PartisanZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We will end up with this kind of nonsense being advocated.
It is bad enough with closet Leninists.
Upshot ….. if you live a life predicated on mutual (collective) benefit, in which the ‘work to eat’ proviso is adhered to and surplus is avoided or not sought, and you own the means of production, you’re a socialist.
Producing surplus (widgets, food,) over and above small local collective requirements is essential in an interdependent world, which we are and still will be.
Others would do the same (tractor, parts-medicines etc) as long as they are all owned in common and accessed according to needs the interdependence will be a shared one commited to satisfyng human needs as opposed to profiting from them.
We won’t need a state to organise this locally, regionally, globally.
Insisting upon the ‘work to eat’ proviso is an ideological hangover from quasi-religious ‘human nature’ arguments and unnecessary, as work is a normal function of human behaviour.
“From each according to ability to each according to needs”, will be more than adequate proviso, as needs and abilities will be self assessed and predicated upon the immense majority having developed the political maturity to have made the revolution in the first place and therefore be willling to make it work.
Marxists’ Internet Archive
Georgi Plekhanov
1856 – 1918You wonder where that majority will come from, when even those who claim it can’t contemplate the reality.
No matter how long it takes, the following still applies.
” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”
(1879 Marx and Engels )
These two pamphlets cover in much more detail the practicality of ‘Free Access’.
As it will be the work of the immense majority to make the revolution, then there is no reason to suppose they will not make it work.
From Capitalism to Socialism – How We Live and How We Could Live
Socialism as a Practical Alternative
Introducing the Socialist Party
The Socialist Party advocates a society where production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and organised for the benefit of all on the basis of material abundance. It does not have policies to ameliorate aspects of the existing social system. It is opposed to all war.
The Socialist Standard is the combative monthly journal of the Socialist Party, published without interruption since 1904. In the 1930s the Socialist Standard explained why capitalism would not collapse of its own accord, in response to widespread claims to the contrary, and continues to hold this view in face of the notion’s recent popularity.
Beveridge’s welfare measures of the 1940s were viewed as a reorganisation of poverty and a necessary ‘expense’ of production, and Keynesian policies designed to overcome slumps an illusion.
Today, the journal exposes as false the view that banks create money out of thin air, and explains why actions to prevent the depredation of the natural world can have limited effect and run counter to the nature of capitalism itself.
Gradualist reformers like the Labour Party believed that capitalism could be transformed through a series of social measures, but have merely become routine managers of the system.
The Bolsheviks had to be content with developing Russian capitalism under a one-party dictatorship. Both failures have given socialism a quite different — and unattractive — meaning: state ownership and control.
As the Socialist Standard pointed out before both courses were followed, the results would more properly be called state capitalism.
The Socialist Party and the World Socialist Movement affirm that capitalism is incapable of meaningful change in the interests of the majority; that the basis of exploitation is the wages/money system.
The Socialist Standard is proud to have kept alive the original idea of what socialism is — a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society or, defined positively, a democracy in which free and equal men and women co-operate to produce the things they need to live and enjoy life, to which they have free access in accordance with the principle, ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.’
You can read extracts of it here.
Bax’s ‘A short history of the Paris Commune’ is a good read.
This is from our 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, 2003
Giovanni Gentile & Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932
“Abwicklung des Nordens (“Undeveloping the North”) in Germany.”
What nonsense is that?
This sort of nonsense.
https://www.convivialthinking.org/index.php/2019/09/14/undeveloping-the-north/
I got that from this search.
These posts below have been moved from the General discussion Forum as they were off topic.
-
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
Posts -
The USA is the only country in the whole world where a human being always carries a national/ethnic prefix, ( Italianamerican, German-American, etc, etc, ). Barrack Obama was not called a White/European /Afro American because that would have been an offence to the racial system, he was called a Muslim/Kenyan /socialist which is complete nonsense, he was born in the USA territory and he was not a socialist either
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
That capitalist reform is known as Feminism
Again Marcos, what “capitalist reform” is it that you imagine I am supporting? Either provide evidence for this claim or withdraw this claim. Its as simple as that
Ah so you have responded – finally.
Your claim is false . I dont support reformist feminism. I support the view, as does the Socialist Party, that men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party – any more than racism, nationalism or any other “ism” that seeks to divide the working class.
Or do you consider sexism to be acceptable or pardonable among socialists? That is the extent of my “feminism”. If you oppose that then by implication you support sexism
I think we went thru those labels at the Socialist Party discussion forum. For me, being a socialist/communist is more than enough. This is the only socialist party in the whole world where members asked other members to resign because he/she does not support a capitalist reform, even more, the Stalinists did not do that. and I know what I am talking about because I have met many organizations from different tendencies thru my whole life. I am not going to withdraw my claim,
Marcos
Being opposed to sexism is NOT reformist. How difficult is it for you to understand this? You cannot be a socialist and NOT oppose sexism just as you cannot be a socialist and NOT oppose racism or nationalism. The one thing implies the other…
Robbo
” I support the view, as does the Socialist Party, that men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party – any more than racism, nationalism or any other “ism” that seeks to divide the working class.”
I agree with your point and no one in the SPGB, to my knowledge, has ever supported the opposite of that point of view.
However what you state is not the generally accepted definition of feminism, which is widely viewed as putting forward reforms to enhance the level of equality within the framework of a capitalist system.
This is the reason the whole debate along this line has been needless and divisive and those responsible for starting the whole ridiculous debate within the party should never have started the debate in first place
However what you state is not the generally accepted definition of feminism, which is widely viewed as putting forward reforms to enhance the level of equality within the framework of a capitalist system.
This is the reason the whole debate along this line has been needless and divisive and those responsible for starting the whole ridiculous debate within the party should never have started the debate in first place
Bijou
Yes but those started the whole debate , as you say, made it abundantly clear that they were NOT advocating capitalist reforms and yet you still get people like Marcos suggesting these comrades are “reformist” (and insulting them by suggesting they should support the likes of Kamala Harris which is outrageous frankly) The debate would have receded into the background had not Marcos taken it upon himself to foolishly stir up the shit again and I am not going to stand by and let good comrades be gratuitously insulted in this way. Support Kamala Harris? Fuck that.
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
No, these comrades (incidentally the majority in the Party) are in no way reformist – even if you might call into question their definition of feminism. I have made it plain that my support for “feminism” amounts to nothing more than my vigorous and proactive opposition to sexism of any kind . Period. I am not interested in peddling capitalist reforms.
This might not be the “generally accepted definition of feminism” but nor is our definition of socialism the generally accepted one. As socialists we should be used to not going along with what is “generally accepted” as the definition of something…
And now you are trying to give me lectures to topics that I have known for years and probably before then you, I grew up in this movement in the middle of the class struggles. I will say here, in front of any other persons and groups, and in another planet, feminism is a bourgeoise reform and I do not know how the Socialist Party fell in that trap, and it is also a divisive conception which might destroy the revolutionary tradition of the Socialist Party, even more, many Leninists group which used to support that concept have rejected completely. I already did my homework for a long time, don’t try to give lessons, that is only a review for me
“This might not be the “generally accepted definition of feminism” but nor is our definition of socialism the generally accepted one. As socialists we should be used to not going along with what is “generally accepted” as the definition of something…”
There is a huge qualitative difference between not going along with the generally accepted definition of the word Socialism, which is in our title and is part of our stated aim and has been since 1904 and not going along with the generally accepted definition the word feminism, which has not and has never been our stated aim.
The Party set out its view on feminism quite clearly in our pamphlet “Women and Socialism”. I don’t recall any dispute about the contents of that pamphlet back in the 80s, as it set out clearly the accepted Party position on the feminist movement, especially in the Chapter “What is Wrong With Feminist Theory”. This chapter shows what our criticism of the “Socialist Feminist” perspective is in great depth.
It was interesting that those who originally proposed the divisive resolution on feminism chose not to use this source to define “Socialist Feminism” perspective at the recent annual conference, but rather chose to use an A Level Sociology text FFS.
I translated that pamphlet into the Spanish language and I distributed it widely in more than 50 discussions forums, and now they want to give me lectures on this topic. What the Socialist Party is saying in that pamphlet is the correct socialist view on Feminism and the women question, and now I have seen some Leninist groups trying to adopt the same view
They are talking about insulting, labelling, and offensive, but they do not remember when they were insulting and cursing everybody on the forum of the Socialist Party and asking everybody to leave, and I received an email in my personal account trying to insult m
feminism is a bourgeoise reform and I do not know how the Socialist Party fell in that trap,
Once again – when has any member of the Socialist Party suggested we go down the road of “bourgeois reforms” in relation to the position of women in capitalism? Specifically, what reforms are you talking about? If you cannot provide any concrete evidence of this then your claim must be dismissed as mischievous fabrication along with your outrageous and insulting suggestion that we should support a capitalist politician like Kamala Harris
There is no need to file a court case or a legal pleading or to have a PhD degree in order to know that in this society all reforms have capitalists basis even if they in some way they favour the working class. Feminism in its actual form only wants to provide certain reform or gain to women in this capitalist society. Nothing else. I have published many articles of what women are going thru in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean and you have not said anything about it, and now you are jumping like the champions of women rights. Several members of the socialist party have resigned based on this reformist resolution. You are not an authority to trying to dismiss other peoples point of view
-
Posts
-
-
As I said before, Feminism is a capitalist reform, that is, there is no need to publish a pamphlet about that, the socialist party wrote one already and I stick myself to that one, there is not need to expand it. The problem is that you think that you know everything and that other peoples do not know anything, typical elitist thought
As I said before, Feminism is a capitalist reform, that is, there is no need to publish a pamphlet about that
And as I’ve asked you before – what are these specific reforms that are allegedly being advocated by those in the Socialist Party who you claim are in favour of feminist reformism? For example do these members urge that we should campaign for equal wages , wages for housework , positive discrimination in employment or something else? Unless you can provide specific concrete evidence to back up your claim that these members are advocating something along these lines, then you stand accused of fabricating lies to slander good comrades
To top it all you then accuse me of “typical elitist thought” just because I have pressed you to provide concrete evidence of members advocating reforms, evidence which you have resolutely declined to offer thus far Perhaps you think you are exempt from the need to bear the burden of proof when it comes to providing hard evidence
If anyone is displaying “typical elitist thought” it is you, Marcos, with your supercilious attitude to debate
Shouldn’t this discussion be taking place in a thread if its own in the World Socialist Movement section?
If we advocate for a specific sex like women we can also advocate for masculineism because men and women are equally exploited in this society The psmphlet of the socialist party explains clearly what is wrong with feminism I do not know it was passed in the socialist party when the pamphlet rejects it. This is my last arguments on this I stand to what I said
-
Some posts have been deleted on here but when I attempted to move them into this thread they did not post.I don’t have the time or inclination to be doing this.I managed to save most of them onto the feminist thread but apologies for the mess of some other ones.I can’t move form General Discusions Forum into other Forums nicely.I suggest to comrades to keep on the topic and if you wish to debate further on the subject of feminism use the above link.Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.- 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.
- 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.
- 13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.
- 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
- 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Her biography sounds like a typical American politician. Nothing new, it does show that any sex and any colour of the skin can serve the interest of the ruling class. The best example is Barrack Obama. The Feminists of the Socialist Party should support her
Marcos
This last comment is totally out of order and uncalled for. Are your seriously recommending that socialists should support a capitalist politician?
-
