[Ed]

I mentioned this recently and was planning on putting it forward as a point of discussion at the ADM. I’d be in favour of singing it at conference, but I also understand that some find it cringe worthy, dated or tainted by the fact that it was adopted as the anthem of the soviet union.  This documentary makes a good case for the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X90-mSBc_PYI think I’d prefer the updated Billy Bragg version (because I know the words)

[Ed]

Quote:

This hope for an “immediate revenge of the Commune” is not a mere illusion of the fugitives, but a necessary article of faith with men, who have their mind set upon being “men of action” at a time when there is absolutely nothing to be done in the sense which they represent, that of an immediate outbreak.Nevermind. Since a start will be made soon, they hold that “the time has come, when every fugitive, who still has any life in him, should declare himself.”And so the thirty-three declare that they are: 1) atheists; 2) communists,; 3) revolutionaries.Our Blanquists have this in common with the Bakounists, that they wish to represent the most advanced, most extreme line. For this reason they often choose the same means as the Bakounists, although they differ from them in their aims. The point with them is, then, to be more radical in the matter of atheism than all others. Fortunately it requires no great heroism to be an atheist nowadays. Atheism is practically accepted by the European working men’s parties, although in certain countries it may at times be of the same caliber as that of a certain Bakounist, who declared that it was contrary to all socialism to believe in God, but that it was different with the virgin Mary, in whom every good socialist ought to believe. Of the vast majority of the German socialist working men it may even be said that mere atheism has been outgrown by them. This purely negative term does not apply to them any more, for they maintain no longer merely a theoretical, but rather a practical opposition to the belief in God. They are simply done with God, they live and think in the real world, for they are materialists. This will probably be the case in France also. But if it were not, then nothing would be easier than to see to it that the splendid French materialist literature of the preceding century is widely distributed among the laborers, that literature; in which the French mind has so far accomplished its best in form and content, and which, with due allowance for the condition of the science of their day, still stands infinitely high in content, while its form has never been equalled since.But this cannot suit our Blanquists. In order to show that they are the most radical, God is abolished by them by decree, as in 1793: “May the Commune for ever free humanity from this ghost of past misery (God), from this cause of its present Misery.” (The non-existing God a cause!) There is no room in the Commune for priests; every religious demonstration, every religious organisation, must be forbidden.”And this demand for a transformation of people into atheists by order of the star chamber is signed by two members of the Commune, who had opportunity enough to learn in the first place, that a multitude of things may be ordered on paper without being carried out, and in the second place, that persecutions are the best means of promoting disliked convictions. So much is certain, that the only service, which may still be rendered to God today, is that of declaring atheism an article of faith to he enforced and of outdoing even Bismarck’s anti-Catholic laws by forbidding religion altogether.

Is it possible that we too are trying to be too radical?My position on this is one of apathy, I don’t really care if we allowed people with certain silly beliefs in. Unless of course they are very religious like “Jesus was a socialist and so I must be one” Or hold reactionary views on morality, homophobia, sexism and such.

[Ed]

I admit I’m perhaps being optimistic it would take a late surge to catch up. What sort of numbers are we hoping for? We got 1500 odd last time. But I thought I heard that the target this time was 4000. Is that combined or…..?

[Ed]

It’s a shame it doesn’t give you actual numbers and just gives you the bar chart. But It really does look as though Danny could catch the UKIP/Fresh Choice guy. Which would be nice, give us a bit of bragging rights or whatever.

[Ed]

I’m going to derail the thread now. Has anyone checked the results so far? Danny appears to be doing well looks like he’s not a million miles away from UKIP, James less well. Boris seems to be ahead of Ken so the SWP’s campaign for Ken has obviously not been successful :p and the Lib Dems getting beat by the Greens. Which is surprising. Why am I mentioning these ‘orrible capitalists? I don’t know I find it all interesting. It’s like watching a horse race even though you haven’t got a bet on.

[Ed]

Thanks Sussex Socialist I was beginning to think that everyone thought it was a shit idea. But yeah 4thought is probably the best as I would have thought it gets higher viewing figures than “the Big Questions”. I can’t see why they wouldn’t give us a spot, they’ve got space to fill and we can fill it.

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

My point is that Lennon’s previous association with Maoists does not exclude him from becoming a socialist.

 Quite right but having been dead for over 30 years presents a fairly serious problem………..

I never made the point that his association with Maoists or Trotskyists was why he is not a socialist but he did share some ideas with them that we do not. And this was a result of him not having studied what he was talking about and instead accepting their analysis.

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Why shouldn’t George Galloway see the errors of his ways at some future date? We are going to need a lot of personalities before we get socialism. I seem to remember Cde Lawrence had a big personality and look what he did for socialism.

That’s exactly the point he would have to see the error of his ways, a luxury that John Lennon doesn’t have. Imagine is a song which is about communism but that does not mean that it’s author has to be a socialist. Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, even traditional social democrats and plenty of other left wing of capital ideologies all advocate a classless, stateless society but that does not mean that their politics or way of going about getting there means that they should be considered socialists. Lennon’s politics were one toe in reformist and one toe in the revolutionary. He wasn’t a Marxist as we are, he could perhaps be called an anarchist because that’s a much more broadly defined term with many different stances. Also I’ve got friends who are christian conservatives, I’ve got a friend who’s a Maoist but their politics do not influence me. With Lennon it’s obvious he didn’t know much of anything about theory and was easily led by friends and aquaintances into supporting bourgeouis and utopian causes

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

” Have you ever had affiliations with any left wing groups?”.

This one was asked of me not sure if it’s on a form A

[Ed]

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying he had very muddled politics much of which was based on feelings not science. I’m also saying that he was heavily influenced by some of pals who were Maoists and of course by the politics at the time the Vietnam war. If my post had been meant as an attack on John Lennon then believe me it would have been a lot more scathing. First would have been his time in India while still with the beatles and all the dappy religous stuff that he got up to, which he later renounced. On whether he was a socialist or not I’d probably say he was, much more so than some of his pals who called themselves socialists. If only for the fact that that he advocated a moneyless, classless, stateless society. Although he was not a Marxist and had no idea of how to reach socialism. Essentially what I’m saying is he had no defined politics he had much in common with the SPGB but he was also very wrong on certain issues, while he was at his most politically active.On Imagine I used to really dislike it when I was a kid, I’d always preferred the rolling stones. It was only when I got older that I finally got the song, it was a great feeling when I actually did understand it. I’ve now become a bit of a fan of Lennon’s work after leaving the Beatles, whose music I still dislike. My favourite is probably working class hero but bring on the Lucie, gimmie some truth, God, woman is the nigger of the world and there are plenty more that I like and a few I don’t. I also agree with you that a piece of art shouldn’t be judged on it’s creators politics. However, if you are using Lennon’s songs to comment on his politics then further  analysis is required.Anyway here’s a “lost” interview with Tariq Ali which gives some insight into his politics.http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/12/08/the-lost-john-lennon-interview/

[Ed]

I think it’s a positive in that it’s good that people may be starting to show more of a willingness to vote outside of the mainstream parties. I think that has to be seen as a positive for anyone involved in a party which is not the mainstream regardless of the party’s politics. But for it to mean anything substantial there would have to be a trend of other independants and small parties picking up votes. It’s a widely held opinion that a vote outside the big three is a wasted vote if there were a trend which started to show people that it’s not a wasted vote I would expect our votes to pick up slightly.But that’s the only positive.

[Ed]

The USA vs John Lennon is a good documentary about his years after the beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pn7d_PTNBASome good interviews in it which go into his politics and affiliations. He comes across as well meaning and with a few ideas which would correspond with those of the party but he also seems very into his identity politics, national liberation struggles and some reformism. Probably partly influenced by the Maoists he was hanging around with.The article on Hippies from the socialist standard was one of my favourites from socialism or your money back.

[Ed]

If so then do you accept that someone can be a socialist while still holding theistic or spiritual beliefs? Most theists who are not fundementalist nutjobs accept scientific evidence which goes against previously held religious beliefs, evolution being the prime example. So yes I agree that a theist can draw the same conclusions as anyone else from scientific evidence. Therefore someone could recognize their belief in a deity as just that a belief with no supporting evidence while simultaneously accepting a Marxist critique of capitalism as scientific fact.

[Ed]

I’ve not read the whole thing yet, one point I would raise is that religion is a product of and sustained by class society. So it will remain until we abolish it’s causes.  But before the causes of religion can be abolished we need a majority of workers to want socialism. So can we expect workers to stop being theists before we can remove the reasons that they are theists?

[Ed]

Engles wrote:

Now for something to amuse you. In his new, as yet unprinted book, which Grun is translating, [18] Proudhon has a great scheme for making money out of thin air and bringing the kingdom of heaven closer to all workers. No one knew what it was. Grun, while keeping it very dark, was always bragging about his philosopher’s stone. General suspense. At length, last week, Papa Eisermann was at the cabinet-makers’ and so was I; gradually the old coxcomb came out with it, in a naively secretive manner. Mr Grun had confided the whole plan to him. Hearken, now, to the grandeur of this plan for world redemption: ni plus ni moins [19] than the already long extant in England, and ten times bankrupt LABOUR-BAZARS or LABOUR-MARKETS, associations of all artisans of all trades, a big warehouse, all work delivered by the associes valued strictly in accordance with the cost of the raw product plus labour, and paid for in other association products, similarly valued. [20] Anything delivered in excess of the association’s needs is to be sold on the world market, the proceeds being paid out to the producers. In this way the crafty Proudhon calculates that he and his fellow associes will circumvent the profit of the middleman. That this would also mean circumventing the profit on his association’s capital, that this capital and this profit must be just as great as the capital and profit of the circumvented middlemen, that he therefore throws away with his right hand what the left has received, has none of it entered his clever head. That his workers can never raise the necessary capital, since otherwise they could just as well set themselves up separately, that any savings in cost resulting from the association would be more than outweighed by the enormous risk, that the whole thing would amount to spiriting away profit from this world, while leaving the producers of the profit to cool their heels, that it is a truly Straubingerian idyll, [21] excluding from the very outset all large-scale industry, building, agriculture, etc., that they would have to bear only the losses of the bourgeoisie without sharing in its gains, all these and a hundred other self-evident objections he overlooks, so delighted is he with his plausible illusion. It’s all too utterly preposterous. Paterfamilias Grun, of course, believes in the new redemption and already in his mind’s eye sees himself at the head of an association of 20,000 ouvriers [22] (they want it big from the start), his family, of course, to receive free clothing, board and lodging. But if Proudhon comes out with this, he will be making a fool of himself and all French socialists and communists in the eyes of bourgeois economists. Hence those tears, that polemicising against revolution [23] because he had a peaceable nostrum up his sleeve. Proudhon is just like John Watts. In spite of his disreputable atheism and socialism, the latter regards it as his vocation to acquire respectability in the eyes of the bourgeoisie; Proudhon, despite his polemic against the economists, does his utmost to gain recognition as a great economist. Such are the sectarians. Besides, it’s such an old story!

it was an old story to Engels back in 1846!http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_09_16.htm

[Author]

Posts