ragged trousered philanthropist

Sarah Jane

2011-04-20T13:27:00.003+02:00

Oh this is so unfair. First the Brig, now Sarah Jane. It is terribly sad news for Doctor Who fans.

I first saw the show as a child. Tom and Liz were a part of my Saturdays.

Goodbye Sarah Jane, my favourite companion.

Elisabeth Sladen, 1946-2011.

Middle Eastern Musings

2011-02-28T08:04:00.003+01:00

The events in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt and Libya have thrilled this old Red.

Workers, ignoring the huge dangers they face from the armed forces and the machinery of the state (e.g police) have taken to the streets to show their opposition to the present regimes there.

I haven't felt this thrilled since 1989-91, when the workers of Eastern Europe and Soviet Russia did something similar and ended the despotic Stalinist regimes. (A cheer after the murder of the workers by the Chinese dictatorship.)

The nicest thing about this is there are bound to be a whole bunch of sheiks and shites, princes and ponces, wondering if they are going to be ousted as well. Let the ruling classes tremble at the prospect of revolution, to ad-lib Marx and Engels!

What is happening now is a lovely reminder that how we live need not be how we live tomorrow. Systems are not set in stone and everlasting. History is the story of change and of people making that change. Just think: a working class which understands socialism, wants it, is organised democratically and politically by and for its interests.... It would be unstoppable.

Doctor Who: The Brigadier Remembers

2011-02-23T17:21:00.001+01:00

Nicholas Courtney - "the Brigadier", who passed away yesterday.

the SPGB up to no good again

2010-12-10T11:53:00.001+01:00

One of those tails for the weekend.

Just When You Thought Fox Couldn't Get Any Worse

2010-10-22T06:34:00.001+02:00

It's hard to credit these people as intelligent and sane....

Bent Larsen (1935-2010)

2010-09-25T05:54:00.003+02:00

The Great Dane of chess died after a short illness at the start of September. His importance for popularising chess in Denmark cannot be exaggerated.

Slack Bastard

2010-09-25T05:46:00.002+02:00

No, not Anarchist Andy in Aus', but yours truly.

Blogging isn't the fun it used to be. The paucity of posts here for 2010 should reveal that! Mind you, I have spent most of my summer working on and playing chess.

The chess was great, the highlight being the Copenhagen Chess Festival, where there were more GMs than you could wave an inflatable pawn at. I had a few drinks and chats in the Hotel bar with legendary Lajos Portisch; he was in the world elite for donkeys years and is very kind towards the average chess fan. Peter Svidler, one of the present top 10, stopped by for an exhibition match against Denmark's nr. 1 Peter Heine Nielsen. It was really inspirational to see all these great players in action.

Doctor Who Monsters and Villains

2010-07-21T05:15:00.002+02:00

The Guardian has entered "nerd corner" as it tries to compile a list of the villains and monsters of Doctor Who. Needless to say, the fans have obliged!

I have spotted some flaws and omissions already, even on the updated list. (The benefits of having seen and heard every TV story transmitted.)

Some of the comments make interesting reading:

The North Sea gas seaweed monster in "Fury from the Deep" was the scariest of all the Doctor Who creatures, for me.
At the time, in 1968 when this was aired, Britain was converting from town gas, to natural gas from the North Sea, so this was a very topical story, and as a 12 year-old, it all seemed so much closer to home, so much more real, and more likely than beings from outer space.
The creature came out of the plumbing, and gassed people, before taking them over and transforming them into seaweed monsters, themselves.
Absolutely terrifying!

and:

Bonnie Langford appears to have been missed off the list.

A Liverpool Banner

2010-06-03T17:28:00.005+02:00

the Guardian published the above pic today, upon the news that Benitez has left the Reds. I am certain the Inveresk Street Ingrate will like it because he has an occasional series on his blog called "Mixing Football and Politics".

And - World Chess Champion

2010-05-12T23:55:00.002+02:00

Anand retains title!

I followed the exciting last game with some friends via the Internet Chess Club and over several bottles of red wine and some cheese and biscuits. Great fun!

Anand is only one of two world champs I have seen. I first saw him when I played the British U-18 championship back in the 80s. (The other champion is Alexander Khalifman.)

the World Chess Championship

2010-04-21T10:48:00.002+02:00

The wait is almost over as Topalov (Bulgaria) and Anand (India) go head to head in the world chess championship in a few days, in Sofia.

I hope that Anand wins, not least because he has the Dane Peter Heine Nielsen on his team of helpers.

What Have They Done?

2010-04-19T00:01:00.004+02:00

The Dalek is, of course, one of the most famous sci-fi baddies. The new series of Dr.Who has brought them back, only in a revamped design. I think they look horrible. I don't understand why the crew felt the need to alter the classic Ray Cusick design from 1963-4. (The Radio Times website has more on the new design.)

More Quotes for the "Lenin Reader"

2010-03-30T08:21:00.003+02:00

The ever tireless Dave B has put the following together; worth a gander and remembering for use in debates with Leninists and anti-communists alike.

Doctor Who - series 5

2010-03-29T11:50:00.003+02:00

The wait is nearly over! Matt Smith will be materialising on BBC TV over the Easter weekend.

I have never seen him before so I don't know what to make of him as an actor. The few clips I have seen of him as the Doctor would seem we are in for more of the Tennant-esque dialogue, which I hope not. I like the Doctor to have different personalities with each actor (e.g. crabby grandfather - Hartnell; dandy - Jon Pertwee).

Needless to say, I will be reviewing the episodes each week; and I have the Ecclestone and Tennant years left to review too.

Vasily Smyslov (II)

2010-03-29T10:16:00.001+02:00

Smyslov was well known for his singing too. What a treat to have heard him sing with Mark Taimanov accompanying him on the piano, like at the tournament in Venice 1950.

Vasily Smyslov (1921-2010)

2010-03-27T20:41:00.004+01:00

Former world chess champion Smyslov passed away today. I have been reading the New in Chess book of the Botvinnik-Smyslov world championship matches from 1954, 57 and 58; the games and annotations are terrific.

Anna Sharevich

2010-03-19T23:11:00.003+01:00

Woman Grandmaster Anna Sharevich from Belorussia is the most photographed female player on the chess circuit. One thing is certain, though - do not let her sing! I think my chess club should use this song as torture, for punishment of those who lose....

Greatest Pop Videos From the 80s (part 2) - aka "He Might Be a Bit Crazy, But He's Nobility!"

2010-02-06T18:53:00.005+01:00

Adam Ant is someone I respect in two ways: he is creative and he is very open about his mental health issues. I really loved the twin drum sound and Adam's dandy dress when I was a kid.

the SPGB Executive Committee in session

2010-02-06T12:53:00.002+01:00

The Cadbury's Smash advert, with the laughing martians, is a true TV classic.

My Favourite Monty Python Song

2010-02-01T15:32:00.003+01:00

Cleese and co. know that a socialist/communist society will have no need of exchange, of money. ("Keep your marxist ways.")

Greatest Pop Videos From the 80s (part 1)

2010-02-01T05:13:00.002+01:00

Cold War. Spitting Image. Phil Collins and Genesis's great humour. This.

Howard Zinn

2010-01-29T08:25:00.003+01:00

The radical Howard Zinn died recently. A good eulogy would be the following essay he wrote - "Je ne suis pas Marxiste". (Hat tip: Inveresk Street Ingrate )

For a long time I thought that there were important and useful ideas in Marxist philosophy and political economy that should be protected from the self-righteous cries on the right that "Marxism is dead,” as well as from the arrogant assumptions of the commissars of various dictatorships that their monstrous regimes represented “Marxism.” This piece was written for Z Magazine, and reprinted in my book Failure To Quit (Common Courage Press, 1993).

Not long ago, someone referred to me publicly as a "Marxist professor.” In fact, two people did. One was a spokesman for “Accuracy in Academia,” worried that there were “five thousand Marxist faculty members” in the United States (which diminished my importance, but also my loneliness). The other was a former student I encountered on a shuttle to New York, a fellow traveller. I felt a bit honoured. A “Marxist” means a tough guy (making up for the pillowy connotation of the “professor”), a person of formidable politics, someone not to be trifled with, someone who knows the difference between absolute and relative surplus value, and what is commodity fetishism, and refuses to buy it.

I was also a bit taken aback (a position which yoga practitioners understand well, and which is good for you about once a day). Did “Marxist” suggest that I kept a tiny stature of Lenin in my drawer and rubbed his head to discover what policy to follow to intensify the contradictions o the imperialist camp, or what songs to sing if we were sent away to such a camp?

Also, I remembered that famous statement of Marx: “Je ne suis pas Marxiste.” I always wondered why Marx, an English-speaking German who had studied Greek for his doctoral dissertation, would make such an important statement in French. But I am confident that he did make it, and I think I know what brought it on. After Marx and his wife Jenny had moved to London, where they lost three of their six children to illness and lived in squalor for many years, they were often visited by a young German refugee named Pieper. This guy was a total “noodnik” (there are “noodniks” all along the political spectrum stationed ten feet apart, but there is a special Left Noodnik, hired by the police, to drive revolutionaries batty). Pieper (I swear, I did not make him up) hovered around Marx gasping with admiration, once offered to translate Das Kapital into English, which he could barely speak, and kept organising Karl Marx Clubs, exasperating Marx more and more by insisting that every word Marx uttered was holy. And one day Marx caused Pieper to have a severe abdominal cramp when he said to him: “Thanks for inviting me to speak at your Karl Marx Club. But I can’t. I’m not a Marxist.”

That was a high point in Marx’s life, and also a good starting point for considering Marx’s ideas seriously without becoming a Pieper (or a Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, or any born-again Marxist who argues that every word in Volume One, Two and Three, and especially in the Grundrisse, is unquestionably true). Because it seems to me (risking that this may lead to my inclusion in the second edition of Norman Podhoretz’s Register of Marxists, Living or Dead), Marx had some very useful thoughts.

For instance, we find in Marx’s short but powerful Theses on Feuerbach the idea that philosophers, who always considered their job was to interpret the world, should now set about changing it, in their writings, and in their lives.

Marx set a good example himself. While history has treated him as a secondary scholar, spending all his time in the library of the British Museum, Marx was a tireless activist all his life. He was expelled from Germany, from Belgium, from France, was arrested and put on trial in Cologne.

Exiled to London, he kept his ties with revolutionary movements all over the world. The poverty-ridden flats that he and Jenny Marx and their children occupied became busy centres of political activity, gathering places for political refugees from the continent.

True, many of his writings were impossibly abstract (especially those on political economy; my poor head at the age of nineteen swam, or rather drowned, with ground rent and differential rent, the falling rate of profit and the organic composition of capital). But he departed from that constantly to confront the events of 1848, the Paris Commune, rebellion in India, the Civil War in the United States.

The manuscripts he wrote at the age of twenty-five while an exile in Paris (where he hung out in cafes with Engels, Proudhon, Bakunin, Heine, Stirner), often dismissed by hard-line fundamentalists as “immature”, contain some of the most profound ideas. His critique of capitalism in those Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts did not need any mathematical proofs of “surplus value.” It simply stated (but did not state it simply) that the capitalist system violates whatever it means to be a human. The industrial system Marx saw developing in Europe not only robbed them of the products of their work, it estranged working people from their own creative responsibilities, from one another as human beings, from the beauties of nature, from their own true selves. They lived out their lives not according to their own inner needs, but according to the necessities of survival.

This estrangement from self and others, this alienation from all that was human, could not be overcome by an intellectual effort, by something in the mind. What was needed was a fundamental, revolutionary change in society, to create the conditions – a short workday, a rational use of the earth’s natural wealth and people’s natural talents, a just distribution of the fruits of human labour, a new social consciousness – for the flowering of human potential, for a leap into freedom as it had never been experienced in history.

Marx understood how difficult it was to achieve this, because, no matter how “revolutionary” we are, the weight of tradition, habit, the accumulated mis-education of generations, “weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.”

Marx understood politics. He saw that behind political conflicts were questions of class: who gets what. Behind benign bubbles of togetherness (We the people…our country…national security), the powerful and the wealthy would legislate on their own behalf. He noted (in The Eighteenth Brumaire, a biting, brilliant, analysis of the Napoleonic seizure of power after the 1848 Revolution in France) how a modern constitution could proclaim absolute rights, which were then limited by marginal notes (he might have been predicting the tortured constructions of the First Amendment in our own Constitution), reflecting the reality of domination by one class over another regardless of the written word.

He saw religion, not just negatively as “the opium of the people,” but positively as the “sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.” This helps us understand the mass appeal of the religious charlatans of the television screen, as well as the work of Liberation Theology in joining the soulfulness of religion to the energy of revolutionary movements in miserably poor countries.

Marx was often wrong, often dogmatic, often a “Marxist.” He was sometimes too accepting of imperial domination as “progressive,” a way of bringing capitalism faster to the third world, and therefore hastening, he thought, the road to socialism. (But he staunchly supported the rebellions of the Irish, the Poles, the Indians, the Chinese, against colonial control.)

He was too insistent that the industrial working class must be the agent of revolution, and that this must happen first in the advanced capitalist countries. He was unnecessarily dense in his economic analysis (too much education in German universities, maybe) when his clear, simple insight into exploitation was enough: that no matter how valuable were the things workers produced, those who controlled the economy could pay them as little as they liked, and enrich themselves with the difference.

Personally, Marx was sometimes charming, generous, self-sacrificing; at other times arrogant, obnoxious, abusive. He loved his wife and children, and they clearly adored him, but he also may have fathered the son of their German housekeeper, Lenchen.

The anarchist, Bakunin, his rival in the International Workingmen’s Association, said of Marx: “I very much admired him for his knowledge and for his passionate and earnest devotion to the cause of the proletariat. But…our temperaments did not harmonize. He called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right. I called him vain, treacherous, and morose, and I was right.” Marx’s daughter Eleanor, on the other hand, called her father “…the cheeriest, gayest soul that ever breathed, a man brimming over with humour".

He epitomised his own warning, that people, however advanced in their thinking, were weighted down by the limitations of their time. Still, Marx gave us acute insights, inspiring visions. I can’t imagine Marx being pleased with the “socialism” of the Soviet Union. He would have been a dissident in Moscow, I like to think. His idea of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was the Paris Commune of 1871, where endless arguments in the streets and halls of the city gave it the vitality of a grass roots democracy, where overbearing officials could be immediately booted out of office by popular vote, where the wages of government leaders could not exceed that of ordinary workers, where the guillotine was destroyed as a symbol of capital punishment. Marx once wrote in the New York Times that he did not see how capital punishment could be justified “in a society glorifying in its civilisation.”

Perhaps the most precious heritage of Marx’s thought is his internationalism, his hostility to the nation state, his insistence that ordinary people have no nation they must obey and give their lives for in war, that we are all linked to one another across the globe as human beings. This is not only a direct challenge to modern capitalist nationalism, with its ugly evocations of hatred for “the enemy” abroad, and its false creation of a common interest for all within certain artificial borders. It is also a rejection of the narrow nationalism of contemporary “Marxist” states, whether the Soviet Union, or China, or any of the others.

Marx had something important to say not only as a critic of capitalism, but as a warning to revolutionaries, who, he wrote in The German Ideology, had better revolutionise themselves if they intend to do that to society. He offered an antidote to the dogmatists, the hard-liners, the Piepers, the Stalins, the commissars, the “Marxists.” He said: “Nothing human is alien to me.”

That seems a good beginning for changing the world.

Howard Zinn

Building a World Socialist Consciousness

2010-01-18T22:54:00.003+01:00

the Tennant Years

2010-01-01T11:19:00.004+01:00

I am a big softy at heart. I always get sad when the Doctor regenerates! If there is one unfortunate thing about Doctor Who it is that Paul McGann and Christopher Ecclestone didn't play the role for as long as one would have wanted. As a sort of compensation, I suppose, the Doctor (since 2005) has been David Tennant. He has had the role roughly as long as Jon Pertwee. Tom Baker is still out in front with his 7 years at the helm of the TARDIS. My goodness, I was so sad when Tom fell off the radio telescope in "Logopolis" and became Peter Davison because I grew up in the 1970s with him as the Doctor. It was hard to accept that he was dying and that I would never see him again. I can imagine many small children around Britain will feel a bit sad too when Tennant regenerates into Matt Smith tonight.

There have been some great highlights over the years - "the Girl in the Fireplace" and "Blink" are two of my favourite episodes. The new format to the show allowed the development of a host of characters: Rose, Martha, Donna, their families, Captain Jack, the return of Sarah Jane and K9, the Cult of Skaro, Torchwood, etc, etc! There have been many interesting monsters too. Naturally, there has been some utter dross too; I have never really liked the lashings of love brought in by Russell T. Davies. The Doctor doesn't fall for his companions; it is simply not him!

It's the end of an era and I will miss David. I have eagerly awaited the newest episode of the show (and I am a hardcore "old series", Doctor Who fan) so Russell and David achieved what they intended! Kudos to them.

the Tennant years
"I'm sorry, I'm terribly sorry."
"You're brilliant!"
"Allons-y!"
Torchwood
Rose
Gurning, running, last of the time lords

Same Procedure....

2009-12-31T07:25:00.002+01:00

Danish TV, 23:40, Miss Sophie and James will be going through the motions. Same procedure as every year!

the Carlsen Daily show Continues...

2009-12-31T07:19:00.002+01:00

19 year old Magnus Carlsen will be sitting top of the pile on January 1st. He will be the youngest player in history to have the number one spot - congratulations to the prospective world champion! Anand plays Topalov around Easter; the big question is who will be the next challenger for the world title? It is not too far fetched to say Carlsen.

Football Punditry

2009-12-30T13:23:00.001+01:00

BBC Radio 5 Live today: "the silly season has started early, eh?"

My Infuriating New "Friend"

2009-12-28T10:56:00.005+01:00

Fritz 12 - my big xmas gift.

I' ve got a few wins and draws so far, just don't ask how many I have lost! As usual fritz taunts you, in English, as you play . Better that, though, than in German as in my previous, ancient version , #6.... My favourite quip: "Next version, I tell knock-knock jokes."

Mark Taimanov, chess and music

2009-12-27T20:38:00.001+01:00

Mark Taimanov

chess grandmaster and pianist
Never seen a recording before today!

The End of Time

2009-12-26T01:55:00.001+01:00

Just seen it! A review to come on 1st/2nd Jan

Merry Xmas

2009-12-20T09:24:00.001+01:00

Who Review - the Waters of Mars

2009-11-16T09:15:00.005+01:00

I sat up, as per usual, waiting for the episode to be uploaded on the net. I am sure the BBC are annoyed at this sort of thing but for all us fans living outside Britain, it really is the only chance we get to see the show.

Anyway....

I didn't like this episode that much. There was the ever so tiresome running about; that annoying robot (Gadget, Gadget!), which - oh, quelle surprise! - gets souped up by the sonic screwdriver; the "monsters" were dribbling zombies; there's that guy from "Neighbours". I didn't like the bit with the Doctor wandering off as the Bowie Base crew were infected, one after the other, by The Flood and then coming back, in an almost deranged state, because he controls time as the last Time Lord.

Phil BC at AVPS blog makes an interesting observation about how history is presented in this story. Take a gander there.

I suppose I always want Mars base personel, who are under attack from Zombies, to pull out a BFG 9000 and zap the bastards. As Red Dwarf's Kryten might say: "An excellent plan, sir, except for two serious flaws - 1. we don't have any BFG 9000s ; 2. we don't have any BFG 9000s because they don't exist."

Positives? I like the way the standard BBC quarry was made to look like Mars and the base had a nice design when compared to past stories. And in best Who and Star Trek tradition, the people on the base present a future vision of a unified human race.

Only a few more weeks to go and it will be Xmas and the return of Donna, the Master, Ood and the closing moments of the Tennant era.

******

Great, but forgotten today, albums (part 1)

2009-11-15T20:47:00.004+01:00

Sore Throat - "Unhindered by Talent"

A Paul Weller style song here (A Bow to Capital) and more typical ST here

the Carlsen Daily Show (II)

2009-11-07T00:14:00.002+01:00

All the games were drawn in round 2 of the Tal Memorial. I followed the live internet relay - a bit anyway as I was playing a tournament game myself at the local chess cafe.

I made a terrible blunder, which cost a piece for two pawns, as early as move 11; but after four and half hours of fighting with my back to the wall I escaped with a draw. My 70 something year old opponent was tiring fast and couldn't see a way to win; tiredness and age go hand in hand in chess, which is one practical advantage for young whipper snappers like me!

I had a nice chat after the game, over some Danish Xmas beers, with my opponent Frode Søby. It turned out (I didn't know this before the game) that he represented Denmark at several international events, where he played and met many famous names. He had a sort of friendship with Bobby Fischer at the Varna Chess Olympiad in 1962. He also has a good score against the great Dane Bent Larsen. As the saying goes: result!

Mikhail Tal

2009-11-06T09:01:00.003+01:00

Tal was born in Riga, shortly before Latvia became a Soviet Republic. He was known for his amazing sacrificial attacks which propelled him, within a short space of time, to the world crown in 1960, when he beat the doyen - or patriach - of Soviet chess: Mikhail Botvinnik. His book of the match is, rightly, considered one of the finest in the history of the game's literature. He had a truly hypnotic stare, as can be seen in a clip where he sits down to play (a teenage) Bobby Fischer; Tal got a clean 4-0 sweep over Fischer in the 1959 qualification tourney for the world championship.

Tal lost his title within a year, back to Botvinnik, and his chess began to be compromised by his dreadful health problems. He died in 1992.

Right now, the Tal Memorial is being held in Moscow and has a field comprising many of the world elite. The first round saw all the games drawn. Norweigian superstar Magnus Carlsen had a few problems against former world champion Vladimir Kramnik but defended well. It will be interesting to see how Carlsen does in this tourney after his crushing win at Nanjing. His mentor is certainly following his progress - Kasparov was kibbitzing on playchess.com yesterday, which is one of many sites relaying the games live.

What's Your Pleasure Sir?

2009-11-03T00:10:00.006+01:00

Great Halloween films: Hellraiser, An American Werewolf in London, the Phantom of the Opera.

From Russia With...

2009-11-01T07:25:00.004+01:00

The European Chess Team Championships have just concluded in Novi Sad, Serbia. I mentioned before that reigning women's world champion Alexandra Kosteniuk inspired me to take up chess again; big fan of hers that I am, it was nice to see the Russians win the ladies' event and Alexandra pick up another medal for her individual performance. Congratulations!

J-Dag

2009-10-30T07:33:00.003+01:00

One of the most popular days in Denmark! 20:59, today, the Christmas beers go on sale.

Lord Stern on Meat

2009-10-27T08:15:00.002+01:00

People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

(the Times here)

There are some one billion people who don't eat that much meat for the simple fact they don't get to eat much of anything. Create a system that feeds the world, then we can discuss what is for dinner and how that influences the environment.

Questionable Time

2009-10-27T07:19:00.002+01:00

Last Thursday's BBC Question Time programme (with Nick Griffin of the British National Party) has, not surprisingly, been the topic of the past few days. The QT viewing figures were the highest in 30 odd years; the episode was put on YouTube by a number of people within hours of being aired.

Thw SPGB is not against the BNP having time to put their views and so disagree with Peter Hain and with the SWP and its front organisations, who protested outside the BBC studios. The point is this - even if the BNP were to vanish down a wormhole, the material causes that give rise to BNP ideas would still be about. Also, do the SWP and Hain think people are so bloody stupid they will turn BNP if they hear that racist politics?

What was lacking was a socialist critique of the BNP. The socialist participant would also have examined the ideas of the other panelists.

Griffin was a complete fool, to put it mildly, so any worries that he may become respectable were amiss. His anthropological and biological nonsense on aboriginal English, his homophobic bigotry and his obvious lie about the KKK stick out. Within hours, he was saying QT was a sort of "Get Griffin" stitch-up (awww, diddums, he wanted the strawberry) and that London isn't English anymore, which is racist code for part of the population of the capital being non-white. The comment sections to the YouTube videos are awash with BNP'ers who are not as shy about making explicitly racist comments on the QT audience. Nor is the BNP legal advisor Lee John Barnes, who has been commenting and making an even bigger fool of himself and the BNP, on Harry's Place blog.

What has not been picked up is that the Libs, Labs and Cons are also just as anti-immigration. They differ simply because they do not look like boneheads or make (overtly) racist comments. Something else not picked up was Jack Straw yapping on about being from an immigrant family of "Jewish stock". Jewish stock? That is frankly an own goal! There is no more a Jewish stock than there is an English stock.

Lenin on State Capitalism

2009-10-25T03:36:00.003+01:00

To the Workers Who Support the Struggle Against the War and Against the Socialists Who Have Sided With Their Governments

And the war itself, which is imposing an unprecedented strain upon the peoples, is bringing mankind to this, the only way out of the impasse, is compelling it to take giant strides towards state capitalism, and is demonstrating in a practical manner how planned social economy can and should be conducted, not in the interests of the capitalists, but by expropriating them, under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, in the interests of the masses

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/dec/30.htm

The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) APRIL 24–29, 1917

Before the war we had the monopoly of trusts and syndicates; since the war we have had a state monopoly. Universal labour conscription is something new, something that constitutes part of a socialist whole—this is often over looked by those who fear to examine the concrete situation.

The first part of the resolution concentrates on an analysis of the conditions of capitalist economy throughout the world. It is noteworthy that twenty-seven years ago Engels pointed out that to describe capitalism as something that "is distinguished by its planlessness" and to overlook the role played by the trusts was unsatisfactory. Engels remarked that "when we come to the trust, then planlessness disappears", though there is capitalism. This remark is all the more pertinent today, when we have a military state, when we have state monopoly capitalism. Planning does not make the worker less of a slave, but it enables the capitalist to make his profits "according to plan". Capitalism is now evolving directly into its higher, regulated, form.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29g.htm

The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (B.) APRIL 24–29 (MAY 7–12), 1917

6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALTERATIONS IN THE R.S.D.L.P. PARTY PROGRAMME

Monopoly capitalism, which has been developing into state-monopoly capitalism in a number of advanced countries with especial rapidity during the war, means gigantic socialisation of production and, consequently, complete preparation of the objective conditions for the establishment of a socialist society

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf2/6.htm

Economic Dislocation and the Proletariat's Struggle Against It

And only pedants, who understand Marxism as Struve and all liberal bureaucrats
"understood" it, can assert that "skipping state capitalism is utopian" and that "in our country, too, the very type of regulation should retain its state-capitalist character". Take the sugar syndicate or the state railways in Russia or the oil barons, etc . What is that but state capitalism? How can you "skip" what already exists?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm

The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?
Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.

Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be "introduced", etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the "revolutionary-democratic" aspirations of the workers and peasants.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Revision of the Party Programme

War and economic ruin have forced all countries to advance from monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. This is the objective state of affairs. In a revolutionary situation, during a revolution, however, state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism. During a revolution it is impossible to move forward without moving towards socialism—this is the objective state of affairs created by war and revolution. It was taken cognisance of by our April Conference,which put forward the slogans, "a Soviet Republic" (the political form of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and the nationalisation of banks and syndicates (a basic measure in the transition towards socialism). Up to this point all the Bolsheviks unanimously agree. But Comrades Smirnov and Bukharin want to go farther, they want to discard the minimum programme in toto.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/06.htm

For Bread And Peace

Capitalism had developed into imperialism, i.e., into monopoly capitalism, and under the influence of the war it has become state monopoly capitalism. We have now reached the stage of world economy that is the immediate stepping stone to socialism.

The socialist revolution that has begun in Russia is, therefore, only the beginning of the world socialist revolution

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/14a.htm

Session of the All-Russia C.E.C..
April 29 1918

In regard to domestic issues, we see the same thing on the part of the group of Left Communists, who repeat the main arguments levelled against us from the bourgeois camp. For example, the main argument of the group of Left Communists against us is that there can be observed a Right Bolshevik deviation, which threatens the revolution by directing it along the path of state capitalism.

Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil, the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references to such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them forget reality? Reality tells us that state
capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.

How is it that they cannot see that it is the petty proprietor, small capital, that is our enemy? How can they regard state capitalism as the chief enemy? They ought not to for get that in the transition from capitalism to socialism our chief enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits and customs, its economic position. The petty proprietor fears state capitalism above all, because he has only one desire—to grab, to get as much as possible for himself, to ruin and smash the big landowners, the big exploiters. In this the petty proprietor eagerly supports us.

What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.

I said that state capitalism would be our salvation; if we had it in Russia, the transition to full socialism would he easy, would be within our grasp, because state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack: we are threatened by the element of petty-bourgeois slovenliness, which more than anything else has been developed by the whole history of Russia and her economy, and which prevents us from taking the very step on which the success of socialism depends. Allow me to remind you that I had occasion to write my statement about state capitalism some time before the revolution and it is a howling absurdity to try to frighten us with state capitalism. I remind you that in my pamphlet the Impending CatastropheSee present edition, Vol. 25, pp. 319-65.—Editor. I then wrote. . . .
(He reads the passage.)

I wrote this about the revolutionary-democratic state, the state of Kerensky, Chernov, Tsereteli, Kishkin and their confreres, about a state which had a bourgeois basis and which did not and could not depart from it. I wrote at that time that state capitalism is a step towards socialism; I wrote that in September 1917, and now, in April 1918, after the proletariat's taking power in October, when it has proved its capacity: many factories have been confiscated, enterprises and banks nationalised, the armed resistance of the bourgeoisie and saboteurs smashed—now, when they try to frighten us with capitalism, it is so ludicrous, such a sheer absurdity and fabrication, that it becomes surprising and one asks oneself: how could people have this idea? They have forgotten the mere trifle that in Russia we have a petty-bourgeois mass which sympathises with the abolition of the big bourgeoisie in all countries, but does not sympathise with accounting, socialisation and control— herein lies the danger for the revolution, here you have the unity of social forces which ruined the great French revolution and could not fail to do so, and which, if the Russian proletariat proves weak, can alone ruin the Russian revolution. The petty
bourgeoisie, as we see, steeps the whole social atmosphere with petty-proprietor
tendencies, with aspirations which are bluntly expressed in the statement: I took from the rich, what others do is not my affair.

Here is our main danger. If the petty bourgeois were subordinated to other class elements, subordinated to state capitalism, the class-conscious worker would be bound to greet that with open arms, for state capitalism under Kerensky's democracy would have been a step towards socialism, and under the Soviet government it would be three-quarters of socialism, because anyone who is the organiser of state capitalist enterprises can be made one's helper. The Left Communists, however, adopt a different attitude, one of disdain, and when we had our first meeting with the Left Communists on April 4, which incidentally proved that this question from remote history, which had been long discussed, was already a thing of the past, I said that it was necessary, if we properly understood our tasks, to learn socialism from the organisers of the trusts.

Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no socialism. (Applause.)

The situation is best among those workers who are carrying out this state capitalism: among the tanners and in the textile and sugar industries, because they have a sober, proletarian knowledge of their industry and they want to preserve it and make it more powerful—because in that lies the greatest socialism.

In Germany, state capitalism prevails, and therefore the revolution in Germany will be a hundred times more devastating and ruinous than in a petty-bourgeois country—there, too, there will be gigantic difficulties and tremendous chaos and imbalance. Therefore I do not see the slightest shadow of a reason for despair or despondency in the fact that the Russian revolution accomplished the easier task to start with—that of overthrowing the landowners and bourgeoisie—and is faced now by the more difficult socialist task of organising nation-wide accounting and control. It is facing the task with which real socialism begins, a task which has the backing of the majority of the workers and class-conscious working people. Yes, the majority of the workers, who are better organised and have gone through the school of the trade unions, are wholeheartedly with us.

This majority raised the questions of piece-work and Taylorism—questions which
the gentlemen from Vperyod are scoffingly trying to reject

If the Left Communists have not noticed this, it is because they do not see life as it really is but concoct their slogans by counterposing state capitalism to ideal socialism. We, however, must tell the workers: yes, it is a step back, but we have to help ourselves to find a remedy. There is only one remedy: organise to the last man, organise accounting over production, organise accounting and control over consumption

First of all I must reply to Comrade Bukharin's speech. In my first speech I remarked that we were nine-tenths in agreement with him, and so I think it is a pity that we should disagree as regards the other tenth. He is one-tenth in the position of having to spend half his speech disassociating and exorcising himself from absolutely everyone who spoke in support of him. And no matter how excellent his intentions and those of his group, the falsity of their position is proved by the fact that he always has to spend time making excuses and disassociating himself on the issue of state capitalism.

Comrade Bukharin is completely wrong; and I shall make this known in the press
because this question is extremely important. I have a couple of words to say about the Left Communists' reproaching us on the grounds that a deviation in the direction of state capitalism is to be observed in our policy; now Comrade Bukharin wrongly states that under Soviet power state capitalism is impossible. So he is contradicting himself when he says that there can be no state capitalism under Soviet power—that is an obvious absurdity. The large number of enterprises and factories under the control of the Soviet government and owned by the state, this alone shows the transition from capitalism to socialism, but Comrade Bukharin ignores this.

Now we cannot help bringing up the problem of state capitalism and socialism, of how to act in the transitional period, in which you have bits of capitalism and socialism existing side by side under Soviet power. Comrade Bukharin refuses to understand this problem; but I think we cannot throw it out all at once, and Comrade Bukharin does not propose throwing it out and does not deny that this state capitalism is something higher than what is left of the small proprietor's mentality, economic conditions and way of life, which are still extremely prevalent. Comrade Bukharin has not refuted that fact, for it cannot be refuted without forgetting the word Marxist.

I have given you the example of the workers' organisations that are doing it, and the state capitalism of other enterprises, other branches of industry; the tobacco workers and tanners have more state capitalism than others, and their affairs are in better order, and their road to socialism is more certain.

And when they say, when Bukharin says, this is no violation of principle, I say that here we have a violation of the principle of the Paris Commune. State capitalism is not money but social relations. If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railway decree, that is state capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

"Left-Wing" Childishness

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the
"Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the
"Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a "Left Communist" will recoil from these words, and what "devastating criticism" he will make to the workers against the "Bolshevik deviation to the right". What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn't this the betrayal of socialism?

Thirdly, in making a bugbear of "state capitalism", they betray their failure to
understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically

The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.

It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as "state capitalism"? Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them. Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist. This is an absolutely unquestionable fact of reality, and the root of the economic mistake of the "Left Communists" is that they have failed to understand it

Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices. This is precisely the case with our "Left Communists", who in words (and of course in their deepest convictions) are merciless enemies of the petty bourgeoisie, while in deeds they help only the petty bourgeoisie, serve only this section of the population and express only its point of view by fighting—in April 1918!!—against . . . "state capitalism". They are wide of the mark!

The petty bourgeois who hoards his thousands is an enemy of state capitalism.

This simple illustration in figures, which I have deliberately simplified to the utmost in order to make it absolutely clear, explains the present correlation of state capitalism and socialism. The workers hold state power and have every legal opportunity of "taking" the whole thousand, without giving up a single kopek, except for socialist purposes. This legal opportunity, which rests upon the actual transition of power to the workers, is an element of socialism.

State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than we
are paying at present (

whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.

In the first place, economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to
our present economic system.

To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have "the last word" in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned
organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words
in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in "coming forth", our task is to
study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and
not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our
task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of
Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous
methods in fighting barbarism.

At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called "national accounting and control of production and distribution". Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing "capitalism" with "socialism" and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country. Let it be said in parenthesis that this is the very theoretical mistake which misled the best
people in the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp. The worst and the mediocre of these, owing to their stupidity and spinelessness, tag along behind the bourgeoisie, of whom they stand in awe. The best of them have failed to understand that it was not without reason that the teachers of socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and emphasised the "prolonged birth pangs" of the new society. And this new society is again an abstraction which can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.

It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten othersas well as themselves with "evolution towards state capitalism" (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8, col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense. This is letting one's thoughts wander away from the true road of "evolution", and failing to understand what this road is. In practice, it is equivalent to pulling us back to small proprietary capitalism.

In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I have given this "high" appreciation of state capitalism and that I gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It , written in September 1917.
". . . Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!
". . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly.
". . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs " (pages 27 and 28)

Please note that this was written when Kerensky was in power, that we are discussing not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the "revolutionary-democratic" state. Is it not clear that the higher we stand on this political ladder, the more completely we incorporate the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less ought we to fear "state capitalism"? Is it not clear that from the material, economic and productive point of view, we are not yet on "the threshold" of socialism? Is it not clear that we cannot pass through the door of socialism without crossing "the threshold" we have not yet reached?

From whatever side we approach the question, only one conclusion can be drawn: the argument of the "Left Communists" about the "state capitalism" which is alleged to be threatening us is an utter mistake in economics and is evident proof that they are complete slaves of petty-bourgeois ideology.

If these concrete conditions are carefully considered, it will become clear that we can and ought to employ two methods simultaneously. On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress[3] the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people.

But Bukharin went astray because he did not go deep enough into the specific features of the situation in Russia at the present time—an exceptional situation when we, the Russian proletariat, are in advance of any Britain or any Germany as regards our political order, as regards the strength of the workers' political power, but are behind the most backward West-European country as regards organising a good state capitalism, as regards our level of culture and the degree of material and productive preparedness for the "introduction" of socialism.

Kerensky's friends, who, together with him, conducted an imperialist war for the
sake of the secret treaties, which promised annexations to the Russian capitalists, the colleagues of Tsereteli, who, on June 11, threatened to disarm the workers, the Lieberdans, who screened the rule of the bourgeoisie with high-sounding phrases—these are the very people who accuse Soviet power of "compromising with the bourgeoisie", of "establishing trusts" (that is, of establishing "state capitalism"!), of introducing the Taylor system.

The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-scale "state capitalism", they prize it as their proletarian weapon which their Soviet power will use against small proprietary disintegration and disorganisation.

They have begun to learn steadily and cautiously with easy things, gradually passing on to the more difficult things. If things are going more slowly in the iron and steel and engineering industries, it is because they present greater difficulties. But the textile and tobacco workers and tanners are not afraid of "state capitalism" or of "learning from the organisers of the trusts", as the declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia are. These workers in the central leading institutions like Chief Leather Committee and Central Textile Committee take their place by the side of the capitalists, learn from them, establish trusts, establish "state capitalism", which under Soviet power represents the threshold of socialism, the condition of its firm victory.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)

The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists—in varying form and degree—wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general.

Can the Soviet state and the dictatorship of the proletariat be combined with
state capitalism? Are they compatible? Of course they are. This is exactly what I argued in May 1918. I hope I had proved it then. I had also proved that state capitalism is a step forward compared with the small proprietor (both small-patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element. Those who compare state capitalism only with socialism commit a host of mistakes, for in the present political and economic circumstances it is essential to compare state capitalism also with petty-bourgeois production.

The whole problem—in theoretical and practical terms—is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure its transformation into socialism in the near future. In order to approach the solution of this problem we must first of all picture to ourselves as distinctly as possible what state capitalism will and can be in
practice inside the Soviet system and within the framework of the Soviet state.

Concessions are the simplest example of how the Soviet government directs the
development of capitalism into the channels of state capitalism and "implants" state capitalism. We all agree now that concessions are necessary, but have we all thought about the implications?

They are an agreement, an alliance, a bloc between the Soviet, i.e., proletarian, state power and state capitalism against the small-proprietor (patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element.

By "implanting" state capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet government strengthens large-scale production as against petty production, advanced production as against backward production, and machine production as against hand production.

Compared with other forms of state capitalism within the Soviet system, concessions are perhaps the most simple and clear-cut form of state capitalism

But these are minor difficulties compared with the other problems of the social revolution and, in particular, with the difficulties arising from other forms of developing, permitting and implanting state capitalism.

The most important task that confronts all Party and Soviet workers in connection with the introduction of the tax in kind is to apply the principles of the "concessions" policy (i.e., a policy that is similar to "concession" state capitalism) to the other forms of capitalism—unrestricted trade, local exchange, etc.

But, unlike private capitalism, "co-operative" capitalism under the Soviet system is a variety of state capitalism, and as such it is advantageous and useful for us at the present time—in certain measure, of course.

It resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision and the establishment of contractual relations between the state (in this case the Soviet state) and the capitalist. Co-operative trade is more advantageous and useful than private trade not only for the above-mentioned reasons, but also because it facilitates the association and organisation of millions of people, and eventually of the entire population, and this in its turn is an enormous gain from the standpoint of the subsequent transition from state capitalism to socialism.

Let us make a comparison of concessions and co-operatives as forms of state capitalism

Take a third form of state capitalism. The state enlists the capitalist as a merchant and pays him a definite commission on the sale of state goods and on the purchase of the produce of the small producer. A fourth form: the state leases to the capitalist entrepreneur an industrial establishment, oilfields, forest tracts, land, etc., which belong to the state, the lease being very similar to a concession agreement. We make no mention of, we give no thought or notice to, these two latter forms of state capitalism, not because we are strong and clever but because we are weak and foolish. We are afraid to look the "vulgar truth" squarely in the face, and too often yield to "exalting deception''.

We keep repeating that "we" are passing from capitalism to socialism, but do not bother to obtain a distinct picture of the "we". To keep this picture clear we must constantly have in mind the whole list—without any exception—of the constituent parts of our national economy, of all its diverse forms that I gave in my article of May 5, 1918. "We", the vanguard, the advanced contingent of the proletariat, are passing directly to socialism; but the advanced contingent is only a small part of the whole of the proletariat while the latter, in its turn, is only a small part of the whole population. If "we" are successfully to solve the problem of our immediate transition to socialism, we must understand what intermediary paths, methods, means and instruments are required for the transition from pre-capitalist relations to socialism. That is the whole point.

Inasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces.

Those who achieve the best results in this sphere, even by means of private capitalism, even without the co-operatives, or without directly transforming this capitalism into state capitalism, will do more for the cause of socialist construction in Russia than those who "ponder over" the purity of communism, draw up regulations, rules and instructions for state capitalism and the co-operatives, but do nothing practical to stimulate trade. Isn `t it paradoxical that private capital should be helping socialism?

Not at all. It is, indeed, an irrefutable economic fact. Since this is a small-peasant country with transport in an extreme state of dislocation, a country emerging from war and blockade under the political guidance of the proletariat—which controls the transport system and large-scale industry—it inevitably follows, first, that at the present moment local exchange acquires first-class significance, and, second, that there is a possibility of assisting socialism by means of private capitalism (not to speak of state capitalism).

It is by presenting the question in this way (the Council of People's Commissars has already started, that is to say, it has ordered that work be started, on the revision of the anti-profiteering laws) that we shall succeed in directing the rather inevitable but necessary development of capitalism into the channels of state capitalism.

The fight against profiteering must be transformed into a fight against stealing and the evasion of state supervision, accounting and control. By means of this control we shall direct the capitalism that is to a certain extent inevitable and necessary for us into the channels of state capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

Report on the Tax in Kind
Report on the Tax in Kind Delivered at a Meeting of Secretaries and Responsible
Representatives of R.C.P.(B.) Cells of Moscow and Moscow Gubernia
April 9, 1921

In the course of the argument with these comrades I said, among other things: State capitalism is nothing to fear in Russia; it would be a step forward. That sounded very strange: How could state capitalism be a step forward in a Soviet socialist republic? I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia.

What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there's no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself. Capitalism will emerge wherever there is small enterprise and free exchange. But are we to be afraid of it, if we have control of the factories, transport and foreign trade? Let me repeat what I said then: I believe it to be incontrovertible that we need have no fear of this capitalism. Concessions are that kind of capitalism.

What are concessions from the standpoint of economic relations? They are state
capitalism. The Soviet government concludes an agreement with a capitalist. Under it, the latter is provided with certain things: raw materials, mines, oilfields, minerals, or, as was the case in one of the last proposals, even a special factory (the ball-bearing project of a Swedish enterprise). The socialist state gives the capitalist its means of production such as factories, mines and materials. The capitalist operates as a contractor leasing socialist means of production, making a profit on his capital and delivering a part of his output to the socialist state.

That is how we get state capitalism. Should it scare us? No, it should not, because it is up to us to determine the extent of the concessions. Take oil concessions. They will give us millions of poods of paraffin oil right away, and that is more than we produce ourselves. This is to our advantage, because in exchange for the paraffin oil—and not paper money—the peasant will give us his grain surplus, and we shall immediately be able to improve the situation in the whole country. That is why the capitalism that is bound to grow out of a free market holds no terrors for us. It will be the result of growing trade, the exchange of manufactured goods, even if produced by small industry, for agricultural produce.

Let small industry grow to some extent and let state capitalism develop—the Soviet power need have no fear of that. We must face the facts squarely and call a spade a spade, but we must also control and determine the limits of this development.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm

TELEGRAM TO SAMARKAND COMMUNISTS

We have no fear of capitalism, because the proletariat has the power, transport and large-scale industry firmly in its hands and will succeed, through its control, in channeling it into state capitalism. Under these conditions, capitalism will help to combat red tape and the scattering of the petty producers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/27.htm

Third Congress Of The Communist InternationalJune 22-July 12, 1921

On the contrary, the development of capitalism, controlled and regulated by the
proletarian state (i.e., "state" capitalism in this sense of the term), is advantageous and necessary in an extremely devastated and backward small-peasant country (within certain limits, of course), inasmuch as it is capable of hastening the immediate revival of peasant farming. This applies still more to concessions: without denationalising anything, the workers' state leases certain mines, forest tracts, oilfields, and so forth, to foreign capitalists in order to obtain from them extra equipment and machinery that will enable us to accelerate the restoration of Soviet large-scale industry.

This freedom of exchange implies freedom for capitalism. We say this openly and
emphasise it. We do not conceal it in the least. Things would go very hard with us if we attempted to conceal it. Freedom to trade means freedom for capitalism, but it also means a new form of capitalism. It means that, to a certain extent, we are re-creating capitalism. We are doing this quite openly. It is state capitalism. But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it. It goes without saying that we must grant concessions to the foreign bourgeoisie, to foreign capital. Without the slight denationalisation, we shall lease mines, forests and oilfields to foreign capitalists, and receive in exchange manufactured goods, machinery, etc., and thus restore our own industry.

Of course, we did not all agree on the question of state capitalism at once.

What compels us to do this? We are not alone in the world. We exist in a system of capitalist states

We admit quite openly, and do not conceal the fact, that concessions in the system of state capitalism mean paying tribute to capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm

New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise

The Mensheviks are shouting that the tax in kind, the freedom to trade, the granting of concessions and state capitalism signify the collapse of communism. Abroad, the ex-Communist Levi has added his voice to that of the Mensheviks. This same Levi had to be defended as long as the mistakes he had made could be explained by his reaction to some of the mistakes of the "Left" Communists, particularly in March 1921 in Germany[11]; but this same Levi cannot be defended when, instead of admitting that he is wrong, he slips into Menshevism all along the line.

To the Menshevik shouters we shall simply point out that as early as the spring of 1918 the Communists proclaimed and advocated the idea of a bloc, an alliance with state capitalism against the petty-bourgeois element. That was three years ago! In the first months of the Bolshevik victory! Even then the Bolsheviks took a sober view of things. And since then nobody has been able to challenge the correctness of our sober calculation of the available forces.

We need a bloc, or alliance, between the proletarian state and state capitalism against the petty-bourgeois element. We must achieve this alliance skilfully, following the rule: "Measure your cloth seven times before you cut." We shall leave ourselves a smaller field of work, only what is absolutely necessary.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/20.htm

Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution

It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary—state capitalism and socialism—in order to prepare—to prepare by many years of effort—for the transition to communism.

we must first set to work in this small peasant country to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism. Otherwise we shall never get to communism, we shall never bring scores of millions of people to communism. That is what experience, the objective course of the development of the revolution, has taught us.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm

The New Economic Policy
And The Tasks Of The Political Education Departments
Report To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Political Education Departments
October 17, 1921

Even if all of you were not yet active workers in the Party and the Soviets at that time, you have at all events been able to make, and of course have made, yourselves familiar with decisions such as that adopted by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee at the end of April 1918.[2] That decision pointed to the necessity to take peasant farming into consideration, and it was based on a report which made allowance for the role of state capitalism in building socialism in a peasant country; a report which emphasised the importance of personal, individual, one-man responsibility; which emphasised the significance of that factor in the administration of the country as distinct from the political tasks of organising state power and from military tasks.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm

Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party
October 29-31 , 1921

When in the spring of 1918, for example, in our polemics with a number of comrades, who were opposed to concluding the Brest peace, we raised the question of state capitalism, we did not argue that we were going back to state capitalism, but that our position would be alleviated and the solution of our socialist problems facilitated if state capitalism became the predominant economic system in Russia. I want to draw your particular attention to this, because I think it is necessary to bear it in mind in order to understand the present change in our economic policy and how this change should be interpreted.

The political situation in the spring of 1921 revealed to us that on a number of economic issues a retreat to the position of state capitalism, the substitution of "siege" tactics for "direct assault", was inevitable.

The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our
experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to
socialist principles.

I cannot today quote figures, data, or facts to show the results of this policy of reverting to state capitalism. I shall give only one small example.

We see the development of state capitalist relations.

and this is largely due to the improvement of production in small mines, to their being exploited along the lines of state capitalism. I cannot here go into all the data on the question

are what we are beginning to obtain as a result of the partial reversion to the system of state capitalism. Our ability, the extent to which we shall be able to apply this policy correctly in the future, will determine to what extent we shall continue to get good results.

shall now go back and develop my main idea. Is our transition to the New Economic Policy in the spring, our retreat to the ways, means and methods of state capitalism, sufficient to enable us to stop the retreat and prepare for the offensive? No, it is not yet sufficient.

Since we are now passing to state capitalism, the question arises of whether we should try to prevent the methods which were suitable for the previous economic
policy from hindering us now.

In the spring we said that we would not be afraid to revert to state capitalism, and that our task was to organise commodity exchange. A number of decrees and
decisions, a vast number of newspaper articles, all our propaganda and all the
laws passed since the spring of 1921 have been directed to the purpose of
stimulating commodity exchange

Now we find ourselves in the position of having to retreat even a little further, not only to state capitalism, but to the state regulation of trade and the money system.

The position which our New Economic Policy has created—the development of small
commercial enterprises, the leasing of state enterprises, etc.—entails the development of capitalist relations; and anybody who fails to see this shows that he has lost his head entirely. It goes without saying that the consolidation of capitalist relations in itself increases the danger. But can you point to a single path in revolution, to any stage and method that would not have its dangers?

Next, the first lesson, the first stage which we had reached by the spring of 1921—the development of state capitalism on new lines. Here certain successes can be recorded; but there are still unprecedented contradictions We have not yet mastered this sphere of activity.

A wholesale merchant seems to be an economic type as remote from communism as
heaven from earth. But that is one of the contradictions which, in actual life,
lead from a small-peasant economy via state capitalism to socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/29.htm

The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism

We retreated to state capitalism, but we did not retreat too far. We are now retreating to the state regulation of trade, but we shall not retreat too far. There are visible signs that the retreat is coming to an end; there are signs that we shall be able to stop this retreat in the not too distant future. The more conscious, the more unanimous, the more free from prejudice we are in carrying out this necessary retreat, the sooner shall we be able to stop it, and the more lasting, speedy and extensive will be our subsequent victorious advance.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm

Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets
December 23-28,1921

That is why we have retreated, that is why we have had to retreat to state capitalism, retreat to concessions, retreat to trade.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control, are now being permitted and are developing; on the other hand, the state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i.e., they are in effect being largely reorganised on commercial and capitalist lines.

2. State Capitalism in the Proletarian State and the Trade Unions

3. The State Enterprises that Are Being Put on a Profit Basis and the Trade Unions

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30b.htm

Role and Functions of the Trade Unions Under The New Economic Policy
Decision Of The C.C., R.C.P.(B.), January 12, 1922

In view of the urgent need to increase the productivity of labour and make every
state enterprise pay its way and show a profit,

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm

V. I. Lenin 597 To: L. D. TROTSKY

Therefore, it would be perhaps extremely useful if you were to join open battle in the press right away, naming this Menshevik, explaining the malicious whiteguard character of his speech, and issuing an impressive call to the Party to pull itself together. The term "state capitalism" is, in my opinion (and I have repeatedly argued with Bukharin about it), the only theoretically correct and necessary one to make inert Communists realise that the new policy is going forward in earnest. But, of course, such malicious helpmates of the whiteguards, as all Mensheviks are, can pretend that they do not understand that state capitalism in a state with proletarian power can exist only as limited in time and sphere of extension, and conditions of its application, mode of supervision over it, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/jan/21b.htm

ON THE TASKS OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE UNDER THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

The fighting role of the P.C.J. is equally important in the sphere of NEP, and here the P.C.J.'s weakness and apathy is even more outrageous. There is no evidence of any understanding of the fact that we recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we— we conscious workers, we Communists—who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state.

We allow only state capitalism, and as has been said, it is we who are the
slate.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm

NOTES FOR A SPEECH ON MARCH 27, 1922

3. (b) The test by competition between state and capitalist enterprises (both commercial and industrial; both Russian and foreign).

4. ((State capitalism. "We" are the state.)) (c) "State capitalism." Scholastic versus revolutionary and practical meaning of this term.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/26.htm

Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)

The second, more specific lesson is the test through competition between state and capitalist enterprises

The third, supplementary lesson is on the question of state capitalism. It is a pity Comrade Bukharin is not present at the Congress. I should have liked to argue with him a little, but that had better be postponed to the next Congress. On the question of state capitalism, I think that generally our press and our Party make the mistake of dropping into intellectualism, into liberalism; we philosophise about how state capitalism is to be interpreted, and look into old books. But in those old books you will not find what we are discussing; they deal with the state capitalism that exists under capitalism. Not a single book has been written about state capitalism under communism. It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on thissubject; and he died without leaving a single precise statement or definite instruction on it. That is why we must overcome the difficulty entirely by ourselves. And if we make a general mental survey of our press and see what has been written about state capitalism, as I tried to do when I was preparing this report, we shall be convinced that it is missing the target, that it is looking in an entirely wrong direction.

The state capitalism discussed in all books on economics is that which exists under the capitalist system, where the state brings under its direct control certain capitalist enterprises. But ours is a proletarian state it rests on the proletariat; it gives the proletariat all political privileges; and through the medium of the proletariat it attracts to itself the lower ranks of the peasantry (you remember that we began this work through the Poor Peasants Committees). That is why very many people are misled by the term state capitalism. To avoid this we must remember the fundamental thing that state capitalism in the form we have here is not dealt with in any theory, or in any books, for the simple reason that all the usual concepts connected with this term are associated with bourgeois rule in capitalist society. Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails. The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.

We refuse to understand that when we say "state" we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.

State capitalism is capitalism that we must confine within certain bounds; but we have not yet learned to confine it within those bounds. That is the whole point. And it rests with us to determine what this state capitalism is to be. We have sufficient, quite sufficient political power; we also have sufficient economic resources at our command, but the vanguard of the working class which has been brought to the forefront to directly supervise, to determine the boundaries, to demarcate, to subordinate and not be subordinated itself, lacks sufficient ability for it. All that is needed here is ability, and that is what we do not have.

Never before in history has there been a situation in which the proletariat, the
revolutionary vanguard, possessed sufficient political power and had state
capitalism existing along side it. The whole question turns on our understanding
that this is the capitalism that we can and must permit, that we can and must confine within certain bounds; for this capitalism is essential for the broad masses of the peasantry and for private capital, which must trade in such a way as to satisfy the needs of the peasantry.

We must organise things in such a way as to make possible the customar operation of capitalist economy and capitalist exchange, because this is essential for the people. Without it, existence is impossible. All the rest is not an absolutely vital matter to this camp. They can resign themselves to all that. You Communists, you workers, you, the politically enlightened section of the proletariat, which under took to administer the state, must be able to arrange it so that the state, which you have taken into your hands, shall function the way you want it to. Well, we have lived through a year, the state is in our hands; but has it operated the New Economic Policy in the way we
wanted in this past year? No. But we refuse to admit that it did not operate in the way we wanted. How did it operate?

The machine refused to obey the hand that guided it. It was like a car that was going not in the direction the driver desired, but in the direction someone else desired; as if it were being driven by some mysterious, lawless hand, God knows whose, perhaps of a profiteer, or of a private capitalist, or of both. Be that as it may, the car is not going quite in the direction the man at the wheel imagines, and often it goes in an altogether different direction. This is the main thing that must be remembered in regard to state capitalism. In this main field we must start learning from the very beginning, and only when we have thoroughly understood and appreciated this can we be sure that we shall learn.

First of all about state capitalism.

"State capitalism is capitalism," said Preobrazhensky, "and that is the only way it can and should be interpreted." I say that that is pure scholasticism. Up to now nobody could have written a book about this sort of capitalism, because this is the first time in human history that we see anything like it. All the more or less intelligible books about state capitalism that have appeared up to now were written under conditions and in a situation where state capitalism was capitalism.

Now things are different; and neither Marx nor the Marxists could foresee this.
We must not look to the past. When you write history, you will write it magnificently; but when you write a textbook, you will say: State capitalism is the most unexpected and absolutely unforeseen form of capitalism—for nobody could foresee that the proletariat would achieve power in one of the least developed countries, and would first try to organise large-scale production and distribution for the peasantry and then, finding that it could not cope with the task owing to the low standard of culture, would enlist the services of capitalism. Nobody ever foresaw this; but it is an incontrovertible fact.

The position now is that we have to deal with an enemy in mundane economics, and
this is a thousand times more difficult. The controversies over state capitalism that have been raging in our literature up to now could at best be included in textbooks on history. I do not in the least deny that textbooks are useful, and recently I wrote that it would be far better if our authors devoted less attention to newspapers and political twaddle and wrote textbooks, as many of them, including Comrade Larin, could do splendidly. His talent would prove most useful on work of this kind and we would solve the problem that Comrade Trotsky emphasised so well when he said that the main task at the present time is to train the younger generation, but we have nothing to train them with. Indeed, from what can the younger generation learn the social sciences? From the old bourgeois junk. This is disgraceful! And this is at a time when we have hundreds of Marxist authors who could write textbooks on all social problems, but do not do so because their minds are taken up with other things.

As regards state capitalism, we ought to know what should be the slogan for agitation and propaganda, what must be explained, what we must get everyone to understand practically. And that is that the state capitalism that we have now is not the state capitalism that the Germans wrote about. It is capitalism that we ourselves have permitted. Is that true or not? Everybody knows that it is true!

At a congress of Communists we passed a decision that state capitalism would be
permitted by the proletarian state, and we are the state. If we did wrong we are to blame and it is no use shifting the blame to somebody else! We must learn, we must see to it that in a proletarian country state capitalism cannot and does not go beyond the framework and conditions delineated for it by the proletariat, beyond conditions that benefit the proletariat.

Now that we are passing from the Cheka to state-political courts we must say at
this Congress that there is no such thing as above-class courts. Our courts must
be elected, proletarian courts; and they must know what it is that we are permitting. They must clearly understand what state capitalism is.

This is the political slogan of the day and not a controversy about what the German professors meant by state capitalism and what we mean by it. We have gone through a great deal since then, and it is altogether unseemly for us to look back.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

Fourth Congress of the Communist International

To begin with how we arrived at the New Economic Policy, I must quote from an
article I wrote in 1918.[2] At the beginning of 1918, in a brief polemic, I touched on the question of the attitude we should adopt towards state capitalism. I then wrote:

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs (i.e., the state of affairs at that time) in our Soviet Republic. If in
approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country."

Thus, in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then obtaihing in the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for already at that time our Republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily—perhaps too hastily—adopting various new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures. Nevertheless, I then held the view that in relation to the economic situation then obtaining in the Soviet Republic state capitalism would be a step forward, and I explained my idea simply by enumerating the elements of the economic system of Russia.

set myself the task of explaining the relationship of these elements to each other, and whether one of the non-socialist elements, namely, state capitalism, should not be rated higher than socialism. I repeat: it seems very strange to everyone that a non-socialist element should be rated higher than, regarded as superior to, socialism in a republic which declares itself a socialist republic But the fact will become intelligible if you recall that we definitely did not regard the economic system of Russia as something homogeneous and highly developed; we were fully aware that in Russia we had patriarchal agriculture, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture, alongside the socialist form. What role could state capitalism play in these circumstances?

The question I then put to myself—this was in a specific controversy which had nothing to do with the present question—was: what is our attitude towards state capitalism? And I replied: although it is not a socialist form, state capitalism would be for us, and for Russia, a more favourable form than the existing one. What does that show? It shows that we did not overrate either the rudiments orthe principles of socialist economy, although we had already accomplished the social revolution. On the contrary, at that time we already realised to a certain extent that it would be better if we first arrived at state capitalism and only after that at socialism.

For example, they made no mention whatever of that very important point, freedom to trade, which is of fundamental significance to state capitalism. Yet they did contain a general, even if indefinite, idea of retreat. I think that we should take note of that not only from the viewpoint of a country whose economic system was, and is to this day, very backward, but also from the viewpoint of the Communist International and the advanced West-European countries

Now that I have emphasised the fact that as early as 1918 we regarded state capitalism as a possible line of retreat, I shall deal with the results of our New Economic Policy

The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind. It does not agree with the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions. We hold the land; it belongs to the state. This is very important, although our opponents try to make out that it is of no importance at all. That is untrue. The fact that the land belongs to the state is extremely important, and economically it is also of great practical purport. This we have achieved, and I must say that all our future activities should develop only within that framework. We have already succeeded in making the peasantry content and in reviving both industry and trade.

I have already said that our state capitalism differs from state capitalism in the literal sense of the term in that our proletarian state not only owns the land, but also all the vital branches of industry. To begin with, we have leased only a certain number of the small and medium plants, but all the rest remain in our hands. As regards trade, I want to re-emphasise that we are trying to found mixed companies, that we are already forming them, i.e., companies in which part of the capital belongs to private capitalists—and foreign capitalists at that—and the other part belongs to the state.

Firstly, in this way we are learning how to trade, and that is what we need. Secondly, we are always in a position to dissolve these companies if we deem it necessary, and do not, therefore, run any risks, so to speak. We are learning from the private capitalist and looking round to see how we can progress, and what mistakes we make. It seems to me that I need say no more.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm

Interview With Arthur Ransome

How is it that although capitalism is the antithesis of communism, certain
circumstances are assets from the two opposite viewpoints? It is because one
possible way to proceed to communism is through state capitalism, provided the
state is controlled by the working class. This is exactly the position in the "present case".

Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something in the
nature of a "feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible, for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism.

The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this—firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade ; and secondly, in respect of the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of the principles of what in capitalist economics is called
"state capitalism ".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm

To the Russian Colony in North America

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter's quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

On Cooperation

Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on
state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing" Childishness and the
Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in
the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract
political points. It seemed to them that the term "state capitalism" could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power.

They did not notice, however, that I use the term "state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.

But there is another aspect of the matter for which we may need state capitalism, or at least a comparison with it. It is a question of cooperatives.

Under state capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from state capitalist enterprises, firstly, because they are private enterprises, and, secondly, because they are collective enterprises. Under our present system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises because they are collective enterprises, but do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and means of production belong to the state, i.e., the working-class.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

(hat tip Dave Balmer for compiling this; NB - check the references before using any of these quotes, as they are not presented in standard form)

the Waters of Mars

2009-10-20T14:57:00.000+02:00

I am beginning to get excited. In a few weeks time, we will see the next Doctor Who episode. What will be revealed though? We know from the Easter Special (Planet of the Dead) that something is returning from the darkness and there will be four knocks . Four knocks= Sound of Drums= Master. The Waters of Mars can be played with to give Wars of the Master.

Barry Letts

2009-10-20T14:52:00.000+02:00

I was saddened to hear, the other day, that Barry Letts passed away on 9 October.

Letts played a vital role in shaping the Jon Pertwee era of Doctor Who in his capacity of Producer.

Kids, Chess and Marxism

2009-10-18T15:13:00.003+02:00

This week has seen two teens get the title of Grandmaster. Jorge Cori, from Peru, and Ray Robson, from the USA, have qualified for the GM title. Jorge only needs to get above 2500 ELO rating to get the title, it is conditional until then. Still, the 2500 will come - a matter of time - and thus he is, unless you are a pedant, the youngest GM right now.

Once upon a time master strength kids were rare. There was Jose Raul Capablanca and Sammy Reshevsky. In the 1950s, there was Bobby Fischer. These days it is not a surprise when a youth wins the GM title.

Back in 1917, the Socialist Standard was asked about the brilliance of Capablanca. The enquirer was trying to use Capa's talent to argue that people are clearly unequal and that the Capitalist class possess "directive ability" and deserve what they have - ie. they are rich because they are mentally superior to the working class. The editors replied that Capa had an obvious talent but then there were "unknowns" who never had the opportunity to become good due to poverty.

Chess prodigies are becoming a dime a dozen these days. With the spread, in our time, of the internet and games a simple mouseclick away, with chess databases like Chessbase or strong computer programmes like Rybka, it looks like it is easier to make these child GMs.

This development seems to confirm an aspect of historical materialism.

Dead Alive

2009-10-14T20:48:00.001+02:00

"Your mother ate my dog!"
"Not all of it."

Sexting

2009-10-14T05:33:00.003+02:00

Jessie Logan (1990-2009)

was a talented artist and a senior at Sycamore High School in Cincinnati, Ohio who dreamed of going to the University of Cincinnati to study graphic design. Tragically, her mother found her hanging in her closet with her cell phone left in the middle of the room. Jessie killed herself. She was only 18.

Jessie was a victim of sexting. She sent photos she thought would be kept private to someone she cared about. She sent nude photos to her boyfriend through her cell phone. But when they broke up, he allegedly shared the images with other girls. Jessie was devastated but strong. She went on the news to raise awareness of sexting and keep people from doing what she did.

Unfortunately, she could not deal with the ridicule and torture from other students as the photos reached hundreds of people. She was turned away from parties and called "slut" and "whore."

She spoke out against sexting to try to help other girls not make the same mistake. Please take Jessie's challenge to raise awareness of the dangers of sexting ...

How Can I Help Stop Sexting?

* If you know someone who is Sexting, encourage them to stop.
* Be proactive telling others about the consequences of Sexting.
* If you receive an image of this nature, delete it immediately.
* Report any posted image to the safety team of that website, or their webmaster.

(from the social networking site myyearbook.com)

Magnus, Football and Parties

2009-10-12T05:50:00.002+02:00

What a great weekend!

Friday, I got up at 3.30am in order to follow the live transmission of the final round of the Nanjing Pearl Spring chess tournament in China. Magnus Carlsen won again, and in seemingly simple and crushing style, to finish with a score of 8/10 points and reach an ELO rating of 2800. He is only the fifth person to pass 2800, even Bobby Fischer didn't break 2800 although he got very close, and also the youngest ever to do so. He turns 19 in a few weeks. It will be exciting to see him in action in November and December - he has the Tal Memorial in Russia and the London Classic coming up and some pretty stiff competition in the form of Anand, Kramnik and many other from the world chess elite.

On a humbler scale, I cashed in that evening on helping out with a University sports day, where I represented the chess club, with the party held for volunteers - free food and free bar was very nice.

I recovered sufficiently to get the train to Copenhagen, to celebrate a friend's 30th birthday. I actually took first class since the Inter City was booked solid! Loads of people were making their way over to watch the Denmark-Sweden world cup qualifier. I honestly don't see why they take more cash because first class isn't all that different from second, except for the apples the stewardess gave us now and then and the free coffee. I suppose it's for the rich executives who want to get away from the proles....

The party was excellent. I had another friend SMS regular updates of the match so we had a little extra to cheer during dinner. 1-0 Denmark and here we come South Africa.

The dot over the i was provided by Gillingham winning 3-2 over Wycombe in League 1. Some weekends are better than others.

A Still More Glorious Dawn Awaits, Not a Sunrise but a Galaxyrise

2009-10-10T09:49:00.002+02:00

I always respected Carl Sagan. A pal pointed me in the direction of this track; I think it is fantastic. It captures his soft voice and scientific erudition and rational thinking,

Whoooop, uh-uh, whooop-o!

Things to do on a Saturday Night (II)

2009-10-05T02:54:00.002+02:00

Bloodspell.

Punk and indy music meets fantasy meets (somewhat crappy) computer animation = great, leftfield b-film.

Gills versus Established Clubs

2009-10-05T02:53:00.002+02:00

Gillingham got tonked again, this time 4-1 to the Saints. The Gills have troubles against "famous" clubs....

Population, Environment and Socialism (again)

2009-10-03T10:08:00.000+02:00

The latest New Scientist has a feature on population.

It confirms what we blogged about in June: (female) education, gender equality and the eradication of poverty will play key roles in creating a stable world population. The Ehrlichs (famous for the Population Bomb) argue that point.

The articles also discuss other aspects of the population question. One of them, unintentionally, highlights a problem with the very framing of the issue - when is there a population problem? Well, when there are too few people about, for example! Reiner Klingholz argues that Europe is facing a problem of low fertility rate and ageing populace, which will trouble economies:

High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country's environmental challenges....[I]t is important to focus less on human quantity and more on human capacity; not on how many people there are, but on how productively they live their lives. Working life must be extended and Europe must invest heavily in education, as fewer young brains will have to deliver increased creativity and productivity. (My emphasis.)

Note how the population issue gets a sort of nationalist slant to it and how it is directly linked to the interests of Capital.

The population question obviously cannot be divorced from other issues (which does happen) such as changes in technology and production, as shown in this interview with Jesse Ausubel. One such change could be the use of farming techniques that give higher yields whilst using less land. There is a whole vista of new possibilities which could be utilised to their full potential in a socialist society.

Possibly the hardest aspect is that of consumption. It is becoming obvious that a large meat diet is taking a toll on the environment. However, socialists don't tend to make lifestyles a central part of their argument. Who are we to tell others what they should or should not eat? Rather, we limit ourselves to arguments along the lines of getting rid of capitalism so that the, at present, billion malnourished people around the world can actually get the luxury of thinking about what to eat.

The population question is, in the final analysis, inextricably linked to how we live and how we could live. The editorial puts it thus: "Critically, it ... means basing success on stability - recognising that economic growth at all costs, not population growth, is the real root of all evil." Economic growth is, frankly, production for profit and Capital accumulation. New Scientist is not arguing for the abolition of capitalism, obviously; it is up to socialists to point out that capitalism cannot function without economic growth and, since that is the case, we need a different and sustainable mode of production.

2016 Olympic Games

2009-10-03T10:00:00.001+02:00

Women's beach volley on the Copacabana or the shores of Lake Michigan? No contest.

the Carlsen Daily Show

2009-10-02T13:46:00.002+02:00

Magnus Carlsen - the 18 year old, Norweigian, super-grandmaster, who has started training with Garry Kasparov - is simply demolishing the field in the Pearl Spring tournament in Nanjing, China. He has four wins and a draw after five rounds. Everybody else has drawn so he leads by a full two points from local hero Yue Wang.

This is simply awesome stuff from the young man.

Roll me in Flour and Bake me for 40 Minutes...

2009-09-28T08:36:00.000+02:00

The Lions finally won!

Caption Time

2009-09-27T06:42:00.001+02:00

Schwarzenegger and deVito in Twins sequel.

The simple "WTF???" from the baby on the left is probably the best.

Bedbugs and Other Parasites.

2009-09-27T01:00:00.004+02:00

The Royal Family is to be exempt from any cuts in public spending next year when its civil list funding is settled for the next 10 years.

Although all of the major political parties are vying to demonstrate their willingness to wield the axe on public spending, MPs will be powerless to reduce the £7.9m a year paid under the civil list because of an obscure deal struck between Buckingham Palace and the Treasury in 1972 when the current legislation governing royal finances was drawn up.

Palace officials made clear earlier this summer that they are actually seeking a rise in the annual civil list payment to cover "increased costs" despite the fact that they currently have a £21m surplus in the reserves on the civil list account.

Here

Sometimes I think the French had a really good idea.

Gills 1 Norwich 1

2009-09-27T00:56:00.001+02:00

Dang it, the curse of the 90th minute strikes again! They were that close to getting all three points against the Canaries.

K-K (part III)

2009-09-27T00:48:00.004+02:00

It was over before anyone could even really begin to enjoy it. That is the shame with the recent Kasparov-Karpov match, which was won rather convincingly by Gazza: 3-1 in the rapid games and 6-2 in the eight blitz games. There should have been at least two more rapid games. The event, like everything else, had its troubles because of the economic situation.

Karpov is in danger of fading out quite quickly. He certainly didn't help himself by playing a dreadfully biteless and passive line of the Queen's Gambit Declined in his two (black) rapid games. Kasparov, on the other hand, looks as full of energy as ever. It really is a shame he retired.

Welcome to Hell

2009-09-23T06:23:00.002+02:00

Icon of Sin - keyboard version or death metallish version

Doom II. Some games are just too good for words!

...and Heaven (on Adelpha)

2009-09-23T06:20:00.002+02:00

Here

Outcast was an excellent game, with soundtrack/music supplied by the Moscow Symphony and Choir.

K-K (part II)

2009-09-23T06:11:00.003+02:00

Game 1 of the four game rapid match wasn't much. But in game 2, Kasparov let loose a trademark sacrifice and killer attack, after a strongly played opening. Talk about chess fans shouting "wooohoooo!" all across the world at that one.

Interestingly, Karpov and Kasparov have developed a friendlier relationship now, because the former visited the latter when he was arrested for his anti-Putin activities.

K-K: 25 Years On

2009-09-20T04:47:00.002+02:00

Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov are playing a short exhibition match in Valencia, Spain, which starts tomorrow. (They also play a charity match in December.) The match marks the 25th anniversary of the first K-K World Championship match, where the young star went 5-0 down and managed to grind his way back after a tough rearguard action, only for the then Chess Federation (FIDE) President Florencio Campomanes to call off the match on the grounds that both players were suffering physical and mental collapse. My, how time does fly and what a change there has been in chess during that time.

Gazza has retired now and devotes his time, mainly, to politics in Russia, where he has been assaulted with a chessboard, arrested on an anti-Putin rally and "heckled" by a flying penis. Tolya is still a tough character but age is catching up with him - he got the worst result of his life at the recent Donostia tournament in which he came last. I imagine chuckles could be heard in the Swiss Valleys, where another K (Korchnoi, who played three matches for the world title against Karpov in 74, 78 and 81 and who has resided there since his defection from the USSR), was winning the Switzerland Championship at the grand age of 78.

Youth is slowly taking over. The shape of things to come is Magnus Carlsen. The 18 year old super-GM looks certain to be world champion one day. He has been receiving training this year from Gazza no less.

Gills News

2009-09-20T04:44:00.002+02:00

A win over Millwall (2-0) and not even close to a draw versus Leeds....(a 4-1 away loss)

Time of My Life

2009-09-15T16:34:00.002+02:00

I never grow tired of this film. Thankyou Patrick.

Exorcism

2009-09-10T00:50:00.003+02:00

.Is there exorcism in football? Possibly. England's wins away and then at home in the evening's match against Croatia has got rid of the ghost, the unhappy 3-2 loss a few years' ago; it's a bit like the 5-1 win in Munich and losses to the Germans.

The champagne is still on ice as Denmark only drew 1-1 away against Albania. That leaves 2 games at home against Hungary and Sweden. Both sides are breathing down the Danes' necks and they only have a three point cushion. The Swedes would love to gatecrash the party. Denmark has that match to exorcise itself....

And the Reds Go Marching On!

2009-09-07T09:50:00.004+02:00

My hometown was a ghost town for 2 hours Saturday, despite it being festival week, as Denmark played Portugal at home. The Portugeuse were very strong - Ronaldo being dangerous - but what does that matter when you have man of the match Stephan Andersen between the posts, playing with all the ability and agility of a young Peter Schmeichal?

Arsenal's Niklas Bendtner sent the country into seventh heaven a few minutes before half-time with the sweetest of chested ball control and turns to smash the ball into the roof of the net. The rest of the match was a case of looking at the clock and hoping the final whistle would come. Alas, Portugal managed to equalise four minutes before full time. Sweden beat Hungary so it was a good evening - mission accomplished. Denmark are sitting very pretty on top of their World Cup qualification group and face Albania away this Wednesday. Portugal are in real danger of not making it to South Africa.

Elsewhere, the Gills have drawn 0-0 v. Walsall and won 3-0 v. Exeter.

Gillingham 1 Blackburn Rovers 3

2009-08-28T08:18:00.002+02:00

The Gills' cup run is over. Alas, once more the shots at goal and on target stats revealed too little Gills action up front and everything the other way. It is, to be fair, what one would expect against a team like Blackburn. (Although Kent Messenger reported that the Gills were lively at times and played some good football.)

It's Official - Banks are Socially Useless

2009-08-28T05:55:00.001+02:00

In a searing critique of the industry, Lord Turner described much of the City's activities as "socially useless" and questioned whether it has grown too large.

Before we get too excited, this isn't a call for a society of common ownership, production for use and free access. Lord Turner is merely calling for taxation to prevent bankers' excessive profiteering (sic) if they continue to take risks.

Lord Turner is correct, though: banks are socially useless. They don't feed people, care for people, build homes or anything else of use.

I heart Lara

2009-08-26T09:26:00.003+02:00

I have finally got my grubby paws on "the Angel of Darkness". It's a shame though that many of the old PC Games don't work on Vista. (OK, there are a variety of ways to overcome that problem, but all the same....)

This will now join all the other Tomb Raider games and the film boxset on my shelf. She's not bad; she was just programmed that way.

When Will They Ever Learn?

2009-08-24T09:21:00.002+02:00

The SWP has once again revealed its anti-working class colours.

The idea that the Taliban, as a movement fighting against U.S. occupation, is a force we should be supporting is, unfortunately, a somewhat controversial position to hold, even on the far left. This is a serious mistake and speaks both to the extent to which Islamophobia has penetrated the left, as well as to the lack of understanding of the social dynamics of an oppressed and devastated country like Afghanistan.

Here.

Will the SWP rebuke that contribution? We shall have to wait and see. However, it does speak volumes that this so-called socialist party has members quite willing to support prize loonies like the Taliban. This isn't the first time, though, we have seen the SWP support totalitarian theocrats. The SWP supported the Islamic Republic of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. More recently, they have argued that socialists shouldn't attack the Iranian theocracy.

Latest Gills News

2009-08-24T08:16:00.002+02:00

Darn it, tarnation, etc, etc.

Two games and two losses. Colchester 2 Gillingham 1 and Gills 0 Hartlepool 1. I am not sure the latter was deserved. The Colchester game, on the other hand, saw the Blues score on one of their two on-goal shots, whereas Colchester had something like 12 shots on target. With stats like that, the Gills were lucky not to get a drubbing like "the Squatters" did. (That is our affectionate name for Brighton, who lost 7-1 the other day and who shared Priestfield for a little while when they had financial difficulties a few years back.)

Other news is "Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium", the Gills' fanzine and then internet blog/ezine has died a death. The guys who ran it for nigh-on two decades just haven't got the passion to do it any more. That is a huge shame as it was a really fun mag; so all that remains is to thank the gentlemen in question for their fantastic work down the years.

Rugby Match

2009-08-24T00:21:00.003+02:00

My old rugby team has finally cobbled together a film and posted it on YouTube. They are in the dark, navy blue. The Tacklers are in black, with the white "ribs" on the side. (It was a bit confusing at times.)

the Carnival of Socialism

2009-08-16T12:15:00.003+02:00

It had to happen - picking up the baton from Wombat , this edition of the Carnival is presented to you by a member of the Socialist Party (i.e., not them or them!).

I had to think a bit before accepting the task because the SPGB is, of course, well known for its clause 7 and views that stand in direct contrast to most left politics, such as: workers shouldn't vote Labour; leninism isn't a development of marxism; state ownership is state capitalism; and Russia et al did not establish socialism nor were/are they "degenerate workers' states". However, I did promise PhilBC that I would refrain from calling everybody else a bunch of non-socialist reformists. So I shalln't!

Naturally, whilst disagreeing with so much, there are nonetheless interesting posts on the left blogosphere that do catch one's eye as they invariably are about my weird interests and tastes. Apologies to those who do not get a mention; there are only so many hours in the day for blog reading and some of you haven't blogged at all this month (which renders a fortnightly round up rather hard to do). Please, please do use the comment box if there is something you think is worthy of attention.

I will do shameless plugs first though. So there is Darren - he is always good for bad SPGB jokes and insights into Glasgow Celtic. The Socialist Party blog is Socialism or Your Money Back, which has your present reviewer and Alan on the team. (It is also the name of a book which was published in 2004 to mark 100 years of the Socialist Party.)

Apropos Scots who love their football, Kevin blogs about an old passion of mine: astronomy. I shalln't say a word about the Hibees result against Gillingham's old rivals Preston.

I want to point you - if you don't know him already - in the direction of anarchist Andy from Australia. He has been blogging about the far right (down under) for absolutely ages and is thus an important resource for activists. Besides, any person who likes Napalm Death cannot be at all bad!

Vulgar Marxism will raise a few knowing smiles amongst the Leftist Trainspotters out there.

Another anarchist, whom the SPGB debated not so long ago, is Ian Bone; he remembers a forgotten fighter from the Spanish Civil War.

Humour is of course a great way to fight the far right - (via River's Edge) the Nick Griffin Diaries exposé.

Phil takes a look at Twitter and the recent attacks on the NHS. (New technologies and the political process is an important topic for sure as the Iranian demonstrations showed. Although not a blogger, this guy will get a mention anyway.) Shiraz mentions another aspect of the NHS affair. Since it has been a hot topic of the week, here's Dave Semple too.

American Commie reminds us of other matters.

Another Dave gets an obligatory mention - here is a post/comments which I enjoyed. However, the kid in question might want to check out what Splintered Sunrise had to say about leftist personality cults.

Hakmao answers a question I have wondered about.

Prof. David Harvey (of City University New York) gave a lecture at the SWP's major event Marxism this year. A video of this is posted on his website (blog?!). He seems to be a convivial fella, always willing to give his take on Marx, Capital and Capitalism - after all, he has even agreed to be interviewed by me next week!

I have been fascinated by art history so take a gander at Swuppie John Molyneux's blog and a lengthy, but interesting, look at Michelangelo

Liam has a slightly lighter posting on art here as well as a discussion on anarchists and the Spanish Civil War here.

I love the movies too so I look at what people write about films. Harpymarx's latest post is on releases in 1999. I can't believe Harpy was gripped by the Blair Witch Project though.... John Hughes is remembered (erm, perhaps) at The Soul of Man Under Capitalism. The quote/scene there sums up that idiot Ben Stein pretty well, me thinks.

Finally, Climate and Capitalism post on Peterloo. These words from Shelley

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many – they are few.

and Adam Ford's reflections on recent struggles seem like a stirring and apt way to close this carnival. Don't forget Louis Proyect's blog since that is where the next carnival will be in a fortnight's time.

Chucky

2009-08-15T21:52:00.006+02:00

Diagram: the position in Ivanchuk-Kamsky, FIDE Grand Prix (Jermuk) 2009, with white to make his 113th move.

Picture: Ivanchuk. (Source - chessbase.com)

Certain Grandmasters simply bore the pants off people. Others are great favourites with the playing public. One of the latter variety is Ukrainian Vassily Ivanchuk. He has been a top grandmaster for many years now and is as well known for his great chess as he is for his eccentricites. His nickname is Chucky.

He was in huge trouble today, around move 11 no less, against Gata Kamsky; he sacrificed his queen for two minor pieces but never had real compensation. He managed - goodness knows how - to survive and get a draw, using the 50 move rule- (If no pawns have been moved and no captures made in 50 moves, the game is a draw.) In the position above he played 113. Bc4-f1 and there followed 113...Qh3-h7 114. Rf4-d4.

The last capture had been back at move 64 (and there hadn't been any pawn moves since either). For a short while, the official site showed 114... B:d4, causing some confusion to us following the game over the internet. After some minutes the move was cancelled and the draw result posted. Black was completely winning, of course, but Chucky was saved in the nick of time. Whether Kamsky is out kicking innocent kittens is not clear. It must be terribly frustrating for him. However, he isn't the only person to have suffered this. Last year at the Aeroflot tournament, the Nguyen - Vachier Lagarve game reached a position where Nguyen had checkmate in 2 moves. The Frenchman, though, could quietly call the arbiter and claim a draw under the 50 move rule.

I haven't experienced anything quite so dramatic, although I have saved a lost position many years ago because an opponent repeated moves in order not to lose on time. (A certain number of moves have to be made in an alloted period of time.) I was able to call the arbiter and claim a draw under threefold repetition. I certainly ruined his evening.

Maybe this all sounds odd but then cricket has its draws simply because it rains for days! (Normally this is England's best saving clause when playing at home.)

Back to Reality....

2009-08-15T21:51:00.000+02:00

Tranmere 4 Gillingham 2

Did Trotsky Point the Way to Socialism?

2009-08-14T09:46:00.002+02:00

The debate between the Socialist Party (represented by Adam Buick) and Hillel Ticktin has been uploaded to YouTube for your viewing pleasure.

Rugby 7s

2009-08-14T08:50:00.004+02:00

The news that Rugby 7s is set to become an olympic sport, from 2016 if an upcoming motion is passed by the OL committee, is welcome news. It's a damn sight more fun than watching women (or men for that matter) punch each others lights out.

It's quite probable that the olympic champions will be Fiji as they are past masters of 7s. There is an old joke that they even play 7s in "proper" 15-man rugby union! (Their entertaining matches v. Wales and v. South Africa at the World Cup in 2007 lend support to that theory.)

Pictured are Fijians "the Viti Outlaws", who won the recent Plate Tournament in the Scandinavian 7s, which is held in Copenhagen every year and is always well attended by teams (old boys, women, etc) from around the world and of various abilities.

(Hat tip Ork.)

Gillingham 2 Plymouth Argyle 1

2009-08-12T05:30:00.004+02:00

Gillingham’s impressive start to the season continued after dumping Championship side Plymouth out of the Carling Cup.

Goals at the end of the first half goals from Simeon Jackson and Andy Barcham sent them on their way to the second round for the first time in four years.

The KM report continues here.

Here's hoping the good start carries on all season as the Gills march ever forward towards the premiership title, champions' league and world domination!

Mein Kampf

2009-08-10T07:12:00.004+02:00

Germany's Central Council of Jews has taken the unprecedented step of backing a proposal to republish Adolf Hitler's infamous autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf, which has been strictly outlawed in the country since the end of the Second World War.

Although many German Jews still oppose reissuing Hitler's anti-Semitic work, Stephan Kramer, the general secretary of the country's leading Jewish organisation, supports a new scholarly edition of the work designed to inform future generations of the evils of Nazism.

"It makes sense and is important to publish an edition of Mein Kampf with an academic commentary," Mr Kramer said. "A historically critical edition needs to be prepared today to prevent neo-Nazis profiting from it."

The Indy looks at this contentious issue today.

Of course Mein Kampf should be re-issued; it should also be read. The way to understand history and defeat today's scumbag racists is not through bans or sweeping things away under a carpet. Racism, in fact, depends upon such ignorance. Bans and censorship never really achieve the aims they seek anyway for that reason as well as driving the subject underground.

As the Indy leader column put it so pithily: publish and let Hitler be damned.

Gillingham 5 Swindon 0 - the reaction

2009-08-10T06:46:00.002+02:00

Alas, there was a bit of trouble at Priestfield and afterwards. There is a certain predictability about this because the Gills and Sw*ndon just cannot stand one another.

Manager Stimson was happy with events. As he told Kent Messenger

As a team and individually I can’t fault any of them. To win the first game is a massive boost because before it I would have possibly taken a point.
Swindon finished mid-table last season, but they’ve introduced a couple of decent players. To come away winning 5-0 is what dreams are made of it.

World Chess News

2009-08-10T06:35:00.006+02:00

I came across something I hadn't heard of before: chess news, in swedish! Made by the Krzymowska sisters (Adriana, Antonia and Amelia) and their two brothers, it is a useful show though.

Chess in swedish is "schach"; when pronounced it sounds a bit like "whack". It sounds quite funny.

Gillingham 5 Swindon 0

2009-08-08T16:22:00.001+02:00

An excellent start to the season, with Simeon Jackson netting a hat-trick.

Another 80s Film Flashback

2009-08-08T05:09:00.002+02:00

John Hughes R-I-P.

Another Friday, another collection of 80s classics.

It's Coming....

2009-08-04T14:58:00.003+02:00

One more week and the Football kicks off in England. The Gills start off the 2009/10 campaign at home against the old foes Sw*ndon Town. The full list of fixtures is here.

Just to make life more fun, we're up against some other riff-raff: L**ds and Millscum.

80s Film Flashback

2009-08-01T06:48:00.006+02:00

Ah, nothing like a good ol' 80s teen flick on a Friday night! And I thought Molly Ringwald was hot even then.

Bobby Robson (1933-2009)

2009-08-01T06:39:00.005+02:00

A fond memory was inter-railing in Italy in 1990 and watching the world cup football. Cheers Bobby.

Socialist Standard

2009-07-26T11:06:00.002+02:00

A random cover, that was posted on my myspace.

Computers and Endgames

2009-07-22T04:38:00.005+02:00

Malakhov - Kuzubov, Politiken Cup 2009. White to move.

Apropos chess computers....

Yesterday's top board game in round five of the Politiken Cup in Copenhagen saw the extremely rare two bishops versus knight endgame. As a measure of how rare it is, the last time I saw anything about this sort of endgame was in the magazine "New In Chess" back in 1988, where there was a lengthy article on it!

The 2B v. N was considered a draw for decades, until 1983 and "tablebases", i.e. computer engines, that can work out the precise winning method. It isn't at all easy since the road to victory can take as many as 40+ correct moves! I followed the game live on the net and put the game positions in a tablebase and sure enough got an answer within a second, such as forced checkmate in 48 moves and the like. The Russian Vladimir Malakhov, who has 5/5 points now, had to use his erudition and skill to bring home the whole point on move 110; it just goes to show how good these Grandmasters are when you consider they had been playing for just over four hours by this point and he had no books or tablebases to help him at the board!

In the position above, White played 110. Kg4-g5 and Black resigned. It's mate very shortly. (110. ... Kh7-h8 111. Kg5-g6 Ng7-e6 112. Ba5-c3 check, and not 111.Bf7:e6 stalemate!)

Chess, chess and more chess

2009-07-17T09:28:00.006+02:00

Pictured: 12th Women's World Champion and Grandmaster, Alexandra Kosteniuk.

I had more or less given up playing serious, over the board, chess for roughly a decade, contenting myself with 3-minute internet blitz chess - where both players have only three minutes each to play a whole game - at FICS (the Free Internet Chess Server). Chess seemed to be dying a slow death at the hands of computers and a crush of books on opening analysis. (The initial position allows the working out of best moves, sometimes going as deep as move 30!) Chess should be fun, not a pointless game of memorisation. So I stopped playing until this spring when I regained my enthusiasm again thanks to Russian Grandmaster Kosteniuk. I came across some of her videos on YouTube and... BANG! ... hooked again.

Chess is certainly far more varied than I ever imagined as I have discovered upon reading a few books on modern strategy written by an American International Master, John Watson. I had grown up on all the classic strategy books, such as "The Middlegame" by Max Euwe (World Champion in 1935) and "My System" by Aron Nimzovitch. They are fine books but there have come a whole load of new strategical ideas since; the past decade has seen lots of quality books, such as the Watson series, detailing this change in ideas. The silicon monsters aren't that big a threat (yet) either.

One of the intriguing things about chess is why girls haven't had the same success as the boys. There is quite a bit of sexism in the game: girls cannot play chess! (sic.) Judit Polgar has been one of the exceptions; she's been a top Grandmaster for years. (Judit doesn't bother with the Women's World title; she plays the men.)

There have been attempts to understand why. There were a couple of articles discussing the subject by veteran Britsh Correspondence Master Tim Harding, here (.pdf) and here. Do the ladies think differently, making them weak players? I don't think so; for the time being, though, chess is very much dominated by the guys.

Who Review #160 - Survival

2009-06-17T09:21:00.006+02:00

And so the long journey started in a junkyard on... 10 March nears its close!

Doctor Who was cancelled and for many long years Who fans had to make do with fan fiction and the slow stream of releases from the BBC, amongst other things. What is all the more disappointing is that the stories were actually beginning to get better when the plug was pulled. McCoy and Aldred were quite a good Doctor/companion combo. Ace was certainly a lot different to many of the girls, carrying explosives around as she did and being something of a strong willed tomboy.

the McCoy era
spoon player
doffing his hat
r-r-r-r-rolled Rs
clown but also broody

Survival has some poorly realised ideas, notably the black cat and (to a lesser extent) the Cheetah people face masks. Those aside, the story is interesting, with some good performances from McCoy, esp. Aldred , and Antony Ainley as the Master.

And we are left with a lovely concluding line, for the time being anyway....

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do

******

Who Review #159 - Curse of Fenric

2009-06-17T09:21:00.004+02:00

There are lots of lovely horror references in this story, notably to the Fog and to vampire yarns, as well as lashings of Nordic mythology. The latter has a scene that reminds me of Salem's Lot, when the priest (played ably by Nicholas Parsons) falls prey to the vampiric girls because his faith has gone and it will not protect him. The faithless priest is something of a commentary on WWII, as he lost his faith because of what happened. We delve into more of Ace's past; in a way, this has more to do with New Who than the classic show, as companions weren't developed this way previously.

There are lots of great scenes (and it actually manages to be creepy in places) and a good production level in general.

A classic.
******

Who Review #158 - Ghost Light

2009-06-17T09:20:00.007+02:00

There are fans who love this story to bits because of its complexity. I think it tries to be too clever for its own good. Still, there is the philosophical point: evolution, dialectics, change. Another positive - Ace is developed, her past is discussed, something that would be done further in the next two stories. We are kept guessing as to what is happening for quite a while. The sets and costumes are great, the music OK. I was a bit annoyed by the creatures in the basement as I simply struggled to understand what they were saying. Josiah reminded me of Bernie from the Weekend at Bernie's farce! And what was all that with his plan to assassinate Queen Victoria? (To think she goes and founds Torchwood, despite being indirectly saved here by the Doctor....The ingrate!)

Lord Flashheart Line
Ace: Where have you been?
Doctor: Where haven't I been?
(the viewer: WOOF!)

******

Who Review #157 - Battlefield

2009-06-17T09:20:00.006+02:00

After a long break (since the Android Invasion), UNIT return as does the retired Brigadier and the Doctor's vintage roadster, Bessie.

There are some elements in the story which were later to become commonplace in New Who: the new Brigadier is a black women (mirroring the greater opportunities for people in society) and a UNIT soldier tells Brig. Bambera that whenever the Doctor appears, all hell breaks loose.

The story plays with Arthurian legend, which is fun I suppose, but it does relapse more often than not into sci-fi pantomime as Knights wander around the British countryside like extras from Monty Python's Holy Grail. The incidental music is dreadfully intrusive and doesn't fit the scenes or action.

Jean Marsh is the evil Morgaine and quite good in the part. Just think, Nick Courtney and Jean made their first Who appearance in the Daleks Masterplan.

Classic Brigadier
we finally see Doris!

The story is actually heavy on nuclear armegeddon; the Destroyer is well made and has been argued by some to be a metaphor for a nuclear device.

******

Who Review #156 - the Greatest Show in the Galaxy

2009-06-14T16:34:00.006+02:00

Another quirky story!

There are some visually appealling features in the story: clowns that drive hearses, the deserted setting of the circus, spy kites. In fact, the story touches on that typical "neurotic hang-up": bloody clowns! I hate the things and think they are creepy. The story has a distinct dreamscape/ nightmarish quality about it.

The story builds up really nicely; something is happening at the circus but what? We meet some oddball and interesting characters as we get to the circus: Cook and Mags, Bellboy, the head clown (who is a menacing figure and played well by Ian Reddington). Probably the worst character though is the kid - a snotty, little geek played by Gian Sammarco, with shades of Adrian Mole here and, apparantly, a figure poking fun at certain types of Doctor Who fan! The story has that little sub-text: the family in the audience are TV viewers or BBC executives and Doctor Who as a programme is on trial! (Then BBC director Michael Grade was not a fan of the show at all and 1989 would mark a dark moment in the show's history....)

All in all, an entertaining and original story.
******

Who Review #155 - Silver Nemesis

2009-06-14T16:33:00.009+02:00

The Cybermen return in what is a pointless mess of a story.
******

ps. The chess game is important for a later story.....

Who Review #154 - the Happiness Patrol

2009-06-14T16:33:00.005+02:00

The Happiness Patrol are magic: leggy lasses in pink minis, pink/purple wigs, high heels and they carry big guns! One of the foes is unforgettable: the Bertie Bassett's inspired Kandyman, who executes people by drowning them in liquid confectionary.

This is another of those quirky stories, in the positive sense of Paradise Towers - visually,it is off-beat and there is a delightful blues sound in the incidental music .

Believe it or not, the story is a look at Thatcher's Britain! Sheila Hancock's Helen A is Mrs. T. There is possibly a gay rights message in here somewhere too (a prisoner wears a pink triangle).

The only let down is the Fifi puppet. Still, one of my favourites from the McCoy era.
******

Who Review #153 - Remembrance of the Daleks

2009-06-14T16:32:00.004+02:00

This was broadcast around the time of the 25th anniversary and that is reflected in the story: there is a playful reference to UNIT when the Doctor calls the Group Captain "Brigadier"; the action features Cole Hill School (where Ace picks up a book - Susan's? - on the French Revolution) and the junkyard at Totter's Lane, all references to An Unearthly Child; the silly bit on TV, where the BBC presenter says it is 5:15 and time for a new sci-fi show called Doc....

The first episode suffers from plunging straight into the action. Normally, there is a little build up before characters meet and the enemy is revealed. Here it is done very briefly and quickly. Still, the story begins to settle down after the hurried start - there is a little bit of mystery with regard to a small girl - as we discover the Dalek factions are at war and both after the Hand of Omega, which the Doctor has left on Earth.

The story is a bit contrived though. Everything is taking place in the old haunt; the Dalek factions know about the Hand of Omega and the Doctor could take something so important from Gallifrey...huh??? Other silly bits are the pantomime fascists, seeing a Dalek spaceship land on a school playground in 1963, and the Time Controller is a plasma globe! Oh and another problem: Davros is back, again.

It's a lightweight bit of fun, with some good scenes here and there, but nothing special. It is easy to see how the show had changed if you compare this story with Genesis of the Daleks.....
******

Who Review #152 - Dragonfire

2009-06-14T16:31:00.003+02:00

The season finale sees the series return to slightly more normal Who and is a distinct improvement on the proceeding stories.

There are some nice touches throughout the story. There is Pythonesque moment when the Doctor talks to a guard, in order to distract him, and the latter turns out to be an expert in Philosophy. Tony Selby is back once again as the comic crook Glitz. They finally get rid of Mel, who is replaced by the sweet Sophie Aldred (Ace). The "Dragon" is actually an OK design. Edward Peel is excellent as Kane. Kane's death is one of the Who moments as the special effect is comparable to the famous face melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The end of episode 1 is the silliest in the history of the show, surely? The Doctor, for no reason, climbs over a railing and looks set to plummet to his death! (This is compounded still more when the girls climb down to a ledge using a rope ladder; the drop has vanished?)

Classic Mel
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarg!" (when she sees the Dragon)

Classic Ace
"Ace!" "Professor." "Brill!" "Nitro 9"

An OK story.
******

Who Review #151 - Delta and the Bannermen

2009-06-14T14:16:00.002+02:00

Ken Dodd, that guy from the Flying Pickets, humanoid aliens travelling to a holiday camp in 1959 Wales in a bus shaped spaceship, Rock n Roll inspired incidental music, a green alien baby...yep, a quirky story is in store.

I never really got in to this particular story. It really is the dreaded pantomime sci-fi. At least Bonnie Langford doesn't screach...much.

******

Who Review #150 - Paradise Towers

2009-06-14T12:43:00.004+02:00

This is actually a fun story because of its social commentary; Paradise Towers is quite simply a look at all those dreadful inner city tower blocks and estates which were heralded as great places to live when they were built but have become a ghetto. There is a hint of "Lord of the Flies", because the inhabitants of Paradise Towers were sent to live there because of a war.

It is told in an innovative fashion, e.g. girl gangs with an odd vernacular ("Ice hot!" or "Build high for happiness"); bureaucratic and almost fascist caretakers - led by an OTT Richard Briers.

The story is surprisingly violent (knife wielding cannibal grannies, killer robots that feed humans to the Great Architect, a war where young adults have not returned) but that is lost because of the light, one could say whimsical, treatment of the production. As other reviewers have noted, the incidental music simply ruins much of the impact. Bonnie Langford's Mel really does grate in this one as does Briers at times.

Classic Mel
"aaaaargh...aaaargh...aaaargh"

******