moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.
This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?
For your information the reviewer of the book has been participating in this and the other discussions on the very same subject, since the beginning. Which is one of the reasons why I mentioned it. Nevertheless, you have refused to respond to any of his queries and challenges.By the way has it ever crossed your mind that the ultimate test on whether or not we are Leninsts is that I have the power to close/lock all the threads you have started, and I'm a well known generalist? Yet I have not taken such action. Why not, you may ask when it is so obvious you are intentionally seeking disagreement with us?The answer is that the SPGB has a tradition that our platform is open to all comers, whether or not they agree or disagree with us. That said, the ultimate democratic test on whether or not your aguments stand up to assessment and examination will be when nobody responds to your posts. Which effectively means like all workers from time to time we put on our clogs and vote with our feet!
Reminder: Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Just out of interest this article might help to settle the democratic issues being deliberated here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracy
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Just checked and it seems that the famous article was not in fact written by Barry McNeeny. He didn't join the Party till 1974. The article was signed B.M. There was another member with these initials who wrote articles for the Socialist Standard. So BM will be Brendan Mee ( I think he was a member of our then Bolton branch). ….PS These misattributions will have to be corrected on on archive site.Can the mods change the name in the title of this thread, to correct the misattribution?
No the mods are unable to correct the misattribution but I know a man who can and who suspect will be working on it shortly.
robbo203 wrote:What ever happened to Barry? One of my most memorable memories of him was when he represented the SPGB in a debate in Guildford back in 1980s against an organisation called – I vaguely remember – "Peace Through Nato" or some such name. He brought along with him an antique sword which he unsheathed and held up during the course of his contribution much to the consternation of his opponent who, I swear, turned slightly pale at the sight of it. Barry's point was a simple but effective one – war was gruesome, irrespective of the technology used, and he took care to point out the runnel down which the blood would flow when the sword pierced the victim's body.Yer just don't make 'em like that anymore!The sword or Barry? Barry and Tigger left the party in the mid 80's and set up shop as antique dealers after Tigger was left a house full of anitiques. I have no idea other than some disagreement why they left the party.
mcolome1 wrote:Dave B wrote:I think these kind of ideas have been around before particularly in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wayland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_C._GilletteThe heading of the post is Socialist Utopia, but the person that posted the message is not tallking about the history of Utopia, or what Utopia is, or was. She is trying to show that capitalism is a favorable system for mankind, and want others human being to be capitalist lovers. It is more bullshitting than argumentations
That is the heading. But the sub-heading is:What does your socialist utopia look like?And how do we get there in your opinion?'Let the state compete with big business, let the people vote with the money in their pockets. Spend your money on state produced goods and/or services and see the profits be churned back into the peoples pockets via free further education, improve'.He's claiming a form of state capitalism – not the USSR kind – is required in his opinion to gain a socialist utopia. Nothing wrong in that.
Sat, 21/01/2017 – 1:24am#96Tim KilgallonOnlineJoined: 17/11/2015Send PM Bob Andrews wrote: Swore blind it was him shot George Orwell. I can believe it. Always was cack-handed the old man. Six inches higher and we would have been spared Nineteen Eighty-Four. if another shot he'd taken one night, in the company of your mother, had missed by six inches, we'd have been spared you!
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:YMS:"It is, I believe, common ground, that it is not a complete or definitive statement, but the only one we have. We agree it is silent on Hegel: where we disagree is on what to make of that silence: Young Mistress Lichtenstein maintains that it is exclusory, I maintain that it is simply silence. This is the point at dispute." [Bold addedWell, you once again miss the point; here it is again:"My argument isn't, and has never been, that Marx doesn't "mention Hegel" (added on edit: or is silent about Hegel), but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary."Here is how I put this in two of my first posts in this thread (one of which was in reply to you!):"In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found (upside down or 'the right way up') — no "contradictions", no change of 'quantity into quality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unity and identity of opposites' no 'interconnected Totality', no 'universal change' –, and yet Marx still calls this the 'dialectic method"' and says of it that it is 'my method'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy#comment-37562"In that summary, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found, upside down or 'the right way up', and yet Marx still calls this 'the dialectic method' (note, not part of, or one aspect of, 'the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and 'my method'. So, Marx's 'method' is a Hegel-free zone ('upside down or the right way up')." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=2#comment-37586This appears to have flown over your head.Nor is it any part of my argument that the summary Marx added is a "definitive" account of 'the dialectic method' — just that it is indeed a summary (which is what I have called it from the get-go) — and it contains no trace of Hegel or any of his ideas.So, what is your reply to my challenge that you produce, what you had said you could provide — a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value"? [Bold added.]Err…, this sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't even the Labour Theory of Value [LTV]:"The value of market goods is based on the amount of human effort it takes to replace them. The source of profits is the difference between the amount of effort involved in replacing goods, and the cost of buying the type of skills involved in replacing them. Not all of that effort can be realised in money terms.""Effort"? The LTV has nothing to do with "effort". "Labour power" (which is independent of any "effort" put into producing a commodity) is central to the LTV. "Value"? — use value or exchange value? "Replace"? Where is that in the LTV? No mention of fixed capital, or the falling rate of profit. No hint of the relative form or the equivalent form of value. Your "definitive description" is a joke.Now, either the terms you used (i.e., "effort" and "value", etc.) were meant to be synonyms of the terms/concepts Marx used, or their equivalent. But my challenge was this:"Now, I challenge you to write a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" and fail to mention, for example, surplus value, abstract labour, the equivalent and the relative form of value, use value, exchange value, the falling rate of profit, variable/constant capital (or their equivalents and/or synonyms), etc., etc. Until you do, the above claim of yours can only be viewed as grandstanding." [Bold added.]Hence, we are still waiting for a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" — not a sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't the LTV."So, back to Marx, he was addressing the appearance of Hegelianism within his works (or alleged Hegelianism): hence why he follows the St. Petersberg paragraph with an analysis of why he may have used Hegelian terminology, a disclaimer that his method is the opposite of Hegel's, and an acknowledgement that Hegel was 'first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner'."1) Again you present us with a bowdlerised version of Marx's comment, which distorts its meaning. We have been here several times.2) I asked this (quoting you):"I'm sorry, where does Marx add 'Hegel to someone else's summary'?"You failed to answer.3) The rest of the above quote we have been over many times (but see below). Hence, I refer you to my earlier response to it."I do not need to find another statement by Marx, nor am I looking for one, the words in the current one are enough to back up my argument. I think the silence is non-exhaustive, I think the St. Petersburg paragraph (for example) does not discuss what the underlying laws of development are, or how they work, but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."It's almost as if I hadn't said this in my last reply:"2) Finally, I have added this challenge to some of my posts of late:"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680"And there was good reason for this challenge; here it is again:"As I have also pointed out, I begin with this statement by Marx about what his method and 'the dialectic method' amounted to, and I interpret everything else in that light — until, that is, you, or someone else, can come up with another summary of 'the dialectic method', written, published or endorsed by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to the passage published in the Postface (i.e .,1873 or after), that informs us that he accepted or agreed with Engels's view of 'the dialectic'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=3#comment-37604"So, unless you can come up with such a passage, there is no justification for you re-inserting Hegel or his concepts into Marx's 'dialectic method'."Which is why I added these comments (partly quoted above):"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."Oh wait!"There isn't one!"Now, you can't quote a single text written by Marx, published in or after 1873, that tells us that Hegel had any input in his 'method' or in 'the dialectic method'."Whereas, there is one that supports my interpretation."Get over it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680But, as was the case with most of your other posts, I am sure you will ignore this again, and I will have to repeat it many times before it sinks in.So be it…Finally:"but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."1) Is this idea unique to Hegel (which is what my challenge laid out)?2) I'd be grateful if you'd provide us with a referenced quote from Hegel to which this is "near".
2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
JamesH81 wrote:yes was a member of milton keynes green party got double national average in a election…. interested in Deconstructing Globalization….. Community Activism and Resiliency??????
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:TK:"Typical bloody Trotskyist, taking power undemocratically, and then ordering everyone aroound, it's like Kronstadt all over again!!!!!"Isn't it time for your medication?
Another Trotskyist rouse, label all dissent as mental illness, we'll all be off to the gulag!
3rd and final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:TK:"Typical bloody Trotskyist, taking power undemocratically, and then ordering everyone aroound, it's like Kronstadt all over again!!!!!"Isn't it time for your medication?
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:mcolome1:"I think everybody around here is off topic because the original post was Marx and philosophy and it was changed to a topic that we covered several months ago, and you are repeating the same argumentation."May I suggest you take that up with the moderators?Until then, it's off-topic.
Typical bloody Trotskyist, taking power undemocratically, and then ordering everyone aroound, it's like Kronstadt all over again!!!!!
2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Has anyone ever seen L Bird and Rosa Lichtenstein in the same room together? Could it be that they are…………..?1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
