ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see it is not politically correct to talk about “Latinos” any more. You have to say “Latinxs” (but how do you pronounce it?). One way round the problem that in Spanish a “Latino” would be a man. I am not sure that “Latinx” will catch on though. President De Gaulle used to get round the problem by beginning his speeches: Français, Françaises.
I can see, though, that it must be odd for a Spanish-speaking woman to have to refer to herself in English as a “Latino”. If you want to invent a new word to get round the problem I would have thought that a “Latin” plural “Latins” would be more natural than “Latinx”.
Another cross we have to bear. According to an editorial in today’s Times:
”Extinction Rebellion has allowed a hard core of ideologues and Marxists infiltrators to dictate its agenda.”
and
”It has, like many idealist causes, attracted cynical and opportunist manipulators, the Young Communist League, the Socialist Workers Party and those seeking to infiltrate any movement with anti-capitalist and anti-establishment potential. Their banners outside the printing works on Friday urged ‘Socialism not Extinction’.“
I don’t know to what extent this is true — but presumably there is photographic and video evidence for that banner — but we know from experience that this is a tactic that vanguardists like SWP employ all the time. So it is at least plausible but I doubt that they have taken over XR. I imagine in fact that XR leaders and followers welcome their presence on their demonstrations as much as strikers do on their picket lines.
XR’s leaders have shown that they are quite capable of deciding such rash and counter-productive actions on their own, motivated by naive and vague spiritual values.
The Times also reports that XR is split on the issue “as the storm on Twitter shows”. Anybody know anything about this?
I remember too. Also that he stood for President once or twice. Just checked with Wikipedia and it was four times:
”Nader made four bids to become President of the United States, running with the Green Partyin 1996 and 2000 and as an independent in 2004 and 2008. In each campaign, Nader said he sought to highlight under-reported issues and a perceived need for electoral reform. He received nearly 3 million votes during his 2000 candidacy, but also stirred controversy over allegations that his campaign helped Republican candidate George W. Bush win a close election against Democratic candidate Al Gore.”.
He does not seem to be saying Vote Green this time.
Marx and Engels had a different opinion on this at the beginning and at end of their political lives.
In 1845 in some private notes written to clarify their ideas (not published until well after the death of both of them in 1935 under the title The German Ideology) they wrote:
”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 muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”
So Revolution precedes Ideas.They still held this view during the bourgeois revolutionary wave in Europe in 1848-9 expecting as the Communist Manifesto stated that the coming bourgeois revolution in Germany would rapidly be followed by a proletarian one, ie could be turned into one.
In what can be called his political testament, as one if his last writings published in 1895 the year he died, Engels wrote an Introduction to a collection of Marx’s articles from the period The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850. In it he noted that all previous revolutions had been minority revolutions and that after the victory the minority split into two, one satisfied with what had been achieved while the other wanted to go further. Marx and himself he wrote had expected this to be repeated in 1848:
“All revolutions of modern times, beginning with the great English Revolution of the seventeenth century, showed these features, which appeared inseparable from every revolutionary struggle. They appeared applicable, also, to the struggle of the proletariat for its emancipation; all the more applicable, since precisely in 1848 there were but a very few people who had any idea at all of the direction in which this emancipation was to be sought. The proletarian masses themselves, even in Paris, after the victory, were still absolutely in the dark as to the path to be taken. And yet the movement was there, instinctive, spontaneous, irrepressible. Was not this just the situation in which a revolution had to succeed, led, it is true, by a minority, though this time not in the interest of the minority, but in the finest interest of the majority? If, in all the longer revolutionary periods, it was so easy to win over the great masses of the people simply by the plausible false representations of the pressing minorities, why should they be less susceptible to ideas which were the truest reflection of their economic condition, which were none other than the clear, rational expression of their needs, of needs not yet understood but merely vaguely felt by them? To be sure, this revolutionary mood of the masses had almost always, and usually very speedily, given way to lassitude or even to a change to the opposite as soon as illusion evaporated and disappointment set in. But what was involved here were not false representations, but the implementation of the most vital interests of the great majority itself, interests which, it is true, were at that time by no means clear to this great majority, but which were bound to become clear to it as their practical implementation proceeded, by their convincing obviousness. And when, as Marx showed in his third article, in the spring of 1850, the development of the bourgeois republic that arose out of the “social” Revolution of 1848 had even concentrated real power in the hands of the big bourgeoisie — monarchistically inclined as it was into the bargain — and, on the other hand, had grouped all the other social classes, peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie, around the proletariat, so that during and after the common victory, not they but the proletariat grown wise from experience had to become the decisive factor — was there not every prospect then of turning the revolution of the minority into a revolution of the majority?“
So, still Revolution precedes Ideas.
But here’s how Engels answered his question;
“History has proved us wrong, and all who thought like us.”
So, what did he conclude was now the right approach;
“The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required.”
In other words, Ideas (thrown up by capitalism of course) must precede Revolution. Just what we have always argued.
Now you’ve had a preview of one of the articles in the November Socialist Standard that will mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Engels. But it already existed as a ready-made answer to Johnny’s question.
True there is no free press. As Marx even before he became a socialist and was still a bourgeois democrat pointed out. the first condition for a free press is that the press should not be a money-making business. A condition that is certainly not met by any of the national newspapers ( not just the Murdoch group).
But a second condition must be that the neither the state nor anyone else tries to stop anyone expressing their opinion, however obnoxious or mistaken.
XR are arguing in effect that the situation is so dangerous that this condition should be suspended if only for a day.
Not an intelligent move but one that will further piss people off with them.
Incidentally there was a reference in that link to “the rapidly-heating planet”. Fortunately it’s only an incrementally-heating planet but of course even this is a move in the wrong direction and a matter for concern.
Here’s the video of the event yesterday evening:
Those in favour of rehabilitating Kautsky used the argument that he had had a great influence on Lenin. I am not sure that that is the best approach to take but, given the background of the panellists, was understandable. Some interesting and relevant points were made. Even the International Bolshevik had done some homework on Kautsky though he breathlessly defended the idea of an elite vanguard party (of course),
Anyway, judge for yourself.
There have been similar demonstrations here in the UK but the authorities have adopted a different tactic — fining the organisers but leaving the demonstrators alone ( for the moment anyway):
Piers Corbyn is talking nonsense of course. There is a pandemic and until they find a vaccine there is a danger, even if for some people the symptoms are fairly mild. But these people can pass it on to others who could die from the complications it has for them,
I am not sure about masks as they’ve changed the advice about them (one of the many U turns the government here has done). At the beginning they said they wouldn’t protect you against catching it. Now they are saying they should be worn to re-assure people that it’s safe to go back to work. I am sure that the don’t do any harm, though, and that it’s better to be safe than sorry.
That reminds me. I wonder what happened to our resident denier here, Dave B. I hope he didn’t go to one of those virus parties, catch it but not recover,
Another own goal by XR:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-54038591
What on Earth did they think they were doing?
They must have known how their actions would be reported and interpreted as an attempt to suppress papers that didn’t support their point of view ( as in fact to a certain extent it was) to the detriment of their message about the urgent need to do something about global warming.
It seems they don’t care and are more concerned about getting a good feeling from going to prison for bearing witness to their Truth.
I was about to send in a comment saying what a dreamer, then I read the whole article. I think it ( and his book) deserves a more detailed and considered reply as he starts off putting the same question to single issue campaigners are we do — don’t you ever think about a society in which you wouldn’t have to protest without end? — and attempts to outline an alternative to capitalism ( as we know it).
I see he has come out as a “socialist” even though as that contradiction a “market socialist”. Must get hold of the book anyway so it can be reviewed.
“If tomorrow God made me president”
So, the US is a theocracy now. Not that it would make any difference if it was, since the christian god could no more control how capitalism works than an elected President. There is an added difficulty if you don’t exist.
I know but I didn’t want to speak too much ill of the dead on the day after they died.
Ok, he said to vote Labour under Corbyn and so was (like Chomsky) a peculiar type of anarchist, and he also subscribed to currency crank theories about banks. But what I meant was that he used the language of anti-capitalism and so like others (Picketty, Paul Mason, David Harvey) contributed to making “capitalism” a dirty word, so making it easier for us to get a hearing for our case.
And his exchanges with us were courteous enough.
59 is not a good innings. We didn’t agree with a lot of what he said but there was still enough common ground to be able to discuss differences sensibly, as for instance here on whether or not capitalism is based on wage labour.
