PartisanZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
EC minutes are put into Files in the new spintcom.
January 2020 haven’t been posted yet.
Give a sample of your in depth analysis then. It just looks like a schoolboy going Yah! boo! to me. In particular address the comments Rod made,
” you don’t seem to have any conception of the change in mass consciousness that could put us in a political position you envisage above”.
He should have spent some time inside the SPGB reading up and trying to understand our position.
In Against Parliament. For Anarchism, (p. 53) The Anarchist Federation pamphlet concedes that
“Through all the problems involved in carrying through the revolution, any temptations towards authoritarian or exploitative behaviour would face an alert, energised populace working through a very different social framework”
We agree, but also think that this same “alert, energised populace” would also be able to deal with any such behaviour in those it chose to send to parliament as its mandated delegates. Furthermore, some anarchists have the view that recallable delegates should be used as a way of carrying out functions in their own organizations and in a future society, so what’s wrong with applying this principle to sending socialist delegates to parliament?
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlet/whats-wrong-with-using-parliament/
PDF Version What’s Wrong With Using Parliament
The transitional stage will be before this, i.e. within capitalism. In those cases, so we must critically and constructively engage as workers and socialists with new ideas which are attempting, even if only partially, to ‘think outside of the box’.
The thrust of article to which our reader objected was,
“China is set to censor all translated versions of classic religious books to make sure that their messages reflect the principles of Socialism’ (dailymail.co.uk, 27 November). Such news concerning Emperor Xi’s regime comes as no surprise to socialists. Kautsky in his Foundations of Christianity shows how its teachings were turned from those of a rebellious sect into a state religion, suitably servile and cringing.
All religions have been, in all phases of history, the allies of the ruling classes in keeping the masses bent under the yoke. Churches have crowned the peoples’ oppressors, and crucified our forebears. New Age religion is merely the old repackaged in a new, modern form.
Rather than obeying a priest, they choose the form of our own mental domination and the flight from reality into a magical world. Socialists, by contrast are scientific materialists. We argue that the origin and development of the universe, of life, of society and religion itself can be explained adequately without recourse to the so-called supernatural, and that this is an integral part of socialist theory. “
His convoluted response to the above does not address any of the piece’s points apart from inadvertently confirming the last paragraph.
“And, yes, administration and government are pretty much the same.”
Well no. Not quite so. Apart from initially capturing power to prevent the state being used against the revolution. Administration will be over resources not over people.
With locally, regionally and globally, the people calling the shots.
https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745331652/life-without-money/
A chapter on, 7. Non-Market Socialism, by Adam Buick – Member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and regular contributor to the Socialist Standard
Widely attributed to Machiavelli’s The Prince, which does reflect this philosophy but does not use the phrase in this wording.
The closest Machiavelli comes to actually saying “the ends justify the means” quote is from Chapter XVIII of “The Prince.” Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.
A possible original source is Ovid’s Heroides (ca. 10 BC), which says “exitus ācta probat” (“the outcome justifies the deeds”).
So yes, I am aware of the distortions, but I am looking for source of the original Marx statement of, “An end which requires unjust means is not a just end”.
The Socialist Standard reviewed that book of Camus’s in 1973:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/camus-portrait-of-rebel.html?m=1
++++++++++++++++++++
The The Standard article states,
Camus’ own proposals. His main idea seems to be the relationship between means and ends:
“Does the end justify the means? That is possible, but what will justify the end? To that question, which historic thought leaves pending, rebellion replies: the means.”
He has earlier quoted with approval Marx saying that “An end which requires unjust means is not a just end”, (My emphasis).
I am unable to find precisely where Marx said this. I searched Marxists.org for it.
I disagree.We can use all of the alternatives but must stress we mean socialism/communism, or stand accused of deliberate obfuscation and lumped in with the power seeking left.
Its seem like it will only take the experience of an actual labour government to finally extinguish the naïve idealism of its Left wing supporters though the prospect of such a government seems remote in the near future
I don’t even think this would happen in any great numbers. There are always enough of them who cling to notions of betrayal and conspiracy and such other reactions rather than analysis.
They’ll hang around, either inside or outside, in fringe left groups and repeat the same ‘boring from within’ when opportunity re-presents itself.
Some will become moderate careerists inside the Labour Party, their ‘leftist’ utterances toned down in harmony the new reality.
Maybe we should post him a copy of the February SS and draw his attention to the letter.
Comrade Stafford does this activity of writing to people mentioned in the Standard every month.
I posted here with small (poor screenshot) images and this link to the PDF.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/general-election-2/page/6/#post-192165
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Newsletter-Dec-19-F-and-H-WN.pdf
