[jondwhite]

LabriolaBird

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

You can get a pocket paperback here if you want it in printhttp://www.lulu.com/shop/harold-walsby/spgb-utopian-or-scientific/paperback/product-21092281.html

I was going to order the book to read, jdw, but it doesn't seem to be available in the usual sources.Have you got an ISBN?

Unfortunately lulu print on demand and only distribute more widely (e.g. Amazon) when the book is A5 with a spine which this is not – it is A6.Could you be tempted to order from lulu by ordering this pocket (A6) paperback as wellhttp://www.lulu.com/shop/steve-coleman/the-origin-and-meaning-of-the-political-theory-of-impossibilism/paperback/product-21110348.htmlor maybe one of the issues of Forum internal journal which is a very stimulating read, I think 1953 has articles on materialismhttp://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/forum-1953/13864849

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority

Can'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.You can get a pocket paperback here if you want it in printhttp://www.lulu.com/shop/harold-walsby/spgb-utopian-or-scientific/paperback/product-21092281.html

[jondwhite]

The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

A number of comrades have tried to convince me that the SPGB is not Leninist, and have been at pains to persuade me that the SPGB really is committed to "workers' democratic control of the means of production", and so the SPGB is 'socialist' in the sense that it claims to be.But, as I keep asking those well-meaning comrades, can't they read what is being written, by those opposed workers' democracy, on this site?Here, once more:

robbo203 wrote:

Communist democracy will apply not to the production of scientific "truth"…

I really don't understand how those comrades who are defending the SPGB can interpret this in any other way than a denial of workers' control, that is, a denial of democracy within the means of production.Apparently, for those within the SPGB who agree with robbo, the social production of scientific knowledge and social truths will be in the hands of a self-selected elite. They keep saying this, so I take them at their word, and I'm not sure why other comrades are not taking them at their word.To me, this is not any form of 'socialism', but simply a retread of Leninism, where an elite with a 'special consciousness' (which by their definition is not available to all workers, otherwise they'd agree to workers' democratic control) tell the 'unconscious masses' what the 'Truth' is.robbo and others keep saying this, and I can't see how this is any form of socialism. For them, 'socialism' seems to be about workers running factories, but not academia.Once again, why the SPGB doesn't disown this anti-democratic nonsense, beats me. I can only assume, in the absence of a rebuttal by the SPGB, that the 'official line' of the SPGB is this non-democratic version of 'socialism', which we workers have seen and experienced so often before, either in the Eastern Bloc or in the Trotskyist parties of the West.

AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.

[jondwhite]

I suspect we might agree to disagree on this one.If you think a partly moral case for socialism is effective, then why are the working-class largely non-socialist? Or why are they largely supporters of political parties claiming to represent the self-interested?To paraphrase;The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles and the morals of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling morals, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.It is in each workers individual self-interest to threaten industrial action, strikes, work-to-rule or negotiation to get the best settlement. As is welfare.The Hayekian Free market morality is you work hard and you succeed. You see it used against strikes and is the major political parties mantra – 'hard-working families'. At best using morality is what Marx dismissed the utopian socialists for.As for rules in a socialist society the basis would be what is democratically decided.

[jondwhite]

Not sure why the racist comments he made in 2004 were not mentioned.

[jondwhite]

Haha thought this might happen. Is Socialism Utopian and Scientific part of a larger work? The German Ideology? Should the SPGB reprint as a pamphlet Socialism Utopian and Scientific? Lbird?

[jondwhite]

Well the ruling class don't regard welfare of the working class as crucial, are all the ruling class immoral? Why are working class largely not socialist, are they immoral too? What workers need is economic identification and economic solidarity with their class not pious sacrificing your own interests, individual workers should strive for the best deal under capitalism AND to propagate socialism in their own self interest! Mixing in morality leads to "hard work" under capitalism prevailing as the highest or only moral dimension.

[jondwhite]

Communism is not an ideal to which society adjusts itself.Scientific socialism is not about painting a pretty picture.Scientific socialism is not about building castles in the sky.Scientific socialism is democratic control.Scientific socialism is common ownership.By far the best work on this is Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels or if you fancy something longer The German Ideology by Marx.

[jondwhite]

No it is not a moral case (or both) and capitalism is not evil. It is just there are more working class than ruling class and a higher standard of living can be achieved.

[jondwhite]

This seems to have passed by the old tankies for the time being. NCP, WRP, CPGB-ML etc.

[jondwhite]

more

Quote:

Both major political parties of the U.S.—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions. Each of these conventions is attended by a number of delegates selected in accordance with the given party's bylaws. Both parties operate with two types of delegates: pledged and unpledged. The group of unpledged delegates, also known as superdelegates, generally comprising current and former elected officeholders and party leaders, are free to vote for any candidate they wish at the convention. The group of pledged delegates, comprising delegates representing the party committee of each state, are expected to vote in accordance with the rules of their state party. Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be voting to actually award delegates bound to vote for a particular candidate at the state or national convention, or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention.

[jondwhite]

Some info from Wikipedia on the Republican process for selecting a candidate

Quote:

The Republican Party presidential primaries and caucuses are indirect elections in which voters cast ballots for a slate of delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention. These delegates in turn directly elect the Republican Party's presidential nominee. Depending on each state's law and each state's party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate, they may be voting to directly award delegates bound to vote for a particular candidate at the state or national convention (binding primary or caucus), or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention (non-binding primary or caucus).

and

Quote:

A state or territory may then either use a winner-take-all system, wherein the candidate that wins a plurality of votes wins all of that state's allocated pledged delegates; or use a proportional representation system, where the delegates are awarded proportionally to the election results. Many of the states using a proportional system require candidates to meet a certain threshold before receiving delegates; for example, a candidate receiving less than 20 percent of the vote in Texas would receive no delegates.[89][90]  Unpledged delegates will include three top party officials from each state and territory.[89]  The Republican National Committee has imposed strict new rules for states wishing to hold early contests in 2016.[91] Under these rules, no state will be permitted to hold a primary or caucus in January; and only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are entitled to February contests. States with early-March primaries or caucuses must award their delegates proportionally. Any state that violates these rules will have their delegation to the 2016 convention severely cut

[jondwhite]

I might go to be part of the audience.

[Author]

Posts