Community-Wealth

[twc]

Alan,Those extracts from Debs’s speeches are excellent stuff, attacking voluntarism, bolshevism, etc.  I now understand your tempered admiration, and am happy to retract my comments regarding your signature.Nonetheless, my comments on replacing the term “socialism” stand.

[alanjjohnstone]

But all this is a distraction from my already admitted ignorance of how we as a party can connect with the working class…If it is just a matter of waiting for my fellow workers to acquire socialist consciousness, then i'll just sit in the pub and wait there for them…why bother with all this hassle if i am immaterial to it. But i ascribe to the belief that consciousness also arises partly from talking and discussing, sharing thoughts, a collective communication…and the issue is how we as an organisation and individual members of it are not succeeding in being effective in that task.Blame the workers for not being receptive? Blame the ruling class for having their ideas prevail? Blame the language being used? Perhaps we have been approaching the question in the wrong way.  People have heard what we have to say but they reject it. The words we use is part of it. And if anybody has read my contributions to the Socialist Courier, they would know i am not readily surrendering our traditional socialist language but busily trying to reclaim it. But i also acknowledge, it is different strokes for different folks…Rod has touched upon how simple phrases don't necessarily have the same meaning for everybody. Ever since the Situationists there has been the question of imagination and how we convey what we think and what we want…(people can refer me to their predecessors, i only mention them from my own political evolution.) Again i have often talked about blueprints and a general map…I want socialism…the SPGB is one of the tools to achieve it, imho. At times, it becomes blunted and needs sharpened up… at times, it gets rusty from lack of use and needs polished up…But if a new tool appears that is better and more fit for purpose then i will place my SPGB tool back in the tool box and and use the new one.And in the meantime what exactly is wrong with studying the instruction manual again and checking we are using the old tool in the correct manner? 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And in the meantime what exactly is wrong with studying the instruction manual again and checking we are using the old tool in the correct manner?

I think that you're spot on with your sentiments here, ajj. But that 'studying and checking' is at heart a philosophical exercise, rather than a practical one. I only need say again, the old mantra, 'theory and practice'. If our 'theory' is astray, then there is no hope for our 'practice'. 'Theorising' is pointless unless it is put to the test of 'practice', but, nevetheless, 'theory' comes first in the dialogue.I think that what you're proposing is exactly what I've being doing with all my posts, but the 'basics' of my views have been constantly challenged, with every right, by twc. But you seem to regard these important exchanges (to me, anyway) as too 'high-flown' for ordinary workers to engage in.

ajj, to twc, wrote:

These questions has been my explicit aim posting several links and comments while you have busied yourself with Lbird on the Meaning of Life.

In addition to my attempts to discuss the philosophical basis of 'science' (which I regard as a key debate for Communists), I also think that, in line with your ideas, I've also tried to open up 'economics' to 'ordinary' workers, by trying to get a discussion going about the meaning of Marx's ideas, an explanation of Capital. To me, just repeating Marx's often mysterious formulae is not working; the 20th century has proved that. Most workers don't understand 'exploitation', even though they endure it every day. To me, this is the fault of Communists, not workers; that is, the fault of worker-communists, not the wider class. Experience doesn't simply lead to theory. Theory is a creative impulse by communist-workers.I think I agree with twc here (if I understand them correctly), that there is no necessary need to jettison all old terms and phrases; they can be put forward anew, with better explanations.To me, the 'ideas of the ruling class' are still the dominant ones, even amongst many Communists, as we constantly hear when discussing 'individuals' and 'discovery science'. If I were pushed, I would list the tripod of ruling class ideas as consisting of "I'm an individual", "Science produces the Eternal Truth" and "There is no alternative to The Market". I think, even amongst Communists, only the latter has so far been successfully challenged.But even that successful challenge is not being disseminated amongst the class, but is being kept secret by lack of explanation.

[alanjjohnstone]

[quote-LBird]I think I agree with twc here (if I understand them correctly), that there is no necessary need to jettison all old terms and phrases;[/quote]I have already conceded that point to a large degree when i said

Quote:

And if anybody has read my contributions to the Socialist Courier, they would know i am not readily surrendering our traditional socialist language but busily trying to reclaim it.

And one of my other points is exactly as you go on to say:

LBird wrote:

…they can be put forward anew, with better explanations.I also think that, in line with your ideas, I've also tried to open up 'economics' to 'ordinary' workers

To be anti-intellectual i always found the comic book versions…Capital For Beginners…Marx For Beginners more digestible than the original, not perfect and possess  flaws but for me adequate……Libcom has a link for Capital in Manga, i notice. 

Quote:

by trying to get a discussion going about the meaning of Marx's ideas, an explanation of Capital. …Most workers don't understand 'exploitation', even though they endure it every day.

If a patient has an illness, it helps to have a description of it, what caused it and what will cure it with a prognosis of how successful the treatment will be…But we don't need a molecular cell analysis of the disease…Here's your symptoms…do you agree with the diagnosis …here then is the remedy…and if you are start taking the medicine ,is it working…any side-effects…okay we'll up the dose…reduce the dose…try another drug…(sorry for the over-simplification but you dealing with a well-read simpleton here) 

LBird wrote:

To me, just repeating Marx's often mysterious formulae is not working

And even i usually give up reading an economics article as soon as an algebraic equation appears. History was my strong point in school, not maths. But be different for some others. 

LBird wrote:

Experience doesn't simply lead to theory. Theory is a creative impulse by communist-workers.

I'll re-phrase that to read class struggle doesn't automatically lead to socialist consciousness…Other things are also required for it to arise…educate – agitate – organise

LBird wrote:

To me, the 'ideas of the ruling class' are still the dominant ones, even amongst many Communists"

Also perhaps substitute the political agenda of the ruling class dominates the debate and diverts "communists" into reforms

LBird wrote:

I've being doing with all my posts, but the 'basics' of my views have been constantly challenged, with every right, by twc. But you seem to regard these important exchanges (to me, anyway) as too 'high-flown' for ordinary workers to engage in.

I have tried to follow the debate and again it is a matter time and place for such. I  think i said keep at it and continue debating but don't expet too many to participate. We simply don't have the back ground knowledge or the relevant reading at times when academic authorities are deferred to. Call it a division of labour if you wish. But i did criticise it for not often being related to practical politics of what to do and how to do it at one message on the thread. You acknowledged that was your own weakness…so i will blame you So now the question is just how do you help understanding …do that successfully with philosopy and you can do it with economics and whole lot of other stuff … Alisdair McIntyre talks of turn of 20c century and scarcely a miners hovel was not without a copy of Dietzgen, a self taught philosopher…autodidactics …Just how we recreate such agai when the person's average attention span is now a 10 minute YouTube Video…albeit an improvment on the 3 minute commercial.I've alread mentioned socialist cartoon books …and i often talk of animated videos as our medium. Is this dumbing down or simply latching on. 

[steve colborn]

Alan, I wish you luck in continuing to add "elements" to the Socialist Crucible. If enough members contribute their own "elemental" ideas maybe, just maybe, some new way of propogating the case, in a more acceptable and workable way, will emerge.Deconstruct, then reconstruct. Analyze then theorise. The more we do, the better chance of hitting the "sweet spot". The golfers ultimate, hitting a hole in one on a long par hole! However, in this instance, it is much, much more important. "Our" goal is the emanicipation of our class and the transfer of the whole world, into our "collective" hands. No mean feat but if achieved?

[alanjjohnstone]

I have to emphasis that i don't think me or any other single member possesses any answers, just that each of us may possess one piece of the jigsaw which we can add. But we won't know until we start offering them and trying to put them in place. Some will try and force the wrong jigsaw piece into the wrong space…others will suggest where it should correctly go. We require group-think. Something that always puzzled me is why some of our members in academia drop out of membership…no disagreement dispute on principles, they seem to just disappear from contact…and go on to write or do research that the party would have little to contend with. In fact we have often written approving reviews of their later work in the Standard. The SWP seem to maintain their "intellectuals" but except in a few cases ours depart. I'm not mentioning this because of some hierarchy of status within the party which serves the SWP experience, (the first steps in a two tier membership) but because we lose out on a certain amount of credibilty when we fail to produce such endorsements and we suffer from lack access to the ivory towers of education and the media elite. I have noted countless conferences and seminars related intimately to our party case where we simply are excluded from and would only receive a patronising smile if we turned up at the doors to leaflet. Imagine for the sake of argument if Chomsky handed out the leaflet and the difference that would make in its receipt!The BBC etc look for those with letters after their name so that they discuss with authority, have a professional qualification to support their argument. A bus-driver from Dagenham rightly or wrongly does not receive the same respect as a university professor discussing the crisis and underconsumptionism ….unless of course he happens to be a union leader, perhaps, and not even always then. Until we raise the option of another way…i did get shot down on flames by suggesting that we justify our egalitarianism through selection by lots for spokespersons, we have to face that is the reality of the mass media. Some others have suggest a panel of members, vetted for their knowledge and trained in interview techniques but i don't think it solves the problem of perception. I have written about the proponents of the the alternative new economics which are just the rehash of past populist reforms …professor this…professor that… We could make more use of those that present much of our own position – Mattick, Kliman, Paresh Chattopadhyay etc etc . Sure they are not 100% in line with ourselves but in many regards they reflect our views. We have had some success in demonstrating this with interviews. Would it be too much to seek more exchanges with them…offer a regular page for them in the Standard, as the Western Socialist did for Mattick Snr. and ask for the occasional submission or like any newspaper  or journal simply seek comment,  a quote, or an opinion for us to publish and in doing so raise our own profile on the web. They might even consider it as a simple donation to a cause they share , in lieu of cash. I simply say again i am somewhat puzzled and wonder why we fail in this area. For a revolutionary party, i do sometimes think we are very conservative in our thinking.    

[twc]

No, no, no!It is up to voluntarist Andrew Kliman, Paul Mattick Jr, etc. to seek us out, unbidden, or not at all.  We neither need, nor seek, political advice from our opponents.That has been the party case for a century.  Nothing new of substance has intervened to change it.It’s no small political, and therefore theoretical, matter that Andrew Kilman [forget about Mattick] probably disagrees with our Object, definitely disagrees with our Declaration of Principles—which he considers at best quaint and at worst contemptible—and scoffs at our political practice.The party has always recognized that it can’t force consent from others to our unique century-old political position.  But it has also recognized that, on matters political, and to that extent theoretical matters, our opponents have to learn from us before both of us can achieve socialism.We have nothing political, and to that extent theoretical, to learn from them.  The party has always recognized their practice as reactionary—as obstructive to socialism.  It is they who must learn from us.Now, to marxian economics.I have unbounded admiration, and extreme gratitude, toward Andrew Kliman’s (and his TSSI colleagues’) reclamation of Marx’s Capital.  I declare this unreservedly.Through the strange contingencies of history, the TSSI became absolutely necessary for the survival of marxian economics, and will turn out to be the greatest service ever rendered to it since Marx.  In the fullness of time, when the next generation wonders what the fuss was all about, the TSSI will seem inevitably Marx.  There can be no greater tribute.Andrew Kliman has written his remarkable book, as clearly as he possibly can.  That still does not necessarily make it an easy book for everyone to read.  If party members want to understand it, it’s up to them to read it.Just imagine the power of a party that adheres to its century-old Obj and DOP, that treats the materialist conception of history as Marx’s theory of social necessity and of the formation of social consciousness that conforms to social necessity, and that comprehends marxian economics at a sufficient level to appreciate the TSSI.Such a party is unstoppable.That, Alan, is the political answer, and the only political answer, to your quandary. P.S.  While discussing your Debs signature, I toyed with a signature of my own, trying it out on a test post that I subsequently deleted.  I hadn’t realized that signatures run wild, retrospectively appending themselves to all previous posts.  [Surely this is a software bug—signatures should be time-stamped.]In any case, the damage is now done, and you will have to live with my signature until I decide to delete it.So here it is, dynamically appended by the forum software.

[alanjjohnstone]

twc wrote:

That, Alan, is the political answer, and the only political answer, to your quandary.

I accept it is your answer but i refer you to my rider in my comment 

alanjohnstone wrote:

I have to emphasis that i don't think me or any other single member possesses any answers, just that each of us may possess one piece of the jigsaw which we can add. But we won't know until we start offering them and trying to put them in place. Some will try and force the wrong jigsaw piece into the wrong space…others will suggest where it should correctly go. We require group-think.

Too often i have heard it stated that because a person is not in 100% agreement with us on 100% of our case they are opposed to us and we must oppose them.I have begun to use the expression that people arrive at socialist socialism via their own political journey and in doing so bring along their own particular baggage.Ours is the breakaway from the SDF and the hostility clause – a useful weapon but we should know who to aim it at (and when it is to be used.)  But TWC you miss an important point…i accept that certain figures who possess a higher profile and a better standing in the media do not agree with us … but i suggested we make use of what comradely relationship they possess with us. Occasionally a themed issue is planned for the Socialist Standard well in advance. I suggest that we seek supporting statements from thinkers and writers who share our views on those topics. You say "It is up to voluntarist Andrew Kliman, Paul Mattick Jr, etc. to seek us out, unbidden, or not at all."They are merely workers like ourselves and as someone, someplace said, we been waiting for workers to muster under our banner for a long, long time and they simply didn't, not even all those who were indeed genuine sociaists already.Shouldn't we be asking why we have the sign up saying open for business and don't have any customers? The mountain won't come to the Mohammed so perhaps we should go to the mountain. Is it simply a matter of better advertising to draw attention to ourselves? Or perhaps it is a matter of what we have on offer? Have we on display some old humble pie, a bit of pie in the sky but keeping our really tastier dishes under the counter, hidden away rather than having them the centre of attention. One thing we must discuss and agree what our a la carte menu should be ….what part of the socialist case should be emphasised…what the dish of the day should be that will whet the appetites to try the rest of what is on offer.  

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The mountain won't come to the Mohammed so perhaps we should go to the mountain.

He's one person we should definitely have nothing to do with, so good idea to leave him behind or even drop the mountain on him.

[colinskelly]

twc wrote, 'The party has kept the original meaning of “socialism” alive for a century '.  But the party's definition wasn't the original meaning of the term socialism, which derived from Owenite socialism in the 1820s.  From the 1880s to around 1914 it could be argued that it was more or less synonymous with 'communist' or 'social-democrat' .  Thereafter 'communist' became synonymous with Soviet state-capitalism and 'socialist' and 'social-democrat' with Labour politics.  We are holding to a definition of socialism not the defintion of socialism.  The meaning of socialism is fluid not frozen.  It is contested territory and we are occupy a very small piece of that territory at present.

[alanjjohnstone]

"Co-operative commonwealth" was a one-time used term …The IWW used "Industrial democracy" and various others. Collective ownership = Common ownership.Attempts at creating new terminology are not that successful either…"Participatory economics"…Resource based economics"…Even such language as Workers Socialist Party was one time used by the WSPUS but some would say that raises misconceptions about supposed non-workers…unemployed…disabled…And,of course,substituting People as in Peoples Democracies has also been discredited .I think it is a matter of people finding and selecting their own descriptions…as Occupy did with slogans 1% versus 99%…horizontal  democracy… We may not formally drop our titles and certainly cannot jettison historical facts aboutt our past but in our current propaganda and campaigns and depending on the audience we reach out to…, our language doesn't always necessarily need be overly skewed towards conceptions that many now understand quite differently. If other movement's language equates or overlaps with our meaning why not adopt it …I'm not suggesting hard and fast rules…but flexibility of approach. 

[twc]

For crying out loud collinskelly, what pedantic academic hairsplitting demoralizing undermining drivel.We have kept our Object alive for a century in the teeth of everyone else, avowed foe and deluded friend, who hold a different meaning.  You’d imagine that one or two of us had noticed that fact before we got your advice on the subject.If you wish to make a pedantic hairsplitting demoralizing undermining drivellous point that ‘socialism’ has other meanings for other people, please divulge your demoralizing undermining reason for bringing up what we all already know.Is it your ploy or your prelude to undermining our own Object?  Is it?  Have the B. guts to give a straight answer to that straight question, not a pedantic academic hairsplitting demoralizing undermining drivellous one.Yours is the sort of demoralizing pedanticism that serves no purpose but to weaken resolve.Explain yourself, or go off and join the 99.999% whose ‘socialism’ you are far more comfortable with.

[alanjjohnstone]

TWC,  no one knows who their friends and allies are because they take issue with anyone who doesn’t mirror their own opinions. Not only take issue with them,  but accuse them of being in the camp of their “enemies”. Stop making the good the enemy of the perfect. You can‘t be an army of one.

[moderator1]

Reminder: Rule 7.  You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[twc]

Alan,As you once said, quite wrongly of me, keep your eye on the ball.A condition of party membership is adherence to our socialist Object.  Why?  Because we hold it to be an invariant—invariably true—unconditionally.Consequently, such pre-historical niceties over my innocent [mis]use of the term “original”, and then post-historical bother over “socialism’s” deplorably multiple concurrent meanings, is bound to strike me as by no means an innocent contribution to a discussion over your floated suggestion to drop our traditional term “socialism”.In that context, I found it impossible not to see all the historical fuddiness as mere prelude to the author’s hip conclusion that “the meaning of socialism is fluid not frozen”.I found it impossible not to see his whole historical apparatus as fanfare to the conclusion that variability is the new invariant, invariably true, unconditionally— that variable meaning takes precedence over our frozen “original” corpse of a meaning, which is apparently stuck frigid in the historical ice age, while the vibrant fluidity of changing terminology and squishy meaning flourishes all around.Surely that was not an unreasonable conclusion for me to draw from his conclusion?Even after your rapid jump to personal defence, which I admire, while recognizing that it is also conveniently a simultaneous defence of your own variable position, I remain concerned. What on earth can a conclusion that  “the meaning of socialism is fluid not frozen” imply on a world-socialist site which supports an invariant socialist Object?That conclusion rings socialist alarm bells!  I detect ground being laid to facilitate a creeping normalcy which slowly, imperceptibly, but actually, seeks to change the meaning of “socialism” to suit opinion.I freely admit that I may be severely over-reacting to a bit of harmless historical correction. That’s why I asked for a clarification.  If I have over-reacted in defence of our meaning—“original” or otherwise—of “socialism”, then I will apologize unreservedly.I trust I have explained my behaviour to your and Admin’s satisfaction, and defended my actually innocent action.

[Author]

Posts