ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As someone pointed out (was it Zizek?) some people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:(it even discusses national anarchism with proponents i have debated with and manarchism which i never encountered before…macho-lifestylism??)I hadn't either till I read this article in the December Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1312-december-2013/brocialism-and-manarchism
The key book to read on him is C. B. Macpherson's The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke.For something on the neglected 3rd and 4th parts of Leviathan, see this article from The Skeptic in 2006. It begins:
Quote:Anyone who had to study philosophy at university will have had to have read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan that was published in English in 1651. Normally, they will only have been encouraged to read the first two of its four parts — on the theory of knowledge (of Man) and on the theory of the State (Of Common-Wealth) — and so probably won't have read the last two, on the Christian theory of the State (Of A Christian Common-Wealth) and on the pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church (Of the Kingdom of Darknesse). The main thrust of these last two parts is to reinforce the argument of the second that political obedience is owed to the secular rulers of the State (however chosen) not to any church. But, at the same time, they contain arguments about ghosts, miracles and angels that are of interest to sceptics.Although he took the side of the royalists in the English Civil War his arguments here against Roman Catholicism and its superstitions displeased some of the king's other supporters. If you read them you can see why.
Had a phone call yesterday from a branch member who had just read Stuart Hall's obituary in the Independent. He said he had read him before he joined the Party, so he can't have been all bad or completely useless even though he did describe him as an "academic Tony Benn", i.e a well-meaning but confused leftwinger.
Vin Maratty wrote:Did they ever get one through the eye of a needle?That's a myth too. See how they wriggle here to explain that it didn't mean that a rich person couldn't get to heaven (the conclusion in the last line):http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm.
One big difference between England and Scotland is the different percentage of people dependent on the State, whether for employment, housing or benefits. According to this, it is 57.7% in Scotland compared with 47.9% in England as a whole and only 40% in London and in the South East. (In Wales and Northern Ireland it's nearly 70%).This suggests that an independent Scotland would have difficulty sustaining this on its own, i.e there is a risk that it will result in the worsening of conditions for most workers there. Personally, I think this would happen and is a case for voting "No" on trade-union grounds. (Of course we abstain on socialist grounds).The SWP have brought out a pamphlet with the ridiculous title of "YES TO INDEPENDENCE, NO TO NATIONALISM". How do you that?Perhaps we could start a competition for the best such silly slogans, eg. YES TO WAR. NO TO KILLING or YES TO LABOUR, NO TO CAPITALISM
There seems to be some sort of justice in the world after all. Harper, the minister for (i.e.against) immigration, who was forced to resign when he was exposed as employing an "illegal immigrant" as a cleaner, was the person who thought up and authorised the "Immigrants — Go Home" vans.
That's not bad at all. Ok it's a bit of an underconsimption theory of crisis ("He argued that the relentless drive for profits would lead companies to mechanize their workplaces, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers' wages until they could no longer purchase the products they created.") but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth or nit-pick (too much).Has this magazine got a circulation in Britain? If so, it might be worth placing an appropriate ad in it to follow this up.
Here's his draft list of election promises:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-most-radical-programme-ever-put-before-the-electorate/The most radical programme of reforms, perhaps. This is Screaming Lord Sutch stuff, but I suppose they are making a point through mockery.
Ozymandias wrote:I read some of this TZM book. Pretentious wordy jargonese?You're right. It is filled with too much scientific-sounding jargon which must be counter-productive as it only re-inforces their technocratic image. What they are trying to say can be explained in much simpler language. As we do.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Apologies for the lack of paragraphs – you all know now the reason is with the website not my lack of concern or consideration.I'm sure it's not your lack of concern or consideration, but it's not the fault of the website ! How to start a paragraph is not all that hard to master. How to do it has been explained here a number of times, I think.
Quote:The wording used will be 'The Socialist Party SPGB' and will not include 'Of Great Britain' (subject to standing orders).The case of the wording of 'The Socialist Party' will be mixed upper and lower case as indicated, and the wording of 'SPGB' will be all capitals.The wording will be on one line (not on two lines or more) and overlap as designed on design 'E' submitted.To have "The Socialist Party SPGB" on the fascia would be worse than having "The Socialist Party of Great Britain." While a case can be made out for the latter there is no resolution that can justify the former which is just plain silly. Either we use one name or the other, not two at the same time.A compromise (for those who want to surrender the name "Socialist Party" to the Trots and distinguish us from them instead of contesting their right to usurp a name we've used for decades) would be have to THE SOCIALIST PARTY on one line in big letters with "of Great Britain" in (much) smaller size on a line beneath it. Or you could put our email or website address which includes the acronym "spgb".But I don't think we are ever going to agree on this. But we don't need to. We could simply leave things as they are.
Something on this Alan missed from the Truthout site:http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21605-rethinking-economics-from-the-uk-a-global-student-movement-takes-shape
Young Master Smeet wrote:Is a 370 wait for a big project unreasonable?I don't know. What is a "370 wait"?
Someone has posted a link to this "libertarian socialist" critique of the Zeitgeist Movement on our facebook page:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZT7MZop44It's not bad but is direct democracy the complete answer of the technocratic tendency Zeitgeist is criticised for? Is there nothing in between, e.g. delegate democracy with majority decision-making (as well as leaving some qualified technicians to get on with the job)?
