alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You know me, not a scooby on economics micro or macro. But i just read this article which isn't what is being suggested by your example but i think just as wishful. Banking that cares about the environment.http://www.countercurrents.org/banday020815.htmIt mentions the first ever American corporative green Bond in 2013 issued- $500 million in funding to connect investors with projects that create a positive environmental impact. The net proceeds of this new series of bond will be used to finance energy efficiency projects and invest in renewable energy projects such as wind and solar.
Sandernistas – Supporters of Bernie Sanders attempt to gain the Democratic Party nomination for the US Presidency
Used to happen to me when i drafted a reply or c and p from another source on to Abiword WP but it stopped when i changed my WP to Word 2013 (which has it own snags tho).
A rebuttal of Nove by the Trotskyist Ernest Mandelhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1986/09/planning.html
I was pleasantly surprised by the contemporary feel and the sentiments expressed in this section upon women and feminism. Although a common enough view these days i don't think i have actually read Gorter being cited or quoted in all the material i have read. It seems his importanc eobservation has been overlooked. (Perhaps experts on feminism will correct me)
Quote:The bourgeois woman also aspires to freedom. For her, as well, this idea comes from the process of production. First of all, when big industry took off, women’s housework was diminished. Big industry produced all kinds of things so cheaply, such as lighting, heat, clothing, and food, that no one needed any longer to make these things or prepare them at home; secondly, competition has been so fierce that the wives and children of the petit-bourgeoisie have had to go to work and have sought positions in schools, offices, telephone switchboards, pharmacies, etc.; thirdly, among the bourgeoisie the number of marriages has been reduced due to the violent struggle for existence, desires for a better life and the search for pleasure and luxury. All of these things are consequences of the modern mode of production.This is why the mind of the bourgeois young woman is oriented towards greater social mobility; her thought has been modified. Compared to her grandmother, she is a new human being.While the proletarian woman, as a result of the place she occupies in the social process of production, has in mind the liberation of the proletariat and, for that very reason, the liberation of all of humanity, the bourgeois feminist only thinks of the liberation of the bourgeois woman. She wants to lead her to power within bourgeois society; she wants to give her capitalist power, which is evidently only possible if she economically and politically oppresses the workers as energetically as the male bourgeoisie currently oppresses them.The feminist does not want “to free woman from property, but to procure for her the freedom of property”, she does not want “to free her from the filth of profit, but to give her the freedom of competition”. The working class woman wants to free herself and all the other women and all men from the pressure of property and competition and thus to really free all human beings.Even if the contents of the minds of these two women are as different as a lamp is compared to the full light of the sun, their thoughts are nonetheless born from the process of production; their thoughts are only distinguished by the different property relations in which the two “sisters” find themselves.What passionate feelings are inspired in us by the complete liberation of woman, the liberation of the worker, the liberation of humanity!There are other parts of this essay that particularly strike me such as on nationalism and patriotism and can easily be applied to a contemporary analysis of globalisation.
Quote:Although all the capitalists are fighting among themselves over markets, technology has reconciled their interests wherever it is essential to oppress the workers. Technology has organized the workers of every country and has showed them that their interests are the same for all of them wherever it is a matter of expressing the solidarity of all the workers…Naturally, the worker wants to preserve his language, which is the only one with which he can find work. But this is not the patriotism which the bourgeoisie demands of him. The worker also loves the natural surroundings, the climate and the air of his country, amidst which he was raised since infancy. But this is not the patriotism which the bourgeoisie requires of him, either. The patriotism which the bourgeoisie wants to impose upon the worker is the patriotism thanks to which the worker docilely allows himself to be used as an instrument of war by the bourgeoisie and allows himself to be massacred by the bourgeoisie when the latter is defending its profits, or is trying to grab the profits of other capitalists or the property of unarmed populations. This is bourgeois patriotism, and it is completely foreign to the socialist workers. In the bourgeois sense of the word, the worker has no fatherland…The worker of the past thought by slavishly following the lead of the limited ideas of his masters; today’s worker embraces the world, all of humanity, he is independent of his masters and fights against them…Is this the right thread to link to what i think is an interesting article by Herman Gorter.https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/historical-materialism.htmPlenty of references in it to "truth" and as he concludes:
Quote:the development of technology proceeds in such a way that one class rises or falls not only materially, but also mentally. When the relations sought by a class become reality, its ideas, which expressed its desire for the new relations, then become true. Nor is this surprising, since ideas are nothing but the theories, the considerations, and the summaries of reality in a general concept…..The power of the truth must live in the mind of the proletariatI think many of us may well relate to much of what Gorter says and how he says it
“I had to play for the love of the game instead of money, and it gives you a different outlook – it makes you really enjoy what you’re doing. I’m grateful for that.” – Chelsea and England forward Eniola Aluko.Getting paid for playing football was not a priority for Williams. “I was never motivated by money,” she says. “I wanted to be an FA Cup finalist, I wanted to walk up the steps at Wembley. I wanted to win the league. I still only ever want to win trophies. No matter what happens to our game, money won’t be a motivation for me.” Fara Williams, 146 caps for England.http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/01/game-changers-england-women-football-team
I actually thought it was Sunday today due to the fact that the schools have been on holiday because of a Buddhist festival and temple celebrations so the "weekend" has been a longer than usual one …Better re-call it the Saturday sermon
My "heresy" is that i seek to make socialism an "immediancy" not an ultimate distant objective (a term i read but forget where) and that there are now a compelling urgency for it in regards to the predictions of many environmentaalists about the forboding future of the human species. We won't have socialism ever if there is no society around to change or if remnants of civilsation and scattered homo sapians have reverted into survivalists and scavengers….oh, so many dystopias have been written about that because it is becoming more and more a likliehood. Because i see the end of the exchange economy as something that is possible and desirable, here and now, so just like the SPGB i depend on a change of consciousness of people for its realisation.My argument against reformism, is that it it is superfluous [EDIT], that it is unnecessary and a diversion, slowing down the actions of workers by dissipating their time and energy and resources instead of concentrating on one issue. In the hierarchy of desirable reforms or political campaigns to make a priority, wouldn't it be those changes that be part of a socialist society … and they, to concede a point, i think, very very few on the present currrent activists agenda.Our role as eco-sociaists is to be part of the environmentalist campaigns to present the ideological arguments and to deter reliance upon such false solutions as carbon-taxes (and Robin Hood taxes on the inequality protesters). Stuart and others may well doubt we are capable of such a "spritual" transformation collectively and quickly. I don't. Mass world thinking has taken place …for a starters music tastes have changed and been adopted, often without the assistance of the media until they jump on the band-wagon (band-stand) for commercial reasons…Blues, Rock and Roll, Reggae, Punk all crossed borders. I am sure others can suggest other ideas that took a life of its own and grew seemingly out of nowhere and spread like a prairie fire involving apparently culturally different groups but tapping into a common spring of experience. Because i want our socialism to be treated as something feasible and realistic …it means answering NOW peoples questions upon what socialism means and how it will work. The get-out clause used by us and the Left that it is for the generation of revolutionaries to decide upon aspects of socialism and we do not do blueprints does not apply. Because we are we are the makers of history – not our children, not our grand children. I think we do need to write the cook-book of socialism. For sure we can add so many caveats and qualifications to our socialist model, generalise instead of describing specifics, but e do need to put meat on the bone if we are to besuccesful in persuading people to consider socialism as a practical movement. We don't need to invent sci-fy technology. YMS has indicate we have those Star Trek replicators now. The only thing holding us back is that the majority are not convinced we can achieve socialism because of "human nature" .Cut out all the Buddhist "spiritual"imagery, and the supposedly more materialististic sociological terms such as class and socialist consciousness, and we end up in the same place…won't work because people are greedy, lazy, etc etc. But as i indicated in an earlier post, we possess contadictory beliefs…the spirit of the blitz…shared sacrifice…On a personal note when i was a youngster i have vague memories of white-sheet collections in the council estate i was born …when someone died, people went door to door with a sheet and neighbours threw in what money they could afford for the funeral expenses. A long lost tradition? No. When my wife died, neighbours in the estate where i lived did a collection, and also where i worked colleagues did another collection. For sure someone must have suggested it..someone must have took on the task and went around getting the cards signed and the money collected. No one assumed or asked…has he got life insurance out on his wife …(i didn't, btw, so the money raised was much needed) It was a form of showing solidarity …compassion…sharing in someone's grief… A personal anecdote but easily expanded to other event such as accidents … people care…the flowers don't appear from nowhere at a scene of a tragedy. Capitalism has the same contradictory essence…It's production process as YMS says is already socialised, its distribution means as Robbo says is easily democraticised. But we don't recognise our "human nature" or they invest great resources into trying to get us to deny it…and to no avail. Religions i think mostly simply shine a light on what already exists …enlightenment……the golden rule is shared by all …"do unto others as you would have them do to you." Reading history, socialism offered an ideal and people did translate that dream into something they could relate to. They still do. The Paul Mason/Richard Wolff/Occupy want to build the kernel of the new within the shell of the old…not a particular novel aspiration considering the IWW sought to create the administrative structures and we may fault their knowledge of actual capitalism..C-M-C1 etc etc but surely early advocates of municipalisation – sewer socialists as they were disparagingly called – reflect the modern trend for localism and communalism. (Who can ignore Bookchin's invaluable contribution to this.) We have to make socialism something tangible…we strive make the nebulous thing called the "socialist movement" something real by forming a socialist political party…we need to make the socialist future it exists for as real. Sunday sermon over…
Considering their eclectic selection of speakers, perhaps we could offer someone and a topic for 2016. One of their speakers, James Heartfield, is already an SPGB member but i think he will be speaking as a individual upon his specialised subject, WW2.
I think my answer to the need for change in people for socialism to succeed …"the socialist woman and man" is that it isn't merely acquiring consciousness from ideas provided via socialist parties but as German Ideology put it.
Quote:Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the shit of ages and become fitted to found society anew.I think we understand this revolutionary change in attitudes in a variety of forms that we have experienced even today…When there is a natural disaster and people come together to rescue and rebuild, frequently without the aid and assistance of the State. It is no surprise that the first government intervention in New Orleans were armed National Guard to preserve law and order…aka private property…not bulldozers and engineers and medics… yet without orders or commands volunteers began the rescues. Again, perversely, even in war, we have that "wartime" spirit of camaraderie and cooperation..the London blitz and all that(i have read it was over-exaggerated, though). Didn't they say that the trenches of World War One broke much of the class lines? Whole screeds on the positive sociological effects of war is recorded. Our ideas and views and opinions undergo a revolutionary evolution and our behaviours and actions reflect that. Again sexual and womens liberation had its roots in the two wars. I think a lot of people also discuss Marx's "realm of freedom" that can only emerge with the end of "realm of necessity"…To paraphrase, doesn't he mean only when we have abundance (or at least escaped from the fear of scarcity can people be truly free. And it will be via a free association of producers. Somebody more erudite on Marxology can explain it all to me.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-799-march-1971/obituary-rudolf-franki think we can say if not an off-shoot of the Party, at least inspired by it. And that reading between the lines, the three dictatorships he lived under, his activities were underground and not openly conducted. I think it would be an injustice to say that the Nazis "over-looked " and "tolerated" his politics and diminishes his obvious personal couragehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1964/no-723-november-1964/reminiscences-old-member-pt1http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1964/no-724-december-1964/reminiscences-old-member-pt2
One argument i often hear is that we may, in fact, possess the material conditions for a society of abundance and have the administrative structures to implement free access but there is a psychological gap…the phrase of Marx in Gotha which is highlighted and emphasised by the Leninist and Trotskyist parties…So they say we will need a transitional society that i think Lenin estimated could be as long as 500 years.
Quote:What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.my emphasis I think Stuart has said in the past that the importance is of a "spiritual" transformation of individuals and this is why he still lays emphasis on the educational and ideological and democratic strategy of the SPGB but i think he does not see much evidence of that necessary change happening and so postpones socialism to a far off future.So in the meantime instead of demanding socialism as an immediate objective he is reliant upon doing the best we possibly can within the conditions of today that we all face…thus a committment to gradualism and reformism.The Buddhist middle road.Maybe it is not changing political attitudes taking place with Stuart but a "religious" transcendence …Until workers individually rise to another "spiritual' plane, then socialism is utopian and unrealisable. Not too different from our own case for the need of acquiring class and socialist consciousness. I hazard a guess Nove and Steele and Mises have little to do with this odyssy and proving them wrong isn't really an issue ….It is a question of not only minds but the hearts of the workers that we have to also change. Workers require a Damascene conversion moment and it is hard to see when and where it will come particularly as a class movement …so seek personal peace and be content with that simple one step at a time along the road rather than being obssessed with the destination. Please, Stuart shoot me down if i have interpreted you wrongly. I probably have and most likely simplified a complex and conmplicated view of the world you now have. I am prone to making wrong assumptions on little evidence. Sometimes i even substitute my own thoughts for other peoples.One problem we face is terminology and words and how they are seen to mean…"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them – for it is dialectic."I don't know if you read it…Larry Gambones Cosmic Dialectics trying to explain Dietzgen's view of the world.
Quote:The socialist materialist position, as expressed by Dietzgen is that: "We regard… forces, like heat, gravitation and all which is audible, visible and tangible, as a form or species, as a piece or product of the general force, which is identical with the omnipresent, eternal and indestructible cosmic matter." … “being a part of the cosmos, the human mind is cosmic, partakes of the eternal and infinite nature of the cosmos, the same as every substance and force.”
