SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:SP I am making a broad generalisation but generally there was a consensus. Marx for example did not criticise anarchists for advocating a society without a state, he criticised their methods of achieving such a society
Well there is this from the SPGB pamphlet, "Russia 1917-1967 A Socialist Analysis", that ALB brought my attention to sometime last year.
Quote:How much agreement there was about the nature of the transformation they hoped to bring about by their different policies, can be seen for example in the Manifesto of English Socialists issued jointly in 1893 by the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation and the Hammersmith Socialist Society. The signatories including William Morris, George Bernard Shaw, H. M. Hyndman and Sidney Webb, were able to agree on the following declaration which appeared in the Manifesto:“On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis.”However in my view, this statement on its own is not specific enough so as to sweep away all confusion about what socialism/communism actually is.What I'm getting at is, if the definition of socialism/communism had been nailed down and everyone knew what it was, it wouldn't then have been so easy to distort through disagreements on how to achieve it. To me such confusion suggests the definition was fuzzy and still in the process of evolving. Unfortunately the lazy version has become the widespread accepted definition.A simple request goes out to the Marxists. Please provide me with the best quote, or quotes, from Marx that best encapsulates the concept of socialism/communism.
Surely you aren't gonna let a slap on the wrist put you off further discussions here? That's a little OTT considering what can happen in the weird and wonderful world of political debate.You will be missed Stuart, as disagreement makes for interesting debate. But at the end of the day it's your decision.
Vin wrote:She claims Marx had no solution. Socialism/Communism was the solution. Everyone new what it was, why should Marx have to spell it out?Did everyone know? I was under the impression that during Marx's time there was no one concensus regarding communism/socialism. I thought the concept was still evolving.But as I've said on a few occasions, I'm no expert on Marx. So if I'm wrong, please show me.As for the notion that it was not necessary to "spell it out" such thinking is odd. The SPGB saw fit to "spell it out" in the DoP. Why would that be?If Marx had been crystal clear regarding his concept of communism/socialism, why is there so much confusion over what he meant?
I thought it a good article. I'm no expert on Marx, but I got the impression the author of the article has a handle on what Marx was getting at.
Quote:Marx believed that human development requires a cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production. Real human development requires production in which people can develop their own activity i.e. socialist production organised by workers. But this implies common ownership of the means of production or what is referred to as social ownership. This is not ownership by groups of workers; rather it implies ownership by society. This involves the total production system which must cater to the needs of society. The community, as a social institution, must identity the needs that must be fulfilled. As we live in a community, we need to produce for others out of a spirit of solidarity. This is the society for which Marx had once struggled.And the following seems to me to imply that the communist "experiments" of the last century, where not what Marx had in mind.
Quote:There is no denying that the effort to implement this vision in the 20th century, admittedly under such circumstances, was quite different from that which Marx had once envisaged.I guess it comes down to the age old concept of interpretation.
ALB wrote:Interesting article in yesterday's Daily Torygraph by Mary Riddell under the heading "Corbyn is no monster and might even help to regenerate Labour" warning Tories that the influx of young, new supporters into the Labour Party might help it regain vigour and support, especially if the Tories go too far in their poor-bashing and union-bashing as they risk doing:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11810687/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-monster.-He-might-even-be-the-saviour-of-the-Labour-party.htmlThe article has a good point. Was talking about this with my dad the other day. It's weird that any Tory would think "sabotage voting" for Corbyn would be a good idea. But I think we can all picture the type of Tory supporter that might actually take part in such stupid, for want of a better word, tactics.The Tories only won power with 24% of the electorate. It's a safe bet that most Tory supporters are likely to turn out at major elections, knowing the importance of supporting their ideology. If we consider there was only a two million vote difference between Labour and Conservative, it's not a strong position. And I think both Tories and Labour are mistaken in thinking the surprise election result, is an endorsement of continued austerity measures.Two factors are key as far as I can tell. Firstly, the Tories are continuing with their austerity plans, (while the tax avoiding rich get richer). The longer austerity continues the more people will start to feel it, as cutbacks continue impacting public services. If the British economy doesn't explode in an upturn by the next election, the mood of the electorate will likely be extremely hostile towards the Tories.In such a scenario, if Corbyn can manage to invigorate Labour politics, especially with younger voters, hey presto Labour win the next election.I don't see the major problem for Corbyn and his politics in winning the next election. If the circumstances are right, it could be a breeze. The problem for his politics is how to deliver if the global economy is still in a down cycle.
You couldn't make this stuff up.My favourite bit of the fake statements is the following.
Dull Minded DWP Bureaucrat Telling Porky Pies wrote:"I didn't have a good reason for not doing it and I was told I'd lose some of my payment. I decided to complete the CV and told my work coach," she says.They might as well have made something up along the lines of, "Because I'm a workshy benefit scrounger, I was too lazy to do my CV, so I lost some of my benefits and that gave me an incentive to do as I was told."That is the narrative being set up with such low brow propaganda. It says everything about the attitude of the bueaucrats in the DWP towards the unemployed.
Hi Vin,You are correct, there is no specific place in the guidelines that state a reminder and three warnings will be issued. Can't recall what it says in the moderators guide (I can't recall the thread where it was posted by DJP).However I do recall a couple of years back that a long discussion was had on this forum regarding moderation, I think it was titled Moderation Suggestions. During the discussions I think the consensus was that a three strikes and you're out moderation approach was the least objectionable. I assume this was taken on board by the Internet Committee.I've always argued that "off topic" is a minor, highly subjective, "crime". One persons "off topic" is another's harmless banter.But I am correct when I say more moderators would reduce the occurrence of retrospective moderation.
I have noticed that despite this thread being about retrospective warnings and not specific cases, no attention was brought to Vin and LBirds retrospective warnings, leading to LBirds suspension back on page 10 of the Corbyn thread.Weird.
Retrospective warnings do seem to be ineffectual at moderating behaviour, as a ban can ensue before a person has an opportunity to react to any potentially modifying reminders or warnings.However the rules for forum conduct are clearly available and all users are reminded to acquaint themselves with them.It's easy to criticise, but unless there are any alternatives offered….?One obvious answer is for more Party members to volunteer as moderators, that way the issue of retrospective moderation could be limited as much as possible.
It's a difficult one DJP.A little anecdote that might shed a little light into some peoples thought processes when validating alternative health practices for themselves.My partner has a friend, who had a shoulder problem. It sounded and was diagnosed, using modern technology, as an injury to a rotator cuff muscle in the their shoulder. They saw a physiotherapist for a few sessions and were given exercises to do, in order to strengthen the injured muscle, this person also had a steroid injection into their shoulder.To get to the point, they told my partner that there was no improvement using conventional treatment, but a neighbour had recommended a Bowen Technique therapist. Surprise, surprise, after a couple of sessions they reported huge improvement and are now learning the technique themselves.My partner and I both agree that it was probably the conventional treatment starting to show results, coinciding with the relaxation of the alternative therapy.To me this looks like a case of someone not knowing what to expect from their conventional treatment, a problem caused by lack of communication from, unfortunately, quite a lot of conventional medical practitioners [in my experience]. Consequently you end up feeling like a piece of meat, to be poked and prodded without being listened to. So some people go to alternative health practitioners on the recommendation of a friend etc. There you may feel more valued as a person because you're listened to more attentively, it feels more reassuring, safer and something very important, relaxation.I like to think within a socialist society conventional medicine would be able to learn from the personal approach of alternative medical practitioners. We all know that cost is a crippling factor in health care under capitalism, and time is money. As good as the NHS is in Britain, it's still a conveyor belt system of health care because of funding limitations. In such an environment, is it any wonder quack medicine exists?
Hang on a minute ALB, let's be fair. The reason they didn't die is simple enough. They didn't shake the concoction vigorously enough.
Quote:Dynamization was for Hahnemann a process of releasing an energy that he regarded as essentially immaterial and spiritual. As time went on he became more and more impressed with the power of the technique he had discovered and he issued dire warnings about the perils of dynamizing medicines too much. This might have serious or even fatal consequences, and he advised homeopaths not to carry medicines about in their waistcoat pockets lest they inadvertently make them too powerful. Eventually he even claimed that there was no need for patients to swallow the medicines at all; it was enough if they merely smelt them. (Campbell)DJP wrote:There's a good explanation of how homeopathy works on this website.www.HowDoesHomeopathyWork.comI've clicked on that site a number of times now and it still cracks me up. Thanks DJP, nice one. http://skepdic.com/homeo.html
Vin wrote:Quote:Corbyn's.. popularity and success and should he win here will definitely (no doubts about it) legitimize and popularize the word ‘socialism’ again in the UK politics.Don't you mean his success would lead to even more distortion about socialism, while he misrepresents what socialism is?Do you remember how popular 'socialism' was with the Nazis? Did that do the socialist case any favours?
Very good point Vin. I was talking to my dad about it the other day and he's of the opinion that should Corbyn reach the lofty heights of Labour leadership and aim for a stint as PM, the odds are that his "socialism" will fail. Allowing the media to tear into another example of failed "socialism". I doubt that'll be good for us lot.
I was thinking. If Corbyn is successful in winning the Labour leadership, all that will be achieved is a further distraction from revolutionary thinking, as our class will once again be led down a blind alley of mainstream reformist promises, as Labour attempt to retake the "left" by jumping on the anti austerity band wagon. I'm probably stating the obvious?There have been a few topical panel type shows I've seen recently where he's described as a plain speaking good guy, in complete contrast to the slick, polished, car salesman "blairites".
A lot can happen in twenty four hours.LBird,The production of knowledge is a similar issue for a socialist society as that of producing widgets. It's about "whys and wherefores".The issue of democratic control of production and allocation of services in a socialist society has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. It's a subject I've thought about quite a lot over recent years. One thing is clear from the start, it's an issue of immense complexity. It reaches into numerous areas of discussion regarding logistics and is something we on this forum could never seriously do justice to, as a whole. It is the reason, you will hear the phrase in various forms " we'll have to leave that up to the future socialist community to decide". It defers difficult issues to the future. While I often find it irritating, I understand the response. All we have here and now is a basic framework for socialism, common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by the community for the community.
LBird wrote:But, to anyone who, like me, looks to Marx for inspiration, then this explanation about 'practicalities' being an issue for the future class conscious proletariat, is usually acceptable.The reason I say the "deferral to the future" response annoys me, despite my understanding it, is because it shouldn't prevent individual socialists from adding their ideas, regarding practical matters, to the melting pot. It doesn't mean it must then compete to become a socialist policy. (Although some reluctance for SPGB members is the possibility that individual viewpoints may get taken for party policy.) It's just an idea and like any idea it has a chance to become a permanent fixture for future discussion, and possibly action.So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.
