ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This would be an interesting development if it actually happens:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/civilians-organise-human-shield-protect-kurdish-afrin-180311163553611.htm
An interesting question from the point of view of the history of ideas (irrespective of whether or not they are sensible or practicable) is why the De Leonist SLP embraced the idea of labour-time vouchers while the SPGB didn't.We know why the SLP did as it was founded by German immigrants to the USA (refugees from the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878) who brought the idea within them where it was popular (and why Marx used the scheme for illustrative purposes). In fact, for them, it was the socialist method of distribution, not even a step on the way to free access. The European Social Democrats weren't committed to it so much if at all and certainly not as the end, and that's where we come from. Another possible influence on us could be William Morris and the Socialist League, a previous breakaway from the SDF.Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, though available in German from 1891, wasn't translated into English until 1933 which, used by the rulers of Russia to try to justify the continuance of the wages system there, revived the idea. It also caused a problem for the SLP and eventually led them to accepting free access, without money or vouchers, as the goal with labour-time vouchers as a transitional measure.
Imposs1904 has put up an article from a 1920 Socialist Standard which shows that we rejected labour-time vouchers as long go as that:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/how-shall-we-share-out-1920.html
Imposs1904 has just published a review from the Socialist Standard of 1942 of two anarchist pamphlets, one putting a rather pathetic case against voting and the other a rather unrealistic alternative way to try to abolish capitalism:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/new-publications-1942.html
So much for the Brexshiteers illusion that Britain (the British capitalist class) will be able to survive better in the jungle of world capitalist trade competition on its own rather than as part of a larger trading bloc. With the first division clubs — USA, EU, China, Japan — fighting it out, the government has chosen to relegate British capitalism to the second division. I don't think the British capitalism class are going to forgive the bunch of second-class political representatives (Cameron, May, Boris and the other non-entities) they've got. Still, not our problem as socialists.
I ended up too as from Sunderland just because I prononced "scone" as like "gone" rather than "bone" as when I did it again and said it like "bone" I ended up speaking like Hugh Grant.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/survey-reveals-correct-way-to-pronounce-scone/.Isn't there something in their bible about those who said "sibboleth" and those who say "shibboleth". Can't remember which lot got slaughtered. I think it was those who said "scon".
Good point. I don't think "the founders" were that enamoured of Kropotkin though they don't seem to have regarded him as as bad as some other anarchists. Here's a review of his book on the French Revolution which is not entirely hostile (only accusing him of being "idealist"):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-67-march-1910/kropotkin-french-revolutionIn this review of a book by French syndicalists "Prince Kropotkin" is compared favourably to them:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-107-july-1913/how-we-are-be-saved-syndicalismThe thing about Kropotkin that Party members have liked is his anti-Social Darwinism book Mutual Aid which was favourably reviewed in the American party's journal in 1956 and on the WSPUS's list of books for sale:http://theworldsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/paul-matticks-review-of-kropotkins.html
KAZ wrote:Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?Were you ever in the SPGB?
KAZ wrote:"r-r-revolutionary": Any idea where that SPGB meme comes from? Never heard it anywhere else.It don't think it is a "SPGB meme". A meme perhaps but not one we started. A quick search on the internet has turned up two, but there will be more: one by Zizek and this one:
Quote:I say nothing of those “revolutionaries” — save the mark! — who begin the work of organising artels by removing the bells from the churches. Just imaging removing the church bells — how r-r-revolutionary!By Stalin in 1930. See here. He wasn't talking about anarchists, though it's the sort of r-r-revolutionary thing they might do — in fact did do in Spain and more, like shooting the priest too.Since you are now moving in anarchist circles I imagine you will be coming across quite a few r-r-revolutionary windbags
alanjjohnstone wrote:https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State.This article is more than interesting. It's a vindication of our interpretation as set out in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?, e.g. when the auhor David Adam says
Quote:Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism. For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.
KAZ wrote:Threw stones at the riot police, did a sit in at the local paper and set fire to a dumpster.Yes, there is a bit of a disjoint between their rhetoric and their actions, a common feature of r-r-revolutionarygroups. Bakunin was the same, a comic opera insurrectionist when it came to actully doing something.
The series finished today with Tony Benn, justified as his followers and ideas have now won the leadership of the Labour Party and may get a chance to try to put them into practice. In fact this was no doubt the justification for the whole series. Although there weren't any factual mistakes in this week's episodes their overall effect will be negative from our point of view since they will have reinforced the false impression that the Labour Party has something to do with socialism (which until Corbyn came along people had come to realise was not the case). Unfortunately we can't enforce any copyright on the meaning of the word. Still, the re-introduction of the word in mainstream politics gives us a foot in the door to say what it has, does and should mean.
