jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
More on the nature of dogecoinhttps://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1tntl1/dogecoin_supply_is_not_100_billion_but_infinite/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1tqyan/since_the_amount_of_dogecoin_is_unlimited/
They're also discussing Capital at 150 and calling for papershttp://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/community/culctr/marx_critique_call_for_papers.pdf
In response to Lbird, if the Tories are materialist, not Marxist, represent the ruling ideology and Labour are materialist, not Marxist and you contend the SPGB are materialist not Marxist, then why are Labour 600,000 strong, the Tories around 100,000 strong and the SPGB less than a thousand strong?
At the last three events I've leafleted, each time someone has refused leaflets on the grounds they are dead trees.
Saint Jezza on 'socialism'http://i.imgur.com/VHIiLjc.jpg
Marx's (and Engel's) Communist League had 50 members while it existed between 1847 and 1852. Labour had more at its formation and now. Was the Communist League small because it was materialist? In which case, what was Marx doing in it?
The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.
Ever since universal suffrage, parties have to appeal to the working class. It will be strictly business when it comes to 'difficult decisions' like imposing austerity.
Being from the North, I always wondered where the constituencies electing Tories were, then I visited Witney.
DJP wrote:Every prerequisite is not in the hands of society. The majority does not yet understand or accept socialism. This is the missing key prerequisite. And this has also been the standard party line since the party was formed.The class that owns the means of production also controls the boundaries of public debate, what is deemed desirable or possible. Besides Marx, a modern book on this topic is Steven Lukes "Power"The quote from the SPGB pamphlet Socialism taken from this site is
Quote:In order, then, that plenty and leisure may be the portion of all, we need not wait for further advances in the means of production. Every requisite is already in the hands of society, and it only remains for human intelligence so to organise the existing powers of production, and so to arrange the distribution of wealth already being produced, as to make the best use of both. Then poverty and drudgery will be banished for ever.Not sure why Walsby apparently changed 'requisite' to 'prerequisite'.
mcolome1 wrote:jondwhite wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I don't think most Americans are ready to accept something using the name Socialism or Communism, but most of us are so uninformed we wouldn't know socialism or communism if it came to us under a different name.see here for evidence to the contraryhttp://depts.washington.edu/moves/SP_intro.shtml
That historical passage has been removed from the book of USA History. The only real Historian has been Howard ZInn, and his books will never be used as textbook on the Education System, they want the students to continue reading fairy tales, an nonsense about the so called American dream. Howard Zinn has been read more outside of the USA than Inside of the USA.
More evidence to the contrary from Wikipedia
Quote:In 2008, the Zinn Education Project was launched to promote and support the use of A People's History of the United States (and other materials) for teaching in middle and high school classrooms across the U.S. The goal of the project is to give American students accurate and complete versions of U.S. history, with full historical complexity. With funds from an anonymous donor who had been a student of Zinn's, the project began by distributing 4,000 packets to teachers in all states and territories. The project now offers teaching guides and bibliographies that can be freely downloaded.Two more reviews of Stedman Joneshttp://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2016/2456'Stalinicos'http://isj.org.uk/marx-deflated/
We reject the ten planks put forward by Marx in 1848 and the labour time vouchers. We contest elections now so not exactly waiting for instructions from Marx himself from beyond the grave.
Does anyone ever question why the support for supposedly political campaigns such as for Owen Smith, evaporate following unsuccessful campaigns to elect an individual? In particular those publicly visible people photographed as supporters at rallies? Does anyone deride the impression that participation is standing quietly behind the candidate at a rally?
