alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
At the risk of straying from the topic, MB's latest offering on Dissident Vocehttps://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/the-limits-and-deficiencies-of-dialectical-and-historical-materialism/#more-71852The article "The Limits and Deficiencies of Dialectical and Historical Materialism (An Abstract of the Principles of Anarcho-Historical-Relativism)"is a very lengthy, very wordy one and i still have not given it a proper read.
I think because of your concerns, Gnome, that we should be more modest in our efforts and it is why i suggested that any pamphlet should first be a compilation of what is already online in our archives and on this forum. Copy and paste what we have already said and reviewed others have said…such as https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/which is usually the detailed analysis i usually link to but it does mean we miss out on any exposure and possible debate.We do have some members who would like to participate more but are not part of any branch who could collate all the articles and then edit and reduce to a fairly comprehensive statement of the Party's position. …I know what is going through your head….why don't i volunteer….I'm actually pushed for the time to take on other responsibilities. I have a couple of project that i placed on the back-burner that needs attending to first. But i am sure there are some isolated members frustrated by the lack of activity that they can join in.I'm only replying to you like this, hoping that they read this and perhaps take the independent initiative and present us with a fait accompli that the EC can rubber-stamp, approval for internet to place on our home page and then our education section …without all the members demanding a say in crossing the t and dotting the i which is usually the case…i think such and such word should be struck down and my favourite saying substituted…you know what i mean…we've seen it before…control-freaks in the name of party democracy.So i appeal for those out there…do a search of our past Standards and previous postings on the Forum , copy and paste and then start cutting the repetition and shifting sentences about so that it flows and is a coherent read As Robbo said…we can also include other topics…automation and robotics…nationalism…whatever
Once more we have the "progressive' demand for the UBIhttps://commons.commondreams.org/t/why-we-need-a-universal-basic-income/45041/8Isn't it time to dedicate a pamphlet that explains the con that is taking place, rather than expect visitors to this forum or our website to search for the scattered critique of the Citizen's Wage.It needn't be a print pamphlet but an online collation of our articles re-formatted and re-edited for better reading.
MB, since you raised Paris May 68 as some sort of template perhaps you might be curious on what the armchair Marxists said at the timehttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1968/no-767-july-1968/how-close-was-france-socialist-revolutionWe also issued a proclamation which i republish here
Quote:“The following manifesto (for distribution in France) was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain on 28th May. This is the English translation.We address you not as citizens of one country to citizens of another but as world socialists to fellow members of the world working class.We reject frontiers as artificial barriers put up by governments. All men are brothers and the world should be theirs. All men should be social equals with free access to the plenty that could be if only the means of living belonged to a socialist world community. We oppose governments everywhere, all nationalism, racism and religion, all censorship, all wars and preparations for war.Workers! We support your class struggle for better wages and conditions against the employers and the government. But do not be taken in by the ease with which you have occupied the factories. They allowed you to do this because they know that in time you must give in. Political power is always in the hands of those who control the machinery of government, including the armed forces and the sadistic CRS. Do not be misled by those who say that universal suffrage is a fraud. Learn from your masters. You too must organise to win political power if you want a new society. Do not let cunning politicians or the discredited Communist Party return to power on your backs. Ignore those who would be your leaders. Rely on your own understanding and organisation. Turn universal suffrage into an instrument of emancipation.Students! We share your distaste for the indignities and hypocrisies of the present order. We share your wish for a new society with no exploitation of man by man. But do not underestimate what a task it will be to change society. It will be a hundred times more difficult than changing the government. A democratic world community, based on common ownership with production for use not profit, can only be set up when people want it and are ready to take the steps needed to set it up and keep it going. Democratic political action is the only way to Socialism. There are no short cuts. We must have a majority actively on our side. Do not be misled by student demagogues, those who praise Bakunin, Trotsky, Mao or Che Guevara, who would use you for their own mistaken ends. They think that an elite should use unrest to gain power and then set up a classless society. What dangerous nonsense! Look at state capitalist Russia where a new privileged class rules, with police intimidation and censorship, over an increasingly restless population. Look at state capitalist China where power-hungry bureaucrats cynically manipulate the people in their own sordid squabbles. Learn the lessons of history: elite action leads to elite rule. No Socialism unless by democratic political action, based on socialist understanding.The task you face in France is the same that we face in Britain and our brothers in Germany, Russia, the United States and other countries: to build up a strong world-wide movement for Socialism. What is needed more than anything else in this period of social unrest is a clear, uncompromising statement of the case for a socialist world community.I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.So we democratically vote on this incomplete "truth", 60% declare it is "truth"…40% don't. Is it still a "truth" for that dissenting 40%? Can i fly because 60% declare the law of gravity is false?..(silly i know…but some more sophisticated people can put it better)I am sure i am expressing this clumsily but voting has consequences and ramifications.Just how often do we return to the question of "truth" is another matter? Is it eternal?With all its flaws and anomalies i think we have already addressed how scientific "truth" is determined…it isn't, we just go by a general consensus that keeps getting challenged and "truth" keeps on getting re-defined.I just had an exchange with LHO conspircist…2015 technology on the authenticity of the backyard photos does not supersede his half-century old conclusion on shadow and light discrepancies. His "truth" remains intact.
Quote:You have a touching faith in 'professors', alan. You seem to think that there is 'an elite who know', and the rest of us don't, and can't.No. I have a touching faith in my gardener friend as i thought i indicated. He required no expert to detect changes in the growing season. Nor yourself to dismiss his hands-on experience. But those professors confirmed his practical experience and provided context. I thought i had made it clear that i saw academia and scientific community as a support role only, to dot the i and cross the t.Again you seem to misinterpret my intention…"vote with ones feet" means taking action and i fully agree that action requires thought and the existence of consciousness. How they arise can be debated but my point was that we see the manifestation of the democratic will in what people are currently doing.The mass socialist party i think the party always tried to emulate was never the Bolsheviks but the German Social Democratic Party, and we know Lenin also saw it as a model to adapt to the social conditions in Russia. Party bureaucracies were thrown up in both Germany and Russia…politics became professions and careersThe Party recognised SDP weaknesses and also those of the 2nd International generally. But there were many strengths too….the bonding of socialists socially in all manner of cultural and educational ventures. We too should adapt and adopt an approach that also has a diverse collection of activists and campaigners mustering under the one banner, leaving the democratic space for a variety of independent initiatives.Again i think you overlook the umpteen times that we say that the emancipation of workers must be by the workers themselves and to echo Dietzgen…" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."
Vin, it is a very good video, but we have a long way to go to challenge TV and Hollywood domination of ideas. Even on the net, it has hardly gone viral, has it?Future videos are an integral part of how we communicate and as you often said in the past…we as a Party are not funding them sufficiently even though we can afford to.
I don't know about you Vin, but in my opinion based on the current trajectory of the Party, you don't need to be an actuary of the insurance business or some sooth-sayer to see that the Party is heading towards extinction. The only question is the timetable.Either it will transform into an ILP-like publications group but no longer exist as a political party, or it will simply fade and expire like the American SLP, not with a bang but with a whimper.LBird's contributions to an analysis of the Party's case may well be rejected by many of us, but should it be jettisoned completely? Does it hold some element of truth?
I know it has been raised before, but why the attraction of the SPGB for you, LBird?There has been a long absence until the other day. I assumed you moved on but it seems it was just a holiday from posting and that you continue to monitor the forum.Do you hope you can instigate change within the Party? If so, what actual concrete proposals do you present to ourselves. How should we shift our propaganda and campaigns towards a positive direction? In what way should it be conducted. A return to those articles on materialism from our past that you approve of overall, even if they appear too heavy on theory that no longer connects with our fellow-workers?I think i keep asking…you may well be right on our wrong Engelsian emphasis, but i always seek flesh on the bone.How do we translate our ideas into action and make our Party a vehicle for change?(As for this democracy dispute you have with Robbo, i think i have put forward a reasonable compromise between you and him….the world will vote with their feet, so to speak, on scientific issues that require clarifying, ballots and referendums are a very clumsy way of expressing opinions on such nuanced topics although they are powerful tools for capturing political power for the majority).I think the present situation between climate change "truthers" and climate change deniers shows that global discussion and debate can take place in a delegatory manner to come to a consensus of which is scientifically valid or not. It maybe specialists and scientific elites but they are being driven by a social movement and are part of it…they are feeding the facts which are only possible by a division of labour…workers in universities and think-tanks with access to data and information confirming what we can see happening around us…changing weather patterns and increasing extreme weather events. A friend who is a gardener noticed such changes in his work…how the seasons are changing and his timetable of work requiring adjusting, not by days but by weeks and even months. A professor of ecology merely gives dedicated and specific research support to my gardener's friend own experience. I would not consider him being an elitist, imposing any superiority upon my "humble" gardener because one has a PhD and the other does not.One does have access to communication though, to talk for and to the population as a whole. This is perhaps where we must consider our respective views on democracy. In the past the mass political party had this role…but as we see, this too is a disappearing phenomenon.
Rather than a new thread i felt this media story may well deserve to be herehttp://www.dw.com/en/karl-marxs-das-kapital-still-fascinates-after-150-years/a-40489519
Quote:the main thesis of "Das Kapital" is, in fact, that workers are exploited, that there is no way out, the only solution being a revolution. When Karl Marx wrote "Das Kapital," he had two aims: he wanted to disprove one of the core points of classical economic theory, and he wanted to create a theoretical foundation for the overthrow of capitalism. I think his whole theory is based on an error in reasoning. To him, work was the only source of value. But he overlooked the fact that capitalism does not function by exploiting workers, but through continual technical progress. At the core of his theory, he underestimated other sources of wealth, namely innovation, entrepreneurship and technical progress…Most of his theories have been made obsolete over time or were wrong from the beginning.Quote:'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.That may be so and it may not be so, LBird.But the fact is that Robbo was obliged to resign from the SPGB because his ideas were not agreed and accepted by it. His circulars to all branches were discussed and debated by them and by the Party as a whole where they were voted upon by conference and subsequently rejected. Nevertheless, he is on the forum still able to freely offer his views, just as you are.Surely, this must give you pause for thought in your accusations concerning the non-democracy of the SPGB.(As a caveat, i was not a member at the time so i may be over-simplifying the controversy)
Coincidentally this 1964 Socialist Standard article has appeared online which may help us understand the issue a bit betterhttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/09/political-organisation-1964.html
Quote:"… If the working class is to become the master of society—which it must do in order to change it—then it too must recognise itself as a class, and organise itself politically. This political party must be Socialist expressing workers’ recognition that their emancipation can only be achieved by the expropriation of the capitalist class and the establishment of Socialism…The Socialist political party will not appear ready-made. Like other social phenomena, it will grow out of social conditions. This raises the whole question of the role of a Socialist party in the class struggle…It must seek to dispel the political ignorance of the working class…This does not mean that the relation between the party and the working class is to be that of teacher and pupil. Socialist understanding is not something that can be constructed out of nowhere; it must grow out of social conditions. Such understanding—or class consciousness—will not arise purely as a result of the propaganda of the Socialist party. Ideas only grip the masses when they are relevant to social conditions. There are any number of cranks around with utopian schemes for social reconstruction. What distinguishes Socialists from them is that Socialism is in the material interest of the working class. Socialists have social evolution on their side. The cranks have not—that’s why they’re cranks…Education is not just a question of learning from books and pamphlets; that is just one aspect of learning from experience. The class experiences of the working class under capitalism will teach it that Socialism is the answer to its problems. The party can help this development of Socialist understanding by storing up and propagating the past experiences of the working class so that these are easily accessible. The principles of the Socialist party will be based on these experiences and will serve as a guide to social issues, being used to expose useless remedies…Once Socialist understanding grows to any appreciable extent, political conditions will completely change. Socialism will become a political issue. The comparative trivialities of present-day politics will be cast aside. The issue will be Capitalism or Socialism. …It is decidedly not the function of a Socialist party to lead the working class either in the struggle to live under capitalism or in the struggle for Socialism. The working class cannot be led to Socialism; it must emancipate itself. A Socialist working class will require no leadership; all it requires is organisation to put its aim into effect. The day-to-day struggle of the working class, the economic phase of the class struggle, goes on in the place of work. To carry out this struggle is the task of the trade unions. In so far as they carry out this task they are class weapons. The task of bargaining with the employers is not one for which a Socialist party is at all suited. Of course, the members of a Socialist party, precisely because they are class conscious workers, will be active trade unionists, desirous of getting the highest possible price for their labour power… Trade unions are class organisations when they are used correctly in the economic phase of the class struggle. They cease to be such when, for instance, they back productivity drives or finance politicians and political parties… To sum up, the movement for Socialism must be open and democratic. At present, its role is largely restricted to propaganda, but in the future it will be the working class organised consciously and politically for Socialism. It will be the instrument they will use to capture political power. The Socialist Party of Great Britain offers itself for this task.Sorry for the abridged and adapted version, and the cherry-picked extracts. You can read the full article at the link.This was written over 50 years go…what does it tell us about the progress we have achieved as a class …and also as a party…For sure, we still are an extant socialist party but have we grown? And if we haven't, then are we suited for the task? Has understanding grown among our fellow workers? Are they more class conscious? Or possessing even trade union conscious?Am i being needlessly negative…or am i asking realistic questions that has to be answered by ourselves?
To widen the debate, another link to readhttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41900-labor-movements-and-universalizing-resistance
Quote:Jane F. McAlevey's new work (No Shortcuts) on revitalizing the labor movement notes that activist organizations commonly come in three forms: 1) advocacy, 2) mobilizing, and 3) organizing. She argues that the advocacy and mobilizing models have dominated social movements and too often bring with them control by professionals: attorneys, researchers, pollsters, lobbyists, staffers, and lifelong activists. In contrast, the organizing model seeks to get ordinary workers to take charge of their union and ultimately their destiny.I think the article's theme is an important one. It is one we should be all asking ourselves. If socialism is the only feasible hope for civilisation, why is not the message translating into adoption and action from our fellow workers.It is true as Robbo says, we witness flashes of insight and see a mood for change but it is usually transient, either lost in the transformation of theory into practice or simply more basically, hijacked by the status quo hoping to disarm it or by the gradualists who seek to divert it…until eventually it is disowned by the activists who inspired it in the first place. Jon, i do feel a shiver when i see the word scientific in any discussion of socialism…the same shiver when i read the word dialectical.The problem is that we are not – and when i say we, i mean a lot more than just the WSM and include what is called the Thin Red Line but also more broadly any movement arguing for social change such as the myriad eco-socialists and radical leftists – have not succeeded in convincing our fellow workers to engage in the struggle even when we have satisfactory demonstrated the need for revolution. No substantial nor significant section of the working class has mustered under our banner or shown a sustained shift towards self-organisation and self-emancipation. For sure, as i said we see fleeting glimpses of that potential but it is nebulous and amorphous. Not structured sufficiently strongly to undertake the required political/social challenge necessary to overthrow capitalism but limited in scope only to demand palliative reforms that are not existential to the profit-system.If we in the Socialist Party are sign-posting the way to socialism, what is it and how do we get there? Is it creating a blueprint to describe our goal and is it undemocratic to suggest the manner of change we think must happen to achieve it.But even when we have answered these questions, the conundrum remains…How do we persuade fellow workers of simply the possibility that they can educate themselves and liberate themselves? Over a hundred years and can we say we are any closer. Can we say the diverse campaigns for change has coalesced into a definable social movement of revolution?That is why the article i thought should be discussed here. It raises the question of why we are here. If we are not unique examples of unrepresentative workers, just what made us become socialists and why has that process failed to turn our family, friends and work-mates into socialists. Why do we stand outside of the majority As we see from the article, others are asking questions.We should not have some sort of grand design in mind for ourselves but perhaps focus on what we are presently and how we can shape our current political movement so that it resonates more strongly with others, less convinced that we can change the world to a better one.We should be addressing what is possible…adapting and adjusting our Party.Or do we abdicate any responsibility and place the blame on the incapacity of our fellow workers to learn new ways of thinking and understanding and that the hegemony of the capitalist culture is too strong to break.Did i ever mention i feel a conference would be nice to raise ideas and share them with invited like-minded observers?
