robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:What's his disagreement with us about that stopped him from becoming a member.How many are involved in the Moneyless Party…is it a one-man-band?
The Money Free Party has 914 people on its FB page compared to 975 in the SPGB FB page as of today. Nick is indeed a prominent member but it is not a one man band; others are involved. There are some on their site who advocated the reform of the money system but their arguments have been contested. The point has also been made that it is not money that is the problem per se but the social relationships that necessitate its use – private property. So there does seem to be a considerable overlap between the MFP and the SPGB. I'm not 100% sure what the differences are but I have a feeling that the question of the SPGB's blanket ban on religious belief is one of these as I recall reading some discussion on that a while agoWhy not join the FB site and find out – like me?
Slightly relevant to this are Marx's speculations on the future of Russia. In 1877 he wrote a response to N.K. Mikhailovsky, the leading theorist of Russian Populism, who had penned a critique of Das Kapital in which he had foisted on Marx a highly schematicised stagist view of history which declared that Russia had to take precisely the same path trodden by Western Europe in the development of capitalism via a brutal process of "primitive accumulation" and land dispossession. Marx argued that this is not what he was suggesting. It was theoretically possible for Russia to skip the stage of capitalist development by building on the traditional communal form of the Russian village although this would necessitate linking up with a "proletarian revolution in the West." He cited the case of the plebeians of ancient Rome who were originally free peasants tilling their own land. Their growing indebtedness and the expropriation of their land by large landowners however did not result in the Roman proletariat being turned into wage workers , as happened in Western Europe, but rather into an "indolent mob, more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern lands of the United States; and by their side was unfolded not a capitalist but a slave mode of production". Hence concluded Marx:strikingly analogical events, occurring, however, in different historical environments, led to entirely dissimilar results.By studying each of these evolutions separately, and then comparing them, one will easily find the key to these phenomena, but one will never succeed with the master-key of a historico-philosophical theory whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical. (https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol01/no04/marx.htmSome Marxologists have argued that this demonstrates fairly conclusively that Marx did not subscribe to unilinear model of social evolution but a multilinear model in which historical contingencies played a large part
alanjjohnstone wrote:Religion and membership has been raised on our discussion forum and i think Robbo will be interested in Paddy Shannon's replyhttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WSM_Forum/conversations/topics/52463;_ylc=X3oDMTM1YTI0Y2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MDYxMARncnBzcElkAzE3MDgzNjMwNzcEbXNnSWQDNTI0NzAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDMxMTY3MTA1BHRwY0lkAzUyNDYzThanks Alan. I particularly like this part of Paddy's text: "More prosaically, we tend to think that people who are capable of believing in imaginary beings can’t be relied on to make solid and rational decisions but I think this is an atheist bias and our weakest argument. Some scientists, doctors and engineers are religious but we don’t normally question their ability to think rationally. Humans are exceptionally good at compartmentalising. Conversely, nobody has ever suggested that atheism is a gold standard of sanity. – You can see from this that WSM members don’t all think alike on this subject. As it happens, I agree with your arguments more than Julian’s. Extremists should not be allowed to join for very good and obvious reasons, but otherwise, let in all the Quakers, Pagans, Buddhists and Druids that want to join, as far as I’m concerned, although I doubt there would be many. If they’ve got more motivation than us atheists, so much the better. Speaking personally, if I had to choose between a socialist world with religious people in it and a capitalist world full of atheists, I wouldn’t hesitate. Provided they didn’t turn up on my doorstep with a Bible and a pious lecture at the ready." This is something I've been banging on about for ages. It really does not matter that people hold religious views provided we can be sure that their particular brand of religion does not interfere with them being socialists. As I understand it Marx in helping to up the rules of The International Workingmens Association (the First International) cautioned against inserting a rule disallowing religious believers into the Association. The SPGB should take a leaf out of Marx's book. A blanket ban on religious belief is pointless, does not achieve anything more than what the other very tight membership requirements achieve and creates yet another ridiculous obstacle in the way of the growth of the Party. The point of the SPGB is to help bring about a socialist world not to rid the world of religious belief (there are plenty of atheists who are virulently anti socialist so would the Party ban atheists?) and it is sad that the largest body of organised socialists in the world – albeit pathetically small – should handicap themselves in this way. As I have always argued, a softened stance on religion by way of a compromise which at least allows in some religious believers but excludes what Paddy calls religious "extremists" or certain organised religions, would be a huge step forward and I would seriously hope that this is something that this Special conference would consider…..
Vin wrote:I am talking about the starting point of our propaganda. I am not saying we should not attempt to visualise the future but nothing will be achieved unless workers decide they have had enough of capitalism first.Another example of what I am talking about. You cannot really separate "having enough of capitalism" from the more positive notion of visualising an alternative to capitalism. The two things go together – ALWAYS! If you don't have an alternative in mind to put in the place of capitalism then you cannot really be said to have have "had enough of capitalism". All you have had "enough off" is some or all of the symptoms of capitalism without necessarily understanding how these connect with the capitalist basis of modern society…
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:Problem is, Vin, socialists are in the business of communicating ideas and to communicate effectively you have to start from where people are. You have to, in a way , put yourself in their shoes, and try to help them to come to a socialist understanding through dialogue – through what was originally called "dialectics" in the Socratic sense.I must respectfully disagree with that. It sounds patronising and a little like the parties of the left. We need to be open and honest and hide nothing.Brand is a good example, he was not afraid to use the term 'revolution'. He got 10 million twitter followers. Why should we be afraid of the term. perhaps people are pissed off with politics because of all the 'dressing up'. perhaps people want a party to get to the point: exploitation, Parasites etcWhen our speakers are asked 'What do you stand for?'We tend to say 'we want a nice society without war, classes, money etc. With all the horrors going on around us it makes us sound like christianity. People rightly don't listen any further. After all it sounds nuts. The starting point of our propaganda should be that there is a parisitic class leeching from the rest. We have to deal with this reality through revolution. They own the earth and intend to take it from them.
Its not "patronising", Vin, to start from a position of where people are at the moment and to tailor the message to that; its just commonsense. Thats what I liked about some of the responses from the SPGB candidates to enquirers. They broke with the kind of formulaic approach one sometimes encounters and came across as more personable, more engaged with what the enquirer was actually asking… I don't disagree with your suggestion about using the term "revolution" although I generally tend to qualify it by talking of a "peaceful democratic social revolution". Words are important but words can mislead if they are not qualified by other words. Utter the the word "revolution" in a free standing sense and most people are liable to think you are referring to something like the Bolshevik Revolution and get turned off. Who would seriously want the sort of Stalinist tyranny that was born out of that?I think you are being too black-or-white in your rejection of the seemingly "utopian" exercise of putting flesh on the bones of the socialist goal. I think it is important to state openly that socialism will indeed mean a classless wageless moneyless commonwealth. Otherwise, you will come across as just another Leftist spouting "socialism" and "revolution". Actually , if anything, as an opening gambit , talking of socialism as a moneyless free access society is more likely to make people sit up and take notice if nothing else because it is so different. If nothing else that gives you the opportunity to qualify what you mean such as that it is not money per se that we seek to abolish but rather the social relationships that necessitate its use. Play up to the initial scepticism as a way of disarming it by saying something like "Yes it sounds utopian but the more you think about the more sense it makes.,.." Talking of which I have, as it happens, just been reading through the SPGB's pamphlet "Marxism revisited" and came across this passage from a talk by SC (who I presume is Steve Coleman)So I am going to deal briefly with the utopian strand, the radical democratic strand, and the early socialist movement. First of all, Utopia. Utopia has a very bad name, not least of all because Marx and Engels in asserting the clear scientificity of their position made a point of emphasising and dismissing and, frankly, sneering at the significance of utopian vision, the mere utopian thinkers who had fanciful thoughts about the future. Having said that, Marx and Engels, in Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, gave the respect that was right to those utopian socialists who had influenced them I agree. We shouldn't be sneering at utopian depictions of a socialist future. They are a source of inspiration, a stimulus to thinking more deeply about the kind of world we live in and a means of sharply differentiating the true revolutionaries from the left wing conservatives who cling to the realism of wanting to reform capitalism while gutting the term "revolution" of any credible meaning
Richard wrote:Dear Comrades,I admit my guilt before the Party. I admit that I have waged a struggle against the Party, against Socialism and against the proletariat. I have used every weapon known to me: open discussion, free thought, the introduction of new ideas and many other reprehensible activities.I admit that I am guilty of sins against the Party, of being an organizer of anti-Party thought and of being a traitor to the Proletariat. My political outlook was tainted by bourgeois ideology and I have failed the Party in every way imaginable.The Party's generosity is not unlimited. There are no arguments which I can use in my defence. I cannot atone for my monstrous crimes, for my failure in my struggle to obey Party doctrine.Sincerely,Comrade RichardLOL Richard. Which reminds me also that apart from other ways of putting across the message , humour is pretty effective…. On the question of terminology I have sympathy with both sides of this "debate". I think the answer is to tailor the use of terminology to suit the occasion. On some occasions, that might mean not using the term socialism at all. However on a more general point I think it is fair to say that people who react positively to the word "socialism" are likely to be the ones who are probably more receptive to what socialists are saying anyway and that consequently there is a case for using targeted propaganda that makes use of terms such as "socialism"
Vin wrote:Our message is pathetic. Class struggle and revolution cannot be dressed up. Don't patronise workers, we know what needs to be done. A rose by any other name. Fuck bourgeois terminology. Revolution through class struggle is what we are about. If they don't like it they can fuck off.Problem is, Vin, socialists are in the business of communicating ideas and to communicate effectively you have to start from where people are. You have to, in a way , put yourself in their shoes, and try to help them to come to a socialist understanding through dialogue – through what was originally called "dialectics" in the Socratic sense. Though I understand your frustration which is very evident in your tone – I feel it too! – I think socialists have to resist the temptation to come across as just trying to ram the message down peoples' throats. It wont work and is self defeating I have to say I was very impressed with many of the response of the SPGB candidates to enquirers in this election – particularly Howard Pilotts. It was very effective indeed in my opinion – this kind of personalised approach to delivery of the socialist message and breaks with a more formulaic type of response. That is something that perhaps this Special Conference ought to consider as well as other things such as how to make it easier for people to join the SPGB. I know I go on about it but I still think you have to look again at the requirements for membership and eliminate anything that is superfluous and only presents a further unnecessary obstacle to joining – like the very strict ruling on religious beliefs. Totally unnecessary in my view. Apart from that I think Alan has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of things to consider which could be built upon.
Brand seems blissfully unaware of the harsh truth that a policy of "lesser evilism" naturally paves the way for an outcome of "greater evilism". My only regret that the capitalist "Labour" Party didn't get in is that we now have to endure the same old tired special pleading next time round – "vote Labour without illusions". Couldn't exactly do that with much conviction if you have just had a taste of what a Labour Party in power meant in practice. Like I said earlier the see saw nature of capitalist politics will almost certainly guarantee the return of a Tory government – the presumed "greater evil" in this case – later on had it failed to become the government this time round . People like Brand only serve to help perpetuate this treadmill of illusions by issuing advice that we should "vote Labour". After some promising noises initially, he has proven to be a rather big disappointment,sadly
stuartw2112 wrote:The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.Hi Stuart, Your comments above are also revealing for what they say about you! Do I take it then that you regard the case for socialism is purely a matter of economic interests – pragmatism – as opposed to morality? I have always taken the postition that it is necessarily both these things and was somewhat dismayed when the SPGB elected a few years back to effectively fall in line with Kautsky's observation – namely that "it was the materialist interpretation of history which first completely deposed the moral ideal as the directing factor of social revolution” and that this theory has ‘taught us to deduce our social aims solely from the knowledge of the material foundations’ (Karl Kautsky Ethics and the Materialist Conception Of History,1906, Chapter V . "The Ethics of Marxism"). I dont think you can entirely deduce your aims from a "knowledge of the material foundations of society" – your aims are also a question of values which moreover fundamentally influence how you interpet the world – your knowledge Your supposed pragmatism in choosing to vote for a through and through capitalist political party you attempt to justify on grounds that supposedly separate you from those who express a view point that is angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising . And yet there you are talking about all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government. A slightly less evil government? Can you not see the fundamental contradiction in your whole posture? And if you going to be "pragmatic" about it consider the point that I made earlier. If you are recommending people to vote Labour, you doing so in the certain knowlege that a Labour government is going to disappoint and that as result of that disappointment workers in the long run are almost certainly going to switch their allegiance back to the Tories. Given the see saw nature of capitalist politics this is what invariably happens, does it not? Why not then just short circuit the whole lengthy expostion and simply say "VOTE TORY!! Because, lets face it, that is the long term consequence of voting Labour. You are simply preparing the ground for the return of a future Tory government in the wake of Labour's (inevitable) failure….
stuartw2112 wrote:Hi Alan,Brand changed his mind, something he has not been shy about doing in his public self-development and education. And as he said in his Trews show, he's well aware, and could go on for perhaps as long as you, about Labour's past and probable future failings. But the question on the table is not about Labour's failings. It's about whether we would prefer a Labour(-led) government to a Tory(-led) one. Brand says yes, and I agree with him. It's a reasonable thing to believe (a majority in the Labour movement do, don't they?), even if you're not a dupe of the system, a fool, a knave, a charlatan, have been bought off by the lizards, a careerist only out for yourself, etc, etc.Well I don't agree Stuart. Even if, for the sake of argument, a Labour government was marginally less harsh in its anti-working class policies, a vote for Labour in the short term is in effect a vote for the Tories in the long term (and vice versa I might add), given the see-saw nature of capitalist politics. Invariably the election of one capitalist party to power leads to disenchantment and the subsequent diversion of political support to some political rival, only for the whole process to repeat itself again and again. The political rival gets into power and disappoints its followers who then switch their allegiance back to other one. Its a bleedin' treadmill we are talking about here and the only way to deal with a treadmill is to get the hell off it – something that I fondly imagined Brand had originally done but sadly proved not to be the case. Honestly – at some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough". Otherwise you are liable to find yourself sucked into a quagmire with no way out. and no end in sight.
jondwhite wrote:Well it was dismissed as anti socialist claptrap on here but Harold walsby made this point way back in 1949Problem is, though, that while Walsby's rather contrived and rigid functionalist hierarchy (or pyramid) or ideological types may well be a load of codswallop (and in my opinion, it is) this does not in any way invalidate the more general point being made here – that we are all subject to irrational influences and that a political style that basis itself on a purely rational approach is in a sense foredoomed to make little progress unless, as it were, it takes on or addresses those influences on their own terms. That is to say, unless it incorporates an element of "irrationalism" itself and thereby becomes more effectively able to appeal to workers on a more rounded basis and not simply regard them as mere self-interested calculating machines (which is actually what lies behind this "rationalist" paradigm). How often has one come across the reason offered as why an individual decided to join the Socialist Party: "I came across a copy of the Socialist Standard. I couldn't argue against what it was saying. It made a lot of sense to me. So I was persuaded and subsequently joined the Socialist Party…" Its a caricature, I know, but what this hypothetical example does point to and highlight is the crucial importance attached to rationality in the role of the Party in propagating socialist ideas. That in turn links up with other basic motifs commonly found in the literature – such as that socialism is a question of our economic class interests rather than a question of , say, moral indignation or that the approach of socialists to society is a "scientific" one that is value free and objective (I know I know I'm beginning to sound like LBird , god help me) or (my particular bugbear with the Party) that you can't possibly entertain the idea of admitting into Party, a socialist who holds some vague religious ideas but in all other respects is clearly socialist, because he or she is irredeemably tainted with sin of embracing irrationalism….etc etc This way of thinking goes all the way back to people like Rudolf Hilferding, who wrote in the preface to his work Finanzkapital (1910):The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice is free from judgments of value. It is therefore false to conceive, as is widely done, intra et extra muros, that Marxism and socialism are as such identical. For logically, regarded as a scientific system and apart from its historical effect, Marxism is only a theory of the laws of movement of society formulated in general terms by the Marxian conception of history; the Marxian economics applying in particular to the period of commodity-producing society It makes what we are arguing for sound like something that will be introduced by a bunch of white coated scientists… Don't get me wrong . I'm not saying saying socialists should repudiate rationality in favour of irrationality or that we should reject the notion that socialism is in our class interests in favour of the notion that it is a moral imperative. What I am saying is that we should incorporate both sides of this equation into our propaganda and practice What that might mean in practical terms I am not quite sure which is why I started this thread – to initiate some discussion on it. The point is though that if individuals are significantly affected by irrational factors – and the link I gave at the outset strongly suggests this is the case – then how do we adapt our strategy to take this into account? We cant just ignore this. If the case is so overwhelmingly strong and logical (and I believe it is) why are more workers not joining the socialist movement? Its not just because they haven't heard of us . Thats a feeble excuse. The vast majority who have heard of us still don't join. Why? Walsby came up with a reason but I think his basic argument was crap – an unconvincing and speculative schema based on a functionalist sociology. Incidentally the title of this thread I took from the pamphlet written by Maurice Brinton in 1970 . See here https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm. I'm not quite sure whether I go along with what he is saying but he does make some interesting points
LBird wrote:If you are like me, and consider socialism to be 'the democratic control of production', then we can move to discussing how, perhaps, possibly, being suggestive, we can democratically control the production of knowledge.robbo's problem is that he doesn't agree with workers' control of physics, which anyone agreeing with 'the democratic control of production' would obviously agree with, and so he's not concerned with how to do this, but to prove that we can't do this.Just as I predicted, LBird has refused to answer my several questions. He has refused to say why the global population has to vote to determine the "truth" of scientific theories – what is the point of the exercise?He has refused to explain what happens to the heretics who continue to espouse heretical scientific theories in the face of orthodoxy – will they be forcibly silenced, burnt at the stake or what? Again, if not , what was the point of this exercise in voting?He has refused to explain how people are going to equip themselves with the necessary knowledge in order to be able to vote – not just on a handful of theories but the totality of scientific theories. That is to say he has refused to explain how individuals – everyone! – is expected to become scientifically omniscient . Instead he comes up with the above complete aunt sally that I don't agree with workers control – completely overlooking that it is not up to me to prove that omniscience is an unattainable state of affairs as far as any individual is concerned but rather that it is up to him him to prove otherwiseHe has refused to explain in practical terms, how thousands upon thousands global plebiscites are going to be organised every year in order to determine the truth of each and every new theory that comes on stream. He say he wants to move to discussing how "we can democratically control the production of knowledge but of course this is just bluster. He has no intention of discussioing anything of the sort and has consistently declined every challenge thus far to show how this can be done.He has refused to explain what happens if the great majority have no inclination whatsoever to trudge down to the polling booth to vote on the burning issue of whether amoebic reproduction refutes "Mullers ratchet" theory but prefer to do something more interesting and he has refused to explain how the world is going to fall apart and complete chaos ensue should the show of hands in support of the theory be so pathetically small as to cast doubt on its validity. On the question of democratic control of production…. He has refused to explain how his Leninist conception of one single society wide plan in which 7 billion people – the current world population more or less – are expected to decide on the production targets of million upon millions of different kinds of inputs and outputs – from 3 inch nails to steel plates, from bags of bird seed to plastic mugs He has refused to explain how this Leninist conception of his is going to work when any change to any part of The Plan will necessitate redrafting the whole plan in its entirety – meaning in effect that The Plan will never see the light of day and will remain permanently on the drawing board He has refused to explain how this global society of 7 billion people are going to be involved in making decisions about what happens in your local community if no decentralised decision making is to be allowed in this utopian fantasy world of his He has refused to explain how, if we allow local communities to make decisions that effect only them, this is any different in principle from just letting people interested in the question of amoebic reproduction, debate among themselves on whether "Mullers Ratchet" is a sound theory Each after all constitutes only a tiny subset of the total population. Or is LBird going to argue that local decisionnaking is "elitist" because it tends to exclude people who are not local? LBird has clearly got a lot of explaining to do and until he gets his finger out , stops with the constant waffling and gets down to the hard nitty gritty issues raised by all these question , he will continue to have zero credibility in my book. Jehovah Witness type responses in the face of these probing questions is not going to get him anywhere even if might make him feel good about himself to endlessly repeat these pious mantras. One needs something a little more substantial than simply to be told ad nauseum "I am a democratic communist and democratic communism is my ideology"
steve colborn wrote:I am a worker, no different to any other worker! I can understand the "Case" for Socialism and the necessity for the same. I had no especial knowledge, when I first approached The Socialist Party, in 1980. I had a sense of disquietude with society, something was not "right". When I met The Socialist Party, the disquietude was silenced, the confusion, abated.Why????????I'm nowt special. No particular acumen, no particular insight. Just a worker who was/is unsatisfied with the way society is organised.I agree with L Bird, we are nowt special! so what makes us special?Sort that out, solve the riddle of the Sphinx, the Gordian Knot, the Rosetta Stone and we've cracked it!!!Roll on the post election symposium/post-mortem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Its not a question of acumen or insight or intellectual ability Steve; its a question of motive or, if you like, values. Hence your paradox: we are nowt special! so what makes us special? Vastly more people have heard the case for socialism than there are socialists. Why do so few go on then to become socialists? There has to be something "special" about these few who become socialists in the sense that they are atypically predisposed more than others to become socialists. To deny that seems foolish – a case of burying one's head in the sand (not saying this is what you are doing though – you are clearly not which is why you recognise the paradox above) I think people exist along a spectrum of receptivity to socialist ideas and this may very well mean a more targeted approach to socialist propaganda is required. Part of the reason why many are currently reluctant to become socialists or work for socialism is that they think it is just not credible in the sense that it is not going to happen in their lifetime. So why bother. This of course then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. However, as the movement grows and it crosses a certain critical threshold this factor is likely to weaken so you will start to see a significant acceleration in the growth of the movement itself Consciousness tends to expand exponentially rather than arithmetically. But, again, this reinforces the point about motive. Some people may be inherently more conformist or unwilling to break the mould and may therefore require the presence of many more socialists around them before they feel secure enough to begin to make a move in the direction of socialism
alanjjohnstone wrote:Robbo and LBird…i think we have to be sure of our words…Victor is wrong …people aren't ignorant…they are unaroused politically. We know our friends and co-workers only too well…they can analyse a football game with precision…they can judge a racehorse's capability to a photo fuinish…and they leave me mathematically dumbfounded when it comes to calculating all those complex bets at the bookies…it is certainly not from lack of intellectual prowness that workers do not understand socialism…it is the missing will that they lack.Alan, I will ignore LBird's, as per usual, idiotic drivel about democracy anbd individualism – this from someone who hasnt a clue what democracy is for and wants to organise several thousand plebiscites per year among a global population of 7 billion on the "truth" of every new scientific theory that comes on stream – and simply say that that is what I took Victor to be saying – not that people are intellectually incapable of understanding socialism but that they are "politically unaroused". In other words its motive that they are lacking, not ability. If Ive misread what Victor is saying then I take back what I said. But it seems to me to be the case that by and large the workers are apathetic and disinclined to want to do anything about changing the world fundamentally. Quite probably that stems from feelings of powerlessness and a lack of belief in themselves to make a differnece. I dont like that state of affairs any more than you do but we have to know what it is we are up against in order to be able to do something about it. Recognising what the problem is might just give us a clue as to how we go about solving it….
