[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

You didn't think Marxism would make a comeback?

 First,  I think that the use of the  concept of Marxism is incorrect, it was Engels and Bakunin who created that conception, and Marx himself refused to be called a Marxist, and Engels said that Communism was a doctrine, which is an  incorrect expression tooSecond, the world never knew the real essence of Marxism, what the world knew was Leninism and Stalinism, or state capitalism, and most peoples have associated Sovietism with Marxism and socialism The World Socialist Movement is the only organization who have tried to disseminate and educate about the essential works of Marx, and the real concept of socialism, and probably, it has spent more time indicating what is not socialism. 

So what are you describing as ironic?

[jondwhite]

The CPGB-PCC explained their requirements for membership in 2001http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/392/fighting-for-what-is-necessary

Quote:

comrade Fischer stated that genuine democratic centralism did not mean blindly following the ?party line? and keeping your criticisms to yourself. It required acceptance of, not agreement with, the party programme, and the right to fight openly to change it.

Using 'acceptance' as less than 'agreement' as the CPGB-PCC seem to suggest, then the CPGB-PCC either cannot 'accept' the 'Socialist Platform' (their articles on it only mention 'disagreement') despite its similarities to their 'Communist Platform', or do not regard Left Unity as a party. The CPGB-PCC have also been open that the CPGB-PCC will be voting en bloc.

[jondwhite]

You can't leap from neglected replies to a political boycott without any grounds.As far as I know the SPGB have never declined to attend the Midlands Discussion Forum on political grounds as oppose to time, distance and organisational pressures. Occasionally replies might slip through the net, but this is neglect not a boycott.By contrast, the Anarchist Bookfair have rejected the SPGB application and specified political grounds more than once. Again unlike Midlands Discussion Forums, which the SPGB have attended this year, nothing between the Anarchist Bookfair and the SPGB (except lack of application) subsequently has changed, hence the term 'banned'. Not one I would use, but also not a term that is as objectionable as the critics are trying to make out, especially critics who also use the term themselves.

[jondwhite]

slothjabber wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The CWO reported the IP (is this a CWO affiliate?) being "banned" (and used this term) from events without specifying which ones or dateshttp://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/midlands-discussion-forum-meeting"… The ICC and IP apparently have (in France) banned each other from their public meetings. …"

 Though since 2009 they have held joint meetings in the US I've heard. It's a pity the SPGB didn't bother to take up our invitation to speak at this meeting, or the one the following year you were specifically invited to present at (as opposed to the general invitations to come and take part over much of the last 14 years), should we have got the message and stopped asking you, and then gone round saying you'd banned SPGBers from talking to us?

I think it's a pity the SPGB didn't bother to take up the invitation to speak at Midlands Discussion Forum 2009 too. "Banned" might be appropriate for a host repeatedly turning down a guest application but "banned" is not appropriate for a guest neglecting to reply to a host invitation. The WSM Forum has been in existence over a decade, all meetings are open to the public so it's not like the SPGB are hard to get hold of by other means.

[jondwhite]

With the Socialist Platform rejected, I also await their supporters departure from Left Unity. Maybe 'Unity' with people you disagree with isn't all its cracked up to be!

[jondwhite]

Thanks for the cult check list. How would you define a sect? What are the differences between ordinary leader-follower groups and sects? What are the differences between cults and sects?

[jondwhite]

You didn't think Marxism would make a comeback?

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

If true, what was suspected to be a sect turns out to be a cult. For me a sect is a group that puts the interests of the group above anything outside the group. A cult is something that denies the validity of anything outside the group.The question is, how do you stop groups turning into sects or cults? The organisational structure? The members?

 They can be both: A sect and a Cult. Any organisation based on the worshipping of an idol or a leader can be become a cult, those groups have turned "Marxism" into a religion, the so called concept of anti-revisionism explains  everything, which means, do not question the Bible or the Church. The Maoist are not the only ones, most Stalinists groups  qualified for that. If you look at the old pictures of Stalin or Mao anybody can come to the conclusion that they have been beatified by the Vatican.  Fidel Castro and Chavez are being  considered as eternal. No wonders in the past  the CIA preferred to build and financed phony Marxist-Leninist  parties using Maoist theoriticians What is the difference between the cults around Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, the American presidents and their pupils ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F8CoxKLzHU   Take a look at this two, one is European and the other one is Caribbean, and both'were anti-communists, and one of them before being killed by the CIA, he was already making negotiation with the Soviets in order to serve a new master

Not all leader-follower organisations are sects/cults though? What is the difference?

[jondwhite]

Here's a podcast about Karl Popper on Philosophy and Sciencehttp://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/09/24/ep82-popper/

Quote:

What is science, and how is it different than pseudo-science? From philosophy? Is philosophy just pseudo-science, or proto-science, or what? Popper thinks that all legitimate inquiry is about solving real problems, and scientific theories are those that are potentially falsifiable: they make definitely predictions about the world that, if these fail to be true, would show that the theory is false.With this idea, Popper thinks he’s achieved a real respect for objectivity and beaten the epistemologists of the past, both empiricists (who think the ultimate source of knowledge is experience) and rationalists (who think that it’s reason). For Popper, there is no such infallible source. We approach nature with expectations: we leap to a theory with little if any warrant (the “conjectures”) and then we modify it when it fails us (“refutations”). Modify, not reject: really, the most powerful force in knowledge is tradition, so long as that tradition is open to critique.

[jondwhite]

World Socialist was a publication of World Socialist Movement, Socialist Standard is a publication solely of the SPGB and is pictured on the article about the Socialist Standard.

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

His criticism of the Black Bloc was criminal

Why was his criticism of the Black Bloc criminal. Don't they deserve to be criticised?

Sorry I'm dropping words here. He criticised the Black Bloc as 'criminal' similar to the comment on the TUSC blog that setting an illegal budget would be against the law.

[jondwhite]

admice wrote:

Mcolome you totally misunderstood my post. Same on the yahoo forum. Mostly my fault I am too brief  and unclear, but I don't really have a lot of time or inclination to post.btw Jon he wrote most of the columns before Russell Brand's interview and article.Thanks nonetheless.

His criticism of the Black Bloc was criminal and a cancer was made before the tide turned. Have you watched the video?

[jondwhite]

Must be the Russell Brand effect, because Chris Hedges was previously criticising the Black Bloc as criminal and a cancer.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_cyzgYLaK4&t=82m29s

[jondwhite]

slothjabber wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The CWO reported the IP (is this a CWO affiliate?) being "banned" (and used this term) from events without specifying which ones or dateshttp://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/midlands-discussion-forum-meeting"… The ICC and IP apparently have (in France) banned each other from their public meetings. …"

 Though since 2009 they have held joint meetings in the US I've heard. It's a pity the SPGB didn't bother to take up our invitation to speak at this meeting, or the one the following year you were specifically invited to present at (as opposed to the general invitations to come and take part over much of the last 14 years), should we have got the message and stopped asking you, and then gone round saying you'd banned SPGBers from talking to us?

Which meeting(s) are you talking about?

[jondwhite]

International means between nations. Nations aren't constructs that are useful.

[Author]

Posts