jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Socialist Party of Great Britain opposes all wars waged by ruling classes, it is the only, yes the only party to consistently advocate this policy over its entire existence. The Labour party has a pretty dubious record in this regard.
"The case not the face" is a phrase sometimes used but this article might instead popularise the term "Backpfeifengesicht" or at least amuse youhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated
i think the point is that millions if not billions of the working class do accept the behaviour of the ruling-class, the social rules of the game.
SocialistPunk wrote:What I've come to realise is the people defending the ideology of some imaginary idealised capitalism, don't give a toss about the harsh realities. It just doesn't register with them.I think it is just that they dispute the connection between a free market distributing food and people starving and dying of malnourishment. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism and swap 'Communism' for 'command economy' and by deduction they deduce 'command economy' = bad, therefore 'non-command economy' / 'free market' = freedom = good. This way it can seem more rationally concluded and socialists can be dismissed as moralising dreamers / totalitarians / both.
How to make a campaign advert behind the scenes with the Republican second choice candidatehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO_MkcZh-VY
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minorityCan't get access to those documents, jdw.Do you have a pdf?
I have now added documents in other formats docx, odt and rtf. Hope this is easier to read.
I've had a very brief look at the rtf, jdw, and his main problem seems to be a failure to distinguish between Marx and Engels.That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.If you know differently, could you point me to the relevant passages?
I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.
Quote:The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.P. J. Rollings: Harold Walsby (1911-1975) A Brief Intellectual Biography
Framing Flint water supply poisoning in moral terms feeds into the matter as a moral aberration. As a Catholic, Michael Moore and even Pope Francis might see it this way (see his comments on capitalism in June 2014). We should be challenging this view when it is used to exclusion of others.
Ruling class fall outhttp://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/267766-koch-brothers-network-ready-to-oppose-trump
Well if the people of Flint have the moral right to clean drinking water why are they being poisoned? A sudden outburst of immorality?
Another argument defending capitalism from its critics as 'evil' is that capitalism delivers growth and development (or even raises living standards). 'Ferraris for All' is a particularly memorable title of a recent book along these lines. We as socialists shouldn't fall prey to this argument from economic development and should do so by avoiding framing our argument in moral terms and make that point that if we can, then we will deliver 'Ferraris for all'.
This is why it is a waste of time framing the case for socialism in moral terms, you get nowhere. What 'rightfully' belongs to whom sounds divinely ordained and is irrelevant.If TheSpanishInquisition thinks resources belong to the rich because the rich are "more intelligent and more opportunistic" then why is the working class by sheer weight of numbers democratically seizing these for the benefit of all considered "theft" and not just the working class being "more intelligent and more opportunistic".If you absolutely must make a moral case for socialism, then rather than oil drills or refineries which is of no use to any individual's needs except to profit, TheSpanishInquisition might like to answer whether access to clean drinking water is a human right or something the likes of Nestle can charge for?
