Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From the A-Z of Marxism:
The word ‘communism’ originated in Victor d’Hupay’s book Projet de communauté philosophe ( Project for a Philosophical Community ) in 1777, which advocated communes and sharing.
However, the new front page comment is now an even worse piece about ‘human nature’! The socialist party should be presenting strong and robust arguments for socialism, not providing socialism’s opponents with low-hanging fruit.
Do I need to spell out what is wrong with these kinds of pieces or can other people see it?
I think you may have missed the word ‘supposedly’. FWIW, I think these kinds of pieces are great.
This may be of interest. I’ve tried doing a search (top right) but as usual I can never find what I’m looking for. So I’ve copied and pasted the book review below.
Helen Macfarlane. A Feminist, Revolutionary Journalist, and Philosopher in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England. By David Black, Lexington Books, 2004.
In Austria she was radicalized by the revolutions of 1848 which swept through Europe. On her return to Britain she took up revolutionary journalism under the pseudonym Howard Morton for the Chartist leader George Julian Harney. It was in Harney’s weekly newspaper Red Republican in 1850 that Macfarlane produced the first English translation of what became known as the Communist Manifesto. In the German original it was called Manifesto of the Communist Party but in the Red Republican its title was German Communism: Manifesto of the German Communist Party. Black is critical of this name change because the insertion of the word “German” into the title twice over “de-emphasises its internationalist thrust.” But this misses the point of the change, a reason the Red Republican seems to have understood but which is now widely misunderstood. That is, while the theoretical parts of the Manifesto have universal application the practical proposals (particularly at the end of Section 2) were put forward with Germany in mind at that time. That is why Marx and Engels later said that some parts of the Manifesto, particularly in Section 2, were obsolete (see the Preface to the German edition of 1872).
In the Red Republican version of the Manifesto, some parts are missing and others changed mainly to suit its English readership. In the 1888 English translation, supervised by Engels, the famous opening line begins: “A spectre is haunting Europe. The spectre of Communism.” But in Macfarlane’s translation this becomes: “A frightful hobgoblin stalks throughout Europe. We are haunted by a ghost. The ghost of Communism.” Black states that her use of “hobgoblin” rather than “spectre” is unfortunate, but it is possible that her English readers at that time more readily understood the hobgoblin metaphor.
Marx called Macfarlane “a rare bird” – “the only collaborator on his [Harney’s] spouting rag who had original ideas.” She was the first person to translate and explain in English the work of the German philosopher Hegel. She wrote a few other articles for the Red Republican in the 1850s but almost nothing is known of Macfarlane in the years before or after. What seems certain however is that Macfarlane was the first British Marxist, a generation before that term came into use.
My final contribution on this thread. My argument has been that allowing a Leninist sect to regularly advertise its meetings here could give the casual observer the impression that we have something in common. We do not. That’s it. That’s all.
I’m glad Bill had a pleasant time at the ICC meeting, even though they referred to him and us as “the swamp”. We have debated with the ICC a number times over the years. In the debate where our speaker was Barry McNeeny, the ICC speaker stated that because the SPGB is a counter-revolutionary organisation its members could expect to be killed in the proletarian uprising.
Robbo, you don’t say how the forum is different or why allowing the ICC to advertise their meetings benefits us.
I would make two points.
First, allowing ICC posts could give the casual observer the impression that we have an affinity. That is most definitely not the case.
Second, some people don’t like the hostility clause and want it removed. They could point to the posts in question and say that, in practice, the clause has been rendered null and void.
The section description was written by the same moderator. The Socialist Standard wouldn’t advertise their meetings, unless the SPGB was involved, and I don’t see why this forum should be different.
This action was initiated by one member. Democratic accountability requires majority consent – something the ICC despises.
Why are we allowing the ICC to advertise their meetings here? I think it was a previous moderator who made the decision, based on the idea that we are part of the “thin red line”. It should be obvious that any commonality is superficial and there are plenty of significant differences.
The State Department recently reaffirmed that “the US is by statute mandated… to guarantee that… Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement…
I’m not aware of any statutory law mandating this. Is there one?
See also the entry for Leninism in An A-Z of Marxism:
So, money is not abolished it “ceases to be”. Fine, you go on saying that and I will call for the abolition of money.
The bit which you say doesn’t follow refers to the abolishing the need for money entailing the actual abolition of money. And that most certainly does follow.
I’m with Brian here. The abolition of the wages system entails the abolition of money. It’s not a logical inference but a political consequence.
The abolition of the need for money also entails the abolition of money. To say otherwise suggests that money will have some sort of function in socialism.
“What the media are hiding”
Link to globalresearch.ca omitted
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky“Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist and author. He is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which runs the website globalresearch.ca, founded in 2001, which publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories…”
“L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’Marx wrote: “From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm
This is from The Poverty of Philosophy and Marx is arguing that science can be revolutionary. That is uncontroversial. It does not need to be made revolutionary, nor does Marx argue for a ‘revolutionary science’. That phrase is made up by you.
L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’In the past I have drawn attention to Bird’s inability to cite evidence. Here yet again he is using quotation marks to suggest he is quoting Marx.
Science is often revolutionary, but not in the way Bird thinks. Marx never argued for a revolutionary science. That would be as pointless as many of Bird’s posts which clog up this forum.
