ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:And I bet some of them were Christians.
No doubt some of the Oakland Occupiers were, but according to this report some were not:
Quote:On a main cathedral, someone spray painted along the protection wall “No Gods, No Masters.”Ozymandias wrote:Normally I think “how the fuck will workers ever acheive anything beyond trades unions consciousness without the SPGB” but now I am beginning to think that through a process of logical elimination they may come very close…on their own anyway? Are they working things out for themselves…despite our existence? I mean is this possible? Is it even a possibility that the WSM will be swept away in the hurly burly…and that World Socialism/RBE/Post Capitalism/Whatever It’s Called will be established anyway? Am I talking pure shite here?No, you’re not. You’re expressing what the SPGB has always said.We’re not so presumptuous as to think that the whole future of the world depends on us. What we do say is that people will come to a realisation that capitalism needs to be replaced by Whatever It’s Called quicker if there’s already an organised group arguing for this (on the basis of past experience).
I must confess that Peter Joseph is a good publicist for a world without money, especially as he always emphasises the world aspect of the way-out (and despite the money-as-debt stuff and his rejection of democracy both in theory and practice).There’s another interview with him on RT here where he actually mentions one class exploiting another.
Things seem to be rather different the other side of the Atlantic or rather Pacific:http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-rally-shuts-down-shipping-port-indefinitely-062334964.html
DJP wrote:I wonder what they meant by ‘socialism’ however.John from Newcastle says it was mainly the “Revolutionary Communist Group” (who bring out Fight Imperialism, Fight Racism or is it the other way round?) who were behind the vote. Apparently what they mean by “socialism” is something like what’s supposed to exist in Cuba. Oh dear, with friends like these …Meanwhile, here in London, here is what one of the lecturers at Tent City University thinks about “anti-capitalism”. It turns out that he stood in the last election as a breakaway Tory candidate in Wokingham. What’s somebody like him doing at a protest that is billed as “anti-capitalist” ?I suppose that all this shows that these tent camps are places where wide-ranging political discussions are/can take place.
The New York declaration begins:”As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.”This is not bad insofar as it does not single out just bankers (as do many other Occupy statements) but includes all capitalist corporations. It’s obviously based on the US Declaration of Independence, which I suppose has a certain echo in America. In fact perhaps it’s not such a bad tactic to call the US Constitution’s bluff (better than in London where they are calling the Church’s bluff).The trouble is that it suggests that the way out is just effective democratic control. Of course this is part of the solution but on its own wouldn’t make much difference as it would amount only to a reform in the system of government, however radical, that would still leaving the money-wages-profit economy intact. To make a difference it would need to be accompanied by the common ownership of all productive resources.
Nannipieri wrote:— So, it sort of repeats itself, but it’s clear from the ‘demands being met’ and ‘political elites ignoring citizens’ lines that the aim is fairer representative democracy within capitalism. Vote Labour. Occupy LSX.I think it’s more Vote Green rather than Vote Labour.
Cesco wrote:I see this as a middle class movement rather than a working class movement.Apart from the objection that most of those who are called “middle class” are in fact working class since they too are obliged to try to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer to live, I don’t think that it is even a middle class movement in your sense (presumably university-educated people). The people interviewed by the media as their spokespersons seem to be, but from what I saw yesterday most of them are from the alternative lifestyle scene who’ve probably been to various peace camps, climate change camps,etc before (the vegan cafe is a clue). These too of course are members of the working class but a sub-culture that is cut off from the rest of the working class and unlikely to have an impact on them. Still, some of them may be open to socialist ideas.
Cesco wrote:I am afraid that the working class, in particular in the so called rich countries, has no bargaining power whatsoever so they won’t openly follow this movement. It is true that if unemployment keeps growing there won’t be any other choice, but occupying every possible place. But again is it matter of convincing a few occupy-people or the large majority of workers and unemployed?Don’t worry. We’ll be present too at the 30 November TUC “Day of action” when the mainstream working class will be more involved.
After stuffing the November Standard into envelopes two of us went to St Pauls to see the occupation. I can confirm that the “Capitalism Is Crisis” banner that was there on the first day was not there any more and that the most prominent one was now “What would Jesus have thought?”.Managed to take some photos (like the one above) but can’t say I was impressed. There didn’t seem to be all that much “anti-capitalism” about except there was an SWP stall (but that’s pro-state capitalism) and, I nearly forgot, Chris Knight in a top hat announcing that capitalism was going to collapse tomorrow.We went to a lecture at the Tent City University and listened for a while to the lecturer until we realised that he was expounding the economic doctrines of … Henry George, an advocate of free market capitalism + a single tax on land values. There was also a banner for http://www.positivemoney.org.uk, another free market group. Unfortunately the photo of this did not come out, nor did the one of the poster supporting David Icke. We saw an empty Zeitgeist tent and left a copy of the Standard for former SPGB member Cliff who was supposed to be there.All this underlines the need for us to be there put the real anti-capitalism (and pro-socialism) case.
John Bisset texts from Newcastle:”Apparently, the general assembly meeting of occupy newcastle agreed last night it was socialist, which upset a few. In the meantime I have posted a defence of socialism on the relevant facebook page and offered to present a talk on socialism. Going back today with more bumpf to keep the pressure on.”The relevant facebook page is here (Occupy Newcastle and every city worldwide) where “Rabble Rouser” replies to Glen Jamin Calculus-Panges..
Apparently a banner saying “Capitalism is crisis” has been replaced by one saying “What would Jesus do?”. At least that is what Friday’s Times “reported” (ie misinterpreted, distorted or simply made up to make a good story):”Other protestors claimed that the Occupy London message was not anti-capitalist, and removed a prominent banner bearing the slogan ‘Capitalism is crisis’. Sean Ganley, 34, an unemployed engineer from Northampton, said: ‘There are elements here co-opting the movement and we want to be dissociated from them. We don’t like obscene wealth but we’re not anti-capitalists.”I don’t know if this is true. It might be since, after all, it is possible to be against “obscene wealth” without being against capitalism. But if people are trying to co-opt the movement in this sense all the more reason for socialists to be there. I may go along on Monday to see if the “Capitalism is Crisis” banner which was there at the start is still there.
John Bissett reports that he visited the Occupy Newcastle camp and even passed a night there. He found the campers were mainly Green types, but open to discussion and ideas. During the day talks and discussions are organised (during the night most go home).
Maybe but Freud and his followers didn’t know anything about genes, DNA, etc. Freud proposed that there was (must be/might be) some sort of “sexual energy” but this has never been discovered though Reich thought he had and went completely off the rails with his theory of “orgone energy”. Fromm didn’t suffer from the discrediting of Freud’s hypothesis since he explained the development of the individual as being mainly due to social influences.
I think that Fromm was the best of the “Freudo-Marxists” because he abandoned the idea that there was a biological basis to the drives Freud thought he had discovered and offered instead an explanation based on social interactions. Reich and Marcuse didn’t do this.Whereas Freud (and Reich and Marcuse) saw the mind as something to be explained in terms of the individual’s instinctual biological development, Fromm saw that the mind as a social phenomenon. While Freud explained mental illness in terms of the failure of an individual to develop normally through the various stages of sexual development which his theory posited, Fromm (who was a medical doctor and practising psychiatrist himself) explained mental illness in terms of the failure of the individual to relate properly with other individuals. For him, not only the mind but (most) mental illnesses were social.This seems to me to be much more in line with Marx’s historical materialism, even though Fromm never completely abandoned “psychoanalysis”. While Reich and Marcuse’s ideas have been discredited along with those of Freud, Fromm’s retain some of their validity especially his view that humans need to live and feel part of a genuine community.
