StuartW2020
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Left Unity is still going, but I should imagine it’s much smaller than it was at its peak. It kind of lost its point when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, and many left then I believe. But I don’t pay much attention.
My underlying point is that for youse socialist ideas provide a source of Absolute Truth that you organise your life around. I don’t accept socialist ideas and am these days more liberal/conservative, but I don’t see in liberal or conservative or indeed any ideas a source of Absolute Truth, only relative truth, always subject to revision and ifs and buts and maybes. (Some of the pro-capitalists and conservatives I write about are making the equal and opposite mistake, true. The structure is the same, the specific content can always be changed.) The trouble with organising your life around socialism as a source of Absolute Truth is that in truth it is not a source of it at all, and it’s not up to the job. Ideology is the raft you are using to get you across the ocean of life, so it makes you edgy and angry when people start rocking it and undoing the ropes that hold it all together. The question of what kind of rafts might do a better job of getting us across the stormy seas of life I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Anyway, I’ll leave it there as I’d hate to outstay my welcome (if indeed one was ever offered!). If I ever get the opportunity to write a sympathetic but critical analysis of the SPGB’s position for any publication – something I might be happy to do, but I’m not sure what the angle could possibly be for the one I write for – I shall be sure to let you know.
Happy 120th birthday for June!
What I’m saying is, if I saw Robbo and Adam and Older Master Smeet in black shirts, linking arms and goose-stepping down the street on a fascist demonstration, I wouldn’t run after them and try to force an “Introducing the SPGB” leaflet on them. I’d probably just think, hmm, how interesting, I wonder whatever happened to them?
You all seem to be strangely unaware of two pretty obvious facts. First, I was once a member of your party, and have heard it – and enthusiastically embraced it – all before. No one seems at all curious about that fact. Second, I am a journalist writing for a particular audience, using language that I expect they would understand and making arguments that I hope they find informative, interesting and diverting. I am not writing a propaganda pamphlet addressing socialists, nor am I, as I have said, as ideologically attached to the opinions I write about as you are to yours. In some of my pieces, I give equal weight to two or more completely contradictory arguments. You might sometimes guess my own opinion or commitment from the attempted synthesis of the two, but not always. In fact, I learnt how to write for a certain audience whose views I may or may not share without overemphasising my own possibly heretical take while writing for the Socialist Standard. You may have heard of it. Anyway, as ever, thank you for your interest!
I’m closing up digital shop now for Christmas, or for the holiday period as I guess you’d prefer me to call it, so I shall say farewell again. It was nice to hear from you all. You might be interested to hear that these Dan and I are in a reading group with another ex-socialist who has gone funny, Dave Flynn, and another friend of ours. We are reading the classics of liberalism and political economy, perhaps working up to Capital. Some things, you see, never change! With best wishes to you all and hoping you all have a happy and prosperous, er, holiday period, Stuart
The magazine is no longer owned by Bill Bonner, not that it matters. And if you think you can make “big bucks” in journalism, then I suggest you try it. Perhaps tell us how it went from your pad in Monaco.
“Perhaps Stuart in his next “Moneyweek” article might care to address this model of a socialist society that socialists like us advocate rather than some bogus model that few if anyone actually advocates”
One final thing is that what I say in the few articles I have written about this subject are completely uncontroversial to almost everyone, including most economists and socialists. The burden of proof is very much on you and the tens of people who agree with you. Perhaps write a book about it? I’ll review it when it comes out.
“he shifts the goalposts to say that this required tyranny to achieve”
That is closer to what I think than I have had the opportunity to say in my articles. Socialism is I’m sure in fact possible, but be careful what you wish for.
https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-33-number-2/3-things-you-need-make-socialism-work
“Since you are so unexpectedly gracing this forum with your presence, perhaps you would reply to point (2)”
I couldn’t see an actual question to respond to ZJW, but you and Robin seem to be confused how someone who once held to one set of ideas now holds to another. Surely that is not so surprising? The universe is infinite and our minds are limited and partial so all ideas are going to be wrong in some sense. Knowing that, we can listen to people we disagree with and learn something, rather than assuming that they must be bad-faith actors will evil intentions.
“people like Stuart droning on about the Hayekian “knowledge problem””
I think I’ve written about it twice, maybe three times, in my whole life. Robin, on the other hand, really has been droning on about it for, what, five decades?! Fair enough, it’s an interesting subject, but the mistake you are making is in thinking that I am as ideologically committed to the opinions I write about as you are to yours.
“I wonder what the market price is to write an article in Moneyweek, this might explain the deficits in their work.”
Mouths stuffed with gold? Hah! If only! But if you hate this review, you should avert your gaze from the Christmas issue, out Thursday. As ever, thanks for your interest and best wishes to you all
Thank you, Robin, for drawing my attention to this discussion, and thank you everyone for your comments. I’m sorry you no longer find any value in my writing, but it is now obviously intended for quite a different audience. Nevertheless, it’s always interesting to get some robust criticism and hear what others are thinking, and it was nice to hear from you all again. I have nothing but the fondest memories of my time as a socialist, a feeling not at all affected by the fact that I can no longer agree with what I thought then. I’ll take this opportunity to apologise most sincerely for the intemperance of polemics past, and to wish you every happiness in your endeavours, even if I cannot, I am afraid, wish you any success in the socialist one.
With all best wishes,
Stuart
