ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We may as well continue here as it's started. It's only a side-show anyway. In the meantime I've come across a rather disturbing thing about the combination of the colours black and read:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_the_colors_on_the_Nazi_flag_symbolize"Blut und Boden (blood and soil)". I think you should change your atavar double quick ! And I don't think we should have this combination of colours on our Head Office fascia in case someone mistakes us for the Great British Socialist Party.
OK, let's begin at the beginning. As capitalism is already itself a world system, we don't think that socialism could exist in one country; in fact we don't think that the hypothetical situation you raise could happen either. Our reasoning for saying this is set out in our pamphlet Questions of the Day as follows:
Quote:Socialists are sometimes asked about another aspect of uneven development. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether such a situation is likely to arise, we can say that it presents no problems when viewed against the world-wide character of the socialist movement. Because capitalist governments are organised on a territorial basis each socialist organisation has the task of seeking democratically to gain political control in the country where it operates. This however is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. Given a situation in which the organised socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to gain control of the machinery of government, the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. There remains the question whether in fact there will be material differences in the rate of growth of the sections of the world socialist movement. At present, throughout the advanced capitalist countries, the vast majority, because they are not yet socialist, share certain basic ideas about how society can and should be run. They accept that goods must be produced for sale with a view to profit; some men must work for wages while others must be employers; there must be armed forces and frontiers; and it is impossible to do without money and buying and selling. These ideas are held by people all over the world and it is this which accounts for the basic stability of capitalism at the present time. It was Engels who remarked that a revolutionary period exists when people begin to realise that what they once thought was impossible can in fact be done. When people realise that it is possible to have a world without frontiers, without wages and profits, without employers and armed forces, then the socialist revolution will not be far away. But this advance in political understanding will be achieved by the same people who now think that capitalism is the only possible system. Because workers all over the world live under basically similar conditions and because of modern systems of communication, when they begin to see through capitalism this will apply everywhere. There is no reason at all why workers in one country should see this while those in others do not. The very idea of Socialism, a new world society, is clearly and unequivocally a rejection of all nationalism. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed to their brothers elsewhere.Looks as if a vote against in parliament, not any mass demonstrations, is going to be the only way to stop Britain bombing Syria and the repurcussions this is going to have on ordinary people in the region. This was always the case anyway and confirmation of our analysis of the way the modern capitalist state, based on universal suffrage, works. So, Stop the War's energies would be better directed at lobbying MPs.The problem for them is that as a pro-Islamist organisation they don't know which side to support as some of them are supporters of Sunni Muslim extremism and so want that side to win the civil war in Syria. This article highlights some of the difficulties they are facing and may explain why they can't mobilise as many people as before — their Sunni Muslim supporters are staying away. Might be worth going to their demo on Saturday just to see if this is confirmed. In any event Stop the War is a dubious organisation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think the slow-down in the rush to war is just a temporary respiteYou could be right, but it looks as if the Cameron regime has got cold feet about getting a favourable vote from parliament:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-from-the-brink-david-cameron-forced-to-retreat-over-syria-8788612.htmlEven so, the hypocrites might still go ahead despite the thousands of people likely to die unnecessarily as a consequence of their bombing. They don't want to stop any further civilian deaths but to weaken the Syrian government with a view to its eventual overthrow by, they hope, a gang that will favour Western interests in the area.
As I think I've suggested before, perhaps we should abandon the word "truth" and just stick to "knowledge". i can't see any problem with saying that knowledge changes, even becomes more adequate over time.
It's the red flag not the black-and-red flag that's shrouded oft our martyred dead. Let's not repudiate our past !
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 !
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"?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/spgbwiscalatus 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.
