Radio 4 on socialism

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09t896q/episodes/guide

Will we gget a mention?  Maybe in the Morris Episode…

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Will we gget a mention?  

Someone should inform them that the SPGB have already written the script and is more qualified than the BBC to comment on William Morris and revolution. 

[ALB]

First episode today, introducing Robert Owen, was OK. Tomorrow, at 1.45, it's the Chartists.

[ALB]

Part Two on the Chartists was ok too.I now know how to pronounce Engels properly (it's more like eccles than angles). 

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Part Two on the Chartists was ok too.I now know how to pronounce Engels properly (it's more like eccles than angles). 

Wally Preston would be thrilled

[ALB]

The fourth episode today on "The Revolutionaries"  — the Social Democratic Federaton and the Socialist League — was a disappointment. There were factual errors, e.g. Engels (pronounced differently this time) was never a member of the SDF. Engels's detractor ex-Blairite MP, Tristram Hunt, was allowed to get a dig in about him. Too much importance was attached to Edward Carpenter. The Socialist League was said to have pioneered "identity politics". While the SDF was in at the founding of the Labour Party's forerunner, the Labour Representation Committee, she failed to mention that it soon left (with the support of those who later formed the SPGB).We got an indirect mention when it was stated that there were splits from the SDF on both the left and the right; not that we could reasonably have expected anything more than this.While, as others who have been following the series agree, the previous three episodes were a useful introduction to Owen, the Chartists and the origin of the co-operative movement, this one was misleading. Tomorrow it's Kei Hardie and Ramsay McDonald. I wonder what she'll make of them. 

[Dave B]

you would have thought they would have the wiki entry  However, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's long-term collaborator, refused to support Hyndman's venture. Many of its early leading members had previously been active in the Manhood Suffrage League.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Federation  

[Dave B]

i Even the wiki entry is flawed ? As the SDF was formed out of the “Democratic Federation” And it was the “Democratic Federation” that was actually formed in 1881 and became the SDF in 1884? Anyway Fred wasn’t impressed with the forerunner of 1881 either. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_08_30.htm the footnote might be incorrect as well?

[Anonymous]

That is the British version of The Voice of the Americas which was financed by the CIA. Moscow, Pekin and Tirana Radio were much better

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

That is the British version of The Voice of the Americas which was financed by the CIA. Moscow, Pekin and Tirana Radio were much better

I have never ever believed that the likes of the BBC are nice people who get it wrong. They know all about the University of Socialism at the SPGB. 

[ALB]

Today's episode was alright as long of course that you realise that Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald were not socialists in our sense. The series continues next week but is likely to be less interesting as it will be mainly about the Labour Party:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09t896q/episodes/guideThere was an indirect reference to what we did when she said that MacDonald didn't fancy spending his life speaking on street corners trying to persuade workers to become socialists.

[ALB]

The series finished today with Tony Benn, justified as his followers and ideas have now won the leadership of the Labour Party and may get a chance to try to put them into practice. In fact this was no doubt the justification for the whole series. Although there weren't any factual mistakes in this week's episodes their overall effect will be negative from our point of view since they will have reinforced the false impression that the Labour Party has something to do with socialism (which until Corbyn came along people had come to realise was not the case). Unfortunately we can't enforce any copyright on the meaning of the word. Still, the re-introduction of the word in mainstream politics gives us a foot in the door to say what it has, does and should mean.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Unfortunately we can't enforce any copyright on the meaning of the word. Still, the re-introduction of the word in mainstream politics gives us a foot in the door to say what it has, does and should mean.

I agree. Though you only turn people off by telling them that they are not using the "correct definition" of a word. I know that's not what you said above, but some SPGBrs certainly do do this. Defenitions are determined by groups of people through shared use. Like this guy says:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Vab1dFL-U

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

ALB wrote:

Unfortunately we can't enforce any copyright on the meaning of the word. Still, the re-introduction of the word in mainstream politics gives us a foot in the door to say what it has, does and should mean.

I agree. Though you only turn people off by telling them that they are not using the "correct definition" of a word. I know that's not what you said above, but some SPGBrs certainly do do this. Defenitions are determined by groups of people through shared use. Like this guy says:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Vab1dFL-U

This can become a problem when some socialists fail to realise there's a distinction to be made between the definition and description of socialism/communism.  By mixing the definition and description up willy nilly the meaning behind the concept gets confused and places us on the endless treadmill of contesting the meaning. Although communism/socialism mean the same thing both by definition and description this is not to say its an appeal to the dogma of copyright, but rather an appeal to the logical reasoning to the roots of the words.Definition: Common Ownership of the means of living under the democratic control of the global community so that human needs are satisfied. Based on production for use and free access to: food, shelter, clothing, education and leisure. A society where: wage slavery has been replace by the voluntary association of the producers; where individualism is replaced by the free expression of individuality; where the concepts of nationalism, the nation state, borders and frontiers no longer hinders the free mobility of labour; where science is no longer bonded to the profit motive; and where humankind have finally arrived at an understanding that we are as much dependent on our natural environment as the natural environment is dependent on us.Description: a classless, moneyless and stateless society. Which effectively means the abolishment of the wages system, profit and the struggle between capital and labour.Where the state exists so do classes. Where no state exists so classes cease to exist.A rose by any other name From my experience on Quora I never have any user contesting the meaning after I've refered to the definition and the description.

[Author]

Posts