[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

.When it comes to statistics what is always ignored that it is by far muslims being slaughtered by the Islamists.

But that's one of the points the open letter is trying to make to the "Islamistophile" Left !  Look at the people who signed it — secularists, feminists, ex-muslims — they are on the side of the angels (sorry to employ christian imagery). I've just got my doubts about the one who signs himself "Marxist-Leninist".

[ALB]

The people who signed the open letter are secularists and some openly declared ex-muslims. The point they are making is the same one that George Orwell made with regard to the Leftwing intellectuals of his day who were soft on Russia. They are criticising today's Leftwing intellectuals who are soft on Islamism whereas it, too, is reactionary and anti-working-class.  I would have though that that's a point of view we can sympathise with instead of going along with the view that to criticise Islam is to be "Islamophobic". it's not, any more than to criticise Israel is to be anti-semitic.

[ALB]

I don't think, Alan, that anyone on this thread disagrees that when it comes to policy and action about social matters the majority should have its way. The argument is about whether the majority has the right to prevent the expression of views. In other words, to not allow minorities to have their say. L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice). Robbo and me are saying that democratic decision-making doesn't and shouldn't extend that far and that if it did it would no longer be democracy since a key part of democracy is, precisely, the free expression of opinions.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Bellicose Russia simply following a policy begun by the tsars.

Actually, in this case, I think it is rather the other way round. Most of what is currently called Ukraine has been historically part of Russia for centuries. It is the West that is being expansionist this time.

Quote:

On quite a few websites it is seen as EU expansionism

I think they are right. Didn't it used to be called the "Drang nach Osten"?In any event, workers have no interest in supporting either side. As usual they are the victims of war.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I found that the signatories are an unusual collection and the text very questionable

What did you find "very questionable" about the text? I thought it made a valid point against those who softpeddle criticism of political Islamism on the grounds of it being "anti-imperialist" whereas it is a far-right ideology just like "fascism" (in fact, a case can be made for saying that both in ideology and in practice it is worse than fascism — for instance fascism was never that oppressive of women).  Why is it "islamophobia" to point this out?

[ALB]

One thing the conflict there showsis  that the Cold War wasn't about ideology but about spheres of influence. Putin has as much democratic legitimacy and popular support as Obama and Bush before him. He too won elections. He's not a "communist" but a Russian nationalist and supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church. It's a naked struggle for control of a strategic area. The "West" can't really have thought that they could just take over the Ukraine and take it out of the Russian sphere without those in charge of Russian capitalism just rolling over and letting them do it. Not sure it will lead to a European war though. They'll just divide up the Ukraine into a Western sphere and a Russian one. I don't suppose Russia wants to try to control the pro-German facists from western Ukraine any more than the West thinks it would be able to control the Russian-speakers of eastern Ukraine.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I think that Marxism is a guide to action, but then that leads us to the interminable question about just what is 'Marxism'.

Precisely. It's a phrase used by all sorts of Leninists and is interpreted by all of them differently, i.e to all sorts of different "actions". So it's not much of a guide to what to do. What is a guide must be something beyond the mere word "Marxism", eg. what is in the interest of the working class and socialist movement. Better to say this directly and skip the appeal to Marx.

LBird wrote:

The key difference between us here, though, is the nature of the 'principle' at stake:'Individual freedom of speech' versus 'workers' democratic power to restrict any speech that they determine to be harmful'.

I would say that the principle is everybody's freedom of speech. But your principle is dangerous as it can be used to justify censorship.Anyway, when "workers", or socialist-minded workers, have the power to restrict freedom of speech they won't need to because they will be in the majority and won't need to fear fellow workers being "misled" by hearing "wrong" views (a patronising and elitist view towards other workers anyway). Or you're not advocating that non-socialist-minded workers should have the power to decide to restrict "any speech that they determine to be harmful" are you? Are you? You've got me worried now.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

I have received a reply from moderation saying that your copy and paste verbatim is allowed because it is not from the Socialist Standard! Only the Socialist Standard is not allowed. So don't try an open letter from Clifford Slapper! But an open letter from Nigel Farage is fine.

Could it be that it's because articles from the Socialist Standard are already published elsewhere on this site and people can tweet a link to them there. I think that also at the end of each article there is a section for comment — which ends up on the forum. It seems to be an argument about where on our website a tweet should link to: the Socialist Standard or the forum? Personally I'd have thought that the Standard was a better visiting card than here. Or you could do both, I suppose. Just post the link not the whole article on the forum and tweet a link to this. Seems a bit of a roundabout way, though.

[ALB]

Actually, I don't think that "Marxism is a guide to action" or rather that this phrase means anything. I was just quoting it to bring out that your theory didn't seem to help in dealing with policy decisions confronting socialists, e,g whether or not to support a policy of "No Platform" for selected opponents. The SWP wants "no platform for fascists" (who are not really a threat) but "a platform for islamists" (who are more of one).

[ALB]

What Ian Bone says should not be interpreted too literally. When he says "Bash the Rich" he does really mean that they should be hit or beaten. He's just being provocative. If he really meant it he would be in trouble in this country (UK) too for incitement to violence or something. But when you say "socialism" what do you mean by it? A world without frontiers or states where the Earth resources have become the common heritage of humanity with goods and services being produced to satisfy people's needs without money or buying and selling? Where we'd all be stateless because the world would no longer be divided into states, just citizens of the world, Earthpeople.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Nevertheless, I've tried to expose my underlying ideology, and where I think it takes me, on this and other issues.

I know what your theory is but it doesn't seem much of a guide to action like Marxist theory is supposed to be. By the time you've worked out what to do at a "No Platform" protest the action will be all over.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

But the reverse is also true:"if a group decides democratically to try to impose 'No "No Platform" ' for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable".Thus, in our scenario, it makes sense for the 'No Platform' group to attend the meeting to prevent the Fascist from speaking, and for the 'No 'No Platform' ' group to simply not attend the meeting, so they by omission don't prevent……and neither 'imposes' upon the other.

This is not a parallel, so the reverse isn't also true. The "No Platform" group wish to stop someone speaking. The "No to No Platform" group don't necessarily want to take action to stop the "No Platform" group from stopping the speaker. I'm not advocating fighting the SWP to allow the National Front to speak !  Just opposing their undemocratic practice and saying they shouldn't do it (because it's not in the interest of the working class or socialist movement). Actually, one of the students at the anti-Le Pen demonstration in Oxford on Thursday put it rather well:

Quote:

One student in the queue, Ping Shen, 25, said: "I am here because I am very interested in free speech."She added that people had the right to protest against the talk, but she believed that the Union should be a platform for free speech.

Protesting is one thing. That's an expression of opinion. Using physical force to trying to stop someone expressing a view is another.

[ALB]

Smurfs? What's wrong with us?According to wikipedia we live in a socialist society:

Quote:

The Smurfs' community generally takes the form of a cooperative, sharing, and kind environment based on the principle that each Smurf has something he or she is good at, and thus contributes it to Smurf society as he or she can. In return, each Smurf appears to be given their necessities of life, from housing and clothes to food without using any money in exchange.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

This doesn't really get us much further though does it?

No, I'm afraid it doesn't.  I'm sure that UAF and the SWP are not democratic, but I still say that even if a group decides democratically to try to impose "No Platform" for some other group, that doesn't make it acceptable.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

In any specific vote on an issue, we're likely to be identical in our opinion, I think.

Probably. I hope so.But to descend from the realms of philosophy to everyday political life, what do you think of the "No Platform" policy, and attempt practice, of some groups aimed at any group or individual who are or who are deemed by them to be "fascist" or "racist"?

[Author]

Posts