DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s hardly a secret that “socialism” or “communism” can mean something other than state control or nationalism. If the only people that knew this were the 10 members of the socialist party we may as well give up.
“I’m still sticking with my original bet of Trump (and possibly Musk) not lasting the first year in office.”
Ok. Through what mechanisms do you see them leaving or being forced to leave?
Why the mismatch? Clickbait. They want as many people to click on the video as possible, probably because they are looking to make money out of it. If you get enough views YouTube gives you a share of the advertising revenue.
The comment accuses them of using an AI large language model to write a summary from which they base their episode, instead of reading the texts themselves. No idea if the claim is true or not.
There’s a good video explaining how these things work here:
https://aeon.co/videos/why-large-language-models-are-mysterious-even-to-their-creators
Edit: listening to it the voices don’t sound quite right, so the audio could be AI generated too. The actual words are very cliche and generic which is a giveaway.
Thanks for posting that. Macnair’s articles on that website about “socialism and civic republicanism” and ‘possibilism’ are also interesting.
Macnair writes:
“This is not exactly an argument for taking the academic civic republicans seriously. But it is an argument for taking seriously the republican heritage of our own movement: for using an improved understanding of the republican tradition – into which the academics (and particularly the historians) provide an imperfect route – as part of the necessary process of renewing Marxism in the aftermath of Stalinism.”
It seems he is still under the influence of an unmurdered idol. If the the republican influence on Marx is central, then this gives us another way of illustrating how the work of Lenin was antithetical to it, even before the Bolsheviks came to power.
Depends on what the good is, if domestic producers can produce it at all, and by how much and what speed production could be increased.
“A hundred years ago, the Frenchman Charles Fourier, one of the first great prophets of socialist ideals, wrote these memorable words: In any society, the degree of female emancipation is the natural measure of the general emancipation.”
There has been a large blowback against this in republican controlled areas. Have you not seen what has been happening in the town hall meetings?
The original question was why didn’t Slyvia Pankhurst join or contact the SPGB, not whether she had any shared viewpoints. I just gave a good reasons why she wouldn’t have needed or wanted to.
Obviously she had some shared viewpoints, but the same is true of a lot of people and organisations of that time, and now.
Pankhurst was one of the UK representatives of “left communism” and so didn’t share the same political views as the SPGB. Why would she need to contact them or mention them?
Guy Aldred, if he counts as well-known, did in its beginning years nearly join the SPGB.
More Alex Gourevitch reposting, hopefully of interest and use:
“I agree with Corey Robin. And add that Bernie taking up the fight against oligarchy puts the Dems in a pickle. I still think a major reason that the critique of Trump as oligarchic, rather than fascist, was less popular is that it was and is much more difficult for the Democrats to sustain. It exposes them too much. They are themselves so tied to elements of the oligarchy that it is hollow criticism of the opposition. Obama’s first act post-presidency was to take a vacation at Richard Branson’s private island. Nancy Pelosi uses her inside political knowledge to beat the S&P 500. She does so frequently that there is now an indexed fund specifically designed to track her trades and there are accounts called things like “Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker.” Failed first Gentlemen Doug Emhoff went off and got a job at a high-end corporate law firm. Bloomberg tried to buy his way into a presidential nomination, Bill Gates is 100% Team Blue. Now start looking at Senators, Governors and so on. Lesser Evilism – whether of the ‘anti-fascist’ variety, or more broadly of the anti-Republican – has always allowed Dems to paper over the central class cleavages of the party, especially with respect to who leads and who follows.”
Corey Robin –
“While it’s freezing everywhere and the Democrats are running for cover, Bernie Sanders is heading out to Iowa and Nebraska to build grassroots support to take on “the oligarchy.”
Two points, one personal and one political.
Personally, there’s a huge leadership vacuum in the Democratic Party and Bernie’s one of the very people going out to talk to voters, in public rallies and and communities, not about personalities or his campaigns (he’s already said that’s over), but about ensuring that the message of social democracy doesn’t disappear. Remember how people mocked him for his monomaniacal focus on “the billionaires” as *the* problem, how out of touch and 1930s-ish it seemed? Doesn’t seem so out of touch now, does it? Where the establishment leaders of yesterday continue their private meetings with hedge funders and Hollywood celebrities, Bernie’s out there, doing what good organizers have always done: talking to working-class people. There was always a lot of shit thrown at him by people claiming he thought he was a messiah or a martyr or whatever, and the truth is, he’s remained pretty true to his basic mission, whatever you may think of it, which is not about himself but about the causes he’s fought for his entire life. Doing the work, as people like to say.
Politically, I think we really need to start developing our account of this “oligarchy” Sanders is talking about. To me, it’s one of the more promising developments in our political language. It’s got deep roots in the American tradition (I wrote about this in a review last year of Fishkin’s and Forbath’s The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution, which I really recommend). I think it holds more political potential than other frameworks people have used.
As I’ve said a number of times, the great reform movements in this country always identified their opponent as a tangible social malignancy. Not just a government deformation but a comprehensive warping of polity and economy. The abolitionists didn’t run against the Democrats, they ran against the “slaveocracy.” The New Dealers didn’t run against the Republicans, they ran against “the economic royalists.” The Jacksonians (who called themselves and were called “The Democracy”) ran against The Monster Bank, not the Whigs.
Oligarchy is just such a fusion of polity and economy. But we’ve got to name it more specifically, not just in one person or party, but in its comprehensiveness. I don’t know what that name is. But it’s something we’ve got to start figuring out.”
