alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Darn, that Moscow gold has gone a long way for a helluva long time, ALB. "That is my interpretation." to paraphrase NATO's secretary -general. Call me a cynic but i would like evidence of such claims. "Mr Rasmussen did not say what form the Russians' engagement with the environmentalists took or whether groups concerned were aware that they were dealing with Moscow's agents." Cleverly worded…useful idiots…fellow travellers…all Cold War undertones Any disiformation operation i suggest is two-way ….and linked to Ukraine situation and the current cut in gas supplies. He says NATO spending has been cut but we just recently had Obama announcement of increasing the US budget for Europe. Perhaps it is a scare story to get European countries to up their contribution…particularly just after the Dutch government department overseeing NATO spending said the money was most unaccounted for .http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/06/nato-cash-cow.htmlIf do not think we should decide to base our party policy on the claims of unverifiable unsubstantiated allegations of a military leader instead of the the validity or otherise of the case itself against fracking. Even if true which i greatly doubt, it is little different from the fossil fuel lobby supporting climate change denial and we accepting their "interpretation" that it is to cripple American domestic oil and coal production .Your disclaimer that you do not believe it to be true or not holds no legal defence in law, i believe in reporting libelous stories. I suppose Greenpeace were acting under NATO secret instructions to halt Russia's arctic oil driling when scores were arrested and their ship impounded…that's my interpretation …for the sake of argument.
Practically a line-by-line refutation of his article herehttp://wheretheresmuck.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/tony-blair-wrote-an-essay-i-have-marked-it/
It is our ideas, our practices, and our values, that makes us the Socialist Party, not simply the word socialist , or even our party name. It wouldn't matter what we call ourselves, as our ideas grow a word would be found to express them, in their full meaning. Since we think that, historically, that word already exists, we choose to use it.[/quote] (my emphasis)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1177-september-2002/%E2%80%9C-rose-any-other-name%E2%80%9D
we call it socialism, but which people can call what they like[/quote]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2000/no-1151-july-2000/how-rts-neglects-need-democratic-control
We call this system "socialism", but it is the content, not the name, that is important. [/quote]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-996-august-1987/one-green-world
The matter of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is even more ridiculous. The phrase was not intended for, and not used in, one of his books or major pamphlets, but was merely a remark used en passant in the course of correspondence. This however has not prevented the phrase being analysed and dissected ad nauseam. Can there be a dictatorship of the great majority? Whom would they dictate over in the classless society of socialism? Did Marx really mean "dictatorship" in the sense in which we understand the term or was he using it in the manner in which it was understood in ancient Rome? One can only assume that in his grave in Highgate, Marx is saddened to think that a careless phrase, one that indeed seems rather less than meaningful to us, should occasion so much bother to generations then unborn.[/quote] (my emphasis) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1980/no-909-may-1980/end-dictatorship-proletariat
Well, i see you do consider that the accusation was indeed stupidity
Quote:But that doesn’t prevent Engels—the materialist—from engaging in wordplay that overlays biting contempt atop the Greek, to convey disquiet over the thousand-year imposition of stupidity by the feudal system upon its lord, court and, particularly, its serf and peasants.Of course it is you mind-reading and not knowing for certain that it was meant as word-play. But the materialist would argue that :"it’s not that rural people were inherently stupid, but rather that the comparatively atomistic lives they led, with arduous and extended labor taking place in relative isolation from a large and developed civil society, and under relations of indirect exploitation of the landlords, prevented them from engaging with a broader social world. They objectively could not pursue their intellectual and social development to the same extent (with Marx here operating under the assumption that knowledge and the intellect are socially produced and thus require social cooperation and conflict to develop). ..It’s not really about ‘stupid’ rural people, but of the objective social conditions within which rural labor has to exist."John Bellamy Foster support the above interpretation and also reminds us that in German Ideology he describes both town and country dwellers as "restricted town-animal" and "restricted country animal". But we all know how he described the Irish in his Conditions and how his attitude changed via the Burns sisters. http://books.google.co.th/books?id=cHKiftpEAssC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=idiocy+marx&source=bl&ots=RtQImcV1RV&sig=g9WnrKIVKelvlF43AO6_70XsROM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MeCiU6aIGsWiugTAz4DgBg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=idiocy%20marx&f=false
“By what evidence do you assert that The socialist movement has felt obliged to abandon the use of an important word because it had become too corrupt”?[/quote]i must be pretty thick because i thought the evidence of the editors of the Standard was suffice. I even quoted them in bold so the message would be clear. You persist in emphasising that the we use socialism…and my case is we dropped other terms …communist…why isn't that used as frequently after all we did publish the Communist Manifesto but the word was rarely in favour, for all our arguments about them being synomyns. Social Democratic Party of Great Britain was suggested as a name to the party in 1904 but it got shot down in flames but not on the grounds of being an incorrect definition. I may go through recent Standards and count the articles that does not mention socialism but only if i have the time. I have already referred you to Kids Stuff video that does not use the word socialism in its script.
"1906 – But this Industrial Democracy is a possibility only when the capitalist class have ceased to rule the State. Hence the class struggle is the greatest struggle, and the revolutionary method the only correct one." http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1906/no-24-september-1906/why-are-we-revolutionary [/quote]I did a quickie check and i never realised like the IWW we also used that term. I used to describe myself as a libertarian communist at one time. I still frequent the LIBCOM website. But if i was in America i would think twice before using the term libertarian. In fact, i would abandon its use there. I'm weary of insisting to Randist and Paulists the correct term for them is propertarian. Idiocy. 1. (not in technical usage) severe mental retardation2. foolishness or senselessness; stupidity3. a foolish act or remarkAs i said, words change their meaning and shouldn't always be used. Expressions should be abandoned. Neither Marx nor Engels are accusing the peasantry of the above dictionary meanings. I see little point in quoting Marx when it would be misunderstood in current usage of word meanings. They were not claiming the peasant were stupid, are they?As for you claim that Marx, Engels and Morris sang from the same song-sheet as those others , that is factually and historically wrong. The SPGB and Marx and Engels do not always share the same views and we have always acknowledged that. We accept their core ideas not everything they said or wrote. At times they were singing very different lyrics and Morris kept changing his tune over the years. Actually thinking about Morris, parliamentarianism is another word that often confuses and while we advocate using parliament to abolish capitalism, other use it to mean reform capitalism…Best not to use it, i think..abandon parliamentarianism too from our revolutionary lexicon.But really i keep trying to link this discussion to practical politics rather than abstract crossing t's and dotting i's. You have argued the old ways are the best ways and we should stick to our guns. I'm not sure that would be a fruitful tactic judging by our progress and success and you will remember just how part of this exchange began…a 1948 Socialist Part Australia article that raised similar questions…and we all know what happened to the Socialist Party of Australia. I have no way to know just how they responded to the realities they faced but in regards to the SPGB i have previously offered a pessimistic prognosis and suggest we will disappear too…unless we can find certain anwers of how to become an influence within the working class movement and grow along with it. Recent European elections can be seen as ambiguous…partly a rise in reactioary votes but also a smaller but significant rise in what can be called progressive although mostly left reformist. Despite our gallant endeavours, we were statistically zero in the Euro Election aross all the countries in it. I argue that there is an audience that we can engage with but have to be proactive and adaptive. We got to learn to talk their talk and walk their walk but without surrendering our own identity and our own principles. I'm not suggesting we subsume ourselves and become absorbed. I simply say there are different ways of expressing our ideas that we should explore and experiment with. It was you in an earlier message who talked about the long timescale …surely we do have time to try out new things if that is the case. Again i stress i don't possess the magical formula…at times i don't even know the questions much less the answers. But if you are happy and satisfied and confident that things are proceeding as those forefathers as you describe them expected then fair-do to you…i'm pleased you don't have any doubts …but i do have them…and i am raising them as is my privilege as a member of a democratic organisation that welcomes discussion and debate.
I will ask you to refer me to an article in the Socialist Standard that uses the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" as an aspiration of the Socialist Party.From memory, when it has been used, it has been, as i said, to clarify its abuse and more often than not in connection with the Paris Commune.Why is it rarely so used by writers of the Standard?..Because they no longer consider it an "adequate" phrase.Members are not comfortable with its use and simply do not use it. Our writers have abandoned it as a positive term. They have indeed sought other means of expressing it – much simpler as Steve has already said…democratic rule. The Standard's editor pointed out "[we] think the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be so open to misunderstanding as to be counter-productive. We prefer to speak simply of the (very short-term democratic) exercise of political power by the working class…" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/lettersThe blog has explained Marx's use of "idiocy" which again is from Hal Draper.http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/02/idiots.htmlIt also discussed the meaning of the DOTP ( A Bill Martin contribution from the old Yahoo WSM forum)http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/dictatorship-of-proletariat-what-did.htmlCertain language in Marxism is technical terminology as you say…surplus value, etc, etc but "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not, but rather, it is a metaphoric description of a stage in the emancipation of socialism, an expression, a figure of speech…It can easily be substituted as the Socialist Standard says by other words.If certain phrases result in automatic suspicion and cause red lights to start flashing …why on earth would you deliberately inflame it when alternative means of communicating your meaning exists. There is a proper place and proper time to discuss semantics and etymology of Marxist terms, but it is not in the introduction and opening arguments for socialism. We have to seek a common language, a shared imagination, to connect and relate to people that reveals our commonality as workers and to gain a receptive audience for what we say.There is no one size fits all so we have to be adaptable, flexible, pliant, and most of all innovative. Surely we should reach out to those who have our vision but perhaps express it differently or lack confidence in our strategy to achieve it and endeavour to seek ways to discuss the means and methods of attaining it. I made reference to the concept of democracy in the blog…we don't try and discourage people for striving for it…we say why not take it to its logical conclusion…go that little bit further …use what you are doing to get a little more…socialism itself is within your grasp, closer and nearer than you think…it's not far off and far in the future but at hand…Take hold of it…Again i return to the purpose…we have to concentrate our limited resources upon who and where and how we get the better results and that may mean adopting their language if it agrees with our own…Resource Based Economics…is an example…it may mean adapting to their form of organising …Occupy for instanceYou can sing your own song your own way but it just may receive the same attention as the drunken uncle at the wedding reception singing his rendition of "My Way", his way…polite indifference, at best, patronising amusement , at worse.
Another review of the book to add to reading list by an advocate of the New Economics Movement that supports a "living wealth money system… to democratize the creation and allocation of money"http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/18-13http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/
Now let's attack the unemployed and the young to prove how nasty we can be too !Benefits for under 21s means tested and even removed. Introduction of a two-tier Job Seeker Allowance. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27911518http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/labour-welfare-plan-benefits-means-testing-training-ed-miliband"not designed to be punitive, but to incentivise"…uh-huh….. and this will hurt me more than it will hurt you, as they say
Yesterday's Guardian had this about invented words.http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/authors-invented-words-used-every-day-cojones-meme-nerdWords frequently change meanings and the list is too long but in Marx, "idiocy" of rural life and "dictatorship" of the proletariat are two examples that come to mind where the original term does not reflect the present day common usage.Again to bring it back on track of the thread, while we understand and accept Marx's use of the DOTP, is there any constructive need to use it ourselves except to correct misconceptions and its misuse? I suggest the party and most of its members have already selected to abandon it because of its corruption of use. I'm sure others can add to unpopular marxist/socialist expressions that we should be wary of using. (One or two of our more sophisticated, cosmopolitan city-urbanised members may still persist in describing country-folk as idiots, though!!)
I have now posted the blog i referred to earlier. Should be tomorrow, but TWC and others can now read my previous comment in context. Perhaps a little contradictory but i think the overall point is made in it. http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2014/06/socialism-from-below.html
TWC, no one knows who their friends and allies are because they take issue with anyone who doesn’t mirror their own opinions. Not only take issue with them, but accuse them of being in the camp of their “enemies”. Stop making the good the enemy of the perfect. You can‘t be an army of one.
"Co-operative commonwealth" was a one-time used term …The IWW used "Industrial democracy" and various others. Collective ownership = Common ownership.Attempts at creating new terminology are not that successful either…"Participatory economics"…Resource based economics"…Even such language as Workers Socialist Party was one time used by the WSPUS but some would say that raises misconceptions about supposed non-workers…unemployed…disabled…And,of course,substituting People as in Peoples Democracies has also been discredited .I think it is a matter of people finding and selecting their own descriptions…as Occupy did with slogans 1% versus 99%…horizontal democracy… We may not formally drop our titles and certainly cannot jettison historical facts aboutt our past but in our current propaganda and campaigns and depending on the audience we reach out to…, our language doesn't always necessarily need be overly skewed towards conceptions that many now understand quite differently. If other movement's language equates or overlaps with our meaning why not adopt it …I'm not suggesting hard and fast rules…but flexibility of approach.
