Metal Reviews

Yes, the sad truth.

I disagree; there has to be some room for authoritarian tendencies in the leftist parties as long as we're talking about practical implementation of policy here.

I'm not saying that Pol Pot had the right idea, but there are certain elements in any given society which are at base corrupt and to allow them participation in the efforts to build a mankind based on principles of morality as opposed to monetary incentive would be tantamount to tending to a mixed flock of both sheep and wolves. These elements would spoil any mass-scale implementation of participatory democracy.

where the radical left parties need to unite is in their vision of ending class divisions.

for that matter, this elevation of the individual as the supreme unit of all society is what consumption culture was created to exploit in the first place. I don't see how preserving it will contribute to the undoing of this culture.

To me, the idea of participatory democracy by its nature has to allow space for the full expression of individualism. Everybody's opinion has to be expressed, and decisions have to be made by an organic process reached through the consensus of individuals. This is impossible if we approach it with the assumption that certain perspectives need to be suppressed already formed.

There are not bad, immoral individuals- or, there are, but that is not the point. The point is that the structures that govern society lead to corrupting outcomes and inequalities of wealth and power. Ultimately, the problem is that capitalist business structures distance people from their surroundings, and because everything is commodified, people are simply unable to consider moral incentives over monetary ones. The answer, therefore, is to democratise ownership of the means of production. Everybody who works at, and who is affected by, the running of an enterprise, should have a say, as an individual, in how it is run and how its products are distributed.

This principle is quite orthodox but if we emphasise it, it goes to show that the vision is actually a libertarian one that has individual expression at its core.

But if you rely on a revolutionary vanguard a la Lenin to reconfigure ownership structures as described above, then it defeats the object. The authoritarian gesture that is required to bring about the libertarian situation is like an Original Sin that cannot ever be overcome. This, IMO, is why Leninism turned out the way it did.

In my opinion, Leninism turned out the way it did because of Stalin. Russia circa 1922? Most progressive state in the world. Russia circa 1925? Different place entirely.

Not that Lenin wasn't a cruel person, or that he was a perfect person, but his past actions pointed towards the possibility of him steering the state in the correct direction, as well as his markedly progressive attitudes. Stalin just wanted power. I agree that the problem with the vanguard-party mode of communism is that authoritarian structures such as that will inevitably invite the kind of imbeciles and lunatics that ended up running the Union (see Brezhnev), but had Lenin not died too soon, I think we would have seen quite the different future for the Union.

The problem with the libertarian assessment of communism is that the monetary incentive having just recently left people, they'll still have the positive memory of it. There will inevitably be those who would seek to control others with false whispers; said people can't just be dealt with by dismantling the framework of capitalism. Now this argument- that of yours, I mean- would make perfect sense if humans were rational beings, but we are not. That much is evident as soon as you look at politics. If humans were rational, then I would agree with you that the authoritarian method towards Socialism is not necessary, but for the most part humans are irrational, and when they make rational choices (see Evo Morales' election in Bolivia) it is mostly due to irrational reasons.

In America at least, the transition to socialism is completely impossible without either an uprising with a revolutionary vanguard party or voting into power both a Socialist president and a Socialist House + Senate.

So an elite's going to take away the people's free will for their own good. Gee, that'll end well.

Is it more desirable that class equality is created or that everyone gets to choose which serpentine embezzler runs their country next?

EDIT - a note: I espouse the vanguard party form of socialism merely because it seems the most sensible and possible in the context of modern America; as I noted before, voting a socialist into the president's office wouldn't be enough and neither would any other simple voting-based solution that I can think of. The situation may be different in parts of Europe, where 'socialist' isn't a word that people use to mean 'evil,' and the huge shift in South America towards Socialist governments proves that such a solution is -definitely- possible in other parts of the world, but I'm looking at the current American situation and just sighing and shaking my head.

I wouldn't espouse it if it didn't look like it was the only way anything could ever happen around here.

I think the Soviet Councils were progressive; like you say, probably the most progressive form of governance in the world at the time. But whilst many of them supported the Bolsheviks, they are ultimately very different things. The "all power to the Soviets" slogan was justified and progressive as well, but when it is being espoused by a particular political party then it is almost a contradiction in terms. If the Bolsheviks were to seize power on behalf of the Soviets, as they did, then that immediately undermines the point of them as autonomous.

You could say that the Bolsheviks were seizing power with the intent of transferring it to the Soviets, and I'm sure this happened in many places, but I believe that historical experience tells us such a process is hardly ever to be completed. There will be a reaction eventually from those running the process, because power corrupts.

Of course, the imperialist powers invading Russia shortly after the revolution has to take a huge amount of responsibility for the disruption of the process. But some blame also has to lie with the very principle of revolutionary vanguardism. Stalin didn't just come out of nowhere; he had figured heavily in Bolshevik leadership right up to the point Lenin died.

The virtue of the libertarian approach is that you don't have to look for macro-level revolution to see progress (and this goes right back to my arguments with Goat). If that's what you limit yourself to, then you have to fall back on conspiratorial pessimism. Every day there are struggles in workplaces over exactly the issues we are discussing; economic democracy, participation, egalitarianism, the reduction of the profit motive. We have to embrace these, and not simply minimise them because they aren't part of a wider revolutionary plan.

Also, in what sense do you mean Morales' election is the result of irrational reasons?

Oh, arguably Latin America's embrasure of Socialism is not as a result of its benefits, but rather as a result of it being the operative opposite of what USA intervention had forced on it for the past 50 or so years again and again and again. I don't mean Morales' election in particular is an example of this, but rather taken as a whole.

For that matter, Lenin wanted Stalin removed as early as 1922. I don't think revolutionary vanguardism is innately corrupted and a useless method. It's perhaps not the best method out there, but it's the only one that would work for somewhere like America.

The problem with the incremental process you speak of is that the way it's weighed in America it is literally impossible for people to re-work the system in such a way that electoral socialism could be implemented. The electoral college would have to be done away with; vast sections of the constitution, vast swathes of past supreme court rulings, vast amounts of structure.

The American system is too corrupt to reform, too consolidated in the hands of the puppetmasters.

But in the US a revolution would be physically impossible, for a start. The population of the US that is a revolutionary socialist must be about 0.00005% or something. Many people in the US are happy with the system the way it is and that can't all be attributed to false consciousness or the superstructure.

Change has to come from the subjects of change; it can't be imposed. Sure, the system is entirely institutionalised, but laws can be made unenforcable and thus defeated. What has to happen is for people to simply start implementing a more progressive way of running their immediate environments. e.g. workers demanding more say in the way their company is run, in defiance of existing legislation. Only once this starts happening in more than one place can an incremental model begin to function. Sure that is difficult, but the alternative is simply impossible.

In Europe, despite a massive crisis of capitalism, the radical left is dying on its arse. That shows how far things have to go before there is a significant enough socialist movement to even think about what you are suggesting.

I'm busy trying to delude myself into the possibility of socialism in america, do not pop my dream-bubble pleaseeee

anyway, I suppose you have a point. After all, Lenin himself did say that you couldn't work socialism into a thoroughly-developed capitalist country that way. On that subject he was more accurate than Marx.

Meh, there's no chance of implementing anything before the collapse of first-world civilization/ecological collapse anyway, so I'll just go on with my local education and other programs until that time comes, and hopefully something better can be built out of the wreckage.

Um I'm not thinking capitalism is going to be collapsing anytime soon. The fact that this most recent collapse didn't phase it should be a testament to something. This collapse was all about unregulated markets yet nothing was done to regulate or put those back in check. As for the ecological trouble, capitalism will hop on that and make quite a profit saving the world before it simply collapse in on itself.

If anything get active in groups. Next year I'm going to see if I can help my campus's muslim population. They seem to like to protest Iraq and Israel quite a bit so that's a start. ISO on my campus sucks. Sitting around and waiting is definitely not the right approach.

Hm, Unite Against Fascism are just going to turn Griffin and co. into martyrs if they turn up at every press conference and disrupt it forcefully. I disagree with it, Griffin's right that it's anti-democratic and anti-free speech, and it'll win them more votes and make the left look like a bunch of thugs. Let them have a press conference and make sure there are sensible people there to ask the right questions.

Edit: Christ, the representative of UAF they got on was fucking hysterical. Complete facepalm.

There's nothing wrong with throwing a few well-deserved eggs.

Sure, violence might martyr them, but being hit by eggs makes them look like undignified twats.

When Peter Mandelson got paint thrown on him, the reaction wasn't to rally round him, it was hearty lolz all round. As it is with Nick Griffin. But yeah, UAF can be a bit hysterical.

(I assume that's the incident you're referring to)



Generally agreed with this. The SWP (a "vanguardist" party if ever there was one) tries to support any and all lefty activism inc. anti-racism, anti-war, pro-union etc. etc., and link them all up into one struggle.

That's an entirely valid strategy, but the problem is that they are too uptight about socialism, too dogmatic, too stuck in the past, so try as they might it ain't happening because people don't want to join.

If they loosened up, and stopped getting so hung up on the correct way to do vanguard socialism, (admitted defeat, would actuall be a nice step), the radical left could actually start tapping in to the massive well of people that care about ethical trade, globalisation, the environment, but not about socialism.

In my and (I guess) also your opinion these issues are best addressed by socialist ideas rather than capitalist hi-jacking (which ethical trade is). But, these things have to be engaged with even if it means dropping a lot of the dogma.

An actual real left party cannot be as puritanical about socialism and especially not as vanguardist as organisations like the SWP are.

Well, forcing them to leave the area and attacking their vehicle counts as violence in some ways, even if it wasn't an actual attack directly on their persons. If it was one egg, the reaction would be lolz indeed, but it wasn't, it was a mob, and it doesn't make people say 'ha, look at the BNP thugs next to Griffin', it makes them consider the Left thuggish. Which this was! Stopping free speech is arguable more fascist than questioning immigration policy, after all.

There's another BNP press conference in Manchester this or next Wednesday, you can be sure it'll turn into a scrummage. Maybe what politics needs is a more militant edge, but there must be a better way of making the BNP look twats.

And the SNP needs to rebrand itself with a few others. The New Socialists, perhaps?

I suppose it depends on how you view the likely end result of the constantly expanding human population/constantly diminishing biodiversity. I view it as the precursor to probable collapse of the first-world lifestyle, which as we all know is -definitely- unsustainable.

if that were to happen a fascist dictatorship would be more likely to arise out of that kind of rubble than a socialist society, but a socialist society is more likely to form as a result of organized struggle against a fascist dictatorship.

One thing I've found helpful in talking to others about socialism is not to use Marxist buzzwords/phrases like 'imperialism,' or 'surplus value.' If you can reword those ideas then people are a lot more receptive to the overall message.

ISO on my campus isn't that bad; they participate in a lot of protests but I don't think they're very good at marketing themselves. That logo is also very old hat. Someone needs to make a new symbol for socialism that isn't a star or a red flag or a hammer and sickle or a raised fist.

Or maybe just The Bawbags. Those fucking bawbags. Anyway, nice as it is to see a repulsive hatemonger like Griffin getting pelted with eggs, I agree with Zad that continuing to prevent him from talking (and thus being taken the fuck down by decent reporters as he tries to skirt round his party's inherent facism) is only going to make the twats out there that are leaning towards the BNP as some sort of answer more sympathetic to their cause.

So less dogma, more frankness and openness because people can see how capitalism is screwing shit up?

Fucking British politics and my ignorance of it... *kicks rock*

The first fact is; there IS a backlash against capitalism and people are becoming much more sceptical of it.

The second fact is; The left bloc in the EU parliament still got an ass kicking at the Euro elections anyway.

For any lefty, those two facts in conjunction are immensely depressing and worrying.

People are looking for different ideas and visions, but the existing radical left is simply unable to supply it.

So yeah, this goes for the US swp too as I have met those guys a few times. This certainly doesn't apply just to Britain. Less dogma, because it turns people right off. No damn hammer and sickles and shit. It's like saying "Hey guys! You won't like us lol!".

They need to chillax about Lenin and Trotsky and connect more with ethical trade and environmental types. Perhaps they are not proper socialists but the number of people that are is puny.

Someone should do also something about the skinhead bouncers in bomber jackets that stand around taking photos of anti-BNP protestors to put on sites like Redwatch (google it, I think posting a link will violate some forum rules).

He's in no position to be complaining about free speech and democracy...

Forcibly disrupting conferences is probably counter-productive, but I'd support eggings all the way. In fact, wouldn't it be hilarious if he could get covered by eggs in every public appearance during his time as an MEP

Agreed, people need to bring socialism up to date and get their heads out of the past. There will be no revolution, guys, so pining for one is just wasting everyone's time whilst the right successfully blames centre-left expenditure for the economic woes.

Depressingly, people I talk to regarding this aren't supporting the Tories seemingly just because of their lack of apparent policies. If Cameron gets his arse in gear and reveals a new plan for a new Britain or some similar bullshit then the left might as well just go to sleep for the next decade.