robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
J Surman wrote:Something wrong with this page – it's not moving on from 02/01/17 although it's at the head of today's posts.Anybody else finding this?
Yes and the title has changed hasnt it?
Utopia. The word itself was coined by Thomas More in 1516. Deriving from the Greek word for "no place" (which, spelt slightly differently, means "good place"), it stands for an imaginary, idealised and sought after society. It conveys also the idea of something that is essentially unachievable. To be called a "utopian" is to be dismissed as an impractical dreamer. Utopians, however, may take some comfort from the fact that history, amongst other things, has been a record of what was once thought to be unachievable, even unimaginable, being realised. As Oscar Wilde put it in The Soul of Man under Socialism, "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at. Progress is the realisation of Utopias" Utopian thought has had a long and illustrious past – from the musings of the legendary King Gilgamesh of Ancient Sumeria in 2000 BC to the hi-tech eco-friendly communes of today. What do all these different utopias have in common? According to Ian Tod and Michael Wheeler: The answer is very little in detail, except perhaps for an almost universal dislike of lawyers, and there are even exceptions to that generalisation. However, utopias are about how people should live, about human nature, and the meaning and purpose of life. And thus they deal with perennial problems: happiness, good and evil, authority, the state, religion, knowledge, work, sex, equality, liberty. Some utopias assume that people are inherently bad and that they need a state to prevent society breaking down in chaos. Others maintain that people are inherently good and it is only institutions like a state that prevent them living in peace and cooperation. Some see the solutions of social problems in the pursuit of material prosperity, whereas others see it in austerity and simplicity. Some advocate private property but by far the majority advocate some form of communism, with equal access to the bounty of nature and equal status between people (I Tod and M Wheeler Utopia, Orbis Publishing, London, 1978, p.7) It is with this last kind of utopia that, I suggest, socialists are primarily concerned with.
mcolome1 wrote:irwellian wrote:I look forward to a possible future with one or two capitalist restorationists standing on a street corner handing out copies of Capitalist Standard to the disinterested socialist masses.Capitalists under a socialist society ? It must be a miracle. Capitalists only exist on a capitalist society based on wage slavery, economical exploitation, extraction of surplus value, value of exchange, market, and private possession of the means of productions. Are we going to have those features under a socialist society ? Probably, not. If they are socialists they are not disinterested socialist either. I have heard from workers the following expression: I am a capitalist because I support capitalism, they are workers supporting capitalism, but they are not capitalists. If the slaves support their masters, Do they become slaves owners ?
Yes , I too have encountered people who say they are capitalists because they support capitalism. Its an unfortunate confusion but it has a certain logic to it. After all we socialists say we support a social system called socialism. But capitalism too is a social sysem so you can see why supporters of this system should call themselves capitalists even though "capitalist" is class category pertaining to capitalism which the great majority of us quite clearly do not fall under. Perhaps to be consistent we should call ourselves "pro-socialists" and the supporters of capitalism, "pro-capitalists". Or we could just live with this confusion and muddle our way through as is usually the case anyway
JamesH81 wrote:yes i would agree with full freedom of speech and no restrictions on non – socialist parties / organisations – to be a truly free socialist society – open debate across the whole political spectrumI would endorse the idea of full freedom of speech but what do you mean "non – socialist parties / organisations", James? I am not even sure we can usefully talk about parties even existing in a socialist society in the sense that parties exist today to aspire to take control of the state, when there is no longer a state to take control of in socialism. That is what a political party would seem to be about – an organisation intent upon capturing state power.There may of course be non socialist organisations in the sense of being organisations intent upon bringing about the restoration of capitalism. I would say they should be permitted to spout their ideas without any kind of restriction being put on them, They are not going to make much headway though. Try persuading an ex-slave that she needs the return of a slave society. But difficult, isnt it?
Bob Andrews wrote:The' World Socialist' claimed the proto-fascist D H Lawrence as a socialist. I don't think it needs reviving.Even if this were true and I have already shoen this to be completely false, how is this an argument against reviving such a journal? It strikes me that a movement called the World Socialist Movement needs a journal called the World Socialist or some such – no? In any event, my main point stands – there is a pressing need for a journal which has a more theoretical or, if you prefer, academic approach than the Socialist Standard which quite rightly focusses on more topical issues,
Bob Andrews wrote:The' World Socialist' claimed the proto-fascist D H Lawrence as a socialist. I don't think it needs reviving.Here is the article in question – judge for yourself. And you are dead wrong. The article said quite explicitly "He was not a socialist and did not profess to be one" From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist D. H. Lawrence and the abolition of money The novelist and poet, D. H. Lawrence, who died in 1930, was born one hundred years ago, on 11 September, 1885. He was not a socialist and did not profess to be one, but there can be no doubt that he possessed some excellent ideas about what was wrong with the money-wages-profit system and what sort of society would be fitter for humans to live in. Certain rather foolish literary gentlemen and superficial Leftists have described Lawrence as a fascist. There is no evidence to support this claim, and we would argue that it is a label mainly put about by Stalinists who resented Lawrence for having been a non-conservative who was totally opposed to the state-capitalist dictatorship of the Russian Empire. In the 1930s to have taken up such a position, even if you were in favour of social transformation, meant that the so-called Communists would call you a fascist in the hope of discrediting you. In the case of D. H. Lawrence, who wrote explicitly about why he opposed fascism, the label struck and the smear has no doubt led many people to dismiss the social and political context of his poetry. To do so is to dismiss some of the most forcefully revolutionary poems ever written in English, a selection of which we publish below. They were written in 1929 and are taken from the second volume of Lawrence's selected poems published by Heinemann (the book is deceptively called Pansies, but we can assure you that it is not about flowers). Why did Lawrence take up some of the ideas expressed in these poems? Reading them, one might think that he was acquainted with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, but there is no evidence to show that he was. More likely, Lawrence picked up the socialist content of his thinking as a result of visiting the home of his girlfriend until 1912, Louise Burrows, whose father was a committed socialist who possessed the socialist writings of William Morris and spent his time talking with Lawrence about the case for socialism whenever the young writer visited his house. The connection between William Morris and D. H. Lawrence is rarely made, and shallow critics would have it that the former was a romantic revolutionary while the latter was a fascistic reactionary (both utterly mistaken observations): in fact, it will be seen from the poems published here that Lawrence too shared a passion to change the insane society of capitalism, and that, if anything, his poetry was more expressive in its simplicity. Moreover, it is known that he had read Morris' News From Nowhere, and was inspired by its depiction of a socialist society. The poems can be accessed here http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/d-h-lawrence-and-abolition-of-money.html
jondwhite wrote:Cheers, but I'm talking more scholarly, e.g. more about this sort of thinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journalAnyone familiar with Capital&Class, Rethinking Marxism or Historical Materialism?I have a few copies of Capital & Class somewhere. Not too bad. Although the problem with many lefty "academic" journals is 1) they come across as somewhat pretentious and snobby in the language they employ and 2) they dont really have much if any commitment to the goal of a genuine socialist society. Its often just lip service with them, a clothes horse onto which they can hang their academic credentials I wouldnt class the Socialist Standard as an "academic journal" which is not to denigrate the important work that it does. However, I do think there is an urgent need for a journal of some kind that looks into issues relevant to the movement in much more systematic and detailed way Whatever happened to the "World Socialist"? Is it it not high time it was revived?
JamesH81 wrote:what is the spgb / world socialist movements position on freedom of speech…. and would only one socialist party…. exist in wsm / spgb real socialist worldI would hope that in a "real socialist world", political parties along with political power itself (the state) will disppear. In the meantime socialists cannot but be for the fullest possible freedom of speech. You cannot separate the means and the ends. The end determines the means,. A free and democratic society requires methods to bring it about that are themselves free and democratic….
JoanOfArc wrote:in russia the capitalst owned corps were taken under government control. i do not agree with taking over one culture with another. it has to be done gradually and purely at the will of the people, many people. not just a few so called socialist dictators. as Engels pointed out that state capitalism would provide tools for socialism. it would make the state richer that's for sure. and that then can be used to bring about socialism. i see different models of ownership being piloted and time for experimentation. but you need financial resources within this capitalist system to do this.]JoanI would argue that state ownership is simply a variant of private property, It is certainly not common property and therefore by default, has to be some form of private or sectional property – namely, the collectivised property of a ruling class – who own the means of production in de facto terms by virtue of their ultimate control over those means via their stranglehold on the state apparatus itself. If you ultimately control something you own it and vice versa Common ownership of the means of production is logically incompatible with a system of economic exchange and this is certainly what exists under a system of state capitalism . In the Soviet Union, goods and services were bought and sold, there were employers and employees and thus the commodification of labour power itself , other means of production (constant capital) are also subject to market exchange and legally binding contracts. The Soviet union was a fully functioning capitalist system in every sense that mattered Might I recommend to you this brilliant work by Paresh Chattopadhyay which you can download and readhttps://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience I cannot see any advantage whatsover for preferring state capitalism to any other form of capitalism. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto made a serious blunder, in my view, in advocating the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of state – though they latter backtracked on thiis. They reasoned that this would hasten the development of the forces of production and hence the arrival of socialism. They also reasoned that it would facilitate the changeover to socialism though unlike Lenin never made the mistake of equating socialism with state ownership. Large scale socialised production, they argued, makes it easier for the revolutinary movement to take over the means of production. Stalin explained away the continuance of commodity production in the Soivet Union mainly because of the agricultural sector which was comprised of numerous small to medium sized production units. I think the whole argument is bogus. State capitalism does not bring us one step closer to socialism at all. On the contrary I would say state capitalism in its full blooded sense belngs to an era of early capitalism. It is the sign of an immature capitalism based on extensive rather than intensive growth via technological innovation. And it has been rendered obsolete by the globalisation of capitalism itself There is no warrant for advocating any kind of capitalism today as a supposed transitional step towards socialism since the forces of production are already more than adequately developed to underwrite and sustain a genuinely socialist society – and have been for at least a century now
mcolome1 wrote:I know that Lenin admired Germany state capitalism, like Roosevelt admired the German Nazis, but the first Bolshevik who exposed the conception was BukharinDo you possibly have a link to Bukharin's work on this? I know he mentioned somewhere that state capitalism was comparable to "white slavery" I think it was Wilhelm Leibknecht, one of the founders of the German SDP who first coined the expression "state capitalism", In 1896 he remarked: “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists, nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism" https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm
mcolome1 wrote:It was Lenin, and he borrowed the idea or the concept from Nikolai Bukharin, and he also absurdly indicated that it was for the benefits of the working class. Since when capitalism has been beneficial for the working class ? . The first intent and realization of state capitalism was the Soviet UnionHmmm, I would say it was Germany under the anti socialist, Bismarck.00 Lenin admired German state capitalism. Here's what he said To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany”.Moreover “While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorialmethods to hasten the copying of it.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
Vin wrote:The link worked for me, by copy and paste. My first impression is that he is a philosopher able to put his point across with humour and the technical ability to produce videos.So all we need is a socialist with the ability to put the case for socialism across with humour and an ability to produce videos Did you ever see this, Robbo?brilliant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe6CMvW0DgYes Ive seen that one Vin. Its excellent. I like the "crash course in philisophy" format mentioned above though. It would be great to have a "crash course in socialism" perhaps spread over a dozen units or so
Came across this youtube based "crash course in philosphy" in 42 units of about 10 minutes duration each https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY Its snappy and witty though the guy speaks a little too rapidly to fully assimilate what he is saying in my opinion. But I have to say I quite like it. How about producing a "crash course in socialism" sort of along the same lines, eh?
aaargh the link doesnt work but if you google "crash course in philosophy youtube" it will come up straightaway….
Capitalist Pig wrote:I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.I understand the point you are getting at when you say you don’t “want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny”. It is a point I have made myself. There is a balance to be struck between “democracy” and the “freedom” of individuals to choose. But, rememeber, this freedom to choose applies also to the question of travel and where you want to live I think the point that is being made is that the very existence of “borders” implies the continuation of that core generic institution of capitalism – the nation state. This is why I have problems with your statement – “open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism”. Open or closed it still seems to imply the existence of the nation state which is incompatible with the existence of communism. Also the word “prerequisite” is somewhat misleading. A prerequisite is a “thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist”. “Open borders” is not in that sense a prerequisite of communism though mass communist consciousness certainly is. Mass communist consciousness entails amongst other things a repudiation of the ideology of nationalism that sustains the very existence of the nation-state. As I suggested in my earlier post democracy in a communist (aka socialist) society would be a multi-level phenomenon – local regional and global. Obviously, this entails the existence of distinct spatial cum administrative entities and you can’t have such an entity without it being spatially bounded – that is to say, having boundaries that demarcate and differentiate one such entity from another. I prefer the term boundary than border since the latter seems to have statist connotations I have no problem with the idea of the free flow of people across these boundaries in a communist world and I don’t quite see why you think it is such an important issue. You say borders “might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests”. Well then other than to demarcate a particular administrative entity within which a particular level of democratic decision making is effected what possible reason would there be for such “borders”. I think at the root of your preoccupation with “borders” is the worry that should borders disappear there will be some huge influx of people into a particular part of the world e.g. Europe which will overwhelm its economic support structures and undermine its sense of cultural identity. I do not believe there is any basis for concern at all. You have to ask yourself why is it that people migrate today. In the main it is for political and economic reasons – war and the prospect of seeking employment. These factors will disappear come a communist society. If anything there is likely to be far less in the way of wholesale migration in the sense of people uprooting themselves from one part of the world and relocating elsewhere. Of course people will still travel and visit other parts of the world and this is a good thing. Cultural diversity is something that needs to be nurtured, fostered and above all experienced and I am all for it. Variety is the spice of life and one of the many insidious effects of capitalism is its tendency to create a dreary monoculture everywhere. World cities are more and more starting resemble each other with the same predictable array of corporate chains setting up business in them – the "McDonaldization" of global society which is an expression coined by the sociologist George Ritzer in his 1993 book on the subject.
