Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Answers you wrote were viewed 9,867 times this week.https://www.quora.com/stats?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=2025937580&time=last_7_daysTotal views 634,000
Unfortunately, not all of the comments to my answers pop up in the 'Notifications box'. If I have time to trawl through the stats I'm always on the look out for any comments, not that I'll answer all of them. Especially, when they are obvious trolls. What I have noticed is that most comments tend to come from those who support capitalism.Its cases like this where a 'Buddie system' would come in handy to give me some back up from a member whose not too keen on making a contribution to Quora but nevertheless would be willing to participate in coordinating any responses to the SPGB/WSM answers.
Answers you wrote were viewed 9,720 times this week.https://www.quora.com/stats
alanjjohnstone wrote:Yes we need to spell out it out more fully….but whenever i suggested it on this forum …i'm told we do not do blue-prints of future socialismWith all due respect its not a question of spelling it out more fully but trying to partially figure it out. So that human needs are democratically decided and enriched by the re-direction of wealth production. We have already figured out the decision making process more or less here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1346-october-2016/what-could-socialism-beIt may be fruitful if we made a distinction between extravagent needs and 'normal' needs. In this respect we have stated human needs consist of: food, shelter, clothing, education and leisure.
Mike Foster wrote:This leads on to considering whether or not there would be enough resources for everyone worldwide to have access to enough goods, services etc to have a comfortable lifestyle. How would this be environmentally sustainable? How would socialism cope with distributing goods which are inherently scarce (as oil might be by then?).Needs will be self-defined at the individual and community level. Therefore, its safe to presume that free acess will be determined by the resources available at a regional level. As for goods which are inherently scarce the global community would have to decide on what alternatives are suitable and what form of rationing would be needed on resources which are scarce.Also not everybody will be seeking a comfortable lifestyle.
Answers you wrote were viewed 9,296 times this week.https://www.quora.com/stats?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=1977917037&time=last_7_days
10,000 people were sent you answer in the Quora Digest.https://www.quora.com/When-did-Capitalism-truly-start-as-an-economic-system/answer/Brian-Johnson-429?__filter__=all&__nsrc__=1&__snid3__=1975336874
The EC have decided the report from the ad hoc committee is sent out to branches, and also e-mailed out to respondents and a hard copy posted to respondents for whom we've only got their postal address. And also e-mailed to the standing orders committee so it's on the conference agenda.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.Can we stick to the question please. I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory. I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.
OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?' For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.
Can we stick to the question please. I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory. I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.
Marcos wrote:One more evidence that this forum is always out of the track and trolls will continue doing that. To L Bird you will give him a recipe for Italian food and he will end cooking Chinese food. The question is: What relevant is the Marxist theory to the 21st century? We must stick to that questionYou are incorrect. Indeed you are calling the kettle the black for just like LBird you have intentionally turned the question around by changing the key word "How". Whereas he turned it to 'is' you have turned it to "What".Yes we must stick to the context of the question otherwise we'll end up going down a very familiar route which I'm determined not to tread. Also may I remind you that you post is Off-topic and not relevant to the thread.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to: https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.The first step would be to define 'Marxist'.It must be obvious, given our exchanges over the last few years, that there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century about whether 'Marxism' is anything to do with Marx's views about democratic socialism, or has been simply a re-run of elitist politics and philosophy (ruling class ideas about nature and humanity), which has its orgins in Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's views.That is, what most thinkers since the late 19th century have called 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'. Any reading of Kautsky, Plekhanov or Lenin, shows that their views were elitist, and anti-proletarian power.As I've also pointed out, this problem predates the Leninist view of 'Marxism' and the Bolshevik Revolution, so predates the foundation of the SPGB. Thus, the SPGB itself is contaminated by this 'Engelsism' (which is synomymous with 'Materialism' or 'Physicalism').That's one user's considered political opinion, Brian.
Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?' For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?
DJP wrote:I guess this is unlikely to be a popular suggestion, but as the person that set the forums up I think I should comment.I think the webforums should be closed down, in terms of propoganda value for the party I would say there value is not positive but negative. There's too many people using it for wringing out there favourite hobby-horse, whatever that may be, and not enough members of the public making enquiries as to what socialism is and such like, which is what the forum is supposed to be for.Or an alternative would be to rapidly delte users and comments that use the forum merely as a means for persuing their personal greivences or otherwise derail discussions from there main purpose.Or a further alternative would be for party members to post questions relevant to the party case. For instance: How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century? [/quote]
Answers you wrote were viewed 9,611 times this week.https://www.quora.com/stats?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=1953005682&t…
