[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

I learned from an old friend of mine that in order to understand a thinker it is also recommended to study his/her biography, and that is what I did in regard to Engels and Marx, and I discovered that they were two persons, with two different background, and two different human beings with two different intelectuals abilities,  but  with the same purpose on their mind, which was to dedicate their life to the cause of the working class, and Engels is one of the few capitalists who have betrayed his own class, and he never considered himself as a person above his great friend Marx, and he defended him in all aspects, and he was the one who finished his work on Capital.Those thinkers that think that they are above Engels, they can not even tie his shoelaces, and they are always obsessed about him, and they have never done anything for the cause of the working class, with them socialism has not advanced one inch , but Engels right or wrong he left a legacy, and it was the legacy of his friend  Karl Marx.  

What about the biography of Engels by Terrell Carver?

[jondwhite]

So are analyses critical of Engels by McLellan, Farr, Levine and Carver 'all the same' and at their core defenses of the Soviet Union? Would you recommend reading them? What about the academics from various tendencies defending Engels?

[jondwhite]

Here's this years /r/socialism surveyhttps://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/5gacjk/biannual_survey_time/

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

Haven't we discussed extensively this topic already, or are we just a bunch of Masochists ?  This is the favorite arguments of the Communist Left which has not been able to prove anything yet. They are just anti-Engelsian, but they are not anti-capitalists. The whole trend who came from France and Germany has been totally discredited, and they have not done anything positive  for the working class movement

Isn't McLellan, Farr and Levine all British and Carver American?

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

I don't know who associates us with "Western Marxism". Hardly appropriate if this only came into being in the 1970s when we'd being going for 70 years by then !  I'd prefer something like "Non-Leninist Marxism" or even "original" or "orthodox" Marxism.But at least you've proved Pavlov right. Just mention the word "Engels" and our feathered friend swoops down.

At MIA, we come under 'Western Marxism'https://www.marxists.org/archive/

[jondwhite]

I think the point is the Anti-Engels brigade includes David McLellan, Terrell Carver and 'the Western academic left, and which was closely connected to the rise of “Western Marxism”' dating back at least as far as 1974. Western Marxism being a category the SPGB are sometimes lumped into.

[jondwhite]

What does it mean about the headquarters?

[jondwhite]

On request via e-mail  from an interested party, I've made this into a quiz but needs refining according to the comments in this topichttps://zingtree.com/host.php?style=buttons&tree_id=539725913&persist_names=Restart&persist_node_ids=1

[jondwhite]

How many candidates can you choose from in the presidential election? Why is Le Pen regarded as having a better chance this time around?

[jondwhite]

Is it Owenism named after Robert Owen?

[jondwhite]

One of the most important original pamphlets the party ever produced was 'Socialism' and one of the editions (possibly from 1925) included an illustrated cover picturing a lady wearing a sash that read 'science'. A picture has just been published online herehttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/S-P-G-B-Socialism-Pamphlet-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain-c-1925-Socialist-/142184957266?hash=item211ae24552:g:ATAAAOSwHMJYMXQRhttp://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ATAAAOSwHMJYMXQR/s-l1600.jpg

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

Have we ever supported this type of movement ? https://redguardsaustin.wordpress.com, …http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament.   What is wrong with using parliament ? 

depends how you use it but quite a lot potentially given how undemocratic the institution is.

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Subhaditya wrote:

Thomas Piketty said in his book Capital in the Twenty First Century that USA will be the first developed country to lose its middle class (middle 40%) then some time later European countries will follow suit finally Scandinavian coutries will lose theirs… but he also believed before that transpires huge political unrest will take place… it will not happen peacefully.All their wealth will trickle up to the 1%, the middle class will lose ownership of their houses.

What if there is mass unionisation, can the workers organised stop wages falling as a proportion of profit?

We do not need small pleces of  bread, we need the whole pie. We are the producers, they do not produce anything. We are the ones producing their profits. 

So what is the purpose of trade unions or organised labour?

[jondwhite]

Subhaditya wrote:

Thomas Piketty said in his book Capital in the Twenty First Century that USA will be the first developed country to lose its middle class (middle 40%) then some time later European countries will follow suit finally Scandinavian coutries will lose theirs… but he also believed before that transpires huge political unrest will take place… it will not happen peacefully.All their wealth will trickle up to the 1%, the middle class will lose ownership of their houses.

What if there is mass unionisation, can the workers organised stop wages falling as a proportion of profit?

[jondwhite]

Not sure if this has been posted but here is the Mehrings biographyhttps://libcom.org/history/karl-marx-story-his-life-franz-mehringI also transcribed Keir Hardies awful Marx: The Man and his Message if anyone cares to proofread/ review ithttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Karl_Marx_the_man_and_his_message.pdf

[Author]

Posts