[ALB]

Just been pointed out to me that one of the signatories of the "Socialist Platform" is Joseph Healy who was the Green Party candidate in Vauxhall in the 2010 general election at which we stood. Perhaps he was convinced of some of his current views by listening to our candidate Danny Lambert at the various hustings that took place ! Another of our opponents in this election has also joined (well, entered) LU, Jeremy Drinkall of Workers Power, but he hasn't learned anything as he's one of the signatories of the rival (and terrible) "Class Struggle Platform".

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

London branches i believe will be concentrating their resources on the London Assembly elections rather than the Euro-election.

It's actually the London borough elections, but there will also be local elections in other places where we have active branches, like Norwich, Maidstone (and Tunbridge Wells!) and Manchester.  I'd hope that the branches there would want to contest too.The euro and local elections will take place on the same day: Thursday 22 May 2014.We've not actually decided whether or not to contest the London Region in the Euroelections (as we did in 2009). This is down for discussion at our Autumn Delegate Meeting in October. It costs at least £5000 to contest (that's the deposit you lose if you don't get 5% of the vote).

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

Does this document give anyone hope? Is the "Left" slowly evolving?

Reading through the statement, if we could believe that those who drafted it were sincere (as opposed to applying Leninist "tactics"), it would represent an evolution of ideas on the "Left".  There are even some phrases that I can't believe weren't taken from us, even if unconsciously from having heard us over the years. For instance:

Quote:

Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority.

And

Quote:

… the socialist transformation of society … can only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society.

And

Quote:

Socialism … means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common.

In the past they would have said "nationalised", i.e owned by the state. This may still be what they envisage but "owned in common" is what we've been saying all along as something distinct from state or government ownership.Of course there are things we dont agree with. For instance, Clause 1 suggests that the "State" will continue into socialism and Clause 2 does not spell out that socialism (common ownership) implies the complete disappearance of the market. I suspect that, if you scratch them, they will draw a distinction between "socialism" and "communism". It's good to see that they don't reject elections and from Clause 5 that they are not jumping on the "No To Europe" bandwagon, even if the alternative to the EU is world socialism rather than just a "European federation of socialist societies".But the big difference is Clause 8, which opens the way to a party organised on the basis they propose having a reform programme. And in fact, in answer to criticism that their "statement of aims and principles" is "too abstract" they have replied that of course the new Left Unity party should have a reform programme. When their statement is rejected (as it will be) when the LU party is formed in November as a openly reformist "broad" party they'll probably stay in and concentrate on campaigning for reforms (as well as recruiting for their own factions).I haven't worked out why the people behind it (the Independent Socialist Network, currently part of TUSC but seemingly in the process of defecting to the new LU party, and the neo-Leninists of Weekly Worker) have proposed this statement since their past and present practice shows that they don't really accept its implications, i.e to give priority to campaigning for socialism. That would be "abstract propagandism" like the SPGB !Even so, I wonder whether we shouldn't call their bluff and invite them to meet to compare their "statement of aims and principles" with our "object and declaration of principles"?

[ALB]

Here's the "Socialist Platform". Actually, parts of it are not too bad. At least it attempts to define socialism and they are talking the same language (using the same words) as us. It's unlikely to be adopted though. When it's not perhaps (perhaps!) some of them will realise that a socialist party already exists.

Quote:

Statement of Aims and Principles for the 

 Party The 

 Party is a socialist party. Its aim is to bring about the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.Under capitalism, production is carried out solely to make a profit for the few, regardless of the needs of society or damage to the environment.  Capitalism does not and cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. Its state and institutions will have to be replaced by ones that act in the interests of the majority.Socialism means complete political, social and economic democracy. It requires a fundamental breach with capitalism. It means a society in which the wealth and the means of production are no longer in private hands but are owned in common. Everyone will have the right to participate in deciding how the wealth of society is used and how production is planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the natural world on which we depend. We reject the idea that the undemocratic regimes that existed in the former Soviet Union and other countries were socialist.The 

 Party opposes all oppression and discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, disability, religion or sexual orientation and aims to create a society in which such oppression and discrimination no longer exist. Socialism has to be international. The interests of the working class are the same everywhere. The 

 Party opposes all imperialist wars and military interventions. It rejects the idea that there is a national solution to the problems of capitalism. It stands for the maximum solidarity and cooperation between the working class in Britain and elsewhere. It will work with others across Europe to replace the European Union with a voluntary European federation of socialist societies.The 

 Party aims to win support from the working class and all those who want to bring about the socialist transformation of society, which can only be accomplished by the working class itself acting democratically as the majority in society.The 

 Party aims to win political power to end capitalism, not to manage it. It will not participate in governmental coalitions with capitalist parties at national or local level.So long as the working class is not able to win political power for itself the 

 Party will participate in working-class campaigns to defend all past gains and to improve living standards and democratic rights. But it recognises that any reforms will only be partial and temporary so long as capitalism continues.The 

Party will use both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary means to build support for its ultimate goal – the socialist transformation of society.All elected representatives will be accountable to the party membership and will receive no payment above the average wage of a skilled worker (the exact level to be determined by the party conference) plus legitimate expenses.

I recognise some of the names who have signed it, including contributors to the Weekly Worker.

[ALB]

Looks as if they are already split into 3 factions and the party's not even been set up yet (30 November is the big day):http://links.org.au/node/3473The "socialist platform" seems the least reformist, but is probably drafted by some Trotskyist (and so doesn't mean what it appears to say) and has no chance of being adopted.The "class struggle platform" seems to be another Trotskyist one. I recognise the name of Jeremy Drinkall (who stood against us in Vauxhall at the last general election for Workers Power).See also comment by Hannah:

Quote:

Yeah it’s started. Another divided left party. I can’t believe there are more platforms. Honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. This is what puts people off joining. I literally thought the debate was shall we be specifically a socialist party or include everyone left of labour, didn’t realise there would be many groups all trying to take over. A broad left would include most of these points raised on this platform anyway, other than the obvious Workers Power ones. I also thought class struggle was already assumed by both sides…

The other Trotskyist entryists haven't shown their hand yet.

[ALB]

This does strike me as either off topic, non-serious or a joke. Couldn't it be transferred to the general discussion section?

[ALB]

He must suffer from delusions of grandeur (well, he does) if he thinks he's got a chance of becoming Mayor of London. There just aren't enough (Sunni) Muslims in London.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Now I know why our stances are different, ALB.My mistake, I've made a gross error, if the SPGB look to Engels' (and Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin's) philosophical views of 'materialism'.

As DJP has pointed out, this is wrong inference. The only "philosphical " requirement for joining the SPGB is that you are not religious, i.e. are some sort of materialist. Which of course covers a multitude of sins. Personally, I like Dietzgen and Panneloek. Others like Plekhanov (I don't). There are even people who like Hegel (not me, I'm an anti-Hegelian). I don't think anybody likes Lenin Matertialism and Empirio-Criticism. Some members like Logical Positivism. Basically, as long as you're not religious (or idealist), anything goes (including yours!)  After all, socialism is a practical proposition, not a philosophical one.

[ALB]

The Tories too of course. In fact there seems to be a sort of unofficial sharing of this dirty work between the Tories and Labour, with the Tories targetting "non-White" migrants as the scapegoats while Labour (having the "non-White" vote in their pocket) target "White" ones. I've noticed too that the BBC has joined more in the campaign after they were told off recently for not playing their part enough:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/bbc-told-not-being-populist-enough

[ALB]

Interesting article here on the (generally positive) attitude of the pre-WW1 Socialist Party of Canada to Asian immigrants to British Columbia:http://bataillesocialiste.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/campbell_1999.pdf

[ALB]

In the competition for which party is the more anti-immigrant, Labour Shadow (Anti-)Immigration  spokesperson, Chris Bryant, has now launched the slogan "No British Jobs for Polish Workers".In this he is echoing what Harry Pollitt and the old Communist Party said in 1947. Here's what Pollitt wrote on page 72 of a CP pamphlet entitled Looking Ahead:

Quote:

I ask you, does it make sense that we allow 100,000 of our best young people to put their names down for emigration abroad, when at the same time we employ Poles who ought to be back in their own country …

[ALB]

Engels isn't that bad. In fact, his Socialism, Scientific and Utopian is the best introduction there is to "Marxism". It can even be called its founding document.His comment about the "proof of the pudding" is in the introduction he wrote for English edition of 1892. Here's what he wrote:

Quote:

Again, our agnostic admits that all our knowledge is based upon the information imparted to us by our senses. But, he adds, how do we know that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive through them? And he proceeds to inform us that, whenever we speak of objects, or their qualities, of which he cannot know anything for certain, but merely the impressions which they have produced on his senses. Now, this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation. But before there was argumentation, there was action. Im Anfang war die That. [from Goethe's Faust: "In the beginning was the deed."] And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves. And, whenever we find ourselves face-to-face with a failure, then we generally are not long in making out the cause that made us fail; we find that the perception upon which we acted was either incomplete and superficial, or combined with the results of other perceptions in a way not warranted by them — what we call defective reasoning. So long as we take care to train our senses properly, and to keep our action within the limits prescribed by perceptions properly made and properly used, so long as we shall find that the result of our action proves the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things perceived. Not in one single instance, so far, have we been led to the conclusion that our sense-perception, scientifically controlled, induce in our minds ideas respecting the outer world that are, by their very nature, at variance with reality, or that there is an inherent incompatibility between the outer world and our sense-perceptions of it.

Make of it what you will.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Marxism, Physics and Philosophy pt.1.mp3, 29:19, said not wrote:

We make the truth

Not the same of course as "we make up the truth" ! Marx's position here is more like "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" (as I think Engels once remarked). It also seems near to the position of the "Pragmatist" school of philosophy (at least as explained in this passage from wikipedia):

Quote:

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists develop their philosophy around the idea that the function of thought is as an instrument or tool for prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics–such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science–are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes rather than in terms of representative accuracy.

[ALB]

I knew you'd like it. Here's the passage in full from the paper version:

Quote:

Marxist philosophy starts from the premise that the world around us isn’t something objective or external which we can study from outside. As we are part of the world, we interact with it, rather than just observe it. This is one of the meanings of his famous quote “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it”. I know that this quote isn’t usually interpreted in quite this way, but that’s because it’s been taken out of context. The usual meaning of this quote is that there’s little point in sitting around theorising about society and its problems, it’s more important to do something about it. And Marx does mean this as well. But, as he wrote it, it came at the end of his eleven short Theses on Feuerbach. This is probably the most famous part of his early, more philosophical writings. These works formed the philosophical foundations of his later economic writings, and therefore they shouldn’t be seen as less important than what’s in Das Capital. When the quote “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” appears, it’s after a discussion on how Marx thinks scientific explanations can ignore the vital role of human experience. After all, scientific explanations wouldn’t be there in the first place, if people hadn’t come up with them. So, Marx deliberately gave a double meaning to his quote. The more well-known meaning, and the meaning that the truth isn’t an abstract thing to be studied. We make the truth. The second Thesis on Feuerbach expands on this notion: “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question” (Early Writings, p.422-423).So, Marx is saying that practical action is part of the way to reach the truth, it can’t be separated from it. And here, practical action must surely mean conscious, deliberate action.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

That won't work because it assumes that the word "know" meant the same then as it does today. Which it didn't, so we'd be using the word in two different senses.

You're making this up as you go along, mate!

No, I'm making a serious point. On what basis did those who in the 17th century said that the Sun went round the Earth say this? Because the bible said so (Joshua was supposed to have stopped the Sun in its orbit round the Earth). So, unless you think that the bible is a legitimate source of knowledge, there is no reason for saying that people in the 17th century and before "knew" that the Sun went round the Earth. In modern terms, they claimed this but, by the standards which we employ to validate a claim to be "knowledge", this claim was not valid. So, however you do describe their claim ("belief", perhaps?) the words "know" cannot be applied in relation to it.On the other hand, if you base your claim about them "knowing" that the Sun went round the Earth on them considering the bible a legitimate source of knowledge, then you need to explain when (and why) the bible ceased to be this. Otherwise, you won't be able to refute a claim made today on the basis of what the bible says that the Sun still goes round the Earth. There must be some people who still claim this, so in fact how would you refute them?

LBird wrote:

Why not discuss what I've said about Pannekoek, and indeed Marx?

Nothing to discuss. I agree (and have long agreed) with Pannekoek's theory of the nature of science and knowledge. I even agreed with the description of "critical realism" you gave to the ICC. What I'm not agreeing with is the conclusion you have drawn from it that in the past "knowledge" varied from time to time or even in different places at the same time.

LBird wrote:

We've not even got to Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend or Lakatos.

Last year a comrade (not one who has taken part in this discussion) gave a talk on "Marxism, Physics and Philosophy". It can be listened to here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/marxism-physics-and-philosophy

[Author]

Posts