rodmanlewis
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Rodmanlewis:"This sounds like the Trotskyist argument that you need great minds to lead the masses to socialism."And where exactly did Trotsky (or any prominent Trotskyist) argue this?
See:http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/index.htmlFrom Trotsky's "The Class, The Party and the Leadership"“The vital mainspring in this process is the party, just as the vital mainspring in the mechanism of the party is its leadership. The role and the responsibility of the leadership in a revolutionary epoch is colossal.”
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:And Vin's high quality, intellectually sound response convinces me that the SPGB has some first rate minds about which it can rightly be proud.I am clearly out of my depth, here.
This sounds like the Trotskyist argument that you need great minds to lead the masses to socialism.
Wez wrote:Why, Ms Licthenstein, do you have such contempt for philosophy? Surely it's just one of a number of approaches to life's challenges?Philosophers seem unable to accept the "long littleness of life" and imagine life is some romantic adventure. There is no purpose in life other than what we make of it.If I'm allowed to join the philosophical bandwagon, here are a few of my observations:“You can’t philosophise on an empty stomach”"Philosophy is not for shelf-stackers and washer-uppers"“I’ve nothing against philosophers, but object to them being paid for their utterances”“I refuse to take the world seriously. Nobody else does, otherwise it wouldn’t be in such a mess”I suspect what philosophers are trying to say is how to succeed in life by treading on other people's toes, but aren't prepared to say it out loud.
LBird wrote:How did the SPGB get from such a good perspective in 1932, to the anti-democratic, anti-worker, pro-elite 'specialist' nonsense of 2017?I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying?!
LBird wrote:rodmanlewis wrote:What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong?My purpose is to develop the social theory and practice of the democratic, revolutionary proletariat, not 'to show the SPGB to be wrong'. That is a mere by-product of my purpose, that has emerged during our discussions.
rml wrote:Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway.Yes, I agree, either/or.Since I think that 'socialism is possible', then the 'socialist [sic] theory expounded by you is defective'.
rml wrote:What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?The same solution as Marx and Engels, and millions of workers since – the democratic control of production by the producers themselves: that is, socialism.Having said that, you'd think that there would be mostly agreement between me and the SPGB.But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice'.So, I'm compelled to 'show the SPGB to be wrong' – but the SPGB (or even individual members, initially) can change its Religious Materialist ideas. Religious Materialism leads to elite power – that's why the Leninists (and the rest of the 2nd International) espoused 'materialism'. Neither the 2nd International nor Lenin had any intention whatsoever in 'allowing' workers to decide for themselves about the creation of their world. It was to be left to 'specialists'. Marx warned about this connection between 'materialism' and 'elitism' in his Theses on Feuerbach.
First off, what is the difference between "workers" and "proletariat"? Secondly, why are you lumping us together with the 2nd International and Lenin? If you have read our literature you would know that we have always opposed so-called "socialists" and "communists", whether self-styled or described as such by others.We have "built a theory", but it's not one with which you appear to agree. If you mean "Religious Materialism" as meaning repeating a mantra (which may or may not be correct) unthinkingly and leading to stultification, please show us where we're going wrong.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong? Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway. What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?
Vin wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics, and we have 179 view and 7 reply on socialism and democracy, and a few respond to others topics that really are related to the interest of the working class, which means that , we are more interested on intellectual discussions than on the real issues of the working classI agree. We should consider not responding so readily to those who only seem to be interested in the sound of their own keystrokes.
Vin wrote:rodmanlewis wrote:He [Jimi Hendrix] never grabbed my attention, so I can't answer your question. I'm not saying every guitarist says nothing–from my experience of listening to jazz guitarists for 60 years I know that's not true.There is a lot of boring guitar music about, you have to be selective. Have a listen to Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd.
=======================The guitar is only one instrument in the musical spectrum. Seems to me the only instruments the pop-listening public notice is the guitar and drums (which usually sound Boys' Brigade efforts). I've just listened to the Pink Floyd and it does nothing for me.Normally we wouldn't get involved in this sort of discussion, but as it's Xmas, what the hell!
Vin wrote:rodmanlewis wrote:Vin wrote:Too many guitarists, and the hair! As far as I'm concerned there are too many guitarists in the world. It's the easiest instrument on which to say absolutely nothing.
lol send me your videos and have a look a Hendrix and tell me he says nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIXYt541XA
He never grabbed my attention, so I can't answer your question. I'm not saying every guitarist says nothing–from my experience of listening to jazz guitarists for 60 years I know that's not true.
mcolome1 wrote:What we have to do is, to expand our program of socialist education to others countries, and around the world, and discuss about issues that will concern the working class, and stop blessing the church of Marx. and praying against the devil of Engels. Aren't we called ourselves the World Socialist Movement ?I agree there is too much quoting of Marx and Engels. We are big boys and girls and we have formulated our own case for socialsm.Incidentally, I have always understood "World Socialist Movement" to mean we are part of the world movement for socialism (what other kind is there?), rather than the movement for world socialism.
Vin wrote:Too many guitarists, and the hair! As far as I'm concerned there are too many guitarists in the world. It's the easiest instrument on which to say absolutely nothing.
Vin wrote:Never reached number one. Apologies to cdes who do not like the party to draw attention to the negative aspects of capitalism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S84RLgnz7Rs 'Let's stop all the fights'Tuneless pap.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:As to the idea that music changes nothing, I disagree completely. Music and especially lyrics change the way people think. It may not, always be specifically Socialist, but songs such as "The Green Fields of France", "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" or from my part of the world the songs of Tommy Armstrong, from the 1880-1920s such as "The Oakey House Strike Evictions" and "The Durham Lockout" have influenced the way people think for generations. A well written song can get a message across in three minutes in ways that an academic discourse can never do. Anyway, it's late and I'm off to dream about a guy called Joe HillI suspect that they were mainly preaching to the converted. Perhaps we could ask how many members joined through hearing "socialist" songs or alternative comedians.Seems to me you only need to hear these songs once–there's no point in hearing them repeatedly. Rather like reciting the DoP regularly if you do.
These people are railing against problems they in part are helping to maintain through their support of capitalism.I suppose anything is better than the Queen's Speech! I do remember some years ago certain politicians complained that her speech was too "internationalist" in tone.
