robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It seems Russel Brand has fallen on hard times. I wonder how this will impact on his political outlook? Though his earlier plitical pronouncements were a mixed bag – sometimes promising, sometime questionable – I sincerely hope his present predicament doesnt turn hm into a bitter cycnic. That would be sad indeedhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/russell-brand-living-hand-to-mouth-after-giving-his-money-away-to-friends-and-charities/ar-AAtb6nz?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp
I think the point needs to be made that while there are two separate issues of democratc rights (which socialists support) and Catalan nationalism (which socialists oppose along with Spanish, or any other, nationalism) , the situation on the ground is a lot more complex and confusing. Some of the anger that is boiling up agaist the government comes from people who are not really in support of independence but who are nevertheless incensed at the actions of the government in trying to prevent a democratic vote on the matter. The government's line is essentially that the referendum is unconsititutional and illegal (because the Spanish people as a whole need to vote on the matter not just the Catalans) which strikes me as a particularly weak argument. Laws that are made can be unmade or amended; they are not set in concrete. This rigid attitude of theirs means there is no way to exorcise the devil of Catalonian nationalism. They have boxed theselves into a corner. Ironically had they cleared the way for a proper, Catalonia only, legal referendum on the question of Catalonian independence, there seems little doubt that they would have won and probably by a handsome margin. The large number of Catalonian workers who did not vote or effectvely boycotted the referendum, did so becuase they could see no point in voting if the government refuses to recognise the result. This section of the population would undoubtedly come out against independence if a legal and binding referendum was held. As it is, the cause of Catalan independence has been boosted because it makes the Catalan nationalists to be the upholders of democracy and their opponents, the promoters of repression. Some waverers on the issue of independence will no doubt now decide to throw in their lot with the nationalists having seen the ugly face of the Spanish state in action And it could get uglier. There are rumours on the social media of a troop train being sent from Madrid to restore law and order, I dont know if this is fake news or not but it will add to the rising tensions. Catalan nationalism doesnt really have a tradition of using military cum terroristic measures to advance its cause (unlike say, the Basque separatists and ETA which has now been officially disarmed) , the only exception to this being the tiny Terra Lliure group which operated between 1978 and 1995 and only managed to assessinate 1 individual. But who is to say, some more viable military wing of Catalan nationalism might not emerge out of the frustration, even possibly a false flag operation , giving the government all the excuse it needs to clamp down on the pesky nationalists?
Vin wrote:Surely the important point is being missed. One of major arguments of some leftist against the SPGB position is that the State will not allow us to use the ballot box for revolution.Not quite sure how that argument would apply in this case, Vin , because firstly we are talking about a hypoethical situation in which the entire socio -political environment will have been significantly modifed and democratised as a result of the growth of the socialist movement beforehand. Secondly. we are only talking here of a small section of the Spainish working class based in Catalonia facing the might of the Spanish state. It would be quite a differnet ball game if the Spanish state sought to take on the Spanish working class as a whole (which unfortunately at the moment is divided by nationalistic ideas)
Sympo wrote:The government is acting very shady if you ask me. Couldn't they just say "we won't allow Catalonia to become independent" and still let people vote? What are they worried about? That the pro-independent side will get the most votes?My sentiments exactly, Sympo. This is a gross miscalculation on Rajoy's part and it doesnt look good. The Catalan nationalists are threatening to bring their case to the EU and the UN. If I were the capitalist prime minster of Spain I would have let them have their vote – like Cameron and the Scottish referendum . Although the last time a vote was held in 2014 and the independence movement got a majority of the vote, the turnout out was small and probably most Catalans would have noted no in a real referendum but that referendum was deemed to be not binding . That is the line Rajoy should have taken from the point of view of his own interests but this time round he did not This time round the government has come down strongly against the referendum on the grounds that it is illegal and unconstitutional and so they are actively seeking to disrupt it which is stupid really. It is only serving to drive more people into the pro independence camp on the pretext that a country – Spain – that is so brazenly undermining democracy in this way is probably not worth remaining in. In other words it has become more than just an issue of nationalism; the question of democracy is involved too. There is also of course the thorny issue of taxation with the independence movement arguing that Catalonia pays a disportionately large share of tax revenues into the central state's coffers and this particular claim will only be given heightened prominence as a result of the government's action
Dave T wrote:An interesting report which highlights some voices of sanity against nationalism which is the poison of the working class.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/red-belt-catalonia-labour-movement-referendum Living in Spain – Andalucia – Ive been following developments in Catalonia and my partner, Ana, has many contacts in the region who have been sending her video updates of what is going on. The power of the social media in practice! It seems that the actions of the Guardia Civil today of raiding polling stations and confiscating ballot boxes was fully anticpated by the Catalan authorities who devised all manner of ruses to get around the restrictions. At the time of writng today – about midday – some 1000 or the 2300 polling stations have been sealed off by the Guardia Civil – but voters are still able to vote at other stations not closed down since their voter registration details can be checked against a universal register cleverly made accessible over the internet in advance Dave T is right to condemn the poison of nationalism – although we should not forget the spanish nationalism of those who want Catalonia to remain in Spain. However the issue is a bit more complicated than just one of nationalism For many voters it seems the issue has become one of democracy and freedom of expression. Rajoy I believe has blundered badly in declaring the whole exercise illegal and has incurred the wrath of even those who would have voted against independence. It is a miscalculation that could cost him and his government dearly come the next election
Vin wrote:I agree the quote is fine. The problem I have is claiming that Corbyn is the same as Thatcher when he clearly is not. Thatcher openly opposed Trade Unions and set about murdering its members by starvation and violence. Corbyn openly supports trade unions and seeks to use the law to encourage trade union activity and growth.Thats true enough Vin – you cant really compare Corbyn to Thatcher as far as their personal beliefs are concerned – but, on the other hand, it does occur to me that this might be to overtheorise the issue. The image of Jeremy Thatcher works at the level of a meme. Like the worm eating away at the apple's core it is has the effect of jolting the viewer/reader into rethinking what might be the overall impact of a Corbyn government. Whatever Corbyn might think, you can't operate this rotten system of capitalism in the interests of the "many not the few" and Corbyn like Thatcher, even if reluctantly (unlike Thatcher) will be obliged to operate the system in the interests of the few against the many If that simple message gets through, the image might have some value after all and help to counter the rather disturbing cultish following Corbyn seems to be collecting around his person (probably through no fault of his own) which is defintely not a healthy development and is decidedly anti-socialist
DJP wrote:robbo203 wrote:I think the Sun needs to be corrected.Yes I'm sure they don't want to tarnish their reputation for accurate reporting.
LOL DJP but, yes, I suppose you could approach them (with tonque firmly in cheek) out of concern that their reputation might be tarnished. Flattery will get you everywhere
The Sun also said "In a tweet to the Labour leader, the official Socialist Party account said to him that socialism must replace capitalism in Britain". Which makes it sound like the SPGB suppports the idea of "socialism in one country". I think the Sun needs to be corrected.
LBird wrote:.Oh yes, whilst I rememer – it was Engels who resurrected the 'idealism' versus 'materialism' debate, the notion that there is a choice between 'mind' and 'matter', as to 'which came first?'.Once again, I refer you to the Engels quote in which Engels explicitly talks of the "the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body" Automation does not happen because the bourgeosie think it is a "nice idea". They are embedded within an economic system that operates according to laws that are beyond their control, akin to a force of nature, which in turn, shapes their thinking on the matter. There is always a two way interaction between the objective and the subjective, between mind and matter. Its not a one way process
LBird wrote:Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:…those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.
It would have been more apprpriate and relevent to this thread had LBird dealt with the argument I presented earlier that Marx's view of the nature of appopriation in a socialist society rests on certain assumptions that are individualistic. If LBird understand more about the sociology of Marx he would less quick off the mark at simply dismissing his opponents as "individualists" and constantly invoking Marx in support of his ideas. Marx was not a straightforward individualist thinker but there are unquestionably elements of individualism in his thinking. This whole argument that he presented that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" is quintessentially individualistic in orientation from start to finish Any realistic or plausible sociology requires, as a starting point an acknowledgment that human beings are real entitties and are what constitute society even if they are also constituted by society. In other words any realistic or plausible sociology requires us to acknowledge that the relationship between the individual and society is a TWO way process – not ONE way – whether we think that ONE way is from society to the individuals , meaning there is no such thing as individuals (LBirds ontology) or from the individual to society meaning there is no such thing as society (Margaret Thatcher's ontology). Mrs M Thatcher and Mr L Bird are in an important sense, mirror images of each other
LBird wrote:The 'physical' is a social category, robbo.Human activity produces the 'physical'.You are simply replacing 'matter' (now you accept that it is a discredited category) with 'physical'.The 'physical universe' is a social product of conscious human activity. That's why, according to Marx, we can change it.You wish to passively contemplate something that 'exists' prior to human conscious activity. You're an 18th century 'materialist'.This makes no sense. The physical universe cannot possibly be a product of human society not least because it prexisted human society. What you are trying to say in your clumsy manner is that our apprehnsion of the physcial world is a product of human society and that I wouldnt disagree with but you cannot then infer from that that physical world itself does not exist or does not eist without us which is what you saying when you say there that "there is no 'matter-in-itself'",. Our technical ability to determine the age of the earth as 4.5 billion and modern humans as a mere 200,000 years disproves you In other words, you are confusing "matter in itself" and our human knowledge of matter and trying to soud profoud by putting matter in itself in inverted commas when all you are talking about is the concept of matter and not matter in itself Incidentally now that Ive provided you with that wonderful quote from Engels will you now concede that you were wrong in your assessment of him?
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for MarxistsAs I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.Frederich Engels:"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will men not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm
Thanks for that, robbo.Now, you have to accept that there is no 'matter-in-itself', only Marx's 'mind-matter', 'idealism-materialism'.
If if there no matter in itself then the physical universe could not have existed before human beings thought about it. Is that what you are saying?
A thought occurred to me – why not contact Andrew to get a clarification and maybe to make a comment or two on this forum. Does anyone have his contat details?
LBird wrote:.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for MarxistsAs I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.Frederich Engels: "And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will men not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm
twc wrote:Thanks Robbo and Marcos.However, for a more incoherent experience than the talk, as published, I suggest (if you can spare the time) listening to the post-debate discussion between Andrew Kliman and Per Bylund — can’t recall, but it starts about an hour from the end. Kliman seems to agree wholeheartedly with most, if not all, of the Mises/Hayek proposals.Have I badly misconstrued something?Gawd, I hope not TWC I would be sorely disappointed in Kliman if that is the case. I havent yet listened to the whole talk but will do so. However from the limited evidence I have so far I dont yet see any grounds for coming to this conclusion. I think he is using the labour theory of property as a tool to attack capitalism
