Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I find the title of this thread deeply troubling. As I understand it, socialists are opposed to nationalism but we are not “anti” any nationalism in particular. For instance, we wouldn’t (I hope) say that we were anti-Scottish independence or anti-Catalan independence. That would mean socialists taking up a position as bad as the nationalists.
Since we are not “anti” any other nationalism but apparently we are “Anti-Zionist” the non-socialist observer could gain the impression that we are anti-Semitic.
Although a number of countries have claimed to have established “socialism”, none (as far as I’m aware) have claimed to have established communism. Of course some Leninists will say they have established a lower form of communism (cf State and Revolution), but this arcane distinction has not caught on in popular debate. I doubt if Musk is aware of it.
In view of this it seems odd that we have not made more of the fact that no country in the world has ever claimed to have established communism.
Buddhism is the world’s fourth largest religion, and along with other non-theistic religions, does not entail a belief in the existence of a supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs.
“It still allows them to kill Muslims. It is the age old use of all religion in secular affairs. Where ‘believers’ are manipulated.”
I’m not defending Buddhism, Matt. I think it is possibly the most objectionable of all religions. But according to that car-crash Conference resolution which you posted there is nothing objectionable in what the Myanmar Buddhists believe as they persecute the Rohingya Muslims.
“The following resolution was passed at our 2003 Conference: ‘The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs.”
Buddhism is the world’s fourth largest religion, and along with other non-theistic religions, does not entail a belief in the existence of a supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs.
“Socialists hold that we live only once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly the two are incompatible.”
Clearly they are incompatible, but that assertion does not explain why they cannot be socialists.
Lew
Fair enough – this does not conform to the classic Marxian account of crises and recessions. But if it is found that capital accumulation is an important factor in the creation of the Coranavirus, and it is this which has caused the domino effect of a recession, then I don’t think it is accurate to say that this process is exogenous to capitalism.
Don’t be put off by the Guardian headline. The article indicates the economics of the cause. For instance:
“Starting in the 1990s, as part of its economic transformation, China ramped up its food production systems to industrial scale. One side effect of this, as anthropologists Lyle Fearnley and Christos Lynteris have documented, was that smallholding farmers were undercut and pushed out of the livestock industry. Searching for a new way to earn a living, some of them turned to farming “wild” species that had previously been eaten for subsistence only. Wild food was formalised as a sector, and was increasingly branded as a luxury product. But the smallholders weren’t only pushed out economically. As industrial farming concerns took up more and more land, these small-scale farmers were pushed out geographically too – closer to uncultivable zones. Closer to the edge of the forest, that is, where bats and the viruses that infect them lurk. The density and frequency of contacts at that first interface increased, and hence, so did the risk of a spillover.”
It might be endogenous:
Is factory farming to blame for coronavirus?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/is-factory-farming-to-blame-for-coronavirus
Lew
It will be noted that, yet again, L Bird evades the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ straw man.
As it happens, I’ve reviewed Carver’s books for the Socialist Standard and I agree with his point that there are important philosophical differences between Marx and Engels. However, they have no practical political significance as far as we are concerned. Nobody, including the WSM, is obliged to agree with everything they said.
Ironically, Carver shows that the main philosophical difference between Marx and Engels concerns epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and it is precisely here that L Bird’s argument fails.
Lew
L Bird wrote:
“Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.”
That’s not what I said. I said that, according to you, truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means. But you fail to grasp the epistemological implications of this position – namely, that until (and unless) the victorious proletariat vote and decide what is true (and false) we don’t know anything to be true (or false). Which is patently absurd.
“My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic.”
Presumably you think this statements is true.
“That, indeed, is all we have.”
No it isn’t.
There’s plenty we know about capitalism and socialism which doesn’t require a vote. For instance:
- Under capitalism the working class are exploited through the wages system (true).
- Socialism will be a classless, moneyless, stateless world community (true).
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).
—
Lew
<p lang=”en”></p>
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.
—
Lew
norm_burns wrote:They did indeed feel that the terminology we use had become a burden in the light of most peoples' preconceptions about terms like 'working class'. I always thought they had resigned, but maybe they were expelled?Nobody was expelled and the whole Stoke group (bigger than some branches) resigned, along with a number of other members from around the country (at least one from Guildford). Terminology was the given reason but it soon became clear that a rejection of the concepts behind the terminology was involved, not the least of which was class.When it soon became obvious that terminology was not a significant factor in hindering progress, WOFA dispersed and a few years later Paul Breeze stood as an independent (non-socialist, non-WOFA) candidate for mayor of Stoke, and he didn't do any better than the SPGB in elections.– Lew
jondwhite wrote:Also this http://www.stefan-szczelkun.org.uk/taste/Chapter3-Morris.html says EP Thompson removed stuff from the 1955 edition for the 1977 reprint. I thought it was the case that material was added to the 1955 edition in the 1977 reprint.In the 1977 reprint he removed references to Morris's ideas being realised in Soviet Russia. More here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1285-september-2011/book-reviews-crisis-theory-chavs-gerrard-winsta– Lew
Sympo wrote:Basically, some pro-capitalists believe that the more economically intertwined states are, the less likelyhood is there that there's gonna be a war between those states.Britain, France and Germany were very economically intertwined (they also shared basically the same religion), but that didn't stop WW1 and WW2.– Lew
