and surprise surprise dictatorship of the proletariat becomes dictatorship of the clique or despot
history is a good guide to these things, and if where slightly scientific we shouldn't repeat the same action again and again and expect a different outcome, thus "socialism from above" should be thrown in the dustbin of history along with other redundant ideas
But as Goethe said: “Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie und grün des Lebens goldner Baum”
It seems you haven’t really absorbed the living spirit of historical materialism, as opposed to schematic book driven recipes.
Actually existing historical circumstances don’t permit this tidy polarisation between socialism “from above” and “from below”. Let us look at just one of many examples – chosen because the participants had very few real choices.
During the 1970s the New Jewel movement was engaged in behaviour I am sure you would have approved of, literacy schemes, self help schemes among the poor and propaganda for socialism in Granada. But it became widely known that the corrupt government of Eric Gairy had brought in advisers from Pinochet’s Chile, and was planning to murder all the opposition, so in 1979 the NJM took power in a bloodless coup. This could only be done “from above”, as the economic and cultural base of the island did not permit any other option. Their choice – be killed or take power “from above”.
Subsequently they made enormous strides forward in a short time, abolishing illiteracy within 4 years, developing an airport, mass meetings to involve and educate the population.
The tragic decent of the revolution into violence and an American invasion was not due to some inevitable internal dynamic, but due to deliberate destablisation of their country by sanctions, sabotage, military threats and actual violence from the Americans.
The trouble with your position is that it ahistorically (and perhaps unintentionally) compares the liberal democracies favourably (despite their inequality, reliance upon imperialism , and export of violence) compared to developing countries who are striving to reduce inequality, improve living standards and educate and involve the population, but who are starting with material disadvantages, and coping with deliberate destabilisation from the imperialists.
Similarly, given the huge strides forward in Venezuela, which by the way includes mass popular participation, then only by closing your eyes to reality can you dispute the value of the Bolivarian government coming to power “from above”
I look forward to being enlightened about the historical successes of “socialism from below.” Especially as only a very selective reading of the Russian revolution wuld put it into that category, what are you left with? The Paris commune? That turned out well didn’t it.
I am not disputing that mass activity and popular democracy are wonderful, and for the eventual establishment of stable socialism may be indispensable, but you simply use it as a stick to beat comrades making the best available choices in a less than ideal world.
Modernity,
You sound more like a cultist than a Marxist with analysis like that. The bulk of Marx's work involved an analysis of the emerging capitalism. His writings about the future proletarian revolution were mere hypotheses. To proclaim the truth of these predictions in the face of actual historical experience is more the conduct of a relgious zealot than a scientific socialist.
There's a pretty decent critique of the Draperite nonsense of "Socialism from Below" here:
http://www.marxsite.com/bustelofrom%20below.htm
(and I know Andys had a little spat with that author in the past...)
Indeed, Bustelo and I had a bust up over the veracity of the Sheridan tapes.
This article is very good, and shows the value of jumoing right out of the idealist categories "socialism from above" and "socialism from below" and instead talk about class interests and the actuallt events of the class struggle.
unfortunetly the semi-anarchist "from below" thing has taken deep hold in the British far left,
andy newman wrote:
The trouble with your position is that it ahistorically
quite the opposite, it is historically proven with numerous examples that if the working class are not full and equal participants in a political struggle then such a process is largely destined to degenerate, and that is the problem with "socialism from above"
it is the problem with the notion of the leaders and the led , which is ingrained in much of the Left's thinking, probably a residue of some crude vanguardism and the class nature of much of the leadership of the Left (many are the rebellious offspring of today's elites or just middle-class malcontents)
I think many on the Left have a real problem treating the working classes as equals, and full participants, rather they’d prefer them used as fodder for their "imaginary" geopolitical struggles, or to be brought on like bit part actors in some theatre when it suits the political “leadership”
That probably explains many of the Left’s problems in Britain and parts of Europe.
PS: Simon Hughes, having met your namesake you strike me as very similar, so please forgive me if I ignore your inane and petty comments
They say a picture tells a thousand words, and it certainly applies here. I don't know about Mr.Brown, but the opening sentence "Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili at least advocated socialism in one country." is where everything goes pear-shaped. For the picture used with this text is not that of "Stalin with kids" (http://www.davidosler.com/stalin%20with%20kids.jpg), but of a group of east german young bolsheviks (whatever they were called) making some kind of public display of portrait of Stalin. It is a very nice example of Stalin's cult of personality in a country far away from USSR. Do I need to say more? (In reality, no matter what Stalin "advocated", the main problem with communism is that whatever commies say is almost always an exact opposition of what they actually do.)