[alanjjohnstone]

From all accounts it was much more than a mere handful.War and atrocities always go together. War brutalises those involved. Auto biographies and memoirs are full of confessions and admissions of war crimes committted by otherwise reasonable, rational men. Other dirty secrets such as the British in Kenya or Malaya and the atrocities that took place are hidden away in archives. 

[alanjjohnstone]

twc wrote:

That, Alan, is the political answer, and the only political answer, to your quandary.

I accept it is your answer but i refer you to my rider in my comment 

alanjohnstone wrote:

I have to emphasis that i don't think me or any other single member possesses any answers, just that each of us may possess one piece of the jigsaw which we can add. But we won't know until we start offering them and trying to put them in place. Some will try and force the wrong jigsaw piece into the wrong space…others will suggest where it should correctly go. We require group-think.

Too often i have heard it stated that because a person is not in 100% agreement with us on 100% of our case they are opposed to us and we must oppose them.I have begun to use the expression that people arrive at socialist socialism via their own political journey and in doing so bring along their own particular baggage.Ours is the breakaway from the SDF and the hostility clause – a useful weapon but we should know who to aim it at (and when it is to be used.)  But TWC you miss an important point…i accept that certain figures who possess a higher profile and a better standing in the media do not agree with us … but i suggested we make use of what comradely relationship they possess with us. Occasionally a themed issue is planned for the Socialist Standard well in advance. I suggest that we seek supporting statements from thinkers and writers who share our views on those topics. You say "It is up to voluntarist Andrew Kliman, Paul Mattick Jr, etc. to seek us out, unbidden, or not at all."They are merely workers like ourselves and as someone, someplace said, we been waiting for workers to muster under our banner for a long, long time and they simply didn't, not even all those who were indeed genuine sociaists already.Shouldn't we be asking why we have the sign up saying open for business and don't have any customers? The mountain won't come to the Mohammed so perhaps we should go to the mountain. Is it simply a matter of better advertising to draw attention to ourselves? Or perhaps it is a matter of what we have on offer? Have we on display some old humble pie, a bit of pie in the sky but keeping our really tastier dishes under the counter, hidden away rather than having them the centre of attention. One thing we must discuss and agree what our a la carte menu should be ….what part of the socialist case should be emphasised…what the dish of the day should be that will whet the appetites to try the rest of what is on offer.  

[alanjjohnstone]

I have to emphasis that i don't think me or any other single member possesses any answers, just that each of us may possess one piece of the jigsaw which we can add. But we won't know until we start offering them and trying to put them in place. Some will try and force the wrong jigsaw piece into the wrong space…others will suggest where it should correctly go. We require group-think. Something that always puzzled me is why some of our members in academia drop out of membership…no disagreement dispute on principles, they seem to just disappear from contact…and go on to write or do research that the party would have little to contend with. In fact we have often written approving reviews of their later work in the Standard. The SWP seem to maintain their "intellectuals" but except in a few cases ours depart. I'm not mentioning this because of some hierarchy of status within the party which serves the SWP experience, (the first steps in a two tier membership) but because we lose out on a certain amount of credibilty when we fail to produce such endorsements and we suffer from lack access to the ivory towers of education and the media elite. I have noted countless conferences and seminars related intimately to our party case where we simply are excluded from and would only receive a patronising smile if we turned up at the doors to leaflet. Imagine for the sake of argument if Chomsky handed out the leaflet and the difference that would make in its receipt!The BBC etc look for those with letters after their name so that they discuss with authority, have a professional qualification to support their argument. A bus-driver from Dagenham rightly or wrongly does not receive the same respect as a university professor discussing the crisis and underconsumptionism ….unless of course he happens to be a union leader, perhaps, and not even always then. Until we raise the option of another way…i did get shot down on flames by suggesting that we justify our egalitarianism through selection by lots for spokespersons, we have to face that is the reality of the mass media. Some others have suggest a panel of members, vetted for their knowledge and trained in interview techniques but i don't think it solves the problem of perception. I have written about the proponents of the the alternative new economics which are just the rehash of past populist reforms …professor this…professor that… We could make more use of those that present much of our own position – Mattick, Kliman, Paresh Chattopadhyay etc etc . Sure they are not 100% in line with ourselves but in many regards they reflect our views. We have had some success in demonstrating this with interviews. Would it be too much to seek more exchanges with them…offer a regular page for them in the Standard, as the Western Socialist did for Mattick Snr. and ask for the occasional submission or like any newspaper  or journal simply seek comment,  a quote, or an opinion for us to publish and in doing so raise our own profile on the web. They might even consider it as a simple donation to a cause they share , in lieu of cash. I simply say again i am somewhat puzzled and wonder why we fail in this area. For a revolutionary party, i do sometimes think we are very conservative in our thinking.    

[alanjjohnstone]

[quote-LBird]I think I agree with twc here (if I understand them correctly), that there is no necessary need to jettison all old terms and phrases;[/quote]I have already conceded that point to a large degree when i said

Quote:

And if anybody has read my contributions to the Socialist Courier, they would know i am not readily surrendering our traditional socialist language but busily trying to reclaim it.

And one of my other points is exactly as you go on to say:

LBird wrote:

…they can be put forward anew, with better explanations.I also think that, in line with your ideas, I've also tried to open up 'economics' to 'ordinary' workers

To be anti-intellectual i always found the comic book versions…Capital For Beginners…Marx For Beginners more digestible than the original, not perfect and possess  flaws but for me adequate……Libcom has a link for Capital in Manga, i notice. 

Quote:

by trying to get a discussion going about the meaning of Marx's ideas, an explanation of Capital. …Most workers don't understand 'exploitation', even though they endure it every day.

If a patient has an illness, it helps to have a description of it, what caused it and what will cure it with a prognosis of how successful the treatment will be…But we don't need a molecular cell analysis of the disease…Here's your symptoms…do you agree with the diagnosis …here then is the remedy…and if you are start taking the medicine ,is it working…any side-effects…okay we'll up the dose…reduce the dose…try another drug…(sorry for the over-simplification but you dealing with a well-read simpleton here) 

LBird wrote:

To me, just repeating Marx's often mysterious formulae is not working

And even i usually give up reading an economics article as soon as an algebraic equation appears. History was my strong point in school, not maths. But be different for some others. 

LBird wrote:

Experience doesn't simply lead to theory. Theory is a creative impulse by communist-workers.

I'll re-phrase that to read class struggle doesn't automatically lead to socialist consciousness…Other things are also required for it to arise…educate – agitate – organise

LBird wrote:

To me, the 'ideas of the ruling class' are still the dominant ones, even amongst many Communists"

Also perhaps substitute the political agenda of the ruling class dominates the debate and diverts "communists" into reforms

LBird wrote:

I've being doing with all my posts, but the 'basics' of my views have been constantly challenged, with every right, by twc. But you seem to regard these important exchanges (to me, anyway) as too 'high-flown' for ordinary workers to engage in.

I have tried to follow the debate and again it is a matter time and place for such. I  think i said keep at it and continue debating but don't expet too many to participate. We simply don't have the back ground knowledge or the relevant reading at times when academic authorities are deferred to. Call it a division of labour if you wish. But i did criticise it for not often being related to practical politics of what to do and how to do it at one message on the thread. You acknowledged that was your own weakness…so i will blame you So now the question is just how do you help understanding …do that successfully with philosopy and you can do it with economics and whole lot of other stuff … Alisdair McIntyre talks of turn of 20c century and scarcely a miners hovel was not without a copy of Dietzgen, a self taught philosopher…autodidactics …Just how we recreate such agai when the person's average attention span is now a 10 minute YouTube Video…albeit an improvment on the 3 minute commercial.I've alread mentioned socialist cartoon books …and i often talk of animated videos as our medium. Is this dumbing down or simply latching on. 

[alanjjohnstone]

But all this is a distraction from my already admitted ignorance of how we as a party can connect with the working class…If it is just a matter of waiting for my fellow workers to acquire socialist consciousness, then i'll just sit in the pub and wait there for them…why bother with all this hassle if i am immaterial to it. But i ascribe to the belief that consciousness also arises partly from talking and discussing, sharing thoughts, a collective communication…and the issue is how we as an organisation and individual members of it are not succeeding in being effective in that task.Blame the workers for not being receptive? Blame the ruling class for having their ideas prevail? Blame the language being used? Perhaps we have been approaching the question in the wrong way.  People have heard what we have to say but they reject it. The words we use is part of it. And if anybody has read my contributions to the Socialist Courier, they would know i am not readily surrendering our traditional socialist language but busily trying to reclaim it. But i also acknowledge, it is different strokes for different folks…Rod has touched upon how simple phrases don't necessarily have the same meaning for everybody. Ever since the Situationists there has been the question of imagination and how we convey what we think and what we want…(people can refer me to their predecessors, i only mention them from my own political evolution.) Again i have often talked about blueprints and a general map…I want socialism…the SPGB is one of the tools to achieve it, imho. At times, it becomes blunted and needs sharpened up… at times, it gets rusty from lack of use and needs polished up…But if a new tool appears that is better and more fit for purpose then i will place my SPGB tool back in the tool box and and use the new one.And in the meantime what exactly is wrong with studying the instruction manual again and checking we are using the old tool in the correct manner? 

[alanjjohnstone]

Goes as far back as to Greece…as i mentioned…i'm not an AthenIan or a Greek but citizen of the world" – Socrates…and Diogenes said something similar it too…..Demothenes as well…But i think Debs variant is better…but i would fight for it!

[alanjjohnstone]

You are correct. Demoulins, i believe used it.But i think you know i was just on the wind-up. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Of course, i am not alone in my admiration of Debs in the SPGB or quote him…. "Although a member of the reformist socialist Party of America, in his speeches and articles he came nearer to the socialist position of the SPGB than any other prominent political orator in America…His speeches endeared him to socialists everywhere and are still quoted today with telling effect."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1985/no-975-november-1985/trade-unionist-extraordinary-eugene-debs(anybody any idea who was the author?) i also much prefer Debs style of writing to De Leon's. Bit it should be mentioned that early members of the party were less enthusiastic about Debs and called him a wobbler (rather than a wobbly!) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1919/no-181-september-1919/struggle-usa

[alanjjohnstone]

I was toying with the idea of replacing the Deb's quote, actually. I was thinking of having this in its stead. “The great appear great to us, only because we are on our knees: Let us rise" – James Connolly  

[alanjjohnstone]

Sorry, TWC,  i was distracted by the kick off the England game to realise that you said communism or social democracy "never held our meaning" so my question is a bit superfluous. As for your other comments upon my anti-socialist actions and  casting doubt upon the purity of our party-canon , "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. For these and all the sins of my past life I am truly sorry" I happily await charges of action detrimental to the interests of the Party, if that is what it takes so that we can have a full exchange and debate upon the Socialist Party's interaction with the working class, the class struggle and the Party's means of doing so and the language and imagery it uses. These questions has been my explicit aim posting several links and comments while you have busied yourself with Lbird on the Meaning of Life.But note, one of our most successful expression of the party case does not even use the word socialism. As i said and what is really demoralising is doing the exact same things over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome…Some things i grant need repeating…but what exactly…Again apologies for using a sign-off description that goes beyond "bourgeois" and has its origins in the chattel slavery society of Greece…shame on me for endorsing such philosophers. 

[alanjjohnstone]

TWC, to use my two examples, in conversation when did you last call yourself a social-democrat…how often do you describe youself as a communist…? Free access, rod, is i believe our own invention…try a google and see how often it crops up outside our usein a socialist context…particularly historically. "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." June 9, 1886, Joseph Dietzgen i believe my signature origins is even older than Debs and is indeed non-socialist origins. As for my signature, needless to say many appropriate phrases from non-socialists to express ideas"À chacun selon ses besoins, de chacun selon ses facultés" Louis Blanc But i think you miss the purpose , although Steve didn't,  that we should be looking at what we do politically in our campaigning and critiiques and how we do it to explain our failures and what we can possibly do to be more effective….or do you suggest we have been successful The DOP itself now carries a caveat,  "because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the party in 1904, its original language has been retained."

[alanjjohnstone]

ALB wrote:

"Community-Wealth" sounds like a possible alternative name for "socialism" (if we need one)

10 minutes ago i just did a draft blog that said :-"…The socialist movement has felt obliged to abandon the use of an important word because it had become too corrupt. After the First World War, ‘Social-democrat’ became a dirty word, and as a self-description was dropped. Many socialist who would have been quite happy to call themselves ‘Communists’ in the days of Marx or Morris, would now be reluctant to do so. When these words were abandoned as favourable descriptions,  it was not just a matter of changing a label, but of establishing the identity of a valid idea, which would otherwise be confused with a degenerate idea. The same procedure may well have to be adopted again if we cannot reclaim the terms socialist/socialism, if its social vision cannot be assimilated as one coherent piece into the body of a modern social protest…." 

[alanjjohnstone]

TWC, try and keep your eye on the ball and don't become distracted by trying to score debating points with LBird, right or wrong or whatever. Vin asked for assistance dealing with a critic. I offered a possible answer but i'm no theorist or expert but i thought it was a correct reply. Lbird thought such a response was unnecessary preferring simply to deny Vin's opponent is a socialist "My advice to Vin is to simply point out to his opponent that he (his opponent) isn't a Communist."And later quiz him more on the basis for his belief rather than the belief itself…(or so i think he meant)Was my suggestion on track as a proper response? Can you offer other arguments/sources to support the idea that you cannot  pay a worker his wage plus surplus value? You obviously have a better grasp of Marxist economics than myself …Surplus value  i believed was simply another name for rent dividend and interest , the divvy up among the thieves, from which the employer also then has to pay the tax for the state and all manner of its expenses, unwelcomed but unavoidable. take away the 3 and you still need to pay the State for social costs…education health old age etc etcAnd i'm sure there is also the argument about the supply chain…all part of the social cost…the prospector, the miner, the transporter, the smelter, the transporter again , the manufaturer, etc etc until society ends up with a finished product…i'm sure thats a part of the issue too And i think Marx also said that labour -power exchanges at its value…but it is also the rare exception …that it is decided by the respective combatant powers of buyer and seller…or something like that…As i said i'm myself confused often so Vin needs your more informed advice

[alanjjohnstone]

Moi? But i do miss Rosa Lichenstein's debating/discussing style …can't somebody invite her back to the list?

[alanjjohnstone]

i came across this and thought it would liven up this thread http://exfax.com/atheist/AtheismMarxismTalk.htmRosaL not the original but our anti dialectics Rosa would have been interested too

[Author]

Posts