Largest party in Europe
- This topic has 64 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, Marx might be wrong.
'Might'? Are you some sort of idolater, YMS?Of course Marx was wrong, at times.That's not what's at issue, though, here.What's at issue is that the argument that you're making on this thread is nothing to do with Marx.Once you are clear about that, we can discuss whether you are right and Marx is wrong, or vice versa.It's better than pretending that in some way that you're following Marx.Why not just say that you're not a Marxist?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless. They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote. this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is.This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless. They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote. this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is.This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.
tbis whole argument hinges on the premise that we all, as gnome says, have the same brain, that the working class all operate like one monolithic thinking machine. We all have a brain, we all have similar brains however we do not all have anywhere near the same brains. Our brains and the way they function are effected by many different factors.There is a plethora of evidence, for instance to show that cognitive development in children exposed to neglect, privation and abuse is massively different to those children who experience warm nurturing experiences in the first 3 or so years in their life. For example the limbic system of children who have experienced abusive parenting is often massively overdeveloped in comparison to children who have been nurtured. This overdevelopment is mirrored by a lack of development in the cerebral cortex. Just as another example of how different factors impact, studies of the impact of lead poisoning on cognitive ability have been highlighted in recent years. The fall in the use of lead in petrol has been linked to many things, including falling crime rates and the Flynn Factor.it is easy to dismiss this as bourgeois science, in fact it's nearly all carried out by waged labour, however it needs to inform our practice.We need to understand that we live in a what some people with Asperger's s Syndrome describe as a neuro diverse world. Yes class and economic circumstances play a massive part in how we think and experience our world, but it is not the only factor in spreading Socialist ideas.The case for socialism is a class based solution, however we need to recognise that the case for socialism is a multi dimensional one. Because of this our approach to propaganda needs to be multi dimensional. Some workers will find the economic arguments attractive, some the social arguments. Some will find written material persuasive some will prefer visual material more their cup of tea. Some may even find strong regional accents light their candle!
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, Marx might be wrong.'Might'? Are you some sort of idolater, YMS?Of course Marx was wrong, at times.That's not what's at issue, though, here.What's at issue is that the argument that you're making on this thread is nothing to do with Marx.Once you are clear about that, we can discuss whether you are right and Marx is wrong, or vice versa.It's better than pretending that in some way that you're following Marx.Why not just say that you're not a Marxist?
Karl Marx was not a Marxist either. It was Bakunin who said that the peoples that supported Marx's view were Marxists, and Engels also used the same wrong expression. Marx was a socialist-communist, and Engels too. The one also using constantly the same accusations are the Anarchists , and they do not know that Marx was also an Anarchist, and Rudolf Rocker created the concept of the "Church of Marx", probably you belong to that church. You are always hanging in the neck some type of labels to others peoples , like you are riding on a high horse, and then when others peoples answer back, you start to cry like a little child. Marx was wrong in many aspects, and you are wrong too
mcolome1 wrote:… you start to cry like a little child.More wonderful political analysis from the SPGB.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:… you start to cry like a little child.More wonderful political analysis from the SPGB.
You sound like an apologist of the individualistic conception of history, An individual does not make the SPGB, it is an organization composed of several individuals. IF we are so bad, What are looking for in this forum ?
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:… you start to cry like a little child.More wonderful political analysis from the SPGB.
That was not the whole idea. Why you did not cite the whole thing ? You look like a tricky person
Coincidentally George Monbiot writes about democracy in his column which is a good read (as he often is)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/04/democracy-people-power-governments-policy
Quote:We base our political decisions on who we are rather than what we think. In other words, we act politically – not as individual, rational beings but as members of social groups, expressing a social identity. We seek out the political parties that seem to correspond best to our culture, with little regard to whether their policies support our interests. We remain loyal to political parties long after they have ceased to serve us….The idea that parties are guided by policy decisions made by voters also seems to be a myth; in reality, the parties make the policies and we fall into line. To minimise cognitive dissonance – the gulf between what we perceive and what we believe – we either adjust our views to those of our favoured party or avoid discovering what the party really stands for. This is how people end up voting against their interests.He makes an interesting point on the use of language in political discourses which is something we perennially do in our self-analysis and self-criticisms. If the weakness exists, if we vote by social identity then it is the lack of class identity which is at the core of the problems. We may be a class in itself, but certainly, not a class for itself (which is so often said it has grown rather a passe comment)As i never weary saying, it is now time that we have a whole re-evaluation of how the party practices its principles in the light of our declining numbers and influence.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Coincidentally George Monbiot writes about democracy in his column which is a good read (as he often is)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/04/democracy-people-power-governments-policyQuote:We base our political decisions on who we are rather than what we think. In other words, we act politically – not as individual, rational beings but as members of social groups, expressing a social identity. We seek out the political parties that seem to correspond best to our culture, with little regard to whether their policies support our interests. We remain loyal to political parties long after they have ceased to serve us….The idea that parties are guided by policy decisions made by voters also seems to be a myth; in reality, the parties make the policies and we fall into line. To minimise cognitive dissonance – the gulf between what we perceive and what we believe – we either adjust our views to those of our favoured party or avoid discovering what the party really stands for. This is how people end up voting against their interests.He makes an interesting point on the use of language in political discourses which is something we perennially do in our self-analysis and self-criticisms. If the weakness exists, if we vote by social identity then it is the lack of class identity which is at the core of the problems. We may be a class in itself, but certainly, not a class for itself (which is so often said it has grown rather a passe comment)As i never weary saying, it is now time that we have a whole re-evaluation of how the party practices its principles in the light of our declining numbers and influence.
I have known many political organizations in the past who had a larger membership than the SPGB and the whole membership of the WSM and they do not exist at the present time, they vanished, or the members decided to dismantle the whole organization. if we decide to become a reformist organization our membership will increase right away
Wasn't three-quarters of the content of German Ideology aimed primarily at Stirner, and three-quarters of the remainder aimed at other members of the Young Hegelians who are no longer read except if it is on the curricula of your university philosophy course? Was it also very much a joint effort. From Wiki
Quote:The Preface and some of the alterations and additions are in Marx's hand; the bulk of the manuscript, however, is in Engels' hand, except for Chapter V of Volume II and some passages of Chapter III of Volume I which are in Joseph Weydemeyer's hand. Chapter V in Volume II was written by Moses Hess and edited by Marx and Engels.alanjjohnstone wrote:Wasn't three-quarters of the content of German Ideology aimed primarily at Stirner, and three-quarters of the remainder aimed at other members of the Young Hegelians who are no longer read except if it is on the curricula of your university philosophy course? Was it also very much a joint effort. From WikiQuote:The Preface and some of the alterations and additions are in Marx's hand; the bulk of the manuscript, however, is in Engels' hand, except for Chapter V of Volume II and some passages of Chapter III of Volume I which are in Joseph Weydemeyer's hand. Chapter V in Volume II was written by Moses Hess and edited by Marx and Engels.Written to clarify their thoughts. An extract from an article written by the Socialist Party of Great Britain about the German Ideology:A word of caution is in order here. Years later Marx, and particularly Engels, didn't attach too much importance to these early manuscripts of theirs and didn't think them worth publishing. Which is not surprising since at least two-thirds of the 700 pages of the German Ideology is taken up with a line by line polemic against Max Stirner, the father of individualist anarchism. But the first part, a criticism of the philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, contains what Engels described in 1888 as "an exposition of the materialist conception of history which proves only how incomplete our knowledge of economic history still was at that time". This is a fair criticism as in parts the arguments are scrappy and undeveloped, but it is the exposition of the general theory rather than its attempted application that is of relevance today.
LBird wrote:gnome wrote:K.Marx in The German Ideology wrote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.[my bold]Marx here is saying:
Quote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of social production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant social relationships, the dominant social relationships grasped as ideas.When Marx writes 'material', he's contrasting it with 'ideal', that is, contrasting 'human' with 'divine'.Marx is talking about human, social, production, not 'matter'. That was Engels' misunderstanding of Marx.In effect, Marx simply means that the social theory and practice of production dominates the social theory and practice of politics.How we create our world dominates how we see that world.
It looks like when Marx and Engels decided to write The German Ideology, Marx said I am going to write according to the idealist point of view, and you ( Engels ) are going to write according to your materialist point of view. The reality is that both wrote the same book based on the same ideas, and for the same purpose, unless i read it in Jeroglifix
Another excellent summary made by the Socialist Party in regard to the German Ideology:Need for Empirical ResearchMarx and Engels called their approach to history materialist to contrast it with the idealist approach they were criticising which held that ideas were the dominant forces in history. On the contrary, said Marx and Engels, ideas arise from material social conditions so it is with the study of these conditions that all historical research must begin:“The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way (p.42).and,“The fact is, therefore that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production” (p.46).That the materialist conception of history insists on scientifically-conducted empirical observation of what real men actually do has sometimes been forgotten by many who consider themselves Marxist. They have mistakenly treated the materialist conception of history as a short-cut to understanding history without needing to study the results of historical research.The German Ideology is not itself a work of original research, but is rather a preliminary elaboration of some general theoretical conclusions suggested by the research of others.
alanjjohnstone wrote:As i never weary saying, it is now time that we have a whole re-evaluation of how the party practices its principles in the light of our declining numbers and influence.I think that the problems go far deeper, alan.It's not simply a case of 'practices' which need 'a whole re-evaluation'.To me, the underlying problem is the party's 'principles'.I don't mean the written document, but the hidden, underlying, unspoken, perhaps even unconscious, 'principles' which form the worldview(s?) of the membership.I'm still not sure, after more than 3 years of engagement, whether the party is a 'Marxist' party (in either a 19th century Engelsist sense, or a Marxist one), whether the party is committed to "workers' power", whether the party puts 'democracy' ahead of 'individual freedom' – in short, whether the party's idea of 'socialism' is that of Marx, power in the hands of the direct producers, and no elite above the masses.Again, to me, a 'shorthand' test of these issues, is to ask any supposed 'socialist party' the question: "Who controls the production of 'truth'?"The simple answer for a 'socialist party' (in the sense I understand that term) is 'the democratic producers'. That's the basic 'principle' to build for 'socialism'.Any other answer – god, cadre, matter, 'reality', 'me as an individual', Stephen Hawking, etc., etc., shows me that that party is not 'socialist'.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.