alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:You spend more times attacking Engels and the Socialist Party than toward capitalism and the ruling class.
Lbird, To remedy this criticism from mcolme, can i suggest you write something not too controversial or convoluted to persuade or convince our fellow workers of the advantages and benefits of socialism and why the capitalist society is a failed system and requires replacing for our blog which is always on the look out for original contributions. A disclaimer will be added to explain that you are not a member and that the Party may not 100% agree with what you write (i hope you do,of course, make it something all members could endorse.)
Pharmaceutical companies are well-known for medicalising social problems, turning normal behaviour into pathologiesThe pharmaceutical companies create imaginary illnesses, doctors and their patients are led to believe these are real complaints and then prescribe the treatment conveniently manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies based upon falsified research. (Advertisers follow a similar process…create imaginary needs that require to be satisfied.) I suggest that indeed in the real world we are told that "the sun revolves around the earth" by science. Fortunately, better later than never, the scientific method does kick in and the supposed reality we were all led to think as really reality is exposed for what it was – make-believe. In our political world, is false consciousness the same? I believe it is an Engels' word, not used by Marx.
I came across this quote from Maurice Cornforth, an old CPer, but i thought it useful
Quote:The meaning of scientific socialism is not that it tells us that socialism will come regardless, but that it explains to us where we stand, what course lies open to us, what is the road to life.Never really liked that expression "scientific socialism"…one for the bin like "dictatorship of the proletariat".The German word wissenschaftlich. This is usually rendered in English as ‘scientific’, as in ‘scientific Socialism’, but it can equally well mean ‘theory-based’, which has fewer connotations than ‘scientific’.This puts in perspective, i thinkhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist(don't know if you read it, Lbird)
Quote:The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.Just as science is cultivated in social surroundings, amid a network of conflicting interests, so too is the case of the SPGB. Socialism would be a class solution to the social problems of today. A solution which would be in the interest of the majority class of workers, but not of the capitalist class. There is no objective, logical or rational ground upon which the capitalist and worker can meet and settle the matter. So when the SPGB advocates class war, this is not cause for despair, but for hope; that the pattern of social and scientific development of the past may be continued – not by an elite of scientists, not by a gang of political butchers, but by the ordinary workers of the world.Some would go as far as say that we don't need to discuss Marx, at all.Aren't some anarcho-communists communists?Isn't Kropotkin more on the same wave-length as us in abolishing wages entirely than Marx/s labour time certificates.I'll let you continue to argue your Marx and not Engels case and as you pointed out, the very long-standing early Marx versus Later Marx Marxologies…more curricula for colleges and universities but not for men and women at the factory gates or the slums of Mumbai. Elitist?…No…but shorning down the case for socialism to the essentials for social change…
Quote:the important thing in this movement, it is not in what we disagree, it is what we agree,A crucial point i think. Too often i come across members who don't have an inclusive approach to politics and recognise fellow-socialists but seek an exclusive claim to socialism – an "ownership" of the socialist concept There are core ideas that defines us as socialists and a lot of extraneous things that can make for comradely debate.WSPUS member Rab suggests (taken from his biography) that :
Quote:1. Capitalism can no longer be administered or reformed in the interest of the working class or of society. 2. Capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, wars, crises, etc. 3. Socialism can solve the social problems confronting society today, since the material conditions are ripe for socialism, save the lack of a socialist majority. All members would agree: The conscious, majority, political nature of the socialist revolution; Conception of History; the Law of Value; the Class Struggle; attitudes on leadership, reformism, and religion; the general nature of socialism as a system of society. However a socialist does not necessarily require an academic's grasp of Marxian economics such as perhaps the distinction between “labour” and “labour power.” Understanding this distinction is not an acid test of whether a person is a socialist or not! (However, it is true that there is a distinction between these two terms when it comes to describe the nature of capitalist exploitation.) The acid test of socialist convictions hinges on such factors as: Capitalism cannot be reformed or administered in the interest of the working class or of society; Capitalism, as a social system, is in the interest of the ruling class (albeit that capitalism, historically, is an essential stage of social evolution); Socialism is the solution to the social problems and irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism; Socialism cannot be rammed down the workers’ throats against their wishes; The socialist victory is dependant upon the fervor and enthusiasm of the determined, conscious socialist majority. These are the characteristics of a socialist; a coupling of the head and the heart, theory coupled with action. A socialist is one who recognizes and realizes that capitalism can no longer be reformed or administered in the interest of society or of the working class; that capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, war, crises, etc.; and that the times call for arousing the majority to become socialists to inaugurate socialism, now possible and necessary.”Perhaps the followers of their thread have their own. The Socialist Party's official minimum of agreement i think can be determined from the questions in our knowledge test http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationI have always had a soft spot for Solidarity's statement in their 'As We See It"
Quote:7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.There exists an orphan blog, Socialist TV, first begun by John Bisset and i think Carole Taylor from the old NE branchhttp://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/I'm aware that there is a big problem with copyright on some of the content but there are plenty, plenty of videos and animation going around that are well worth a watch distributed under the Creative Commons so all that is needed is proper credit of original source.i see number of videos on the blog can be deleted as they have been blocked on copyright grounds but others remainI beg to decline to volunteer but surely someone can get the password from John (if he still remembers) and activate it . Not necessarily as an official Party blog, but one we can recommend and direct visitors to. I believe Vlogging is becoming popularhttp://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-VloggerI also know most of you own a smart mobile phone that do good-quality video that can be immediately uploaded to the net and to a website like Socialist TV. So next time we are doing lit sales on a protest or just the street stall or public meetings it can be used almost live.
Another word to have changed emphasis.."socialisation"..that also seems to have fallen out of favour, being more and more equated with "nationalisation"And i know Pannekoek wrote something on the difference between "public ownership and "common" ownership
It did occur to me to mention the 1979 referendum where 51% of a 64% turn out voted for independence but it failed to achieve the 40% rule. In relation to the total electorate 32% voted for devolution and 30% vote noHowever was it an exercise in democracy or gerrymandering? I recall at the time many describing it as the votes from the grave because the electoral register was not too up to date and had many deceased still registered to vote so when they did not rise from their coffins and graves to vote Yes they were treated as a No vote .But i see the abstention figures for 1979 and 2014 are roughly the same…about 3000. Of course, with a 80% turnout in 2014, the abstention % is very much lower. Might have all been different if the 1913 Scottish Home Rule Bill had been passed and not dropped because of WW1 and then totally forgotten due to the Irish Home Rule troubles
Shit…the sooner this forum runs smoothly of its own accord with the minimum of moderator intervention, the better i'll like it so i won't have to hop from one account to another when i post messages…moderators becoming power-mad be damned…we want an easy life doing nothing… Apologies yet again for posting a non-moderator message under that account.
Lafargue wrote a pamphlet – the "Right to be Lazy"…An American situationist inspired group wrote a manifesto the "Right to Greedy" – both hyperbolic titles aimed at drawing attention to what is possible and the potentials of a socialist society. The "Right to Ever-Lasting Life"…a statement that enormous gains in longevity is possible with socialism…Why settle for early death? Why should an extended life be the privilege of only royalty and the rich? Is this a sign of my own advancing years and mortality?
#249,Brian posted that on our blog with a couple of graphics http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/09/why-do-people-hate-their-work.html#252If it is downloaded on your computer and the right format, perhaps the blog can use the videos. Not sure of the technicalities, so no promises
