Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The usual explanation is that Anarchism’s small production and the way some of the Anarchists championed small independent cooperatives as a form of production appealed more to the peasant mind set, whereas the Marxist viewpoint was more appealing to the proletariat.
From the movie Airplane:
Ted Striker (Robert Hays) tells Dr Rumack (Leslie Nielsen), “Surely you can’t be serious,” and Rumack replies, “I am serious — and don’t call me Shirley.”
The Milgram experiment and it’s results have long been questioned.
Many of the participants have stated that the acting by the supposed “victims” was so comical that many of the students continued to deliver “shocks” because they thought it was worth watching the ham acting!
I just tried to explain to my beloved that me droppining her favourite vase and breaking it, couldn’t have happened any other way. I presume that her responding with a swift kick to my bollocks has a similar explanation
Welcome along ActualSocialist10 and welcome to the Party.
I was saying a similar thing to you regarding Lenin a few weeks back, when I was talking to a guy I know who’s involved with Socialist Appeal (effectively the Militant Tendency who stayed in the Labour Party). If it was Russia and it was Oct 1917 you might think his approach might work and it was worth a shot.
The problem is that despite the fact it was a miserable failure and resulted in oppression of workers since day 1, many workers seem to think that the Leninist approach is a way forward!
I also agree with you that social media is the currently the most powerful way of spreading our ideas. Sadly we haven’t done that as well as we could. This isn’t meant as criticism of the worry of comrades who do this work, I think that from a generational frame of reference we are not particularly “tech savvy”.
The good thing is that because we are a truly Democratic Party, the resources of the party are available to any member to use as a way of spreading our message.
The status of a member of our party is the same regardless of them being a member for one day or being a member for 60 years
Hi covvie99, nice to hear from you on the forum.
Just something to add to the discussion, you have stated that ” The idea that the far-left – Communism and far-right – Fascism are related is a new concept that right-whinge think tanks spread.”
If by far Left Communism you refer to the ideas of Lenin, the Bolsheviks and their various political descendents (Maoists, Castroists, etc.), comparing these anti socialist, anti democratic, elitist political movements as having similarities with the far right is not by anyway a new concept and did not originate in right wing think tanks. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has made these comparisons for many decades. The term red fascist has been a commonplace for many decades.
Back in the early 1980s, in a bar room discussion with members of the SWP, I explained to a student member of the SWP that I considered their “democratic centralist” processes as being red fascism. He responded by saying that if I said that again, he would put a pint glass in my face. He did not understand my laughter when I pointed out to him that he had just proved my point.
With regard to left and right, this concept has the idea of a spectrum of political beliefs which places various view points somewhere on that spectrum.
The Socialist Party has long dismissed the idea that for example the Labour Party or the Trotskyists or various other “socialist” movements who put forward the idea of campaigning to reform capitalism in various ways, have anything in common with those (i.e. us) who campaign for the immediate and complete democratic abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a society based on free access, common ownership and the concept of “from each according to their ability to each according to their needs” (i.e. genuine communism).
In that sense our party see the key political decision as being, as one of campaigning to continue with capitalism (with any of the variations of capitalism, including nationalisation of parts of the productive forces and various forms of state capitalism) or do you campaign to end capitalism.
This was the key question that arose in the formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain when our party split with the Social Democratic Federation, in 1904. The founders of our party put forward declared principles which members of our party continue to put forward. We have continued to organise to promote those democratic principles for nearly 120 years.
You may not have come across our political party before this point, you may not agree with our viewpoint, but if you are interested in political thought and activity, I am pretty sure you will find our perspective interesting and unique.
There are lots and lots of articles from our monthly magazine (which has been in continuous production since 1904) on the website, contemporaneous articles that explain our position and activities, covering events such as WW1, the Bolshevik Revolution, WW2, etc. etc. that stretch back to 1904 as well as lots of current articles.
Going back to the original point, regarding humour and satire, I agree with you that humour and satire can be one of the most powerful tools we have, we do not use it as well as we should.
TM – “It’s like saying “You should have thought of that before you did it.” Not an issue, because I didn’t think of it, so could not.”
The important thing is not that you should have thought about it, but that you could have thought about it. In the same way history can’t be different doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been different.
Keep it up TN and you too could get a statue like that (although I think Elon Musk has got to be a shoo-in for it next year)
BD – “TN, look, Putin wins uk vote!”
TN – “How charming. The little Britains choose to support Nazis. But then, there’s a history of that isn’t there.”Thinking one person is a bellend doesn’t preclude you from thinking that that person’s enemy is also a bellend. I know that is a bit complicated for your binary thought processes. Think about it this way –
Person A living in 1942 does not like the policies and actions of Stalin, Stalin is at war with Hitler, this does not mean that person A is a Nazi
Person B living in 1940 also does not like the policies and actions of Stalin, Stalin is in a supportive alliance supplying large amounts or raw materials and armaments to Hitler, this does not necessarily mean that person B is an anti Nazi
Do you get someone else to do the little mathematical problem required to log on to this forum? It’s just nothing you have posted on this forum indicates that you have the intellectual ability to actually complete the process independently.
Oh and by the way Britain is the name of the country, (always singular as there is only one Britain) the people who live there may sometimes be referred to as Britons, but never Britains
TM- “Supreme arrogance is a quality of the human species alone, as far as we know.”
Clearly you have not met my cat
“There would be one or two over-the-top challenges. Ron Harris v Norman Hunter.”
Big Jack could put it about as well.
There was a programme on TV a few years ago where some modern referees watched and “refereed” the Leeds V Chelsea cup final replay, they said they would have sent off 19 players for either straight reds or two yellows.
TN, look, Putin wins uk vote!
[moderator deleted to keep it civil]
ALB – It’s why of course we are confident that “human nature” doesn’t make socialism impossible, as the genetic determinists claim.
I think it is important that we challenge the genetic determinists with their own argument. Our genetics determine that the first thing we experience (as do all mammals to some extent) is the experience of cooperative care giving. The mammalian solution to the survival conundrum is to care for and nurture our offspring. The most notable feature of our genetic inheritance and human existence is mass cooperation, it is so common that we often don’t even see it.
As to instinct, our first and overwhelming instinct is to cooperate and to be nurtured, the initial 3 years of our existence is based on the interdependency of others and learning to be part of a social grouping, our second instinct is to be inquisitive and to learn. Instinct and learning are intertwined part of human development. The “human nature” argument, is one we should use, it is capitalism which is contrary to human nature to cooperate and nurture, not socialism.
