PartisanZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not so. You are distorting what was said, by someone whose bookshelves are collapsing with such literature, in support of the more accessible world wide web, denying your absurd ‘dumb’ classification of workers.
Those are my own bookshelves I refer to. I broke my damn toe on a box of books when I moved in here years ago.
So what will happen to books then, in your socialism? All transferred to digital and then burned, eh?
No place for those of us who prefer them.
You are losing your mind if you take that from anything any comrade has said on here.
Behave yourself.
> Agree. But by previous statements here about the unimportance of grammar,
No one has said this. Only in reference to understanding about socialism.
the dismissing of classical literature as bourgeois and dispensable,
Again not a necessity to gain an understanding about socialism.
the idolisation of googling over book-reading,
Not so. You are distorting what was said, by someone whose bookshelves are collapsing with such literature, in support of the more accessible world wide web, denying your absurd ‘dumb’ classification of workers.
the consigning of pens and pencils to history’s dustbin, etc.,
Another distortion.
it seemed your hopes are being placed on the lumpenproletariat rather than the proletariat.
Disgraceful.Our reading of such terms is much more nuanced and respectful of individuals trying to survive.
Marx’s opinion of the ‘lumpenproletariat’ contrasted starkly with Bakunin’s. Living largely outside of the constraints of formal wage labour and subject to the vagaries of desperate poverty, the lumpenproletariat, by virtue of its very life situation, was more likely to become a ‘bribed tool of reactionary intrigue’ rather than a force for revolution. This was a reference to elements of the lumpenproletariat being employed by the French state within its armed forces for the purposes of maintaining order during the social upheavals of the mid-nineteenth century – the bribe in question being a soldier’s wage rather than something received in addition to this wage (The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850).
Marx’s reference to the lumpenproletariat being ‘bribed’ is ironic, given Lenin’s insistence that it was labour aristocracy, instead, that was the beneficiary of capitalist bribery.
However, this may be a case of over-theorising on both sides. One’s own circumstances – be one a lumpenproletarian or labour aristocrat – need not be particularly decisive as far as one’s receptivity to socialist ideas are concerned. Indeed, Marx and Engels themselves in the Communist Manifesto speculated on the possibility of even some capitalists (Engels himself, being a prime example), cutting themselves adrift from their class and seeking common cause with the workers.
Nevertheless, the weight of historical evidence suggests that the more militant elements within the working class (particularly those who have embraced revolutionary socialism) have, indeed, tended to be drawn from the ranks of semi-skilled and skilled workers. IMPERIALISM PART 2: SUPER-PROFITS AND THE LABOUR ARISTOCRACY
(Emphasis in bold type is mine. M.C.)
> (Likewise your use of “aesthete” in a derogatory sense, as if beautiful books and beautiful things, artistic temperament etc., are not essential for a socialist.
They are not essential for understanding about socialism.
> Morris would be repelled. And there are also digital/internet-idolatry snobs who see no value in the crafts, in the printed book, in the beauty and the necessity of the tangible, and who worship the virtual … and they know who they are. )
No they do not exist, for Morris to be repelled, nor have any such individuals commented, on this Forum.
You really seem to have your head stuck up your prejudiced ass.
How do you know those visiting the party’s sites aren’t just party members regularly checking back?
From the ISP addresses. I gave you searches from China, USA, France.
They were the first half dozen or so. I didn’t go looking especially for them.You seem more ready to believe your acquaintances than to accept that the company who find us or seek us out, on the website are not looking for answers to silly speculations.
Well you seem to want to believe this stuff and ask idiots to confirm it.
The info I gave you is straight from our own website statistics.
De omnibus dubitandum.
They knew basic history by teaching themselves, as I did thanks to his encouragement. I don’t see that any more.
You can’t see this as they are searching from ‘Google’ and other places.
Looking for info such as ,’what flaws of communism did gorbachev highlight in his book perestroika’ and finding on our website,
also from Bing and other search engines arriving at,
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/publications/why-we-dont-need-money/
It is ‘dumb’ indeed to be extrapolating from the general silliness of the capitalist media with its manufactured celebrity and advertising obsessions to be making disparaging remarks in ideological reinforcement of prevailing norms.
When did workers ever learn about socialism at school or university?
Education is for work in capitalism.Marx did not use your terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’.
Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
An adequate theory of history and social change is what Marx was to contribute to socialist theory, providing it with a scientific basis.
The Socialist Party has further developed Marx’s theories, and has made plain where it disagrees with Marx. We do not endorse Marx’s ideas regarding struggles for national liberation, minimum reform programmes, labour vouchers and the lower stage of communism.
On some of these points the Socialist Party does not reject what Marx advocated in his own day but rejects their applicability to socialists now. There are other issues upon which the Socialist Party might appear to be at variance with Marx but is in fact only disputing distortions of Marx’s thinking.
For example, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is usually understood in its Leninist interpretation.
Indeed, it is a tragedy of world-historical proportions that Marx has been Leninized – what is basically a method of social analysis with a view to taking informed political action by the working class, has had its name put to a state ideology of repression of the working class.
Instead of being known as a tool for working class self-emancipation, we have had the abomination of ‘Marxist states’.
Undeterred by these developments, the Socialist Party has made its own contributions to socialist theory whilst combating distortions of Marx’s ideas. In the light of all the above, the three main Marxist theories can be restated as:
The political theory of class struggle
The materialist theory of history
The labour theory of valueThese are tools of analysis, which have been further developed and modified by socialists, to explain how the working class are exploited under capitalism.
Marxism is not only a method for criticising capitalism: it also points to the alternative. Marxism explains the importance to the working class of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use and the means for establishing it. And while it is desirable that socialist activists should acquaint themselves with the basics of Marxism, it is essential that a majority of workers have a working knowledge of how capitalism operates and what the change to socialism will mean.
Where does Marx ever use the terms ‘democratic social productionism in science’?
Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
It was all dealt with at the start.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/gnostic-marxist/page/2/#post-214014
Now answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
There will be no elites with power in socialism.
The phsysicians and specialists are and will be part of the masses.
So, certainly not so. As previously indicated several times.
The people who make the revolution, will set the determinations.An advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in democratic administration over resources and not a government over people.
Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
Unfortunately for you, that wasn’t Marx, but McClellan. And he was wrong
No I disagree he was wrong.
You still do not answer the question.
Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
