[ALB]

I hadn't realised that this was a Labour Party proposal. What a shower of shameless opportunists.  I suppose some fock-us group has told them that militarism is a vote-winner at the moment and they duly oblige. Who said they are the lesser evil? They are just as bad if not worse than the other lot. At least the other lot probably genuinely believe in militarism while Labour is just pretending to try to garner votes.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Dietzgen on the unity of natural and social in one science:

Be careful you might end up with the spiritual interpretation of Dietzgen by Larry Gambone in his strange book on Cosmic Dialectics !http://vcmtalk.com/jospeh_dietzgen_page

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If i understand my masonry, SPGBers cannot join the British masons due to the necessary belief in the Supreme Being, the Grand Architect in the Sky, but could join the atheistic French masons. i recall reading about them parading in full regalia during the Paris Commune.

I wouldn't have thought so !Freemasonry was a bourgeois revolutionary movement in France, Spain, Italy, etc (I think Bakunin was one; secret societies were his thing. Marx wasn't of course) and the Social Democratic parties of those countries are still riddled with it. Not the Communist parties as they declared it incompatible, as I imagine we would/should. The fact that it played a part in the Paris Commune shows the extent that to which its ideas were still influenced by the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century.

[ALB]

I think I may have posted this link before but here's Kliman explaining in 3 minutes why redistributing income to the working class is not a way out of the crisis. Anyway, it bears repeating:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47sXexnM9A#t=6m40s

[ALB]

Just posted this yesterday on another thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/andrew-kliman-marxist-humanist-slams-underconsumption-theorists-monthly-rev?page=1#comment-8374Actually, they don't seem to be defending crude underconsumption views (they say explicitly that Rosa Luxemburg was wrong on this). What they do do is defend policies which others defend on underconsumption grounds, e.g. increasing government spending and workers incomes, but which they defend on other grounds ("transitional demands", i.e bait to gain a following). They also point out that "underconsumption" is an apparent feature of one stage of the boom/slump cycle (as it is).As I posted yesterday, I think they score a point against Kliman (one only) when they argue that not all crises are caused by a falling rate of profit due to a rise in the organic composition of capital (crudely, due to increased mechanization). They even mention the explanation of crises we have tended to favour:

Quote:

Crises can be caused by disproportionality between different industries.

But the document is mainly political. At one point they accuse Kliman of echoing SPGB views:

Quote:

Insofar that this means anything, it is that the working class must be 'theoretically' educated – presumably by Kliman and Bruce Wallace – to prepare them for socialism.This sounds familiar. It echoes the arguments of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) – not our party, the Socialist Party of England and Wales, but the tiny organisation – that seeks the road to socialism, which by definition must be long and protracted, through abstractly 'educating' working people on the realities of money and demanding its immediate abolition, and the same with classes, the law of value, etc.

Such an accusation when used amongst Trotskyists is normally a winner. But Kliman is not a Trotskyist. It may even help us get a debate with him.

[ALB]

Another article, just out, by Wolff defending workers cooperatives still producing for a market as the "alternative" to capitalism and redefining socialism to fit this:http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18323-debating-capitalism-redefining-outdated-termsHe is of course right that it is inadequate to see capitalism v socialism as the market v state planning. But while capitalism is not incompatible with state planning that doesn't make socialism compatible with the market.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.

I don't know much about him either I'm afraid because most of what he wrote has not been translated from Russian. I'm just going by what others (eg Lenin) say he said. In this 1907 article criticising Dietzgen, Plekhanov groups together as having the same sort of ideas Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Pannekoek and Unterman on "cognition":http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htmPlekhanov was taking the position of 18th century French materialism that Pannekoek criticised him for. Plekhanov didn't think much of Panneloek either. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/pannekoek.htm#n1Here's an article by modern Russian group which also links Bogdanov and Pannekoek and provides more on what he meant by "tectology":http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Bogdanov's socialist/communist credentials are confirmed in this extract from his book A Short Course of Economic Science which the party used to recommend:http://revsoc.org/archives/7467I'd like to know more about Bogdanov's ideas myself if anybody who reads Russian can help.

[ALB]

Militant have just published a pamphlet-length reply to Kliman here:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17458/20-09-2013/the-causes-of-capitalist-crisis-reply-to-andrew-klimanIt's hilarious in parts, just trotting out moth-eaten Trotskyist dogmas about "degenerate workers state", "transitional programme", "nationalise the monopolies", "vanguard party", etc.. At one point Kliman is accused of being like us::

Quote:

Kliman scathingly dismisses the idea of a fighting transitional programme for workers, which is clearly spelt out in the last chapter of his book entitled 'What is to be Undone'.He writes: "The notion that socialism will come about by means of a party that captures state power and nationalizes the means of production is fundamentally misguided". [The Failure of Capitalist Production (TFoCP), p204] Bruce Wallace is at present a member of a party and an international organisation which defends the notion that the working class through its own party will need to fight for the idea of taking power through the nationalisation of the big monopolies – the means of production – on a national and an international scale.This is a precondition for taking economic and state power out of the hands of capitalism and putting it into the hands of the working class, laying the basis for the democratic socialist planning of society.What is Kliman's alternative to this? : "We can have a modern society that operates without the laws of capitalist production being in control". [TFoCP, p206] Just how this can be achieved, remains a mystery.Kliman merely suggests: "There needs to be a new relation of theory to practice, so that regular people are not just the muscle that brings down the old power, but become fully equipped, theoretically and intellectually, to govern society themselves."Nothing short of this can prevent power from being handed over to an elite." This is followed by the sentence: "It seems very utopian". [TFoCP, p206] You can say that again! This is not a fighting programme and perspectives in the Marxist sense but is akin to astronomy where events will develop almost automatically. 'Educate' the working class in the 'fundamentals' and, like rotten fruit, capitalism will collapse of its own accord and socialism will be born!Insofar that this means anything, it is that the working class must be 'theoretically' educated – presumably by Kliman and Bruce Wallace – to prepare them for socialism.This sounds familiar. It echoes the arguments of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) – not our party, the Socialist Party of England and Wales, but the tiny organisation – that seeks the road to socialism, which by definition must be long and protracted, through abstractly 'educating' working people on the realities of money and demanding its immediate abolition, and the same with classes, the law of value, etc.

Thanks for the compliment.Other gems are:

Quote:

He unapologetically shares a 'state capitalist' analysis with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Britain, although he is not a member of their 'international', the International Socialist Tendency (IST).In fact, he dedicates his book to one of the SWP's theoreticians, the late Chris Harman, who shared his approach to the rate of profit issue.Bruce Wallace may try to pretend that this has no bearing on his economic analysis. But it is the experience of ourselves and many workers in Britain with the SWP and others who adhere to a state capitalist analysis of the former Soviet Union – it was a state capitalist regime not a degenerated workers' state, they argue – that it leads them to a mistaken approach on virtually all political questions both of an historical and contemporary character.

You wouldn't think that Militant was in an electoral alliance with the SWP in TUSC.They defend the old USSR as "progressive":

Quote:

We have explained on many occasions that the collapse of Stalinism not only ended the rule of the monstrous bureaucracy that dominated these societies; it also led to the collapse of the planned economy, which in the past was relatively progressive compared to capitalism.(…) For Kliman, like his SWP cousins, the collapse of Stalinism did not represent an historic defeat for the working class.

Kliman is criticised for arguing (we do too) that for Marx there was no "transitional society" between capitalism and communism (= socialism):

Quote:

In passing, he criticises the transitional method and programme elaborated by the Bolsheviks and developed by Trotsky.In the American online journal marxisthumanistinitiative.org, he attacks various political opponents, who "ignore the fact that the Critique of the Gotha Programme [by Marx] states – twice – that the first phase of communist society emerges from capitalist society – one is transformed into the other, directly."There is nothing in between, not in Marx's statement.

They answer Kliman's criticism of their current reformist programme:

Quote:

We have argued in a transitional manner for an increase in government expenditure in order to boost housing, education, workers' share of income, etc. We have also demanded nationalisation of the banks and the finance sector. Yet Kliman opposes this. He writes: "Some leftist economists called for state control or nationalization of the financial system, rather than just regulation, of the financial system… But there cannot be socialism in one country. What results when you try to have socialism in one country is state-capitalism, a state-run system that is still embedded in the global capitalist economy, and which is still locked into a competitive battle with capitals elsewhere in the world. A state-run bank is still a bank." [TFoCP, pp194-5]

To be fair, the only point Militant seem to score is when they say Kliman is a "one club golfer" when he argues that the falling rate of profit is the cause of all crises.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel !

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Peak oil is not just "accurate science" but basic science: oil is a finite resource. The opposite argues that it is an infinite resource.

The argument is not about whether oil is or is not an "infinite" resource. Of course it isn't. It's about whether "peak oil" has been reached or is likely be in the near future. To argue that peak oil has not yet been reached or won't be for many years is not to argue that oil is an infinite resource. You yourself recognise this when you write later:

ralfy wrote:

we need to differentiate between peak oil not taking place and peak oil not taking place during a certain period. The first implies that oil is an infinite resource, and that's not the case given the standpoint of a human race that cannot wait for millions of years before more supplies are made available.The second does not in any way confirm the first. We can use unconventional oil in place of crude oil, nuclear power, etc., but the physical limitations remain, and not just for materials needed to obtain, store, and use energy but even for other matters, such as phosphorus needed for agriculture, fossil fuels needed for petrochemicals and shipping transport, etc.

Personally, I think you are exaggerating here, just as the Club of Rome did in the 1970s.Thanks for indicating what you think must be done about it, as here:.

ralfy wrote:

As I explained earlier, there is no solution to peak oil, which is a predicament. The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament by lowering oil demand while maximizing oil and gas production, and moving to renewable energy.

ralfy wrote:

That adjustment will basically take the form of decreasing resource consumption and energy.

As I said, there is no chance of these adjustments taking place under capitalism, at least not in a rational and timely way. The only framework within which this could take place is world socialism. as explained in this article:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-996-august-1987/one-green-world

[ALB]

I wonder if he's a redhead:http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtmlIf so, maybe he should join this group so he can associate with people sharing some of the same genes as him (easier to tell at first glance than blood group):http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/redheads-rally-for-ginger-pride-in-edinburgh-1-3040091Oh, I forgot, on his theory, he would already have naturally gravitated towards them.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

Ok, forget "peak oil" or agree to disagree on it and move on to global warming. I agree with you that this is happening, so how do you think that problem could be solved or at least mitigated?

We should probably create another thread for that topic.

Ok, there's already a thread on this here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/global-warmingSo let's continue this point there.

ralfy wrote:

The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament, and that means using fewer resources and localize.

The chances of "using fewer resources and localize" happening within capitalism are nil. The only framework within which this could be implemented would be a society where the Earth's natural and industrial resources had become the common heritage of all. Because only on that basis would humans be in a position to choose what to do without being subject to the economic laws and profit considerations that capitalism imposes.Such a society would not only be free to eliminate the huge waste of resources under capitalism but also to develop other, at present unprofitable, sources of energy. We could have a world in which everybody's needs could be met without having to wear hair shirts or abandon entirely living in towns and cities or the worldwide productive network that has developed.

[ALB]

Luxemburg's assessment of the Russian Revolution, writen in 1918, can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htmYou can see that, while she fully supported the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, she was critical of many of their policies, insisting that "the dictatorship of the proletariat" had to be the dictatorship of the whole working class using democratic methods not the dictatorship of a party.It's a tragedy that she was murdered in January 1919 as, had she survived, she would surely have been more critical of what the Bolsheviks were doing and could have been a prestigious voice that could have prevented so many workers getting sidetracked into Leninism whose pernicious influence still, unfortunately, survives today..Actually, the copy I have of her 1906 article that Ed mentions is a pamphlet brought out by the old ILP who gave it the appropriate title of Leninism or Marxism?  Actually, just checked and this is another of her articles, dating from 1904, which can be found here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Gnome asks why would they want to infiltrate us?  What would be in it, literally, for them? I can think of two reasons , the control of a healthy bank balance and prestigious premises. 

That wasn't what I had in mind. They may be (are, in fact) unscrupulous political operators but they are not common crooks (besides, they seem to have plenty of money of their own, from their leaders' private fortunes). I was thinking more of a political raid to see if they could pick up some of our then members who might have doubts about our policy, say,  on parliament or reforms.

[ALB]

The "CPGB" are not Trotskyists of course but "Leninists" even "post-Stalinists". They seem to be applying Lenin's dictum concerning the leaders of the Labour Party — support "like a rope supports a hanged man" — to all other organisations. I'm sure that if we were bigger we would have to find ways of keeping them out. Be interesting to see what both the "Socialist Platform" and the new "Left Unity" party do about them.The Lenin quote comes from his 1920 polemic Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

[Author]

Posts