alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Buddha seems to be a comparative figure for us to include in this debate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_BuddhaNo written records about Gautama were found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter…The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts …date from the first century BCE to the third century CE…The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies… the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa in the first century CE…In the earliest Buddhist texts, the Buddha is not depicted as possessing omniscience nor is he depicted as being an eternal transcendent being. According to Bhikkhu Analayo, ideas of the Buddha's omniscience (along with an increasing tendency to deify him and his biography) are found only later,…the Buddha's disciple Ananda outlines an argument against the claims of teachers who say they are all knowing while in the Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha himself states that he has never made a claim to being omniscient, instead he claimed to have the "higher knowledges". This is very similar to Jesus and his description of being the "son of man" and "son of God"…terms of that time which were not to be taken literally…Reference has been made to the historicity of Mohammed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_MuhammadOne thing we have to be clear about…hard evidence and written documents are not the be all and end all in debates of history. Both the Aborigines and American natives have a rich legacy of oral history and their accuracy is frequently confirmed. Absence of evidence does not equate with proof of absence.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/research-gives-merit-to-accuracy-of-aboriginal-storytelling/6861614http://www.pbs.org/indiancountry/history/oral1.htmlThe Ebionites have been mentioned because of a fleeting reference in some scrap of document from the early Church Fathers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites"They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle" Other groups are the Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, the Elcesaites, Nazarenes, and the Sampsaeans, most of whom were Jewish Christian sects.There seems to be local traditions in the geographic vicinity within living memory of Jesus's life-time so perhaps someone did wander about preaching offered hope and refuge in the hereafter for the dispossessed and the despairing of those tumultuous times when traditional Judaism is quite vague about the after-life
Hinduism have followers of over a billion and the existence or non-existence of their plethora of Gods does not discourage their devotion. If Jesus proves to be a will o the wisp and does not exist it will not diminish the faith of his believers.On the other hand, i wonder what the effect would be if by some remote chance, his corpse is found thus proving that the resurrection did not happen and he did not rise to the heavens as stated in the Gospels but like all men rotted and eaten by worms. As i said in my post, the most interesting aspect of Christianity is its evolution, from a local Jewish doom merchant very much in the tradition of many other preachers of the era and early prophets, forecasting the imminent end of the world (which in 70AD did happen for the Jews in a sense) then turning into a global state-sponsored church. How ideas grow and spread and evolve into something different is the food for thought for historical materialists to wonder about and study. It is no surprise that Marx partly came to socialism through a chain of ideas arising from the study of religion.Christianity's content changed with time and reflected changes of beliefs that arose (Gnostic Gospels, for example.) But even the accepted beliefs undergo continual re-interpretation.The Q Source appears to reveal the original teachings of this Jewish preacher, for what it is worth in the 20th Centuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_sourceSocialists can stand amazed at the diversity of Christian belief through history across the world up to even present times. That some of its followers at some periods of history sought to associate it with a socialistic way of life is an interesting aspect of this religion.As Roman (and DaveB) seems to suggest, those who reject this link are the Christians of modern times. Does it harm the socialist case to remind them of it, as we do in commemorating others in human history…from John Ball to Gerard Winstanley…
Quote:If evolution was based on eye witness accounts then it would be 'bunk science'.Does that mean using a telescope in astronomy makes it a bunk scienceI have always been interested in the evolution of the Jesus Movement, from John the Baptist following of which Jesus was a member to the Jewish Christians like the Ebionites.Also interesting is how the victims quickly became the persecutors once christians acquired political powerWhen in Kerala i came across the Apostle Thomas Christian community, who trace their history back to when he came to India. Since the Jewish presence in Kerela is dated to the First Century it is a credible claim.They were first persecuted as heretic by the portuguese and then when the protestant dutch arrived persecuted as catholics.As an aside, the ATM to withdraw cash i used was the Catholic Syrian Bank's
Are your ideas really that new, MB?Wasn't Bakunin saying the same thing about the working class and that it was the sans-culottes and the lumpenproletariat, revolutionaries should be looking towards as the vehicle for change. (Even Engels in passing referred to a passive labour aristocracy) But does the test of history support you and him? I'm not so sure it does.The failure of the rabble is that they tend to disperse and dissipate as quickly as they appear. They also become the tool of others better equipped which can co-opt their message and steer it into their own desired channels. Even Occupy's famous human mic faded out. What is required if you accept that The Revolution is not some sort of over-night phenomenon is a much more permanent organisation and like it or not – that's the labor unions and political parties like ours. A point made by Jo Freeman in the Tyranny of Structurelessness.I wouldn't so readily dismiss the revolutionary potential of the working class – it keeps re-inventing itself.But for sure the working class is contradictory and at times a nebulous amorphous mass. The solution, though, is not to accept this state of affairs but endeavour to re-organise and re-focus it. A tough order but not an impossible one…think CIO and the factory sit-ins of the 30s.But there was a SPGBer worth quoting, the late Pieter Lawrence..
Quote:Because it is impossible for the capitalist system to serve the interests of the whole community it constantly throws up issues that demand action by those who are socially concerned and by many people who think of themselves as socialists. The great danger in being diverted from campaigning for socialism into campaigns to "Ban the Bomb", "End the poll tax", "Stop the War in Iraq", "Cancel Poor Nation's Debt," etc., etc., is that this becomes not just a diversion but an end in itself. Inevitably, it becomes a campaign for an "improved" kind of Capitalism. It is in this process of campaigning for a different or a reformed form of capitalism that the work for socialism tends to become lost. Those who in the past felt that action should be limited to making capitalism a better system, have contributed, albeit unwittingly, to the present state of things. A sane society cannot be postponed without accepting the consequences of the postponement.It is inherent in the capitalist system that it generates discontent and protest but it has also been unfortunate that the long history of protest has been empty of political action that could end the system. Inevitably, the causes of problems are left intact and lead on to a further need for protest. This reduces protest to political theatre in which each demonstration helps to set a stage for further demonstration. Though the scripts may vary and the actors may change the message is the same, "we demand that governments do this, that or the other!" The spectacle of thousands, demanding that governments act on their behalf is a most reassuring signal to those in power that their positions of control are secure. Repeated demonstrations do little more than confirm the continuity of the system. It is in this sense that mostly, protest is a permanent feature of the status quo. The point should be to change society not to appeal to the doubtful better nature of its power structures……Sadly, not all developments in ideas are progressive. It would appear that the consensual body of ideas which make up popular culture moves sometimes forward but sometimes backwards in cycles. The present lurch towards extreme religious nationalism, neo conservatism and the politics of hate is regressive and can only bring more misery. But this is not the whole story. However divided the world may seem to be, all people share common needs which can only be served, ultimately by cooperation. These needs arise from our human make up, are expressed in the best ways to live, and are inescapable. They rise above national divisions or differences of race, culture and language. Throughout the world, all people share a common need to live in peace and material security and to be at friendly ease with their communities and with other peoples in other countries……Under the clamour of conflict and the divisive politics that prevent people of all countries from coming together as a united humanity there is the unspoken voice of a common need which is always present. Whilst the oft shouted slogan of "peace, security and justice" may lack systematic thought and down the years has been empty of any practical means of bringing change, it does express a yearning for a different and better world. So when socialists argue for a world of cooperation organised solely for needs, in which all citizens will stand in equal relation with each other, this does express the universal interests of all people; it is therefore true for all time.These conditions of life are only possible in a socialist society. This means that whilst socialist ideas may seem, on the present face of things, to be estranged from popular politics, they are in harmony with the real hopes of all people. It is when socialist ideas become the conscious political expression of these hopes that socialism will become an irresistible force for change…Sorry for the long quote…i still had to abridge it
Yet another article very much similar to the previous one i posted where i was critical of that proposes to be working for reforms that improve capitalism as a strategy for achieving socialism as if capitalism has not already long ago developed the material basis of a future cooperative commonwealth.https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/30/rethinking-socialism-in-the-twenty-first-century/
Quote:We should work towards policies that encourage a return to manufacturing; particularly high-tech manufacturing. We should endeavor to persuade industry, government, and educational institutions to build an educational infrastructure that would create, at a young age, a class of highly skilled workers thus forming the basis for a strong tradition of economic and industrial apprenticeship. We should powerfully advocate for a “Manhattan project” like initiative for alternative energy. Incentives, bonuses, resources should be lavished on potential technologies that lower energy costs and, as an extra benefit, help to heal the environment…We should advocate for a return to a high level and well funded industrial/scientific policy. Pure research and seed development has languished far too long in this country… we should begin to speak out about the abominable levels of cultural attainment in this country and seek to build a network of special institutions that would, at low cost, bring those who would normally be excluded from it…All those proposals to make capitalism better is justified by "a pro-technologist, rationalist Marxian viewpoint".I think the author has overlooked that when he declares, "Capitalism, at its simplest, represents the application of the scientific method to the economic life of man…" it was a phase of capitalism, now long gone, and today capitalism imposes fetters on progress. I suggest that these writers seek to re-invent the wheel just so to justify their claims to intellectualism.
I just came across another example of double-standards being applied.Having insisted and authorised earlier evacuations of combatants, their families and other civilians caught up in the siege on earlier occasions and in fact condemning Syria/Russia for thwarting such operations, the US have bombed the route that buses were being used to remove ISIL from their Lebanon bases to stop it. I can only presume the reason being is that this retreat of ISIL was being organised by Hezbollah without the permission of the Pentagon who would prefer Lebanon to stay occupied by ISIL.The US supposed opposition does not reflect their previous position of transporting the enemy to "safe-havens"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41095619
Quote:, but I also, know that economic dynamism, requires a certain tolerance of hierarchyto operate, akin to a Mondragon cooperative.Arrrggg…i wish you had not mentioned Mondragon. I've lost count on how many times i had to disabuse folk upon its claims. (They have also increased the pecuniary reward for those in management positions, rather than endeavour to equalise them.) But i take your point, fully, MB, although i think "hierarchy" might be the wrong word, one which an anarchist would be reticent to use. Both Marx and Engels referred to the necessity of some form of "authority" (another loaded term) within socialism and the revolution much to the displeasure of the anarchists. Marx made the analogy of the conductor of an orchestra and Engels to a captain of a ship, both having special relationship authority over others. (i once read an interesting article about the democracy of pirates in selecting their ship-captains and the limits applied to his authority) We have discussed this topic on the forum, and the need for some sort of rule of "law" (again, is there an alternative word, i wonder). After all, there requires being a body to authorise the competence of a pilot or surgeon which means denying some who are not suitably qualified, for example, and that means possessing a degree of social power.
An update from the NYThttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/americas/mexico-zapatista-subcommander-marcos.html?smid=tw-share
Quote:capitalism has changed since the writing of thebook Capital.Perhaps you could elaborate on that since it seems apart from some superficial changes, such as coming off the gold standard or changes in ownership from one factory owner to the development of share-holding joint-stock corporations or state-owned entities, the fundamentals haven't seemed to have changed that much. If he was alive today, he may well change the history narrative and include certain events but would he have needed to changed his analysis that much. Much of contemporary economics would simply be Marx saying "I told you so" which indeed he (or Engels) did. But i am interested in hearing what notable differences you consider have occurred within capitalism since the mid-19th C.
Quote:Marx was pretty clear in capital that there are other alternative ways of writing his concepts down that would be unrecognizable and might extend his work to or even revise it to be more consistent as well as his interest in having capital re-written from another perspective to fill in the gaps for people who just don't get it the way it's written and promoted.Indeed Marx's project did not go as he planned. I recall there were to be several volumes of Capital. Our September issue of the Standard should be of interest to you since it commemorates the 150th anniversary of it. He did rectify the content of an earlier pamphlet 'Wage, Labour and Capital' where he recognised his error in not understanding fully and using the term "labour-power." His later pamphlet 'Value, Price and Profit' certainly was written to clarify the basic economics for the non-academics of the First International to easily comprehend and is highly recommendable. There seems to be a lull in forum activity at the moment so i think we can persevere here and i am sure our ever-vigilant moderator will advise us if we are straying too much off-topic.
Quote:in order to understand Capitalism…I'd like you to consider the phrase "know thy enemy"Ummm…Didn't someone already do that and wrote a book called "Capital"
This is certainly something we can agree upon – I am certainly no Einsteinian physicist. and this wiki entry simply blanked my mind rather than illuminate it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceI fared a little bit better with this explanation of Marx's economics https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/social-reproduction
Quote:That reads a lot like a capitalist wrote it to promote capitalism, so hopefully you can see how the bias and double standard inherent in this socialist forum is toxic.Perhaps you overlooked this acknowledgement in my post of capitalism's progressive phase and the r/evolution Marx expected to take place.
Quote:Marx himself saw that within capitalist production techniques were the seed to free men and women from drudgery and monotony.A search of this website would demonstrate to your good self that the past benefits of capitalist society has been fully recognised but our emphasis is now on the word "past"…Times have changed and despite superficial appearances that it has, capitalism hasn't really evolved fundamentally. That may actually come as a shock to someone who does not study the essence and substance of a social system. As for Marx "endorsing" profit, from that great British Library in the Sky he must be guffawing at your interpretation of the many many descriptions he gave of what profit was in numerous and diverse writings. – It is part of the surplus value extracted from the employee by his employer. And that, dear friend, was what Marx called robbery. Not the "degree" of the theft as you seem to imply by stating it was only "profiteering" he condemned but the fact that thievery took place.This is not some sort of "true Scotsman" analogy that you seem determined to persist with but simple basic fact of what Marx studied and concluded, just as Einstein had his E=mc2. You may wish to re-define his equation and say he meant to write something else to suit your own view and declare Einstein's acolytes are in error for repeating the original but it will no longer possess any meaning, so please desist from making false claims about what Marx meant when he argued his Labour Theory of Value.
Quote:A functional socially healthy society, by any other name than socialism, would stink?Anything other than socialism wouldn't be functional, it wouldn't be social, and it wouldn't be healthy.It is not a matter of terminology but of actual processes. Capitalism is much more than simply the relationship to work, more than simply about the technology employed in producing wealth. It is an exchange economy with buying and selling of commodities, including labour-power, which means people are bought and sold as objects. Wage-slavery. Capitalism has always had a utopian aspect where it is hoped that estranged and alienated work disappears and we all have meaningful worthwhile vocational useful employment. It is a forlorn hope and an unachievable aspiration.You cannot have half-way houses as many in the cooperative movement advocate can happen within capitalism nor can half-measures reform away the inherent problems of capitalism. It is indeed an either/or issue. Either capitalism carries on. Or we end it.Socialists have been very much the promoters of technology to be potentially liberatory. Marx son-in-law, after all, wrote "The Right to be Lazy". Marx himself saw that within capitalist production techniques were the seed to free men and women from drudgery and monotony. He wanted them to be able "to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic". I suggest you look beyond your own limited horizon and give due credit to a political idea that deserves recognition as emancipatory. It is not just a matter of words but also of actions to fulfil ideas. In all your posts, this has been glaringly missing.
An interesting aspect of robotisation discussed herehttps://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/25/the-rise-of-the-robots-and-the-end-of-capitalism/I'm led to the conclusion that the author doesn't suggest a socialist revolution to change society but an accommodation with a better "revolutionary" capitalism.
Quote:everything must be done to enhance the skills and perspectives of future workers to meet the challenges of an advanced capitalist society where the chance for new avenues of production and thus new and more creatively satisfying work will be possible.Michel, i think you underestimate the extent of Marx's far-ranging studies. The 19th C which he studied had many variants of wage-slavery and, for instance, he concentrates on such aspects as piece-work and cottage industries – not very different from today's gig-economy. There is little need to "improve" on Marx. It is a matter of applying his ideas. Our problem, as i see it, is relating Marxian analysis to the manifestations of capitalist exploitation we see around us. The days of the traditional image of the proletarian is well in the past as you say but that is all it is…the image. The substance and essence of wage-slave in one of Foxxcon's assembly-line factories has not changed from the days of the cotton-mills. The more "progressives" insist upon highlighting and over-emphasising outward appearances, the less workers will learn of the universality of their exploitation. In fact, we witness that it is the so-called "middle-class professionals" (in the UK last year, doctors led the strike statistics) which are in the forefront of the class struggle we recall how Marx predicted how there was a tendency for them to be commodified and fall into the status of waages slaves. Now even lawyers may be replaced by computer algorithms (perhaps an improvement on Shakespeare's exhortation that they should all be killed). Our basic case against capitalism and our fundamental strategies for its replacement has not changed that much. Intellectuals just have an addiction to putting new lyrics to old tune and inventing new words to express existing ideas. (The SPGB is constantly reappraising our terminology and always end up deciding that we will not succumb to changing our language to suit current fashion. Time will tell if we are correct or not)Why should we over-complicate the problem. It is exactly as you say: "The problem and Marx got it right is that because they don't have the means of mental and physical production in their hands, workers waste their creative-powers…" And as for the importance and relevance of those issues you cite they are of less importance…we have always had gin-shops and baiting-pits for escapism…At one time the Caesars sponsored the bread and circuses, so what is new is that capitalism makes each of us pay for the privilege of being nullified by spectacles. The real waste is that whe millions die needlessly and billions endure deprivation because our collective creative-powers are put to the service of the oligarchs and plutocrats and not used for our own benefit. Let's return to the simplicities of the socialist case and let's not fall for over-intellectualising…when the problem is of convincing fellow-workers of the very obvious.
