Late Imperial China
- This topic has 114 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Exactly!
Marcos strikes me as a Marx devotee in the manner of the leftist regimentalised parties.
Of the system of Imperial China, is there no convenient -ism that we can call it?
I did not say to agree with everything, but the SPGB is based on the three basic conceptions of Marx, otherwise, they should be eliminated from the application such as the class struggle, the labour law of value and the materialist conception of history, and I answered those question myself, therefore I wasted my time answering them. I know Kevin Anderson and I have read his books and we both were writers in the same newspaper and he does not have the same perception about Marx like TM has described, they have their rejection toward Engels in regard to Origin of the Family. I know pretty well the difference of the SPGB with Marx and I have also translated those opinions and I have distributed them too, but despite that they do not have the same perception, no even the followers of Bakunin have the same opinions or the Anarchists, and I know several from different countries. I have read the same perceptions from USA and Cuban right-wingers intellectuals who want to destroy the image of Marx and Engels
TM: “Yet Marx dismissed Chinese civilisation as barbarism and superstition. He appreciated capitalism and Europe, but despised the people and lands the Europeans colonised for capitalism. Millennia of their history and achievements was as nothing to him. For him, capitalism shocked the barbarous, stupid and ignorant into civilisation.”
I agree with Marcos on this one.That’s a vile libel on Marx.
We don’t agree with everything Marx did or said. And when we agree with what he said it is not because he did.
But we don’t blacken his name like die-hard apologists for capitalism who hate the words socialism or communism do, which is where that lie comes from.
Of course Marx didn’t “despise the people and the lands the Europeans colonised for capitalism“. He was a socialist not a racist. That’s a provocation too far.
Exactly!
Marcos strikes me as a Marx devotee in the manner of the leftist regimentalised parties.
TM
When you were leaving I was coming back. I grew up in this movement, and I did not learn seating in a rocking chair, I risked my life to be part of this movement, and I saw many friends and comrades being killed for the participation in this movement, For me, politic and the working class movent is a serious thing, is so serious that anybody can get killed. This is class struggle, it is not child play. I am not a Marx devotee but I respect and I appreciate the contributions that he made for the world working class
I did not say to agree with everything, but the SPGB is based on the three basic conceptions of Marx, otherwise, they should be eliminated from the application such as the class struggle, the labour law of value and the materialist conception of history, and I answered those question myself, therefore I wasted my time answering them
Its news to me that to join the Party you have to accept Marx’s labour theory of Value. I do accept it but my joining the party was not dependent on my accepting it. The only question in the membership questionnaire that might be remotely relevant is “Do you consider that the working class is exploited? If so, then briefly explain how this takes place.” But, of course , it is quite possible to believe the working class is exploited without subscribing to the Marxian labour theory of value. Thus, analytical Marxists like G A Cohen have argued that the “relationship between the labour theory of value and the concept of exploitation is one of mutual irrelevance”.
In an event this rather arcane and academic discussion about how and when capitalism replaced feudalism has got sod all to do with membership of the SPGB and I wish people would stop making silly claims along the lines of “if you dont agree with my theory of feudalism then I cannot possibly see how you managed to join the SPGB”.
The SPGB has never been a monolith and hell will freeze over before that happens. Comrades are fully entitled to hold divergent views on a whole range of subjects. We are not Leninists and we dont do “democratic centralism”
Besides filling an application for the WSM I also had an interview, and before doing that I spent a great deal of time studying the index of the WSM. When I joined the SPGB I did not have to answer any question, I was a member of a companion party. I do not want to give too many explanations because I have seen too many agents infiltrated in this movement, those are as dangerous as any member of the capitalist class
I think you are bending the stick too far the other way, Robbo. Of course you don’t have to have read Marx to join the Party but you do have to have read Party pamphlets and other literature and these do reflect the labour theory of value, the materialist conception of history and that socialism will come about as a result of the class struggle of the working class.
I don’t think anybody would be turned down just because they couldn’t explain the difference between labour and labour power. If, on the other hand, they explicitly stated that they didn’t agree with the LTV but accepted some other theory there might be a problem. If you denied the class struggle you wouldn’t stand a chance. And, as you know, if you are religious and deny materialism then you don’t get in either.
Once in, members are entitled to express what views they like and can criticise the labour theory of value or that the working class will establish socialism. They wouldn’t be accused of acting against the interests of the Party for that. But these will remain personal or minority views. Some views would be unacceptable, racism or sexism for instance.
However, the Socialist Standard, as the Party’s official journal, expresses the majority view and would not publish an article critical of the labour theory of value or of the materialist conception of history. On the contrary, it carries articles supporting and explaining these (like your current series of articles).
So, the Party is clearly in the Marxist tradition even if we (no more than Marx for that matter) don’t really like the word “Marxist” as it suggests that some Great Man thought it all up which of course is against the whole MCH which sees ideas as arising from particular social circumstances. Basically, when we refer to ourselves as Marxists it’s to show that we are not anti-Marxists. Which we aren’t.
I think you are bending the stick too far the other way, Robbo. Of course you don’t have to have read Marx to join the Party but you do have to have read Party pamphlets and other literature and these do reflect the labour theory of value, the materialist conception of history and that socialism will come about as a result of the class struggle of the working class.
Again, this is news to me that to ” join the Party …you do have to have read Party pamphlets and other literature”. When was this stipulation introduced? One might say it advisable to have read this literature but it is not a requirement
Once in, members are entitled to express what views they like
Exactly! Although I would qualify that by saying within broad limits established by the minimal criteria for membership . I am getting sick and tired of hearing snidey comments implying to the effect that if you express certain views you must be a “right wing reactionary” infiltrating the Party or if you think the class composition of late feudal society or early capitalism was more complex than the Marxian two class model this means you must somehow be “rejecting the class struggle”.
This sort of talk needs to stop
Thank you Robbo. This visceral confrontationism and accusing others of not being socialists smacks of Bolshevism. And when one does apologise or say something in approval, it is never acknowledged. It is as though confrontation is their raison d’etre.
I didn’t mean “have to have read” in the sense of a requirement but as a fact. Why on Earth would somebody want to apply to join the Party if they hadn’t familiarised themselves with our case? In any event, to apply to join you have to sign that you agree with the Declaration of Principles which is clear a class struggle document, It also mentions “the order of social evolution”, a reference to the materialist conception of history.
Clearly, to join, you have to accept ideas that are called “Marxist” even if you don’t realise (and don’t need to realise) this. But once you’re in you are encouraged to read Marx and Engels or popularisations of their ideas. Otherwise, how could you be equipped to take part in discussions about the origins of capitalism on the terms in which we are discussing them …
I haven’t read any Marx or Engels beyond index research since my twenties. I do read, though, every day, all kinds of books. Novels take you into the world of relationships and daily life, whilst poetry and philosophy expand empathy and awareness. The Marxist obsessive who is proud to say Marx and Engels are sufficient for all his needs is severely limited as a person.
“Infiltration”, “agents” …
You cannot infiltrate a party which is not secretive, but open and honest.
This is Stalinist talk. Everything about Marcos makes me think of Bolshevism.
“It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity.”
Marx on the Chinese.
“Infiltration”, “agents” …You cannot infiltrate a party which is not secretive, but open and honest. This is Stalinist talk. Everything about Marcos makes me think of Bolshevism.
Indeed TM
I would love to know what lies behind this piece of fantasy paranoia:
I was a member of a companion party. I do not want to give too many explanations because I have seen too many agents infiltrated in this movement, those are as dangerous as any member of the capitalist class
Will all those comrades working as covert agents for the capitalist state please raise your hand NOW! The notion that a tiny organisation of socialist revolutionaries which, moreover, is as transparent as glass as far as its inner workings are concerned , poses such a mortal threat to global capitalism at this point in time such that the capitalist state feels the need to despatch not just one but “many” agents to work secretively within this movement – though in a sense enormously flattering – is, sadly, ludicrously out of touch with reality
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.