[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I’m not convinced the debate has any value. A word can mean whatever you want it to mean. Meanings can only be fixed on provisionally by groups of people who want to talk to each other and be confident they are understood. 

Sensible stuff..

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

As I said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class…

yet you have previously said

Rosa Lichenstein wrote:

..I explain what I do mean, and why all philosophical theories are non-sensical, at the link I posted earlier.Here it is again:http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-Sensical

So explain how you can say the above without being ‘non-sensical’. Why bother quoting Marx now you’ve proved that all philosophical theories are non-sensical? Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.I’ve read the article by the way, there’s a simple equivocation error in the middle of your argument. Can you spot it?

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

(Explanation : Hegel and Marx use a logical procedure called dialectics to seek
answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions.

In all seriousness though the Marxian dialectic has less to do with seeking “answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions” and more to do with how the whole relates to its parts.Hegelian dialectics and Marxian dialectics are different beasts and those who say that you have to read Hegel to understand Marx are probably only demonstrating that they’ve been duped by Lenin.

[DJP]

It seems to me you are not using the word ‘socialism’ to refer to the same thing as the socialist party does. If you were the answer to your question would be self evident.

[DJP]

‘Dialectical-Materialism’ of the kind that used to be spread by the ‘communist’ parties is a sham and a fraud, its no wonder people are suspicious of it.The same can be said for Rosa Lichenstein and her crusade.If you want to know about dialectics read Dietzgen, it’s a shame he has pretty much dropped off the radar.As a review in the October 1998 Standard put it “dialectics means that, in analyzing the world and society, you start from the basis that nothing has an independent, separate existence of its own but is an inter-related and interdependent part of some greater whole (ultimately the whole universe) which is in a process of constant change.”This holistic view has pretty much been incorporated into mainstream science these days, so nothing particularly controversial there.The controversial aspect is the notion of ‘contradiction’ There’s a review of Pannekoek’s ‘Lenin as Philosopher’ which deals with this here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1187-july-2003/book-reviewsSo there is something in what Lichenstein is saying but she just gets lost in long and boring rants and hasn’t really studying her subject well enough.

[DJP]

‘Direct Action’ is such a broad and all encompassing term it seems a folly to declare oneselve either in support or opposition to it.

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Is there a difference between not opposing a reform and supporting it?

I would have thought supporting something would require something more pro-active than ‘not-opposing’ it.Individual reforms have to be judged on there own merit, it’s pure silliness to think anything else.I’ll let someone who was there at the time answer the Poland question but it should be remembered that the trade union leaders that led the solidarity movement only went on to be the administrators of the capitalist state.The ultimate and only way we can really ‘support’ the working class is by pointing out that the only way to end the endless treadmill of the class-struggle is to abolish the class society.

[DJP]

Brian wrote:

All formulations are mechanistic by default.

I thought you where going to say “comes from” implies “can only be one way”. In Roslyn Bologh’s text it says “grounded in” this is probably less open to misinterpretation but a bit more accedemic in style.So, ALL formulations are mechanistic? I don’t think this can be the case, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to say anything at all without it being mechanistic.

[DJP]

As all they seem to have is a twitter account I’m guessing this is just a one person operation.

[DJP]

Brian wrote:

Hmmm seems a bit mechanistic despite its logical interplay.  

Explain. There doesn’t seem to be anything deterministic in there to me.By the way I paraphrased this from a book by Bologh, no need to read the other 250 pages now!

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

To say socialist consiousness arises out class struggle is execatly what the materialist conception of history tells us. To say that the job of the SPGB is to teach workers about socialism is to make us look elitist and idealist. How did we become socialist if not from the material conditions of capitalism.

Well, it’s not quite as simple as this. Consciousness arises out of material conditions. The material condition of class society is the class struggle. So ALL forms of consciousness in a capitalist society arise from it’s antagonistic conditions, so we have contradictory forms of consciousness; fascism, reformist, socialist, religious….In other words socialist consciousness does arise out of the class struggle, but so does fascism (including it’s ‘communist’ variants)By education we should mean spreading our positions as widely and as clearly and accessibly as possible. But it is only because of the material conditions that we have these ideas in the first place. And it is only because of these conditions that other people will relate to them. Ideas do not magically appear out of the sky (or the socialist standard or Das Kapital).Here’s a little formulation for you:1. Treat concepts as coming from a historically specific mode of life2. Treat individuals as coming from a historically specific mode of life3. Treat a mode of life as a totality of internal relations.4. Changes in a mode of life are the result of the interplay of those internal relations.

[DJP]

Please bear in mind that anything we say about how a future society is speculation only, ultimately it will be up to the people at the time to decide how to organise things, not us in the socialist pre-history.

ladybug wrote:

 … I made the assumption (noted above) that the community would be involved in these decisions of how to allocate scarce resources. But I don’t think this would be possible because it would be too many meetings. So although no seperation between workplace and community is the ideal, I don’t think it can be met totally in every case, and some boundary will need to remain. But there definitely needs to be more community input/control in workplaces, such as for environmental standards, product health and safety, etc.

The thing is it is entirely possible to co-ordinate production without any meetings at all. In fact meetings are a very ineficiant way of organising things. In the age of electronic communications it only takes a few seconds to communicate ‘hey guys we are getting low on copper’ across the whole world. Productive units will be in constant comminication with each other and so can adjust production schedules as requirements change. 

ladybug wrote:

Plus I’m not convinced about SPGB’s electoral strategy. I don’t entirely dismiss it either, as I think it might be possible, but I put more faith in revolution.  

Perhaps then this is another area where we can change your thinking. What is a revolution? A total change in the material basis of society. This is what the socialist party seeks to bring about.Now what is socialism? A society in which the producers co-operativly and freely co-ordinate their labour for the good of all.Now can you have a socialist society before the majority want it and are willing to put it into practice? Can you force people to co-operate? I would seem to me that the answer is no.Therefore it is impossible to have a socilaist revolution until the majority support it.So with this in mind and considering “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class” can you come up with a practical reason as to why a socialist majority should not use the democratic process to neutralise any possible counterattack from a pro-capitalist minority?

[DJP]

 

ALB wrote:

 I challenged him to a bet that his predicted deflation wouldn’t happen (to be called in in 2017).

Wasn’t there also prediction in Zeitgeist Addendum that the US would have defaulted on its national debt by now? Will look it up….

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

DJP  Other   SPGB!!?

You really have been missing out on all the fun!http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/

[DJP]

Thanks Mr Whistle thats good to know.You’re right there must be thousands of people coming to conclusions simular to ours. That’s why I think I main activity should consist in making ourselves as easy to find as possible.Morris said “make socialists” I think this is wrong, it is capitalism that makes socialists not the feeble actions of a small minority group, therefore I think our motto should be instead “find socialists!”.

[Author]

Posts