Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hal Draper argued that Lenin was making explicit what was already implicit in the politics of the Second International generally and Kautsky in particular:https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htmOur disagreements with Kautsky and the Second International usually center on their reformism and state capitalist conception of socialism. But our insistence that the emancipation of the working class really must be the work of the working class itself (DOP 5) has not been fully recognised. It is an important repudiation of Kautsky and the Second International and one of our most important contributions to socialist politics. I'm not aware of any history of the SPGB which covers this ground.Lew
OK, I'll give this one more try and attempt to answer the question which you avoided. To the question "Why should workers become socialist?" one possible answer is: Because the working class are exploited through the wages system. With consequences such as poverty amidst plenty, and so on. This is a claim which, we argue, is demonstrably true. It's true because it fits the facts and explains the world around us. It's true even if there is no workers' democracy. It's even true if there are no socialists or socialist party. And, of course, claims about "a fair days work for a fair days pay" are demonstrably false. That is the situation here and now.That is why talk of controlling "the production of truth" is meaningless.– Lew
LBird wrote:It's not quite clear to me yet just who Lew is proposing should control the production of 'truth'. Perhaps Lew will clarify just who is their 'active agent of truth production'.This is, I think, meaningless. But let's try another tack. How would you answer the question: Why should workers become socialist?– Lew
LBird wrote:Of course, 'Marx's notion of truth' is not yet 'true', because there is at present another class in control of the 'notion of truth', but we have to argue, as socialists, for this revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth', so we can, err…, change our world, rather than just contemplate the 'Truth' that the bourgeoisie have built.So, by "true" you mean "not yet true". Or until the victorious proletariat decide otherwise, possibly true. Or possibly false. Or possibly meaningless. Who knows? It's anybody's guess. Actually, your own actions betray this essentially postmodernist approach. As a socialist there are things you believe about capitalism, about socialism which, to some extent at least, are true (and, conversely, things which are false). Rational political discourse depends on it. This includes your "revolutionary notion of the changeability of 'truth'" which, to make sense, you must believe is true and not merely "not yet true".After all, what is the point of getting engaged in the struggle to change our world now if we can't decide what is true or false until after the revoltion.– Lew
LBird wrote:Yes, "the above statement is true".'Truth' is socially-produced, and the statement that I (and I think alan) make is a socially-produced one, with a political underpinning, that allows us to change 'truth', because it is humans that produce 'truth'.How, why and where did the above statement (concerning Marx's notion of truth) become socially-produced as true?– Lew
alanjjohnstone wrote:truth changes with time.Is that always true? If it is, then the statement is self-contradictory. But if the above statement changes with time then there is no reason to accept its truth.
LBird wrote:I'm fully behind Marx's social approach, of locating the production of 'truth' in the society in which it is produced.I did ask before but didn't get a response; so I'll ask again: Is the above statement true? — Lew
moderator2 wrote:That's an American English dictionary. A British English dictionary has:1. deeply felt remorse; penitence2. Christianity detestation of past sins and a resolve to make amends, either from love of God (perfect contrition) or from hope of heaven (imperfect contrition)http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/contrition– Lew
ALB wrote:There's a Shiite mosque just round the corner from Head Office. I too have seen swastikas on houses, when leafletting in Tooting where many Tamils live.The swastika is an ancient religious symbol associated with Hinduism and other eastern religions. Tamils, being mainly Hindi, will often display that symbol. Quite why the Nazis adopted the swastika is something of a mystery (though many claim to know), but it can be generally said that Hindi are not Nazi.Lew
ALB wrote:Something to cheer up those who moan about us going down the pan. Go here and scroll down and click to see inside and see what Niall Ferguson says on pages 17 and 18 of his 2008 best seller The Ascent of Money: [snip]A bit surprising, I suppose, that none of us noticed it before but Howard Pilott mentioned it in his talk in Brighton earlier this week.This topic was a thread on the WSM Forum 6 years ago: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/wsm_forum/conversations/topics/37498 It includes a couple of contributions from … ALB. Lew
Vin wrote:SP I am making a broad generalisation but generally there was a consensus. Marx for example did not criticise anarchists for advocating a society without a state, he criticised their methods of achieving such a societyNot true. Marx’s main anarchist protagonists were Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin, and none of them wanted socialism. They wanted a society without a state, it is true, and Marx and Engels recognised that an anarchist society would be stateless. But Marx had plenty of serious criticisms of anarchists and anarchism that went well beyond the methods they employed.For instance, consider the case of Max Stirner. Most of the German Ideology, by Marx and Engels, is a rebuttal of Stirner’s ego-centric anarchism. Stirner’s extreme individualism is a form of solipsism – there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals. This has probably been the most historically influential of anarchist ideas, and it long pre-dates Thatcher. Stirnerite anarchism flourished during Nazi Germany. If it strikes you as odd that anarchists could prosper under a Nazi state, then we must remember that in this ideology an anarchist can support anything they like as an act of individual sovereignty.Marx had plenty to say about Stirner and Proudhon, but he did not criticise their methods for achieving a stateless society. Why not? Because their objectives were not socialist, so it didn't matter. In Bakunin's case, Marx did criticise his methods but only because it would lead to an unnecessary and bloody civil war.– Lew
jondwhite wrote:What the weirdest, wildest, most successful participatory project in history tells us about working together.An interesting article about Wikipediahttps://medium.com/matter/the-36-people-who-run-wikipedia-21ecca70bccaThis is another refutation of the "economic calculation argument", according to which any large-scale, complex project needs pricing for it to work efficiently. On the contrary, the success of Wikipedia is because of – not despite – the absence of pricing.– Lew
gnome wrote:'Great Britain' is a geographical term for the largest Island in the British Isles. If Scotland goes 'independent', they'll simply be another country on the Island of Great Britain.The corresponding political entity, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is known as the 'United Kingdom'.If the party's name was 'The Socialist Party of the United Kingdom' there could conceivably be a case made for a change in name should succession by Scotland take place on September 18th. As that's not the case the question simply doesn't arise.'Great Britain' is a *political* term for for the largest part of the geographical entity known as the British Isles. If Scotland goes 'independent' it will not be part of Great Britain but it will still be part of the British Isles.The 'United Kingdom' is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does not equate with Great Britain.If Scotland does go 'independent' this will effectively end the Act of Union of 1707 which created 'Great Britain' by incorporating Scotland into a union with England. It is therefore likely that Great Britain will cease to exist.– Lew
Robin wrote:"WIC is not a political party, more an umbrella set-up or meeting point where different tendencies within the non-market anti-statist political sector can come together. It seeks to emphasise the commonalities that exist between these tendencies rather than what divides them. WIC has no collective opinion on SPGB policy and what Jools says about the SPGB is Jool's opinion, not WICs. Its the same with me. I am not writing in my capacity as a member of WiC; I write simply in my own personal capacity. WIC is strictly neutral in its relationship to any entity belonging to the above mentioned sector and rightly so."This isn't the first time Robin has attempted to re-write history, nor is it the first time I have had to clarify what happened.Robin resigned from the SPGB and created WIC late in 2002. WIC was to be communist but "not the SPGB" on the subjects of religion and the "big bang" notion of revolution (see posts on the WSM Forum at this time). Thus WIC was conceived as being communist but against the SPGB/WSM on those issues. The next year Robin began to post suggestions on the WIC forum as to what they were specifically *for*. He argued that WIC should seek "common ground" with like-minded individuals and organisations, and eventually this became the informally accepted rationale for WIC. However, the WIC forum group description makes the false assertion that they were "specifically set up" to "strengthen ties within this sector". The Wikipedia article on WIC alleges that they were established to "overcome the sectarian divisions" – by creating yet another sect.Robin again claims above that WIC seeks "commonalities" "rather than what divides". That may be their attitude now but it wasn't always the case. Aside from re-writing history, the basic charge still stands. There is someting rather hypocritcal in people claiming to seek commonalities, being opposed to what divides, and spectacularly failing to do so by creating yet another grouping.– Lew
