Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
“any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.
Or, indeed, the SPGB.’.
Or, indeed, L Bird. Since you have no democratic mandate for this assertion, this is another ejaculation from a self-appointed elite.
“Where I would wish to express a strong view here is on the supply side calculation problem as defined by the article, following Mises’ original definition of the problem. i.e. how to choose a set of production methods, once the above forms of calculation have been addressed”
“Those who are sceptical about the feasibility of socialism can reply along Austrian lines by emphasising the vast complexity of supply side resource allocation in modern economies. How, they can ask, would producers decide on which production methods to adopt”
The Mises criticism is predicated on a blank slate situation. “How to chose a set of production methods”, “How would producers decide on which production methods”. Framed that way, it does look overwhelmingly difficult. However, the socialist position is that it is a matter of adapting existing production methods towards socialist aims and objectives. It’s not a matter of starting from scratch, as Mises assumes.
To discuss this meaningfully, we need a working definition of fascism.
From the A-Z of Marxism: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/publications/an-a-to-z-of-marxism/#F
Fascism. The term fascismo was coined by the Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and Hegelian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means ‘bundle’ or ‘union’. Fascism was an authoritarian, nationalistic and anti-socialist political ideology that preaches the need for a strong state ruled by a single political party led by a charismatic leader. Later the word was used in relation to a similar extreme nationalist movement in Germany even though this described itself as ‘national-socialist’ (Nazi) rather than fascist. Both these movements won control of political power more or less constitutionally, in Italy in 1922 and in Germany in 1933, and proceeded to establish a one-party dictatorship with mass organisations to win over the population and preaching that all members of the ‘nation’ had a common interest. Fascism/Nazism was implacably opposed to Marxism for its internationalism and its recognition of the class struggle within nations.
Reading:
Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History, 2003Giovanni Gentile & Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932
The string of assertions by Ben Lewis do not in themselves show that Kautsky was mistranslated or misrepresented. The fact is that Kautsky never supported working class self-emancipation; it was always the leading role of the party.
If Kautsky was so sure that the working class couldn’t achieve socialism on their own means why was he so keen on democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly etc? If he was a vangardist like Lenin why would he have been critical of the Bolshevik seizure of the state?
Kautsky was keen on democracy, freedom of press, etc, and he was critical of Bolshevik suppression of them. There was no contradiction, as you appear to believe, between that and his poor opinion of the working class.
