SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:I think the quote highlights the confusion still around today. We don't advocate abolishing: money the material conditions are not there to dispense with money. Tho we do yearn for a moneyless society.
Vin,What do you mean by the material conditions to abolish money do not exist? Are you referring to the lack of socialist consciousness?
Not quite worth getting exicited about. It's extremely dismissive.
Quote:As recently as the 1970s, some European Communists were still yearning for a moneyless world, as in this Utopian effusion from the Socialist Standard:(insert quote from Socialist Standard)Yet no Communist state – not even North Korea – has found it practical to dispense with money.I switched to Firefox and it's ok.The problem with Firefox, is when I first went online with my new laptop, my internet security wasn't compatible with the changes etc, so I switched to IE and noticed the dashboard issue when I logged on to this site for the first time with the new set up.Thanks for the advice.
Vin wrote:Historical materialism is determinist. The econimic base of capitalism is causing poverty, war, crime etc. Marx used the term base and superstructure as an analytical tool If HM is not determinist then why do workers need to remove the economic base of capitalism? It is not fatalistic.It is the way some 'marxists' and Marx's opponents have twisted 'determinism'. It is precisely because of determinism that workers will recognise the need to act and remove the economic base that is determining our future.(my bold)Vin,Any chance you can expand on what you mean by the bit I've highlighted? It sounds a bit as if socialism is inevitable, which is why I believe JDW set up this thread.As far as I can tell the industrial productive forces necessary for socialism have been in position for a good few decades. The only thing missing is the socialist conciousness of our class. Will this just happen one day regardless of socialists "making socialists"? This is why the following quote caught my attention.
Quote:5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fightVin wrote:Again me thinks you are dancing around the subject
Class war continues with the 1%. Webber is mouthing the usual "right wing" philosophy of poor life choices. I've never heard any of them explain how everyone can move up the social ladder. His kind want to kick away the net and those who fall were born to fail.It's social darwinism.
YMSI wasn't talking about the SPGB getting involved in reformist campaigns. Heaven forbid the SPGB ever get involved with the "struggles of the working class". If you go back over my earlier posts, you will find that I was not suggesting the SPGB involve themselves in such campaigns. I was on about the SPGB organising and waving the anti-capitalist banner. I also made it clear the limited numbers of members makes organising such events problematic.In the meantime, if the party can't organise them, then tag along on someone elses.There's nothing wrong with the party handing out leaflets at demos, but as JDW pointed out earlier, media coverage of demos never focused on a leaflet. I think it was Vin who suggested banners with slogans on such as "an end the wages system" would stand out among the usual stuff. Wherever possible the party should be waving a banner as well as handing out leaflets.Regarding advancing the cause of socialism. As has been pointed out by both sides, there's no instant solution, no one tactic that will bring socialism any closer. All opportunities must be taken when available. If that means waving a socialist banner at an anti austerity demo, then so be it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:My apologies YMS.I did say the low membership issue is a hindrance when it comes to orgainising such publicity drives.Exctly, and we are organising them, at level approproate to our means and membership.
Then why come out with the following eye opener, in the first place?
Young Master Smeet wrote:5) It would not move socialism one step nearer, nor improve the class struggle, objective conditions and class relations outweigh anythign we could add to the fight.Correct me if I'm wrong DJP, but I seem to recall not too long after I joined this forum a discussion regarding the aims of this sight in which you said you were more in favour of an information only based sight, with something along the lines of an FAQ type interaction between the SPGB and visitors. That you saw little benefit in a discussion forum.Such a set up would have meant visitors would only be exposed to views favourable to the SPGB position and be unable to debate with party members.I have long thought a data base of facts such as reports of the negative effects of capitalism, the hypocrisy of capitalist politics, the biased nature of the media etc, gathered from a wide range of sources, would be a good resource for socialists to tap into when presenting the case for socialism. it would be handy to have a one stop shop to go to for accessing evidence when engaged in online debate.
Thought you'd left us for good LBird.Welcome back, though I doubt many others will share that sentiment. Try not to get suspended again.
gnome wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Alan, you've mentioned a few times now party members reluctance to appear on this forum. Indeed I have seen one or two statements being put forward by members of this forum on behalf of party members who either can't or won't post themselves.Have you, or any party forum members, any idea as to why some refuse to contribute to an open party discussion forum?Some of them don't like using computers.
And, believe me, many more don't like the way some users conduct themselves… comrades have far better things to do than to witness attention-seeking tantrums which have plagued this forum for far too long.
Don't be ridiculous Gnome. I hardly think furious disagreement is a recent development in the SPGB. As far as I can make out there have always been heated clashes.I think I recall reading on SPintcom a few years ago, Paddy Shannon saying something about some members being too thin skinned and need to toughen up, when it comes to the rigours of heated debate.I think there are members who are scared of the online discussion world. Actual physical debates are a lot safer than online, as the person with the bottle to stand up and speak often has the advantage. A confident, reasonably knowledgeable party speaker can probably come across quite well at a traditional physical meeting/debate. Online is a whole different ball game. It's often more like being circled by a pack of hyenas. This forum is a relatively safe place.Digital communication is here to stay, party members better to get used to it ASAP.
You put it perfectly Alan.I know DJP does not support the likes of Monsanto. But sometimes the cold, clinical, scientific analytical approach can come across as support.It's similar to what Vin has pointed out regarding the party position on the likes of capitalist austerity and how it can come across as support for capitalism.The SPGB needs to be more cautious in such areas.
