Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.
I suppose I would have previously replied that I am not separating them, because I am denying any independent thing called ideas, they are part and parcel with matter. I reject "inkism-bauxiteism" precisely because it does separate the two things, and suggests a form of dualism.
SP,we have the evidence that millions have received our leaflets, seen our adverts, etc. They may not have read deeply, but that would only be indicative of their rejections from the get go. Their ideas are well developed, and we have to respect that decision, rather than assuming 'Ah, but if they only heard what we have to tell them!' Indeed, they often have quite complex and well developed political ideas. yes, they are misinformed, and subject to a bombardment of propaganda, but they are not brainwashed or conmpletely subsumed by ideology, as the Leniniss would have us believe. Our working assumption has to be that they are rational agents, who can run their own lives, and see working within the system as it is as their best option.
LBird,pardon me, but whn did I separate matter and mind? I've said that mind is made of the sam stuff as the rocks, and is material and part of necessity (and is thus not some pale reflection or spearate stuff that mirrors or copies the real world, but is in fact the real world itself). I was merely pointing out, again,why I don't use the term Fishism-Sodiumism like you do (or whatever it is you say, i forget). I just use spoonism because at the very least it suggestion of rejection an anthropocentric univers and reflects the fact that there is only blancmange.
LBird, matter was here before mind, including the need to keep a human brain runnign before it can do any thinking. No matter what the logic of a position, deeprive a brain of oxygen or proteins for a sustained period, it'll styart producing poor ideas. hat need ultimately comes down to the exterior world and any set of ideas we posses must be consistent with our ability to go on providing our brains with oxygen and proteins.
SP,I think that under estimates the amouint of thought people put into supporting capitalism, and for most people it is a lot. Hours upon hours are spent arguing in the pub, watching telly, reading leaflets (including ours). If they don't read very far that is because they reject our idea tout court. much in the same way I'm not going to waste my time on the writings of The Campaign to restore Feudalism, or any such.I'm afraid you have to wake up to the fact that millions of workers have read our propaganda, heard our message, and rejected it. Even if they have not specifically read our literature, they are aware of the critiques of the market, and usually reject them and accept market ideas.
Lived experience is the whole of the human, mind and senses living their lives (and reaching for and creating a personal identity) it is act-ual being, and what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational, etc. All experience is culturally mediated. No one can introduce the lived experience, otehr than humans themselves in their daily lives. Ideas that doen't fit with the daily reproduction of life will be rejected.This comes back to the old debate about whetehr revolutions are for something new, or to save somethign old. What gives a greater impetus, people who have nothing wanting something, or people who have something striving to retain it? Whatever the answer to that one it (and I think the jury is still out) socialist ideas won't take until they necome necessary to complete the identity of individuals.
I believe the Japanese pure communists were distinctive in their actual views, they took on board ideas received from abroad, but they wouldn't have listened to them (or adapted them) if they didn't fit with their needs and their apprehensions of their cconditions. Our ideas are part of material consitions, and can feed into the growth of socialist consciousness/culture, but they'll only take, to continue the agrarian metaphor, in the right soil.
I think we need to take workers' opinions at face value. When asked, time and again they support capital;ist parties, and capitalist ideas. When presented with the case for socialism, they reject it. That's why workers vote Tory, Libreral and Labour. Unless and until their lived experience accords with socialist understanding (and the need for socialist ideas) they will go on supporting capitalism. All we can do is make that coming to socialist consciousness a little easier, and mean that workers' don't have to re-invent the wheel each time.
I think this in part comes down to a correction I heard one party member make: we're not here to make socialists, we're here to catch socialists. The Party is not about persuading workers to socialism, but finding those who al;ready have socialist consciousness. In my own case, I joined the party because it agreed with me, not because I agreed with the party (and I am perfectly prepared to walk away should I find that the party disagrees with me). It's more a case of if we're right then capitalism will begin to generate socialistically minded workers, and if we're wrong, at least we've done no harm.
Ah, the lecture is now available online:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/constitution-unit-news/141014
SP,actually, history shows it's the upper ecxhelons who remain loyal to the regime. Pinochet had to assasinate his way through the Army ranks to become Generalissimo, and Franco was a Colonel as well. What we need to see off the threat of a military coup is a solid majority, and to hold back adventurers who might give them an excuse to act unconstitutionally.
Party Poll wrote:"(A) Shall branches and members be required to abide strictly to the terms of the 1988 Conference resolution (V51/2.18)? or (
Shall members and branches revert to the previous practice of using the full or shortened version of the Party's name at their own discretion? A: 131. B: 116."So, the party poll only required observance of a conference resolution, it did not establish a form of name, nor did it state that future conference resolutions could not be passed on the subject . No new party poll is needed. The party poll has not been superseded, nor need it be, it no longer has force.
I really don't want to go into this again, but nothing unconstitutional has happened. The Party Poll called for strict adherence to a conference resolution, that resolution has since been superseded. There has been no Party Poll setting out the form of name, and subsequent conference decisions were made because things like the Internet didn't exist when the original style guide was endorsed.
Well, lets try this: we don't particularly care who our candidates are, since they are going to vote exclusively as instructed by our membership, so they could be any of us. In other parties, the elected representetives set the policy (in effect) and the freer they are from binding policies the easier they have it. One way of being free is to have primaries, the candidate runs on their own personal manifesto, which would become the party manifesto if they are chosen to contest the seat by the party.We want people to join the party, in order to effect direct democracy, and bind our delegates. When the party is billions strong, it would effectively dissolve into the community and simply be the structure for anyone to come along and instruct a delegate (the party membership lists just become an electoral roll, etc.).
Don't think it's derailing the topic overmuch. I've found more time at a keyboard. Primaries are for burkeans, they remove the relationship between an organised party and the candidate, in essence reducing voters to passive reflectors choosing between free agents who can represent whatever positions they wish (in the states, it often comes down to who has the most money to reach out to get the most name recognition). With primaries, instead of a membership voting on policy and selecting candidates (and removing candidates!), anyone can put themselves forward as the Socialist Candidate, with whatever policies they (and they alone) want, and see if they can win a majority. In between elections, there is no connection. Active membership of a party represents a qualitative commitment that should be rewarded with access to structures that shape and form policy. Indeed, to my mind, party membership is far more important than votes, and one way in which parliament could be used by the socialist movement is that once there is a majority, the party structures could effectively become the mechanism for direct democracy (the party is the workers councils).As to the House of Lords, there is the prospect of bits end looming. If the Liberals get wiped out (or reduced to a rump in the commons next year) they will still have 105 out of 793 Lords. This will not go unnoticed that they will remain a power in the land despite the elections. Indeed, it could be that to get rid of their undemocratic remnants whoever forms the next government will have to abolish the place. (Any putative UKIP government would have to spoend at least two years fighting the joint).
