DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For one thing the “use of parliament= reformist and extra parliamentary activiy= revolutionary” people have simplicity and romanticism on their side. The revolutionary use of parliament argument requires more explanation, especially since the “socialist” parties that have engaged in parliamentary activiy have tended to be reformist and leadership based.
“I hope this doesn’t mean that he has read “simply cannot” for “cannot simply” as many anti-parliamentarians have, as that was not what Marx meant”
Unfortunately I think your fears will be correct.
Incidentally, the Bernes article I recommended *may* be part of this forthcoming book. I have yet to get access to a table of contents.
“And I am curious about the composition of the group of people with whom you read it.”
It’s the survivors of an online Capital Volume One reading group that started during the pandemic. A mixture of ages and genders, mainly millennials, with no overarching group affiliation.
“If you were to say why no ‘special importance should be attached to’ this would already serve as a needed, however miniature, critique.”
Actually, on the back of recommendations by you and others, I read this text with a group of people a few months back. I’ll post a few paragraphs of thoughts after the festive season is over.
I don’t think any special importance should be attached to that “Fields and Factories” text.
Are others aware of this text from an author also loosely associated with Endnotes?
“So benefit claimants who don’t want to take weight loss injections or pills in order to make them more acceptable to job interviewers won’t get any sympathy from the Socialist Party.”
Who said that?
I was also going to mention the ancient Greek word Οἰκονομικά (Economics), which is the title of a book written by Aristotle (or perhaps a student of his), but YMS beat me to it.
This book is about both market relations and non-market relations.
“therefore, an economy is a synonym for a capitalist society” I don’t think that is right, and does the linked article actually say that?
There is definitely something that could be referred to as economic activity (acts of buying and selling, including waged labour) in precapitalist socities.
It’s a shame no text was added to the descriptions of these videos. Or at least the ones I looked at. It could generate traffic back to this site. I guess DW (I’m guessing that’s who made these?) could add these later though.
Of course this all depends on what is meant by “the state”.
“But then that is a state right? The working class organising an army, police force, media, is a state.”
Not necessarily, it depends on how such an activity is structured. If it’s organised in such a way that control is not something which exists at the top only, then no it would not be a “state”.
Turn it around. The question is how can you get socialism (the free association of the producers), and not some new kind of minority dictatorship which would have to use force to maintain itself, *without* the majority being on board.
By “revolution” we are not talking about an event that comes out of nowhere, but a process of building that starts within the present.
Fascism wasn’t a force in the Russian Revolution. But if you look at the practice of the Bolsheviks from Lenin onwards, they used the methods of violent suppression as the fascist states.
On number 3, The DoP, point 6 makes this quite clear, once there is a socialist majority that controls the coercive powers this can be used against any recalcitrant capitalist minority.
