Talk:Tony Cliff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section to be added Although all that is written hereis correct, it seems to me that there would need to be a section on his work as organizer and orator. It was also the organization which was the most important thing to him - if his latest work was only read by a hundred people, he didn't care as long a sthey were the right hundred people who could use the ideas to make a difference in the organization.

Phone activism was also very much part of Cliff. If some branch or group abroad was in crisis, they could expect hours of phone calls.

But perhaps he was most notable for a stunning single-mindedness which made many people just give up when they disagreed with him about an important strategic question.

[edit] Name Change

Why did he change his name from Yigael to Ygael, is Yigael more zionist then Ygael?--JK the unwise 12:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. He explains how in his biography. I'd explain further but do not have my copy to hand.

Jock Haston

The information here seems inconsistent with the autobiograpy. "Ygael (Gluckstein). This was taken from a John Wayne type Zionist hero who murdered a number of Arabs. At the age of 13 I changed my name from Ygael to Ygal. Seeing that in Hebrew there are no vowels but only consonants the two names are spelt in exactly the same way, so it was easy to do. The root of the name Ygal is this: Moses sent 12 spies from the 12 tribes of Israel to go to Canaan to spy out the land. Two said they would like to settle there; ten said they would not. The first of those who did not want to settle was called Ygal."--NHSavage 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[1]

[edit] FI state capitalist??

The clause "Fourth International held at the time that the 'glacis' states were already state capitalist" seems doubtful to me. Wasn't the position that the USSR was attempting to maintain and restore capitalism in the Glasis states, and that it was only after the Marshall Plan that the plan changed: the Peoples' Democracies were established and only then did the nationalisations begin. If the FI had adopted such a poition, I would have expected to see it in the Second World Congress positions, for example...--DuncanBCS 11:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The FI position at that was that these countries remained capitalist in spite of overwhelming state control of the economy, which adds up to state capitalism if you ask me, although I don't know of any case where they actually used the term "state capitalism" by way of endorsing the idea. If you look at the section on "the nature of the buffer countries" in the Second World Congress resolution on "The USSR and Stalinism", you'll find, among other things, that while one already had "The imposition on the economic life of these countries of a gradual control by the Stalinist bureaucracy" (point 22), "The nationalized sector itself continues to retain a capitalist structure" (point 25), "In the“buffer”countries the state remains bourgeois" (point 24, which for some reason seems to be out of order), and that one of the tasks of the FI is "tearing down all the illusions of the masses about the “non-capitalist” nature of the “buffer-zone” countries" (point 37). The upshot was that even though the economy was effectively state controlled "the real destruction of capitalism ... can take place only as a result of the revolutionary mobilization of the masses"; the Third World Congress resolution on "the class nature of eastern europe", under examination of past positions makes it clear, I think, that there was a change of perspective on the part of the FI, although they try to partly paper it over. So although technically the article is mistaken, there's an important point there, which is that the FI's position on Eastern Europe was still vague and in flux at the time, and that when Cliff first arrived at his postions in '48-49 they were not necessarily outside the spectrum of discussion in the FI. Rafaelgr 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• The 1948 resolution explains that the USSR had failed to sweep away the frail remnants of the bourgeosie by then: the bourgeois structure of the state and the bourgeois character of property remained in place and, while the bourgoisie was largely excluded from power private proerty was defended and, in the coalitions, there were limitet, token perhaps, representatatives of the bourgoisie. The test of state capitalism is: does the state function as the capitalist? In this case it did not. So, the FI was indicating the survival of capitalism in the buffer, rather than state capitalism, which would have required both a plan, nationalisation and the expropriation of private property: these were accomplished only in the period others has referred to as structural assimilation. --DuncanBCS 22:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British?

I've just removed a link to the 'British Jews' category on the grounds that Cliff was not British (nor a practising Jew, for that matter). It occurs to me that there may be grounds for removing the 'British Trotskyists' categorisation too, but I thought it best to see what other editors thought first - I don't think this is as clear-cut. Guy Hatton 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the British Trotskyists category is useful, as he spent most of his life in activity in Britain. Should a Palestinian Trotskyists category be created, then I'd suggest that he be placed in both. If a Palestinian communists category is created, this might also be a useful placeholder. Warofdreams talk 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking :-) Guy Hatton 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)