alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bernie praises Clintonhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/05/i-support-hillary-clinton-so-should-everyone-who-voted-meOne day she is an apologist fo Wall St and the next, she is the hope of the world with caveats…Socialists follow ideas, not men or women. If you sympathise with the ideas of the WSM, then it is incumbent upon you to advocate them in your circles and actively opposing mistaken positions. You will soon discover that your popularity in the "left-wing" movement fades. Ideas in the head are permitted but once you begin to make them vocal you'll find yourself isolated and deemed a "threat". As for the exchange of speakers, the WSPUS has indeed exercised this, at least, individual members have spoken as guests.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-VDCO1y_Zghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8V4uV0_NxEI think Gnome is correct in inferring that it is the type and nature of the meeting which is important. I believe that the SPGB now has a more appropriate style in formatting public meetings as a forum or Q and A sessions rather than formal debates, although at times these are better suited to the topic..as in Buick V Ticktin on a specific difference of view. The case of the US has to be flexible…as Son of Rage points out and we all agree, there is at the moment no real functioning WSPUS that can offer the working class a viable alternative right now. It is an aspiration for the future. It is up to American comrades to consider the most effective means of growing and conveying the principles of the WSM. Getting involved within broader non-socialist but not party-partisan movements has to be thought about. Attending their meetings to contribute is naturally the first step. Developing a working relationship is vital. I often think about the case of trade unionists…we participate, we are active…but we agitate, too, for increased democracy but also for different objectives, such as industrial unionism. We don't sit back and remain passive when our class requires us to resist, whether in work-places or within our communities…And we require a socialist party to be built. I often think we are too quick to evolve. A political party is not half a dozen individuals getting together with a party-name and a Declaration of Principles. Baby-steps first…initially an informal study or discussion group…then a more structured political group…and when enough support has been gathered to create a branch structure of some sorts (perhaps regional as we have found necessary in the UK), then perhaps forming a political party with aims and goals to actually be engaged in.
"Well I have said before that Christianity was originally communist."Communist in consumption, but not necessarily in production.But early Christianity and its practice is littered with details of its communismSt Ambrose (340-397 AD) said:
Quote:“Nature furnishes its wealth to all men in common. God beneficiently has created all things that their enjoyment be common to all living beings, and that the earth become the common possession of all. It is nature itself that has given birth to the right of the community, while it is only unjust usurpation that has created the right of private property.”(not checked the original source but he is quoted here https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/australia/1948/communism.htm
"The Lithuanians were mainly Catholics."As were the many Irish who were also brought in to work the mines. Many associate Glasgow with religious bigotry but the deepest Orange Lodge/ Rangers strongholds are in Lanarkshire and West Lothian, not as commonly held – Glasgow, and most likely the bitter legacy of the divide and rule of the employers and mine-owners in that area, a division that sadly exists right up today.
As you say, when Hardie referred to Poles, he meant Lithuanians who worked in the Scottish coal pits.As our Courier blog pointed out though, locals attitudes did change for the better.
Quote:At the beginning of the 20th century in Lanarkshire, there was much vitriol against Lithuanian incomers. They were employed in the iron works and the coal pits, and they too were accused of wage-cutting and scabbing. Nevertheless, the Lanarkshire County Miners’ Union, in the space of some 15 years, went from offering support to miners willing to strike against Lithuanian workers to demanding that Lithuanian miners in Lanarkshire should not be deported. During those 15 years, the Lithuanians had joined the union in large numbers and were active in it. Unionisation was the key to improved relations between the Lithuanian labour force and the LCMU. Once the Lithuanians began to respond positively to local strike demands, the other allegations made against them were simply not an issue. The adoption of a more class-conscious attitude and the strength of their newfound loyalty to the union was in part due to the fact that the union had taken some very positive steps to encourage Lithuanian membership, such as printing the rules in Lithuanian and offering entitlement to claim full benefits.I forget the original sources for the blog posts but probably as Matt said when i was trawling the net. Perhaps, those right-wing websites should be reminded of how the Lithuanians were integrated by union solidarity.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer: "For every blue-collar Democrat we will lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two or three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia."In defence of Sanders, his supporters often claim that his campaign pushed Hilarity Clinton to a more progressive left position. This articles argues differently and suggests that in fact theTrump's candidacy has shifted Clinton to the right.http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/04/oligarchs-are-feeling-right-home-democratic-party
Quote:This year, far from standing on what many have celebrated as "the most progressive platform in history," Hillary Clinton's rightward lurch has been particularly brazen and unapologetic.Justifying the shift in terms of defeating Donald Trump, Clinton and her allies have been "aggressively courting Republican leaders" and their right-leaning donors within the business community (she has also chosen as her running mate a pro-Wall Street "cash machine").Earlier this week, Hewlett Packard executive Meg Whitman, typically a strong fundraiser for the Republican Party, announced that she would be supporting Clinton, both at the ballot box and through donations.This endorsement followed those of Michael Bloomberg, Mark Cuban, and Warren Buffett.But the focus on high-profile billionaires obscures the broader discussion of the Democratic Party's move away from labor and toward wealthier, white-collar professionals, whose views on economic issues in particular are often antithetical to the ambitious changes necessary to combat the trends that have left millions without even the most basic of necessities.Hillary Clinton has, in light of these recent endorsements, predictably attempted to differentiate between "good" billionaires and "bad" billionaires.I concur that the moderators should be proxy chair-persons.It does not, however, mean that we take charge of a thread and try to direct its course. Each thread should be treated as a new different meeting so if someone repeats his or herideas, regardless of the popularity or otherwise, or the frequence they have made the same point, it should be permitted. It is up to fellow contributors to judge whether to follow up with a comment to reply to such posts. Unless it is off-topic and there, we the moderators must accept we are making a personal call that can and if necessary should be challenged. Fortunately we have three moderators so a vote on the truth of the matter can be taken…(Now where did i get that thought from? )
Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs. In large swathes of MidWest America – the Bible Belt – what you and i see around us is vastly different….we see the wonders of evolution and nature, while they are full of admiration (or in fear) of some Creator. Saudi Arabia isn't known as the centre of scientific research because their worldview is still centre on medieval religion and their "reality" cannot be challenged because of politics and the unstability it may bring to the region…although when it comes to geology and the petroleum industry, they happily turn a blind eye to the contradictions that exist. (i'm sure the Koran is being re-written in Iran so that nuclear research can be further progressed)Climate change is caused by human actions…well, that is a myth according to some and politicians are asking for you to vote on that it is not a scientific truth. We have many scientific claims that are being countered and which have entered the political discourse and people are voting upon them, Robbo.We have GM food (and labelling), anti-vax movements (fluoride in the water is frequently voted upon). Science is either supported or denied by votes via government policy with their grants and subsidies…homeopathy paid for by the NHS. Things as basic as add X to Y and this will happen or not depending on their chemical composition…(ingredients) …are frequently a politicl decision-making issue. Marx talks about false consciousness, i'm sure this is all related. It is our task to create a society where when we do debate and discuss scientific "truths", that it is a level playing field and part of it is promoting democracy in science…Sometimes peoples "truths" and the scientific "reality" will diverge. We see it everyday with the pharmaceutical industry. Certian medications supposedly are effective in treating particular illnesses, and later are found not to be so and actually was the result of data manipulation for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry's material interests (material as in not materialist) and they were supported by the health industry's psychiatry "premises" of what is an illness and what is not…a very basic "truth" for every person…whether they are sick or not.. So- called scientific "reality" is found wanting when applied in the world of people and not of profits LBird is right to emphasise in the end it is going to be us who determine truth by votes and political action and when socialism is established this process is not going to cese and we will require to develop structures and means better than to-day's clumsy democracy for us to exercise this peoples' control over science. It is going to part of Industrial Democracy, we will assume full and deeper direction of all industries, including as he said previously, the universities and the research labs – those seats of learning are not neutral and perhaps will neve will be…and it takes heretics to shake them out of prevailing ideas. I don't think we and LBird have any serious disagreement on this and i have a thick enough skin to let his debating style bounce off and just giggle to myself when he has accused us of being Leninists. If he really thought that why is he on this forum so often trying to get us to mend our ways…he recognises the affinity he shares with us and not with the SWP or SPEW. I will pull him up for when he does something i think mistaken as recommend a vote for Corbyn but only from those who are political ignorant. ALB was correct to judge that it veered towards elitism. But people will know from this forum, that even members have differing attitudes towards individuals in the political scene …Russel Brand, Chomsky etc. etc….
https://www.juicebrighton.com/news/brighton-news/2057164/corbyn-rally-trains-poverty-and-unity/Did we have anyone at this Corbyn rally?
Perhaps the Daily Record might compare Hardie with Farage. Speaking of the Poles at Glengarnock, he said "their habits are very filthy, six or seven males occupying a one-roomed house, and having women to cook for them" Keir Hardie argued: “It would be much better for Scotland if those [Scottish emigrants] were compelled to remain there[in Scotland] and let the foreigners be kept out. Dr. Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so.” According to Hardie, the Lithuanians migrant workers in the mining industry had “filthy habits”, they lived off “garlic and oil”, and they were carriers of “the Black Death”. He described the typical Irish immigrant coal-miner as having "a big shovel, a strong back and a weak brain" He suggested that the employment of foreigners by British employers should be prohibited, unless they were political exiles or had fled from religious persecution or if they came from countries where the wage rates were the same as in Britain.Instead of directing his wrath at the capitalist class which exploits and takes advantage of the lack of working class unity, Hardie simply parrots the commonly held mis-conception that it is the poor unfortunate immigrant who is responsible for wage cuts.Members of the capitalist class don't stay put. They travel freely round the world, from London to Paris, from grouse moor to ski slope, from Caribbean island to Mediterranean cruise, from the chateau in Switzerland to the ranch in Arizona. And no-one dreams of telling them that they can't. Like many laws enacted by the ruling class, restrictions on the crossing of borders really only hit at members of the working class. The apologists for capitalism who try to foment ill-feeling towards "foreigners" landing here, whether they come to escape persecution, or to obtain slightly higher wages, never attack those many members of the upper class who swan about the world as if there were no such thing as state boundaries.
Quote:Was any party literature sold or given away? If not I don't see any purpose attending rallies and meetings of our opponents….We've got to do much better than this.Acquiring information and gaining an insight into our opponents first hand may well be reason enough to go to such gatherings.I have been known in the past to try and lecture comrades on upcoming events and make suggestions that we arrange a presence at them, occasionally to the annoyance of some since i place the onus upon others to act.It is not the first time i have come across events where we as members and as a party were Johnny-come-latelys, finding out the details too late in the day to mount any organised coordinated presence. Once reason is that i don't believe we follow what's happening on the Left very efficiently and it is also a sad sign of how distant we are from the actual political scene in the UK that we are often left out of the loop in whats taking place.
Quote:Owen Smith explicitly said there are free ice creams and sandwiches from the vans behind.One up on our complementary cuppa and bikkies
Here is something that lists his despotic proclamations.http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/a-final-response-to-tell-me-why-trump-is-a-fascist/I do think he will try to rule the US as his personal fiefdom as his whole management experience has been one of capitalist owner exercising his authority and will.He will learn politics of the boardroom is not the same as national or international politics but it will be a painful learning curve for ordinary folk around the world. Having seen his current advisors, i have concerns that his future appointees won't be a steady hand on the tiller steering him on a safe course.I'm not so sure that the US has a similar structure of senior civil servants such as Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister in their State Departments acting as moderating and conservative influences upon elected politicians.
Only quote on gravity i could find as follow-on to my earlier post. As you say…i am always left in the dark by these sort of debates…Reminds me of Rosa Lichtenstein's contributions to dlalectics…i'm sure what she is saying is contributing something, but i don't have an earthly clue what and don't really care…luckily i'm supported by Paul Mattick.https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1960/new-physics.htm
Quote:Unfortunately, however, the persuasive power of historical or dialectical materialism — as it came to be known — was great enough to carry away even Engels, who spoke of its universal validity. While some tolerant critics found this merely amusing,[5] the less well-disposed used this over-zealousness as an excuse to reject the whole of Marxism as just an oddity of German mysticism. But while the notion of the ‘universality’ of the dialectic process is not defensible, neither is it essential to Marxism, which loses none of its force by omitting it. Marx, at any rate, did not concern himself with the ‘dialectics of nature’. However, it is not the ideas of Marx but ‘Marxism’, as the ideology of the rising European labour movement and of the self-declared ‘socialist’ states of the Eastern power bloc, that nourishes Western anti-Marxism. And it is for this reason that the struggle between the ‘Marxist’ East and the anti-Marxist West, however real, tells us nothing about the validity or invalidity of Marxism for our time.But i found something in Mattick's article that i think you are trying to convey, my apologies in advance if i misunderstood
Quote:‘Laws of nature’ relate not to ‘ultimate reality’ but are descriptions of the behaviour and regularities of nature as perceived by men. Perceptions change with the change of knowledge and with social development which affects the state of knowledge. Concepts of physical reality relate then not only to nature and men but also indirectly to the structure of society and to social change and are therefore historical … In Marxist values, man is the measure of all things and science should be science for men. As socialism implies the further growth of the social forces of production, it also implies that of science. It intends to add to the principle of scientific objectivity that of social responsibility. And just as it rejects fetishistic capital accumulation, so it rejects ‘science for the sake of science’. This fetishistic attitude towards science, supposedly based on an innate human need to search for ultimate reality, is actually only another expression of the lack of sociality in class society and the fierce competition among scientists themselves. The irresponsible, irrational and self-defeating disregard for humanity on the part of many scientists today, who defend their work in the name of science even though it has often no other but destructive purposes, is possible only in a society that is able to subordinate science to the specific needs of a ruling class. The humanisation of science presupposes, however, the humanisation of society. Science and its development is thus a social problem.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/preface.htm
Quote:Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.LBird if people vote that there is no such thing as the Law of Gravity, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%5Dwill you be the first to demonstrate the "truth" of this by jumping off the top of a tall building? ….just kidding ( i was inspired by this news itemhttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/skydiver-no-parachute-successful-landing-trnd/ even though i'm not saying he is defying gravity)
But he may well exercise temporary dictatorial powers… "The United States Constitution has clause stating that the President "may adjourn [congress] to such Time as he shall think proper". However, this can only be done when the two houses are on disagreement over when to adjourn. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States during the American Civil War, exercised extraordinary powers to preserve the Union. Lincoln's dictatorial actions included directly ordering the arrest and detention of dissenters and the suspension of the right to writs of Habeas Corpus. Yet Lincoln remained subject to Congressional oversight, judicial review and periodic elections……Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States during the Great Depression and the Second World War, also exercised extraordinary powers in response to both emergencies. Roosevelt's actions included the temporary suspension of the right of contract, in violation of the United States Constitution, as well as the closing of banks and a moratorium on foreclosures. Later, meeting a perceived threat by Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans, Roosevelt ordered their relocation to internment camps. [He vetoed legislation 635 times out of a total of only 2571 vetoes by ALL presidents combined He issued an average of 290.6 executive orders EACH year of his 12-year term as President – often defying Congress and the Courts to block him. He's the only president to serve more than 2 terms and would have probably served even more if had not died in office John Yoo, attorney and legal theorist, has offered a theory of the unitary executive supporting virtually unconstrained authority to be wielded by the United States President in his capacity as commander in chief of the armed forces. The Yoo theory provided the intellectual foundation for many of the actions undertaken by the administration of George W. Bush in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_dictatorship
