jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Better than Flanders, better than Portillo and better than Jones.
I thought the film was an unmitigated disappointment barely saved by the observations of some of its participants.Perhaps this outcome was inevitable when you get a historian to describe the life of a political philosopher – facts rather than analysis. But at least Marx’s life was sufficiently full of strife, tragedy and repulsive medical afflictions to just about hold our attention for an hour. Meanwhile, the job of assessing and/or illuminating Marx’s ideas was left, too infrequently, to contributors like Paul Mason.“It seems to me that Marx’s life story trumpets a warning,” concluded Bettany Hughes, “that charismatic, explosive ideas can be twisted from their original intentions and manipulated for malign ends.”What her film singularly failed to do was either to explore or explain why, in Marx’s case, this happened…
If you thought Bettany Hughes was bad, I wonder what you make of the radio programme.
So PM Cameron and EU regulations is the lesser of two evils? Which ruling class should I vote for? A European one or a British one.
On Monday 20 June 2016 Radio 4 are broadcasting a programme Marxism Today with loyal SWPer Judith Orrhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gf9l7
Yep, I attended their summer school. The talk started a little late, there were eight in attendance, one lady, seven men including the speaker. Room was unmarked, no signs, no banner, not even the lectern they've previously used at speakers corner but there was a literature table. There were a number of pamphlets, some I think were SPGB ones, only the current issue of Socialist Studies was available – no back issues. The talk didn't really rehash the split, but members expressed the feeling the split was necessary.I asked two questions then a follow up one.Other than trade unions and organised labour waging an economic struggle, what class struggle from the political side, happens outside the party? They replied the political struggle is waged by forming a party to seek election for socialism. My second question of the three was to quote Comm. Manifesto Chapter 2 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. ' They replied that they didn't agree with Marx who was advocating a broad church approach to a party before he failed in the First International. Hmm? I'm not sure the key word isn't 'separate' rather than party. A little later I asked what socialism happened or organised socialists existed before 1904. They replied there was various groups the SDF and the Socialist League but all dallied with reforms. After the talk, I asked if Marx and Morris were socialists or would have been admitted as members, but I think they drew a distinction between the conditions in the 19th Century and now.What was mentioned of interest, was of those forming the Socialist Studies group in 1991 was only five (out of sixteen according to Wikipedia) founder members remained. I presume this means 'still living' as no founding members resigned as far as I know. I was able to identify four at the meeting. It must also mean three or four talk attendees who I didn't speak to, were either non-members or post-1991 joinees. What had changed in years gone by was attendance at Marchmont St had dropped from 30-40 as greater opportunities for socialising and entertainment outside of meetings exist. While the internet may have affected attendance, it had also opened up new opportunities for socialists. Outdoor speaking had disappeared and even speakers corner was now merely a tourist attraction.A recording was said to have been made by them to upload to their website.
For them, Labour are semi-secret 'Marxists' which they take to mean 'baddies'.I hear some twitter users are using the hashtag #ThankYourMP, something I think people should avoid.
I hope individual members consult with the party before firing off any complaints on behalf of the party following the programme, as happened with the Masters of Money with Stephanie Flanders programme in October / November 2012.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/masters-money-response-bbc
Issue 2 is out. And they are fundraising so they can pay writers wageshttp://screamingvioletsmag.co.uk/pdf-file-for-our-second-edition/
Modern elections elect candidates based not on ideology and not so much on tribalism any more (e.g. generational perennial Labour voters etc.) but on short-term campaign promises aimed at those with short memories, rallies for hired or ambivalent supporters and branding. National campaigns are even about bookies odds and who's winning not policies. You can see this when the media report on apolitical concepts like 'momentum' as in 'Hillary has the momentum'. Debates are often based on personality and point-scoring. Mayoral elections don't seem any different except there is more scope for independents which ends up being about personality, and perhaps less for party platforms except for fundraising. Can socialists change this? Can anyone else? Should socialists change this or just seek election ourselves on our own terms?
The WSPUS appearance on TV in 1975 has been uploaded herehttp://www.wspus.org/2016/06/a-tv-program-the-sanity-of-socialism/
jondwhite wrote:Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;Socialist Studies PO Box 70259 London N4 9DSCorrection – it is £2.
Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;Socialist Studies PO Box 70259 London N4 9DS
Are there shades of Major Douglas' social credit idea?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_creditIf it was pursued as a policy, it would be wise to move investments out of cash.
