Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Fair enough – this does not conform to the classic Marxian account of crises and recessions. But if it is found that capital accumulation is an important factor in the creation of the Coranavirus, and it is this which has caused the domino effect of a recession, then I don’t think it is accurate to say that this process is exogenous to capitalism.
Don’t be put off by the Guardian headline. The article indicates the economics of the cause. For instance:
“Starting in the 1990s, as part of its economic transformation, China ramped up its food production systems to industrial scale. One side effect of this, as anthropologists Lyle Fearnley and Christos Lynteris have documented, was that smallholding farmers were undercut and pushed out of the livestock industry. Searching for a new way to earn a living, some of them turned to farming “wild” species that had previously been eaten for subsistence only. Wild food was formalised as a sector, and was increasingly branded as a luxury product. But the smallholders weren’t only pushed out economically. As industrial farming concerns took up more and more land, these small-scale farmers were pushed out geographically too – closer to uncultivable zones. Closer to the edge of the forest, that is, where bats and the viruses that infect them lurk. The density and frequency of contacts at that first interface increased, and hence, so did the risk of a spillover.”
It might be endogenous:
Is factory farming to blame for coronavirus?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/is-factory-farming-to-blame-for-coronavirus
Lew
It will be noted that, yet again, L Bird evades the epistemological problems inherent in his position as he obsessively pursues his ‘materialist’ straw man.
As it happens, I’ve reviewed Carver’s books for the Socialist Standard and I agree with his point that there are important philosophical differences between Marx and Engels. However, they have no practical political significance as far as we are concerned. Nobody, including the WSM, is obliged to agree with everything they said.
Ironically, Carver shows that the main philosophical difference between Marx and Engels concerns epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and it is precisely here that L Bird’s argument fails.
Lew
L Bird wrote:
“Well, Lew, what you say is correct – only the class conscious proletariat can decide to use democratic political methods for all their social products.”
That’s not what I said. I said that, according to you, truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means. But you fail to grasp the epistemological implications of this position – namely, that until (and unless) the victorious proletariat vote and decide what is true (and false) we don’t know anything to be true (or false). Which is patently absurd.
“My opinions are democratic, my criteria are democratic.”
Presumably you think this statements is true.
“That, indeed, is all we have.”
No it isn’t.
There’s plenty we know about capitalism and socialism which doesn’t require a vote. For instance:
- Under capitalism the working class are exploited through the wages system (true).
- Socialism will be a classless, moneyless, stateless world community (true).
- In socialism truth will be decided by voting (false).
—
Lew
<p lang=”en”></p>
L Bird wrote:
“… the ‘materialists’, who equate ‘material’ with ‘matter’, might be outvoted, by a class conscious proletariat …”
The victorious proletariat might also reject your assertions about “materialists”. They are assertions because, according to your own criterion, they have not been voted on (and passed) by a class conscious proletariat.
“Who (or what) determines ‘truth’?’, and ‘how?’. The only answer for a Marxist is ‘The Class Conscious Proletariat’ and ‘By Democratic Means’.”
If truth is determined by the class conscious proletariat by democratic means, then we will have to wait to find out what is true and what truth is – including, presumably, the claim that truth is determined by a vote. Until then, again all you have, according to your own criterion, is opinion.
—
Lew
norm_burns wrote:They did indeed feel that the terminology we use had become a burden in the light of most peoples' preconceptions about terms like 'working class'. I always thought they had resigned, but maybe they were expelled?Nobody was expelled and the whole Stoke group (bigger than some branches) resigned, along with a number of other members from around the country (at least one from Guildford). Terminology was the given reason but it soon became clear that a rejection of the concepts behind the terminology was involved, not the least of which was class.When it soon became obvious that terminology was not a significant factor in hindering progress, WOFA dispersed and a few years later Paul Breeze stood as an independent (non-socialist, non-WOFA) candidate for mayor of Stoke, and he didn't do any better than the SPGB in elections.– Lew
jondwhite wrote:Also this http://www.stefan-szczelkun.org.uk/taste/Chapter3-Morris.html says EP Thompson removed stuff from the 1955 edition for the 1977 reprint. I thought it was the case that material was added to the 1955 edition in the 1977 reprint.In the 1977 reprint he removed references to Morris's ideas being realised in Soviet Russia. More here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1285-september-2011/book-reviews-crisis-theory-chavs-gerrard-winsta– Lew
Sympo wrote:Basically, some pro-capitalists believe that the more economically intertwined states are, the less likelyhood is there that there's gonna be a war between those states.Britain, France and Germany were very economically intertwined (they also shared basically the same religion), but that didn't stop WW1 and WW2.– Lew
gnome wrote:Quote:There are still many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it. What about them?There are vastly many more workers who will never have the chance of buying a printed Standard. What about them?
Quote:So instead of consuming "valuable resources" (i.e. that of cost and members' time) at Head Office it is proposed to transfer the effort to members elsewhere.I did include HO (Head Office). But if members elsewhere want to take on that work, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Quote:But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online. That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…There is no guarantee that workers will read the Standard online or in print. But we do know that more and more workers are reading the Standard online. Nobody has suggested that we put all our eggs in one basket. All that is asked is that we redirect resources away from a media which is dying into a media which is thriving.– Lew
Here are a few reasons for discontinuing the printed Standard:Sales of the printed Standard have been in decline for many years. There is no forseable and realistic change to that trend.More people read the Standard online than in print. It is reasonable to expect that trend to continue.The printed Standard consumes valuable resources in terms of money and members time. For the effort involved it reaches relatively few people.Our website consumes very little resources in comparison to the printed Standard. For the effort involved its reach to the working class is limitless.Currently we have the Standard appearing monthly online, by which time some or all of the content is out of date. It's anachronistic to wait until the printed Standard comes out to see the Standard onlineIf articles for the Standard were edited and uploaded for as they arrive this would improve the "stickiness" for the website and people may return more often. We should be championing free access rather than following a failing model of capitalist consumerism.Last, but by no means least, this does not preclude HO, branches or individuals from printing off PDF copies of articles or whole Standards as required.– Lew
robbo203 wrote:His book Debunking Economics is a must-read (and I haven't read it yet)I have read it and it's a waste of time:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1182-february-2003/book-reviewsLew
Hal Draper argued that Lenin was making explicit what was already implicit in the politics of the Second International generally and Kautsky in particular:https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htmOur disagreements with Kautsky and the Second International usually center on their reformism and state capitalist conception of socialism. But our insistence that the emancipation of the working class really must be the work of the working class itself (DOP 5) has not been fully recognised. It is an important repudiation of Kautsky and the Second International and one of our most important contributions to socialist politics. I'm not aware of any history of the SPGB which covers this ground.Lew
