[twc]

Dave B wrote:

That was a bit of a touched raw nerve reaction.

No, a normal response when there are “none so poor to do him reverence”.Consider the trashing of Marx’s scientific credentials a generation ago, culminating in Steedman’s effective influential demolition job, Marx After Sraffa [1977].Socialism had its marxian foundations ripped from underneath.  It was “proven” mathematically—and none among the dwindling tribe of marxian mathematical economists could disprove it for 30 years, try as they might—that marxian value, surplus-value and rate-of-exploitation could all be mathematically negative, and worse they could still be negative when profits were positive!That was a genuine paradise for putdowns of Marx’s scientific credentials.So, in the case of your throwaway putdown of Engels’s scientific credentials:I’m genuinely interested in seeing an actual Engels reference that substantiates your claim that he endorses Lamarkianism,I’d genuinely like to comprehend what motivates your own putdown of Engels’s scientific credentials.

[twc]

Dave B wrote:

Engels endorsed Lamarkianism

Please support your claim by supplying us with a precise post-1859 [Origin of Species] instance.For example, in his private 1876 notes “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”, i.e. in the transition from natural evolution to social [cultural] evolution, Engels’s account may appear awfully like Lamarkianism, but that isn’t necessarily so.You see, cultural evolution, being man made, always appears to be Lamarkian.  But Marx’s and Engels’s materialism was devised to show precisely that what man culturally proposes, the inexorable internal logic of his social system, disposes.Engels always treats culture as ultimately independent of man’s wishes, and—on the contrary—that the organisation of human labour determines his culture and his will to action.For Marx and Engels, society subverts man’s intentionalism.  Intention is determined by social need, and not the other way round.  They repudiated social Lamarkianism—or the idealist explanation of culture—point blank.

Engels, in Part Played by Labour, wrote:

Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time probably elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant.But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour.Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that had undergone special development and the ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.But the hand did not exist alone, it was only one member of an integral, highly complex organism.  And what benefited the hand, benefited also the whole body it served; and this in two ways.In the first place, the body benefited from the law of correlation of growth, as Darwin called it.  …Changes in certain forms involve changes in the form of other parts of the body, although we cannot explain the connection.The gradually increasing perfection of the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted on other parts of the organism.  However, this action has not as yet been sufficiently investigated for us to be able to do more here than to state the fact in general terms.Much more important is the direct, demonstrable influence of the development of the hand on the rest of the organism.It has already been noted that our simian ancestors were gregarious; it is obviously impossible to seek the derivation of man, the most social of all animals, from non-gregarious immediate ancestors.Mastery over nature began with the development of the hand—with labour—and widened man’s horizon at every new advance.  He was continually discovering new, hitherto unknown properties in natural objects.On the other hand, the development of labour necessarily helped to bring the members of society closer together by increasing cases of mutual support and joint activity, and by making clear the advantage of this joint activity to each individual.In short, men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other.  Necessity created the organ; the undeveloped larynx of the ape was slowly but surely transformed by modulation to produce constantly more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.

Now all of this, especially the bit in bold, can be read in Lamarkian terms.    But it is actually concomitant with the pure 19th century Darwinian adaptive evolutionary speak of Darwin’s circle, e.g., Huxley, but extended by Engels to explain the origin of humanity as cultural, rather than as purely natural, beings. Engels is merely using the 19th century language of Darwinian adaptation, still used as shorthand today, even though today we are impelled in formal Darwinian discourse to treat the evolutionary process as a purely natural one of differential individual survival rates leading to new species under purely fortuitous changed environmental circumstance.But 19th century Engels is not so impelled to adopt the strict discourse of the new Darwinian synthesis, etc.  In any case, he adopts a discourse concomitant with the transition from new species to new culture that he is thinking through in these amazing unpublished notes.More importantly, Engels is primarily concerned with the transition from the domination of hominids by Darwinian evolution to their gradual freeing themselves from total Darwinian domination, and entering the phase that Marx and Engels first discovered thirty years earlier—man’s gradual domination of himself by his self-produced social evolution—a transition that neither the extraordinary Darwin nor his naturalist acolytes successfully explained.In Vere Gordon Childe’s memorable phrase, Engels is here postulating the pathway to “man creating himself”—social man, never absolutely freed from the necessities of his natural roots, but increasingly freeing himself, by himself, from them.Thus, for example, Stephen Jay Gould in the first published volume of collected essays from his “This View of Life” monthly column on evolutionary theory in Natural History:

Gould, in Ever Since Darwin wrote:

Indeed, the nineteenth century produced a brilliant exposé from a source that will no doubt surprise most readers—Frederick Engels.In 1876, Engels wrote an essay entitled, ‘The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man’.  It was published posthumously in 1896 and, unfortunately, had no visible impact upon Western science.Engels considers three essential features of human evolution:  speech, a large brain, and upright posture.He argues that the first step must have been a descent from the trees with subsequent evolution to upright posture by our ground-dwelling ancestors.“These apes when moving on level ground began to drop the habit of using their hands and to adopt a more and more erect gait.  This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.”Upright posture freed the hand for using tools (labour, in Engels’s terminology);  increased intelligence and speech came later.

Now if anybody knew a thing or two about Darwin and Lamark, it is the father of evolution through punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould.  He does not read Engels through Lamarkian spectacles.For Gould on Lamark, see pp. 62–64, and Ch. 3 of his enormous historical overview “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”—so named in honour of Thomas Kuhn’s seminal book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, which gave Gould the inspiration and the courage to demolish Darwin’s gradual evolution mechanism for Gould’s now accepted stasis–punctuation–stasis mechanism.For us, as for Marx and Engels, our current great task is to free ourselves from the tyranny of blind subservience to our capitalist mode-of-production social being, as described in our Declaration of Principles, and institute a consciously comprehended socialist mode-of-production social being as described in our Object.For Dave B, please explain how a 19th century adaptationist Darwinian could describe the emergence of cultural evolution without using quasi-Lamarkian language.  [While at it, you might also care to show us Engels’s supposed phrenology.]

[twc]

LBird’s LeninismLBird’s “democratic communist” program is characterized by the totalizing goals of his Leninist tradition:Ideology Dictates Practice“Communist” ideology authorizes “communist” practice.Authoritarian “Communism” Knows BestThe only objective truths—in art, science, etc.—are truths that have been authorized by “communist ideology”.An individual’s highest personal goal is total surrender to “communist” ideology.“Unity of Theory and Practice”“Unity of theory and practice” is enforced by “proletarian discipline”.Persons must be disciplined to think only “communist” ideology.Persons must be disciplined to perform only ideologically authorized “communist” practice.Personal DefiancePersons who oppose authorized “communist” discipline express uncomradely “anti-communist” ingratitude.Such “anti-communist” deviation must be conditioned into compliance.Anti-ElitismPersons who display undisciplined personal ability—in art, science, etc.—are performing elitist “anti-communist” practice.Such persons must be ideologically re-educated, by cutting them down to authorized “communist” size.Abilities and Needs“Communist” society determines personal “abilities” and personal “needs”.“From each according to ability to each according to needs” is decided, not by persons themselves, but by “communist” society for them.Political PowerPreservation of “communist” political power is paramount.“Communist” political power is the highest good, for which personal individuality must be renounced in ideological theory and sacrificed in ideological practice.This could be Lenin’s program, point-by-point, but for one exception, for which LBird takes immense pride.  While Lenin meant by the term “communist” the “Communist Party”,  LBird means by it his own idiosyncratic conception of the “class-conscious proletariat”, a conception that is as alien to us as it would have been to Marx. LBird’s “Democratic Proletarian Discipline”LBird’s conceptions of “communism”, “proletarian”, “discipline”, “political power”, “ideology”, etc. belong to the anti-democratic politics of the Leninist parties from which he is attempting to extricate himself.  All his conceptions are alien to us.For LBird all conceptions are “ideological”, and all practice is ideologically driven.  Furthermore, all social groupings, including social classes, are defined by shared ideologies that [upon ideological education] reflect their holder’s social status and express their holder’s political aspirations.LBird’s class-conscious proletariat is an ideologically self-defining group of included ins and excluded outs, united by a shared ideology of “proletarian” class consciousness.  Who’s in and who’s out of the “class-conscious proletariat”, and so who may vote and who may not, ultimately hangs on the ideological decision of the class-conscious proletarian ins who have the vote.LBird’s “proletarian” democracy is a social privilege conferred by the “class-conscious proletariat” upon itself.  LBird’s “class-conscious proletariat” may decide to offer “proletarian democracy” to, or remove it from, its ideological (and so political) enemies at its “democratic” whim.LBird’s “democratic proletarian discipline” is the political enforcer that guarantees the supremacy of the “class-conscious proletariat” in “democratic communist” society [sic].LBird’s “proletarian” class-consciousness is simply the recognition that everyone’s personal thoughts and personal actions in “democratic communist” society must be subordinated to “democratic proletarian discipline”.  Anyone who disagrees or disobeys is ipso facto an “ideologically-individualist capitalist elitist”.LBird’s ideologically-individualist capitalist elitists are the social pariahs of “democratic communist” society.  Refusal to buckle under “democratic proletarian discipline” displays ideological incorrectness, from which all other problems descend.  Such ideological ingrates stand in need of ideological correction.AuthoritarianismLBird describes “democratic communism” as the unity of theory and practice, in which the crucial role of “democratic communist” theory is to enforce “democratic communist” practice.The indispensable precondition for this to work is that everyone in “democratic communist” society consciously submits to the unquestioned authority of “democratic proletarian” discipline.On this submissive basis, “democratic communist” society collectively authorizes acceptable (and unacceptable) forms of social practice, including permissible (and impermissible) forms of personal behaviour, e.g., morality.For “democratic communist” theory to keep apace with a dynamic world—assuming its ideologically castrated members possess the personal dynamic drive —each and everyone without exception is obliged, through “proletarian” discipline, to actively participate in updating each and every aspect of society’s authorized corpus of currently-sanctioned universal truths.On LBird’s insightful estimation, “democratic communist” society is obliged to train each and everyone of us to PhD level [sic] in every domain of every science and every art in adequate preparation to pass censorial judgement uponevery scientific thought in every domain of every scientific practice;every artistic thought in every domain of every artistic practice.Consequently, as we obligingly submerge our personal thoughts to the authorized “communist” thoughts we are condemned to decide upon, and compelled to think exactly alike, we strengthen our collective submission to “democratic proletarian discipline” and thereby “willingly” contribute to the supposedly assured permanence of our political domination by “democratic communist” society.TotalitarianismLBird unashamedly calls his “democratic communist” society totalitarian.  And he is quite correct to do so, because LBird’s society is based upon total subservience of each and everyone of us to “proletarian discipline”.LBird takes enormous comfort in stating that he needs to be told what to think, and what to do!  His authoritarian “commune” personally reassures him.LBird’s “commune” will tell him exactly what it wants him to think, and exactly what it wants him do.  [His well-publicized personal obsession with medical operations on pregnant women—perhaps those ideologically-individualist capitalist elitists—involuntarily springs to mind as the perfect test of his insatiate zeal for “democratic communist discipline”.]LBird boasts that he is prepared to believe whatever his “commune” tells him, and to perform whatever his “commune” asks him to.  He triumphantly defies his interlocutors to think and act likewise, but sneers that they can’t and won’t.In that surmise he is also quite correct.

[twc]

Alan,Enjoyed the joke.twc 

[twc]

Well, rationalism definitely flies out the window for anyone who tries to comprehend the hidden rationality of your stunt.So, here goes…You pre-announce yourself to the public as an anti-anarchist, who is about to throw a stunt that, appearances to the contrary, only temporarily resorts to promoting the anarchist case, for political expediency, in order to shock the public into supporting an anti-anarchist case.My only rational understanding is that your vivid creativity has overcome rational qualms over trashing the Party’s unblemished intellectual integrity.

[twc]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What posting would that be?

It comes from your adulation of the reformist Popehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/pope?page=1#comment-19407I refer to your indented quotation.The PDF article is indeed interesting, although tendentially hostile to socialism in general, and the studies on early Christianity by Engels and, especially, the fine study by Kautsky, and the familiar early Marx critiques, that need a thoughtful rebuttal, time permitting.

[twc]

robbo203 wrote:

I can imagine a certain section of the population, the more politically inclined – the people you ought to be targeting first in my view – sitting up and saying "Blimey, the SPGB! Who would have thought of it., Good on 'em.  I hate effing nationalism too!"

It sends to that “more politically inclined”, and so already politically committed, section of the population the anarchist message:  Abolish the national state! The national state is a necessary part of the social superstructure of capitalism.  All the hating in the world won’t abolish the nation state before we capture it and change its social base from private to common ownership and control of the means of social life.

robbo203 wrote:

As I said, you don't know until you try it.

Really?  Do you imagine we have so little confidence in our science that we can’t foresee the consequences?

robbo203 wrote:

The uniqueness of a publicity stunt of this nature is that it doesn't discriminate between any flag; it burns the lot. Don't you think maybe, just maybe. that might make people sit up and ask – what are these guys on about?

No, I don’t think, maybe or otherwise, that people might sit up and ask anything at all; they’ll already “know” all they need to “know”, because provocative stunts fuel little more than existing prejudice.

[twc]

Alan,Baldric’s “cunning plans” were conscious coitus interruptus—unimplementable, unable to be carried to completion, predetermined to fail.Socialism plans to be consciously implementable and predetermined to succeed.I can’t see much in between. We’ve all witnessed countless creative political and social acts over the last century that turned out to be no more than “cunning plans”.  Such voluntaristic acts remind me of Marx’s critique of religion as a false consciousness, in this case the conscious acting out of a false hope, predestined to be dashed in the undertaking.By the way, I take issue with your recent posting, as if endorsing, the conclusions of a theological critique of Marx’s “cry of the oppressed masses”, as being supplanted by the “thoughts of the well-to-do”.  But such things need a considered response.

[twc]

ALB wrote:

Another silly idea.

Totally agree with ALB.Such provocative voluntarism kindly gifts those in political power the opportunity to distort the self-styled “critical thought” supposedly behind the action in countless ways prejudicial to the Party.All voluntarist political “thought” should seriously think beyond the stunt itself to the political consequences of its proposed action.  Unfortunately, it is prevented from doing so by its essentially creative free-wheeling seat-of-the-pants nature.  Like Robbo’s proposal, voluntarist “thinking” stops short at the “cunning plan” stage.Beyond that, voluntarist “thought” turns into voluntarist delusion, imagining miraculous consequences of its action, where it perpetually dwells as “half thought”—or only half thought out—best characterized as thought’s coitus interruptus. 

[twc]

To 1875, I reply:What else does a consciously socialist majority elect its parliamentary representatives to do other than to implement its socialist Object?To deny this straightforward conclusion is to enmesh one’s thought in insoluble self-inflicted contradiction, because the only alternative turns out to be a capitalist course of action.  And that’s precisely what a socialist majority elects its parliamentary representatives to abolish.A conscious socialist majority will not forgive its parliamentary representatives should they lose their socialist nerve, weaken their socialist resolve, and refuse to implement their socialist mandate at the very moment when, historically, it finally becomes possible for them to do so.So far, all seems incontrovertible—in the abstract.You ask, what happens if we are operating at the level of a political nation, or an economic sphere, and not at the level of the whole world?I reply that this much, at least, is certain:Socialism can only be implemented initially at the political level that it actually confronts, which at present is national or regional, but not global.Consequently, we had better prepare ourselves for an initial national or regional implementation, at least under present political arrangements.For a socialist majority’s parliamentary representatives to welsh on implementing their mandated socialist Object is to betray the socialist majority, whether at a national, a regional or a global level.  The political level is irrelevant to the act of betrayal.For a conscious socialist majority, betrayal is not going to happen, because a conscious socialist majority won’t allow it to happen.So, Huston, it “appears” we world socialists might have a problem:  We aim to implement a world solution, but we have no option but to implement it first at a national or regional level.Now, we may reasonably be certain that both socialists and capitalists will have been equally aware of this looming situation long before the first socialist majority in a capitalist nation, or capitalist economic sphere, consciously votes for our socialist Object.So let’s acknowledge that we recognize a problem.  But, we should never lose sight of the fact that the international capitalist class has a bigger problem, whether it recognizes it or not.It is worth turning the tables to conceive what a terrifyingly powerful warning a conscious socialist majority, even though necessarily confined to a single nation, sends to the international capitalist class.  It will send shockwaves around the capitalist world, and doubtless panic its always nervous stock markets.So let’s examine more closely this national v world problem that supposedly forces a conscious socialist majority to accommodate itself to capitalism and betray its socialist mandate:Instead of willfully convincing ourselves that a conscious socialist majority must accommodate itself to capitalism even though, at least in one country, it has agreed to abolish it, how about conceiving that the capitalist class might just now have to accommodate itself to emerging socialism.Instead of willfully convincing ourselves that the international capitalist class is united—when it is actually disunited, and engaged in commercial warfare at all levels, and particularly at the national level—how about recognizing that the international working class is united across national barriers.Instead of willfully convincing ourselves that sanctions, embargoes, blockades will weaken working class resolve for world socialism, we might recall that the capitalist class has always broken sanctions, embargoes, blockades when in its interest to do so, and so why can’t the international working class do the same, since it will be charged with implementing the sanctions, embargoes, blockades on behalf of the world capitalist class.Instead of willfully convincing ourselves that world-coordinated capitalist military power will be turned against a conscious socialist majority, how about conceiving the signal of capitalist class desperation that capitalist war-mongering against a conscious socialist majority sends across the world, and conceive how that desperate act of inhumanity might generate its own unstoppable world-wide reaction.So, we acknowledge that under present political arrangements, one nation will always arrive at its socialist destination before others.  But we also recognize that, in a global capitalist community, the rest will arrive like a peloton, not like desultory postmen on stop–start pushbikes.Parallels with socialism in one country are totally irrelevant:We are not dealing with a minority of quasi-conspiratorial “professional” revolutionaries in a pre-capitalist world, for which a capitalist mode of production is the only deterministic way forward.We are dealing with a world community of conscious world socialist organizations in a mature capitalist world.That conscious socialist majority in a modern capitalist world will not allow the foundations of capitalism to persist a moment longer than it gets its mandate to abolish them.  For it knows that, so long as capitalist social foundations persist, so too does the capitalist thought these foundations necessarily generate—that, in a nutshell, is Marx’s materialism.For socialists today to deny that the social base necessarily determines social thought is to deny our Object, our Principles and Marx’s materialism.  It is to deny the possibility of socialism.That’s precisely why those who advocate the need to accommodate a capitalist social base, finish up—despite themselves—denying one or more of our Object, our Principles, or Marx’s materialism.To merely conceive of administering a capitalist social base is to conceive of the destruction of socialism:Socialism will work as a viable social system precisely because a socialist social base necessarily generates socialist social thought.Capitalism works as a viable social system precisely because a capitalist social base necessarily generates capitalist social thought.It is ultimately for these two inter-related reasons, that a conscious socialist majority must make its first political act the creation of its own home turf—common ownership and democratic control.  And it is initially able to do so only at the political level available to it.  But it takes its stand on its own nurturing ground, in which it sows the seed of global socialism.

[twc]

We have signed up to common ownership and democratic control of the means of life by and in the interest of the whole community.Implementing common ownership and democratic control must therefore be a socialist majority’s first political act.  All else flows from this foundation.None of us has signed up to preserve private ownership and control of the means of life in the interest of the capitalist class.Abolishing private ownership and control must also be a socialist majority’s first political act.  Fortunately, it is achieved precisely, and simultaneously, by implementing common ownership and democratic control of the means of life by and in the interest of the whole community—by implementing the foundation of socialism.It therefore follows that a socialist majority has neither interest in, nor democratic mandate for, preserving private ownership and control of the means of life in the interests of the capitalist class.A socialist majority therefore immediately abolishes society’s capitalist foundations, and confronts the world, standing on its own socialist soil.A socialist majority has no interest in running capitalism, and so, most importantly, neither do its parliamentary candidates.  The need to participate in capitalism can never outweigh the need to advocate socialism.  Capitalism’s problems are always pressing.  But none of them, singly or collectively, is ever more pressing than the implementation of socialism.Abstention from capitalist decision making, as subservient to socialist advocacy—in perfect alignment with the recommended stance “WORLD SOCIALISM” on the national ballot when no socialist candidate is standing for election—is a rational socialist position, because there simply is no honourable rational socialist position that is participatory under a capitalist framework.If the party advocating common ownership and democratic control presents its case rationally, then a majority that consciously agrees with it will know precisely how to comprehend its principled socialist stance, just as it will readily comprehend how to unambiguously institute common ownership and democratic control.  A majority would never consciously stake its future on the efficacy of such a party otherwise.Socialism’s parliamentary representatives should preserve socialist clarity and integrity at all cost, since socialism itself relies upon that.If instituting common ownership and democratic control incurs the military wrath of opposing interests, a majority socialist society will by then be steeled neither to compromise nor concede.  The only reason it ever uses the armed forces, it has gained democratic control over, is in defence of its clearly demonstrated wish to preserve itself against private ownership and control of the means of life.Armed conflict is precisely what a rational socialist majority consciously seeks to avoid.  That’s precisely why its case must be rational at all times.Consequently, bravado about sabotaging capitalism is actually sabotaging socialism.  Imagining how to run capitalism, however creatively, is actually destructive of socialism.All the tricky conundrums about how to run capitalism by socialist candidates, or a majority socialist society, are genuinely insoluble.  They remain delusional pipe dreams.  Their would-be solvers finish up tying themselves in embarrassing knots.The sobering thought, as Marx showed, is that capitalist problems are not capable of solution, neither by capitalists, a socialist candidate nor a socialist majority so long as capitalist conditions of ownership and control remain in force.Nothing can be solved before common ownership and democratic control are implemented by and in the interests of the whole community.  Our Principles unambiguously state as much.  Our candidates must respect that.  We are not here to solve the unsolvable—i.e. capitalist problems, for capitalists.Only after a majority socialist society has implemented common ownership and democratic control of the means of life by and in the interests of the whole community can we begin to solve social problems rationally in the interests of the whole community.  It is only then that we begin to conceive social problems rationally.We must openly acknowledge the impossibility of hitching a socialist cart to a capitalist horse.  We need that socialist horse first.  That is Marx’s materialism.

[twc]

sarda wrote:

"Je suis Charlie", look how simple and short that principle is, but the ordinary people have easily grasp it.

“Je suis Charlie” is in no way a principle.  A principle is a rare and precious thing indeed.Principles are not immediately accessible to us.Principles are hard won by analysing phenomena, as in Clause 5.Principles are the abstractions science constructs rational explanation out of [Clause 9]—i.e. an explanation our intellect can grasp without confusion.The Party Principles are instances of hard-won abstract determinants that guide us to Socialism.Instead, “Je suis Charlie” is just a real-and-concrete concept that seeks rational explanation in terms of principles.  At most it is an emotive rallying cry.As a real-and-concrete concept, “Je suis Charlie” appears immediately accessible to us.  But immediate accessibility and comprehension are at opposite poles, like Clause 5 and Clause 9.The downside of immediate accessibility is that “Je suis Charlie” inspires no immediate analysis, and so it tends to remain un-analysed.  It tends to persist, in a state of suspended animation, in our consciousness at the dangerous level of prejudice, which is why it appeals simultaneously to everyone and to no-one, differently and the same.For its passionate adherents, “Je suis Charlie” remains a vague abstraction—an incoherent jumble in their minds of abstract determinations tossed haphazardly together, so that any identifiable principles, that constitute the chaotic conception in their minds, remain scrambled in an irrational mix.That is the opposite of Marx’s, and our, rational way forward to Socialism.You might attempt to re-read the original post with this in mind.

[twc]

Here is how DJP embedded his video—as seen from his Source text:    <p>    <iframe     src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVs"     height="315"     width="560"    allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"    ></iframe>    </p>To embed your own video, just as DJP did, follow these five steps:Copy DJP’s text [above] to a text-editor application.Replace DJP’s three values for src, height and width with your own.     So you should replace//www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVswith your own video’s web address315with your own video’s height in screen pixels560with your own video’s width in screen pixels.Check your changes, and save them as text-only.In the Socialist Party Forum “Comment:” window:Click the Source icon—currently, you can only successfully paste videos as Source text.Paste your video text at the end of your message—only if you are familiar with the rules of the web-language XHTML, should you attempt to paste your video text where you want your video to appear.Click the Source icon to revert to normal text, and you should be able to see, and to preview, your embedded video.If your video doesn’t show up, or work, check that you have not inadvertently deleted a "—you must have balanced double quotes around your values.  So carefully check your text, and try again.

[twc]

Robbo, If “discretion is needed”, then discretion over-rides your “ethics”.You’ve now gone too far, and inexpertly whittled down your “ethical” precept to don’t cross the picket line if the strike is for socialist reasons.But few strikes are for socialist reasons.  This is not quibbling but goes to the heart of applying abstractions to concrete situations:Strikes are defensive reactions against the dire human consequences of the relentless compulsion of capital to expand itself.  People almost never strike for socialist reasons—to replace the root cause of capitalist exploitation—but primarily to ameliorate their living and working conditions under capitalism, i.e. to make the best out of a bad lot.Of course, Leftists believe that all strikes are pro-socialist.If “you’ve got to use your nonce”, then your nonce over-rides your “ethics”.Rather than sticking to abstract precepts, how about practically taking someone to heart and discussing the direful repercussions of detected welfare fraud—to be careful they aren’t setting themselves up for far worse social deprivation, given the omnipresent surveillance systems now in place.  This also is not quibbling—it’s what concerned friends [may] do.We all take vicarious pleasure in Pyrrhic victories over the “system”, but only Leftists think they dent capitalism, and promote socialism.If your “particularist” solidarity excludes proletarians of some professions, and only includes those of capitalist professions you approve of, what remains of your “proletarian ethics”?  How does your code tell us which capitalist “ethical” professions to be in solidarity with?I am not “twisting” your words, but only teasing out their implication—as I see it, if they are turned into an abstract prescription—in order to point out that all “particularized ethics” boil down to “particularized” anti-ethics for those they “particularly” exclude.I simply seek to show that all such codified “ethics”—and they have to be codified for universal reference if they are deemed to be essential—are easily turned, by concrete circumstance, into the exact opposite of what they abstractly encode, and of what their framers desired.There is not a single abstract proposition dealing with human behaviour that is inviolable in the concrete.So to your questions…I answer “No, No, No”.  But my answers are far less relevant than you seek to make them, because they are concretely specific answers—unlike your “ethics” which are abstractly general—to concretely specific questions that plumb the deepest prejudices that capitalism generates.Your “particularist ethics” are pre-ordained to see someone who answers “Yes, Yes, Yes” as being unethical.  But that is not necessarily so.  They are typically guided by an opposing “particularist ethical” practice, that excludes yours.No, No, No versus Yes, Yes, Yes, is then a case of one “particularist ethics” versus its exclusionary opposite “particularist ethics”.  Here might prevails, as it invariably does.Your “particularist ethics” exclude the possibility that, under capitalism, persons act under material conditions that shape their conviction.  Their pro-capitalist actions may be highly rational—rational in dominant capitalist terms—and demonstrate their “particularist” conception of integrity.It’s the rationality of their pro-capitalist perception that we must expose by pro-socialist rationality.  Your desired proletarian solidarity ensues of its own accord.

[twc]

wrote:

A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line  or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution.

 These are not specifically socialist issues, and should be evaluated rationally according to circumstance.Most socialists don’t need an “ethical” crutch to be motivated to perform acts of working-class solidarity, and many anti-socialists act this way without socialist prompting.The worst of what you are saying is that the Party should mandate that all proletarians should:always obey the dictates of each and every Union boss, independent of whether he runs a scab Union, or whether he calls a strike for anti-socialist reasons with anti-socialist outcomes—like corrupt Union officials in cahoots with the bosses.always condone or encourage welfare fraud, independent of its punitive consequences. Why not always the same for criminal theft?always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line. What about those proletarians whose non-frontline labour safely supports the war effort, or those whose labour actively supports capitalism?

[Author]

Posts