ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here’s the Daily Express denouncing the noble Earl as “woke”:
I’m not sure I’m in the right thread.
Another gem from the 1920s.
The Party has a proud tradition of standing up to leftie student bullies. This, from 1973:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/01/eysenck-at-lse-socialist-defends-free.html
Look out for the article on “Cancel Culture” in next month’s Socialist Standard. If you want to order extra copies to sell outside your local students Union contact Head Office. Just be careful they don’t report you to your local Job Centre to try to get your benefits cancelled.
Didn’t they used to be called “the Loony Left”? But this lot seem really loony in implying that only a hunchback should be allowed to play Richard III. And they are more dangerous as they are open opponents of free speech and work to get people whose views they dislike sacked.
For those interested in a contemporary socialist commentary and analysis of events in 1921 all the issues of the Socialist Standard for that year are online here:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1921/
The suppression of the mutiny in Kronstadt doesn’t seem to have been given much publicity at the time. It was publicised later as a stick to beat Trotsky and the Bolsheviks — and a good one too as it showed how ruthless they were prepared to be to hold on to power and maintain their dictatorship. But I don’t think it can be said to have had any socialist content.
It was one of the events that forced Lenin to realise that the only way forward for Russia in the circumstances was the development of capitalism in one form or another and to adopt the New Economic Policy of what he called “state capitalism” as the development of capitalism in Russia under the control of the so-called “proletarian state”. That change of policy is commented on in detail in the series of articles on “Where Russia Stands”.
By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:
“Fifty years ago — which was an age of triumphant Science — it was widely believed that in matter and motion there had at last been placed in man’s hands the key to the interpretation of the universe and all its contents, including man himself. Fifty years ago that was ; but time in the interval has wrought many changes. Science, now wiser and less confident, recognises its limitations and confines itself to a description of things as they appear to us, being silent about them as in their ultimate nature they are. Materialism is no longer regarded as a truth of science.
Neither is materialism an established truth of philosophy. It amounts to no more than a philosophic speculation; and it is endorsed to-day by few thinkers of repute. The main reason for this, briefly expressed, is that the theory cannot reach its starting-point. Thought itself bars the way. You can never get to a position beyond thought where you are face to face with matter per se — where you have matter pure and simple — and then show thought evolving from it. Matter in its primordial form — the atom with its electrons — is always matter with an element of thought already present in it. Anyone who grasps the significance of this statement will at once see how precarious a basis materialism is for Socialism.”
You’d get more sense arguing with a flat-earther. A vote of all humanity to decide the nature of reality or the laws of physics or even if the Earth is flat. What a nutter.
Here’s the new birdie song
Or refer to a committee of linguistic experts, I don’t think. Simply let people use either as both are perfectly understandable. No need to choose which one is the “true” usage.
Yes, Robbo, he really has scored an own goal with that statement that future socialist society can democratically decide when a referendum would not be needed to decide some issue. Of course. That’s our case conceded.
Obviously the democratic decision-making and administrative structure of socialist society — its “constitution” if you like — will be decided democratically. Personally I don’t think it likely that it will be decided that referendums should be the only or even the main way of making decisions on social natters. Most issues are not of a simple yes-or-no nature and would be better decided by some council or committee which can go into the matter in more detail. Also, the procedures for choosing the members of such councils can be expected to be different in different parts of the world depending on their political traditions (elections, by lot, citizens assemblies, etc). But however chosen they will be answerable to the community concerned.
I can’t see people deciding that issues such as the definition of “matter” or whether the Sun goes round the Earth or vice versa should be decided by a world referendum. Of course someone might propose this but they probably wouldn’t find a seconder and would be laughed out of court.
