[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I think that they were trying to express what I wrote earlier:The production of knowledge of both natural and social science is done by humans.Natural and social science both employ the same method.If social science can be bourgeois, so can natural science.If natural science can be socially-neutral, so can social science.

Maybe that was what Marx and Engels meant, but they could also have meant what they actually wrote later on in the manuscript:

Quote:

Feuerbach speaks in particular of the perception of natural science; he mentions secrets which are disclosed only to the eye of the physicist and chemist; but where would natural science be without industry and commerce? Even this pure natural science is provided with an aim, as with its material, only through trade and industry, through the sensuous activity of men. So much is this activity, this unceasing sensuous labour and creation, this production, the basis of the whole sensuous world as it now exists, that, were it interrupted only for a year, Feuerbach would not only find an enormous change in the natural world, but would very soon find that the whole world of men and his own perceptive faculty, nay his own existence, were missing. Of course, in all this the priority of external nature remains unassailed, and all this has no application to the original men produced by generatio aequivoca [spontaneous generation]; but this differentiation has meaning only insofar as man is considered to be distinct from nature. For that matter, nature, the nature that preceded human history, is not by any means the nature in which Feuerbach lives, it is nature which today no longer exists anywhere (except perhaps on a few Australian coral-islands of recent origin) and which, therefore, does not exist for Feuerbach.

That "natural science" was a human activity that depends on material conditions, themselves the product of human activity. So any history of natural science would also have to be a history of human activity.That nature as we see it today has been shaped by human action, so that the study of nature today is also part of the study of human history.Maybe they crossed out the passage because they felt that the second was a bit too sweeping because it wouldn't apply to all parts of nature, i.e not to those parts that had not been changed by humans.Note in passing their ignorance about the origin of humans. Spontaneous generation ! But they were writing in 1844, before Darwin and his The Descent of Man that came out in 1871.None of this invalidates your theory. At most it would show that Marx and Engels meant something different.

[ALB]

I still do not why know you are attacking us in this way or what your agenda is.Even the grammar of what I wrote doesn't bear your interpretation:

slothjabber wrote:

ALB wrote:

How come that the CWO, which favours political action by a vanguard party and envisages a transition period with a state, are admitted to the Anarchists Bookfairs while we are banned? …

Not 'were banned, when we could be bothered to apply', but 'are' banned, implying that it is happening now.

Yes, "are banned" does imply that the ban applies now but it says nothing about when it started, only that it is still in force. In fact, it's saying "were" banned that would suggest that it was a decision taken this year (that we had applied and been banned and that the CWO applied afterwards and had been accepted).Why would I want to say something that I knew not to be true? I knew perfectly well that we had not applied this year nor for a number of years (because there was a ban on us in force).  Your argument that we should have tested if it was still in force by applying this year is irrelevant. If we've been told "no" a number of times we get the message. If they don't want us, fair enough. We're not going to grovel to get in. I was just pointing out the organisers' inconsistency in admitting the CWO while having a ban on us.This is a silly argument anyway. More interesting would be your reasons for making this an issue.

[ALB]

Interesting quote and interesting idea, but two things. Wasn't the German Ideology a joint Marx-Engels production? And this is a passage they crossed out. It would be interesting to know why, but we'll never know.What do you think they were trying to express in the crossed-out passage?

[ALB]

America has never been a completely "socialism"-free area. See for instance:

[ALB]

No doubt these xenophobic, nationalist parties will do well in next year's elections to the European Parliament but that will be because, as the EP is only a talking shop not a real law-making parliament, people can and do use elections to it just to protest. IIt is bad that this will take the form it is likely to, but rallying round the mainstream parties of capitalism,as Palmer and the other bloke advocate, is not the answer.An actual return to the national protectionist policies of the 1930s (as advocated by leftwing No2EU type parties as well) is highly unlikely, as the capitalist class and their mainstream political representatives have learnt the lessons of that period. They are not going to dismantle the tariff-free "common market" they've worked so hard to build up over the years as they know that would only make things worse.

[ALB]

I don't know what's provoked this vituperative attack. The statement criticised is not a lie. We have been turned down on a number of occasions in the past and, as you rightly assume, have given up applying on the natural assumption that we are not welcome, "banned" if you like. It was not a reference just to this year's bookfair.More interesting is this:

slothjabber wrote:

the CWO was allowed to have a stall after they put in a request, and were then contacted by the organisers to provide further information, which they did, after which the organisers accepted that they had a sufficient relationship with Anarchism to be given a stall – this year.

What "further information" did they ask and what further information did you supply that convinced them that you were sufficiently anarchist?We readily concede that your anti-election stance puts you closer to Bakunin and the anarchists than to Marx.We have of course never claimed to be "the parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement". That's something others have said about us. In any event this niche is filled by Ian Bone and Class War (see the separate thread on this in the General Discussion section).

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

" WIC has not decided to "enter the new party" since that would be completely at variance with its stated purpose."Out of curiousity what arguments pro or con were raised in this WIC decision? Did a debate on the question actually take place?

If I can reply for Robin. To say that someone has "not decided" to do something is not the same as saying "they decided not to" do it. 

[ALB]

Welcome back, Robin. People had been wondering what had happened to you

robbo203 wrote:

WIC has not decided to "enter the new party"

That's good news, but it's interesting to speculate on what an individual socialist or group of socialists could do if they decided to "enter" and bore from within, like the Trots do, a non-socialist party such a the new LU party (or, for that matter, the Green Party or the Labour Party)Most of the discussion in such parties will be about which reforms to advocate and prioritise and, presumably, socialists wouldn't have much to say about that except to bang on about their temporary nature, how they couldn't solve the problem, etc. In fact, they'd be doing what we do outside any party: trying to convince fellow-workers that the capitalist system cannot be reformed so as to work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers and that the only way out is to convert the means of production into the common property of all under democratic control so that they could be used to satisfy people's needs not to make a profit for their owners.I would imagine that sooner or later the non-socialists in the party would be questioning what people putting such arguments are doing in their party. They might even have more respect for people like us who stay out and argue our case independently. I would guess that this is the position of Andrew Burgin, one of the leading promoters of the new party, who Stuart says likes us. He has in fact visited our offices a number of times to buy up old pamphlets and books and back issues of the Socialist Standard to sell in his bookshop.

[ALB]

admice wrote:

And thanks for this http://www.alisonassiter.com/revisiting-universalism/Can anyone synthesize her for me assuming I've had basic philosophy?She is one smart, cool, cookie.

I think her book is basically a criticism of the so-called "post-modernists" who teach that there is no such things as universally valid values or even universally valid scientific theories, i.e they are relativists who say "anything goes" or as one wit has put it "cannibalism is a matter of taste".Assister is defending the modernist tradition inherited from the 18th Enlightenment that there are such "universals" that are valid for all humans. Marx was in this tradition and so basically are we.The Socialist Standard reviewed her book in 2003. Although she is no longer a member her book does contain a relatively favourable reference to us (quoted in the review):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1192-december-2003/book-reviews

[ALB]

Here's an article on syndicalism from our (vast) archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-986-october-1986/syndicalism-its-origin-and-weaknessSome people have called us "libertarian socialists" on the grounds that we stand for a society without a coercive state as opposed to so-called "state socialists" (really, proponents of state capitalism) who do. It's not a term we use ourselves though (nor do we accept the concept of "state socialism" — as it's an oxymoron like "military intelligence").

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

good uck to Tactical Unity,

Are we supposed to fill in the missing letter ourselves? Is it "duck" or "luck" or what? Or maybe you simply meant "uck"?

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

You knew him much better than I but I wouldn't necessarily agree that he would have rejected LU. For example in his resignation letter he talked of the likelihood of a working-class socialist party being formed outside of the SPGB.

Since John Crump is no longer with us it's all speculation but I still think it highly unlikely that someone who became anti-parliamentary anarcho-communist would support a party committed to engaging in electoralist politics, reform programme and all.

jpodcaster wrote:

Also let's not forget that, whatever your views on the "wishy-washy reformism" of LU, the organisation contains a significant minority of men and women with a commitment to a socialism virtually indistinguishable from that envisaged by the SPGB, including ex-members and sympathisers.

Does that mean that Robin Cox's World in Common group has decided to "enter" the new party?

[ALB]

An editorial in the business section of yesterday's Daily Telegraph attributes the Co-op's current plight to its democratic structure, arguing that is not possible to run a business of its size on such lines:

Quote:

Its democratic structure, with a Byzantine relationship between area committees, regional boards and the group board, was held up as a paragon of virtue. It was, as has been proved, a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

It is difficult to imagine any corporation with a business of this magnitude being governed by archaic gouvernance standards more suited to a village charity than an organisation with its sights on major expansion.

Although the way the Co-op was run wasn't that democratic at least it was far far more democratic than any normal capitalist enterprise.The Daily Telegraph is right: it is not possible to run a big capitalist enterprise on anything like democratic lines and the plight of the Co-op has shown this to be the case. Confirmation of the arguments we have used against people like Peter Tatchell (and no doubt will be using when we debate him on 5 March next year) who hold up co-operatives as one way to "economic democracy".

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

I think it is a very sad situation to leave the Socialist Party to join a Trotskyist organization

This is a misunderstanding, mcolome. Stuart left the Socialist Party because we wouldn't give all our money to the Occupy movement not to become a Trotskyist. And the new party he is now interested in is not a Trotskyist or Leninist outfit, but another wishy-washy reformist party of whose policy and tactics he is a prominent and eloquent defender. It is a pity when a member goes off the rails but at least he hasn't become a Trotskyist.

[ALB]

jpodcaster wrote:

And there we have the real epitath of the SPGB: "Missing a trick since 1904." (copyright John Crump)

Bit of a cheek to try to use John Crump to back up Stuart's case (and yours?) for a new leftwing reformist party which rejects socialism (as a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society) as an impossible and irrelevant long-term dream and which wants to concentrate on trying to obtain or retain "possible" reforms of capitalism. He shared this aim and differed from us mainly in that he came to disagree with using parliament in the course of establishing it. See this:http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/thin-red-line-non-market-socialism-twentieth-century-john-crump-1987Also, the other articles by him on the same section of the same siteIn fact, I would have thought that he would have been just as opposed, if not more so, to the Left Unity project than us. Another ex-member, Mike Ballard, with whom he was associated in the group Subversion (which gave up the ghost some years ago now), told me at the Anarchist Bookfair last month that he (Mike) loved the front cover of the October Socialist Standard (even I had my doubts about describing the proposed new party as a "monster"!).We'll be there at that hotel in Bedford Square a week Saturday to hand free copies of it. Maybe see youse there.

[Author]

Posts