ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Whatever else can or cannot be said about "primitive communism" it was:1. The original state of our species homo sapiens which lasted for tens of thousands of years..2. A society based on free access to nature and the sharing of its products.3. Non-hierarchical, i.e a society without social classes.4. A society without a State, i.e without any body of armed men to enforce social discipline (i.e, to stay strictly on topic, without a "police force"). In fact an alternative name amongst anthropologists for such societies is "societies without a state".We point to this of course to show that humans can live in a society without classes, a state, private property or money because they once did, not because we want to idealise the hunter-gatherer way of life. What we want is to create the above social conditions of these societies but on a world scale and on the basis of modern technology which has made this possible.There's a relevant article in the December 2006 Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2006/no-1228-december-2006/driven-eden
I noticed that legal definition of a "weapon of mass destruction" too. Actually, to define any weapon that can kill a "mass" of people in one go as a WMD seems fair enough. It reinforces our traditional definition of armies as killing machines and soldiers as trained killers. All armies, in all countries, possess WMDs. Mass killing is what they are about. Compared to them the Boston bombers are just incompetant amateurs.
jondwhite wrote:On 16 May 2013 we are discussing the Communist Manifesto.Don't forget to have a look again at the pamphlet-length preface to the centenary edition we published in 1948:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/communist-manifesto-and-last-100-yearsIn fact, you could draw the other members of the groyup's attention to it perhaps.
Are you conforming to the rules of behaviour because of peer pressure or because of a fear of a formal punishment?
colinskelly wrote:There is some good stuff in Wolff and Resnick's work on the roots of the current crisis, atlhough the underconsumptionism tends to push it towards Keynesian conclusions (as with David Harvey).Here's quite the worst speech that David Harvey has ever been recorded as giving in which he in effect urges a return to Keynes:http://experimentalgeographies.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/david-harvey-at-occupy-london/Generally, his writings on economic theory are OK, but this was terrible, especially the bit about the need to "reverse Thatcherism" and return to the pre-1970s situation:
Quote:Well, since Thatcher, there’s been a systematic assault, to try to turn more of the costs of social reproduction into externalities. Costs that capital will not bear. ‘You bear the cost of your own education, you bear the cost of your own health care. and if you get sick and you die, that’s your own fault. It’s not capital’s fault.’Now in the 1950s and 1960s, the state was forced by political circumstances to bear some of those costs and to tax capital, to bear some of those costs. But what Margaret Thatcher started to do was to say, ‘Look, we are actually not going to pay those costs anymore, they’re up to your wn personal responsibilties, it’s up to your own personal savings, it’s your own personal life and you have to take care of it, and if you don’t take care of it and get into trouble, that’s your problem.’Now that was what Thatcher launched, and actually there’s a pattern that goes on here. Everybody thought when Thatcher was gone—-got rid of Major as well—-that things would change. No! We got Tony Blair. And what did Blair do, he deepened what was going on. Blair started to introduce the top-up fees at universities, Blair is the one who started to push this Thatcherite agenda even further. And right now what we’ve got is a situation where the Thatcherite agenda is with us even though she is long gone.(…)And we have to end what Thatcher started, and reverse it entirely. In other words, what we have to have is a political program to end the whole Thatcher era because it has not ended at all, and what we see with the current conservatives right now is that they want to make it even more Thatcherite than Thatcher.That this, if you like, what the political task is. To force capital to bear all of those costs that it doesn’t want to bear.No, it's not. It's to get rid of capitalism altogether. The politics of some of the big names in Marxist theory today is crap.
Here's Kropotkin's take on all this in his article "Organised Vengeance Called 'Justice'":
Quote:So-called Justice is a survival from a past serfdom based, for the interest of the privileged classes, on the Roman law and on the ideas of divine Vengeance.In the history of society, organisation of Vengeance under the name of Justice is coterminous with the State; they imply one another; they were born together, flourished together and are doomed to perish together.Coming from an age of serfdom it helps to maintain serfdom in present society; through its police, prisons and the like, it is an open sore, throwing out a constant stream of purulence into society, a far greater evil than the one it is supposed to fight against.Any society founded on better economics than ours will certainly come also to the conclusion that it is unwise to keep any punitive institution.The way of doing without it will be found in voluntary arbitration, in greater effectual solidarity, in the powerful educative means which a society will have that does not leave to the policeman the care of its public morality.SocialistPunk wrote:Given the fact the SPGB rules disallow funds to be sent abroadActually, it's not the rules as such but a Conference resolution that was passed in 2006:
Quote:This Conference rules that the Party shall cease sending money grants to overseas groups or individuals, but shall continue to give every assistance to socialist activities abroad by way of printing and dispatching campaign material from Head Office.This was a surprise result in that most delegates spoke against it (after all, we are an internationalist party that stands for socialism on a world scale) but it was carried by a majority of members voting later, no doubt because the Party had been recently scammed out of money by groups in the Ukraine and in Uganda.We have already received some offers and will now have to work out the precise means of co-ordinating these and sending the money collected.
The pre-WW1 Social Democratic movement (from which we emerged) was opposed to the death penalty on principle. Here's the leftwing Russian Social Democrat Julius Martov's passionate denunciation of the Bolsheviks for abandoning the abolition of the death penalty which they had once called for:
Quote:That Bolshevik party told you that socialists reject the death penalty, they reject the cold-blooded killing of unarmed criminals no longer capable of harm, they reject turning civilians into executioners, carrying out on court orders the foul business of depriving human beings, albeit criminal ones, of that greatest gift – life.That Bolshevik party told you then: so the Christian church, professing a religion of love for thy neighbour, hypocritically justifies the murder of a person by the state authorities and the state courts when it suits it. Socialism will never stoop to such hypocrisy, and will never use its religion, the religion of fraternity of working people, to sanctify the cannibalistic principle of the death penalty.jondwhite wrote:Weekly Worker have agreed a rather mawkish open letter to the ISN (ex-SWP)Quote:Message to ISNDear comradesThe fight for a mass Communist Party, organised along the lines of the pre-1917 Bolsheviks and solidly based on a Marxist programme, is vital.Bolloxskeviks. Like a hole in the head.
jondwhite wrote:SPEW have […] also argued against signing women in the labour movementhttp://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16503/11-04-2013/combating-violence-against-women-a-socialist-perspective-on-fighting-womens-oppressionActually, this SPEW statement against signing the 'women in the labour movement' document is not too bad and makes some good points against it as well as against anti-men feminism and no platformism, including this one:
Quote:However, in saying "We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women" the statement bends the stick too far, effectively arguing that the workers' movement begins by concluding the man is guilty, regardless of the evidence, or lack of it.Instead the statement should say that trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of taking all claims of violence made by women very seriously, and carrying out a thorough investigation, in a way that is sympathetic to the woman making the accusation.This is the same point that was made when it was discussed here on this forum and at our EC meeting.As to the incident that has led to a resignation, I can't see that it has any political significance whatsoever. I certainly don't think we should use it to try to make some political capital out of it.
In his article Colin quoted from what Rosa Luxemburg wrote about workers' co-operatives in chapter VII of her Reform or Revolution pamphlet:
Quote:Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.What can we add to this except to say that the experience of workers' co-operatives since she wrote this in 1900 bears out her contention?
jon brown wrote:I also do not discount that a socialist society may democratically decide that there should be a death penalty for paedeophiles.I'm not too sure about this, in fact I'm not sure about it all. I take it you would only be talking about someone who killed as well as sexually assaulted kids. But personally I can't see socialist society restoring a penalty which even most capitalist states have abandoned. More likely that such a very rare person would be restrained by being confined somewhere.
colinskelly wrote:A Wolff in Marxian clothing.I like it. The trouble is that his video When Capitalism Hits the Fan is well presented and even got a favourable reception when it was shown at one of our party meetings in Clapham so he has some standing amongst critics of capitalism (it actually gives an underconsumptionist theory of the crisis which we wouldn't accept but is still good general anti-capitalist material and only mentions his "workers cooperatives" hobby horse in passing).We've been battling against this idea of workers control of the market system for ages, going back to old Solidarity Group (a breakaway Trotskyist group which came to abandon vanguardism) in the 1960s and 197os. I see that somebody has recently reproduced our 1969 article on them on their blog:http://forworkerspower.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/the-solidarity-group-not-so-solid-spgb-1969/So others agree us on this. Anyone know who this blogger is?
colinskelly wrote:And the practical outcome? The fruit that has been borne of these 40 years of efforts? Workers Self Directed Enterprises. Glorified bloody co-ops. No thanks.Yes, that's just what Michael Moore advocates at the end of his film Capitalism: A Love Story and he doesn't feel any need to justify this in "Marxist" terms. In fact he comes to it from a Christian/Catholic view. It's no solution of course and certainly isn't socialism.
