[ALB]

It's the red flag not the black-and-red flag that's shrouded oft our martyred dead. Let's not repudiate our past !

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

Ok, so how will the geographical territory of the UK respond to attack from an outside power, say one region that chose not to go along with the World Socialism idea?

Oh dear !

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

You're still confusing 'the object' with 'knowledge', ALB. They are different entities. Don't my latest efforts help at all? Difference number 4 refers, I think. If what I've written so far hasn't helped, please ask for a better explanation.

I don't think I am. I do understand the point you are making here:

Quote:

4 F. sees knowledge as a faithful copy of object; M. sees knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object.

I do understand the difference between what people observe/experience and how they interpret this. Before 1700, just as now, people observed a hot disc moving across the sky from East to West (and various changes in the sky at night). (Of course, the "Sun" is also already a mental construct, an abstraction from the ever-changing world of phenomena = "reality"). Before 1700 the assumption that the Sun went round the Earth was enough for their practical needs (when to go to sleep, when to get up, when to plant crops, etc). That the Sun went round the Earth was their "mental reproduction" of what they observed (and which we still do), but, surely, the theory of "knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object" allows for inaccurate or wrong "mental reproductions"? So, why can't we say that the pre-1700 mental reproduction of the same phenomena that we observe today was wrong? Isn't saying that the theory that the Sun goes round the Earth was "true" before 1700 because this was adequate for living and production then an example of "cultural relativism"?

[ALB]

And he likes UKIP:http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/399171/Jamie-Oliver-How-Ukip-stirs-it-and-what-I-love-best-about-their-recipeDon't know if they'll like him now, though.

[ALB]

Tomáš Kovačík wrote:

My academic level is a university and I like the text to be straightforward not in Marx´s classical style. You know, almost 1000 pages on a topic of capital and another volumes follows. Since Marx is mostly appreciated as a critic of a political economy, I would like the subject of economics. What interpretations?

So you are looking for interpretations rather than mere popularisations? In which case have a look at this from elsewhere on this site:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/books-and-pamphlets-marxian-economicsActually, isn't Marx just as much appreciated as for his theory of history as for his analysis of capitalism and his critique of  its intellectual defenders?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

In effect, I’m asking, ‘do Marx, Pannekoek and Critical Realism lead us to cultural relativism?’.

Or, more precisely, do they lead us to the view that before 1700 it was "true" that the Sun went round the Earth as this is what people then "knew" to be the case? For the record, I vote No. I think they would have done too.

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

To take the position of no immigration controls under capitalism is just as ludicrous as the position of immigration controls under capitalism, let us not forget it is also a utopian liberal wet dream.

Quite. Those who take up this position don't believe it possible anyway and are only holding it out as bait to attract the support of migrant groups.On the other hand, I'd say that one of the few benefits of the EU for workers has been the posibility of free movement over a wider area and, in some parts, without even having to go through passport controls.

[ALB]

If you'd bought a programme, YMS, you'd have seen our mention:

Quote:

The Socialist Party, South London BranchFor a world without frontiers, where the Earth's natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity, a world without money with production for use not profit.spgb@worldsocialism.orgwww.worldsocialism.org/spgb

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

So if you are opposed to all forms of public ownership, then what do you propese for infrastructure projects, the NHS and the police/military??

We are opposed to all forms of minority ownership, of which so-called "public" ownership, i.e. government ownership, is one. Government-owned industries are not the abolition of capitalism, but state capitalism. What we stand for is the common ownership of the means of production, which is a state of affairs where no individual or groups of individuals owns productive resources. They belong to no one, but are democratically run in ways that society decides. That's socialism, the alternative to both private and state capitalism.In socialism, there will of course still be infrastructure projects but these will be decided democratically and, once adopted, the physical resources needed to carry them out will be brought together. They won't needed to be "funded" or "financed" as there'll be no need of money or finance in a socialist society (what LBird has called "free access communism").In socialism there'll be a completely free Heath Service along with all other completely free services: housing,education,  transport, utilities, restaurants,etc.There won't be any armies or navies. Nor a police "force" though there might well be teams to investigate violent deaths along the lines of today's train and air crash investigators.

[ALB]

Gnome, what's with this red and black flag? You haven't suddenly gone anarchist, have you? Even the Labour Party stall next to us was all red.

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

ok, so how about the 'fortress Europe' idea – ie: Europe as a Socialist state.Would you agree with that idea?

No. We stand for a world without frontiers in which there will be no nation-states but a united world, no doubt divided for administrative purposes into regions. The EU is at the moment an inter-governmental organisation formed by capitalist states to set up and administer a single, common market. Some of the member-states see it as an embryo European capitalist state to challenge America, Russia and China for world domination, but the current world capitalist crisis seems to have stopped movement in that direction.While we are opposed to the EU as a capitalist institution we are not in favour of campaigning for Britain to withdraw. In or out, Britain would remain capitalist, so this would make no difference to the problems facing the majority class of wage and salary workers as these problems are caused by capitalism not the EU.SPEW, on the other hand, supported the xenophobic "No2EU" campaign during the 2009 Euro elections and will probably do so again in next year's, so dancing to UKIP's tune. We wont. We we'll be campaigning for World Socialism.

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

Does the Socialist Party (England and Wales) have different views on immigration to the SPGB?Hard to get a definintve answer from the SPEW on this one.Thanks

Yes. Our views are being explained in the other thread, on immigration. SPEW's position on this is ambiguous. Their strategy at the moment is to seek the support of trade union militants and officials and are well aware of the trade union defence of "British Jobs for British Workers" (similar to the case you have been arguing) — trade unions represent only a section of the working class, their members, sometimes at the expense of other workers. So, in order to appear "credible" to their target audience, they don't demand an end to immigration controls.  Here's in a document for their conference this year, is how they explain their position on this:

Quote:

We staunchly oppose racism. We defend the right to asylum, and argue for the end of repressive measures like detention centres.At the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of 'open borders' or 'no immigration controls', which would be a barrier to convincing workers of a socialist programme, both on immigration and other issues.Such a demand would alienate the vast majority of the working class, including many more long-standing immigrants, who would see it as a threat to jobs, wages and living conditions.Nor can we make the mistake of dismissing workers who express concerns about immigration as 'racists'.While racism and nationalism are clearly elements in anti-immigrant feeling, there are many consciously anti-racist workers who are concerned about the scale of immigration.We have to put forward a programme which unites the working class in dealing with the consequences of immigration.Crucially, we argue for the rate for the job for all workers, regardless of what corner of the world they originate from, explaining to workers born in Britain that this is the only effective way to counter 'the race to the bottom'.

Make of it what you will, but it seems a bit of a concession to popular prejudice (even if, given capitalism, it is unrealistic to expect  any government  to abandon all immigrant controls and so pointless to campaign for this).

[ALB]

Utopian Socialism lives, with Fresco's circular cities replacing Fourier's phlansteries and Robert Owen's "parallelograms". But at least he got in that wars won't end till we make "all the world's resources available to all the world's people."Maybe the BBC will put this other video on their site next.

[ALB]

I agree with JohnD, I'd start with Engels's Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.Then it depends on what you're interested in: Marx's theory of history or his theory of how capitalism works.If history, there's:The German Ideology (chapter 1) (with Engels)The Communist Manifesto (with Engels)Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyThe Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (by Engels)If economics,Value, Price and ProfitA Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyCapital (volume 1, from chapter 4 if you like, as A Contribution to the Critique covers the same ground as chapters 1-3 but in simpler language).

[ALB]

wiscalatus wrote:

What are the key differences here?

This article explains the origins and policies of "SPEW" and how we differ from them:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1997/no-1110-february-1997/militant-dishonesty

wiscalatus wrote:

I've had a look through the general info in the 'about us' section so do have the overview, but would you say that the SP is more of a 'reform of capitalism' type party?

Yes

wiscalatus wrote:

And how about the TUSC, are you in it, and if not, then why not?

We are not in it. TUSC is a project, fronted by "SPEW" and funded by Bob Crow of the RMT union, to try to create a Labour Park Mark 2, i.e a trade union based reformist party. But why try to repeat a formula that has already been tried and failed?Hope this helps.

[Author]

Posts