SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:My OP was playing the devil's advocate, I think there is a lot of 'save the planet', 'eco worrior' 'vegetarian' and 'animal loving' crap on this forum. This forum is part of a class based party. Members of the working class are starving, killing each other and/or living rough. Socialism is about the economic interests of the working classIt is about members of the working class being free from exploitation and taking more and not less of the planet. Maybe I want socialism so I can burn more oil, eat more meat and kick animals None of these are against working class interests and should not dominate our propaganda.
Hi Vin,Couldn't disagree more with ya. I don't think there is enough "eco warrior vegetarian, animal loving crap on this forum". Such issues are very relevant to a lot of people.I don't think it's a case of spreading socialism too thinly, when it comes to what can get the message across to as many people as possible. Some people are concerned with what they can get out of it, ie food, water clothing, shelter and adequate health care. Others are concerned about environmental issues and some are switched on by more academic study. There is room for all, though I would add that in the run up to an election, academic topics are the least effective, in my humble view.As for the idea of it only being about the economic interests of the working class and increased production and consumption. That may have applied back in Marx's days. Now it's about effective use of resources to make sure we have enough of what's needed for many generations to come. We can still live well while protecting our environment and using resources efficiently. What can't be done is increased consumption on a western capitalist model for everybody in the world. So more oil can't be burnt and more animals can't be consumed, if we are serious about saving our skins.Socialism is ultimately about creating a world of common ownership and democratic control for the benefit of all human kind, it isn't about saying, "Right we've got rid of those decadent, capitalist parasites, free gas guzzling car for everyone, yippee!"
I'm mainly with ALB on this one.I've often spoken with family and friends about the claim that we are destroying the planet, when it is actually our (and other species) environment we are altering. What that means as far as I can tell is we could end up with a range of scenarios that could well change different parts of this planet to either deserts, flood lands and even frozen wastes.Such scenarios will cause unimaginable social pressures. We all know that such social pressures as mass migration, competition for resources etc, inevitably lead to war.To say we are destroying the planet exaggerates climate change to the point that it loses meaning for most people. If on the other hand it may mean that most of Britain, for example, becomes a frozen waste for nine out of twelve months or we end up with a monsoon like flood season, or experience crop destroying heat waves and droughts every year, then people are more likely to get a handle on what it could mean for them.We then have a choice as to whether to try and prevent climate change, if it's possible. Or be prepared to adapt to potentially severe environmental changes. Either way, we know capitalism will make the situation much harder than it need be.As ALB points out, no one really knows what will happen. There are just a range of possibilities. But we definitely won't destroy the planet.
Hi Meel,You have a point. The term "working class" does seem a little outdated. In Britain many associate it with cultural stereotypes such as living in a council house/flat, racing pigeons and/or Whippets, growing prize winning leeks, avin a sing song around the old Joanna, fish and chips on a wet weekend holiday in Brighton, working in traditional heavy industry such as coal mining or ship building. But I expect most people who are employed, whether road sweepers or teachers, still know they have to work for a living.There isn't even a standard way of ascertaining what makes a person "middle class". Some think it is the amount of money you are paid for the work you do, others think it is lifestyle/cultural choices.Then there are the intermediate classes, according to some there are, lower working class, working class, upper working class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, lower upper class, upper class and upper, upper class. Absolutely ridiculous.It doesn't matter whether you aspire to be "middle class", if you have to work for a living you certainly aint "upper class" or capitalist class.I tend to use the term "working class" as little as possible and use "middle class" even less. When discussing socialism, I use terms like "majority of the people" or simply "workers" to seperate us from the capitalists. Afterall once socialism is established, we will simply be people of the world.
Speaking of UKIP, here's something I found on a link for the KentOnline provided by Gnome, from the Rochester n Strood by-election last November, when Britain First tried to march through Rochester.It's from the comments section of the article. I've highlighted the quote from Farage, that could be of use for any members if they find themselves needing any more of UKIP's anti working class credentials.
Quote:The following speech by Nigel Farage has not been widely circulated by our UK right-wing Establishment press. This is odd because many of the movers and shakers of their industry were in the audience. Farage’s presentation was well received.Farage spoke of the legacy of the Great War to a packed audience on 10th November 2014, as the guest speaker for the annual Tom Olsen Lecture at St Bride's Church – this is the church in Fleet Street, London, the spiritual home of UK journalism.Farage said he wanted to remind people that "we were fighting to do the decent thing; we were fighting, ultimately, for our way of life". Nearly 300 guests attended the sold-out event, including many of the most prominent faces in print journalism. Yet Farage made several points in his lecture that challenged historical orthodoxy, including claiming that the Armistice was "the biggest mistake of the entire 20th century". He argued that the British Army should have instead continued with the advance and forced the German Army into unconditional surrender. He said:“I believe we should have continued with the advance We should have pursued the war for a further six weeks, and gone for an unconditional surrender. Yes the last six weeks of the war cost us 100,000 casualties, and I’m prepared to accept that a further six weeks of war might have cost us another 100,000."This is an inappropriate comment made by the leader of a party that is unfit to govern. When are people going to wake up and realize the truth about UKIP? If this is his bellicose outlook towards the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, how can we trust this man if he were to gain power; a man with so little regard for human life. If another war were to break out, would his answer be to just throw UK citizen after UK citizen into the fray with the hope that it would somehow stop the problem?UKIP supporters can red-thumb me all they like – but I say that this information is important to help voters understand Farage’s ethics and values. Even worse is the fact that his speech, on such a sensitive issue, was NOT widely reported at all.http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/breaking-britain-first-stand-off-27043/Here's a Huffington Post link about the same Farage history lesson.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/12/nigel-farage-armistice-_n_6144586.html
Hi Stuart,Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying advice is useless?The SPGB has been around for over one hundred years, and I'm fairly sure these issues are a constant. So there should by now have been a "standard" approach to these three points. I've pointed to the Party endorsed articles that should be of use as far as the ECA is concerned, and there are others on the other subjects to be found of which I will post links to. However what I was asking for, was perhaps some advice from some veteran Party speakers.I'm still very green when it comes to debate about these issues, perhaps with the exception of human nature. When I was in the SPGB in the mid to late nineties, I got stuck into whatever was required of me, as a new member. I never had the inclination to become a Party speaker though. When I left I never bothered with active politics for years. It's only been the last few years since joining this forum that I've flexed my discussion muscles on the internet on a few other forum sites.So any advice as to how to approach these subjects would be much appreciated. It could be examples of preferred approaches, positive experiences, ie hits rather than misses. Anything that could be useful, even the tiniest morsel. Afterall it's election time, politics is more on the agenda.This thread is open to a variety of socialist aspects, (three of which have been identified as sticking points) so is of more use than a few others I could mention.
It seems we are in a position whereby there are 3 main obstacles that often go hand in hand when discussing our idea of socialism with those willing to engage.In no particular order.The identifying of socialism/communism with the former USSR and the likes of the "left" such as old Labour.The Economic Calculation Argument.The Human Nature Argument.Anybody got any advice they can share as how best to tackle these sticking points. I must add I'm referring to non pre-prepared, face to face and internet discussions only.
jondwhite wrote:If I want a big car, a big house and expensive holidays, does anyone think that makes me a bad socialist?Hi JDW,An interesting one.While I don't think it makes anyone a bad socialist to want a flash car, big house etc, it doesn't sit quite well with the idea of "From each according to ability, to each according to need".Then there are the issues of environment and resource sustainability with the Party position being reflected by articles in the Socialist Standard referring to the inability of our environment to sustain present levels of pollution and resource consumption.How does it look if a socialist is buzzing around in a flash motor, living in a big house, jetting around the world, while "preaching" that only socialism can create a fairer, more sustainable mode of living for all humanity?
Thanks DJP,I'm a newbie to the various types of "Marxism" out there. I'd appreciate a bit more on why it is problematic. Any chance of a brief explanation of why not to put much weight on it? If brevity isn't possible I'll understand.
Came across the following website. Looks intersting. Haven't read through it all yet, (including the other articles on ideology) but thought more knowledgeable members could give it the once over (if they haven't already) and let me know if it's reliable etc.http://academic.uprm.edu/~laviles/id219.htm
Quote:'If the essence and appearance of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous'. Does Marx's dictum lead to novel insights? The purpose of science is to discover the nature of reality concealed under surface appearance. Based on this definition, Marx makes the above assertion – if things appeared exactly as they are, there would be no need for science to remove the veil of appearance. Social science, therefore, is the search for the real nature of society, underneath all of its visible, external façades. If the reality of society is easily observable in our everyday experience, then there is no need for scientific reflection on society, as Marx defines science. The idea that society has an 'appearance', which is not the same as social 'essence', forms the starting point for the Marxist discussion of ideology. Ideology is what allows a society to persist, even though the essence of that society may contain contradictions.It is important to note that the difference between appearance and reality is not due to some form of false belief or faulty vision on the part of the observer. The appearances are caused by the reality. There is no 'mistake' in the observance of society, because it is the nature of society that the essence projects a certain appearance. It is the nature of a mirage that it is an illusion, it is not a case of 'faulty vision'. A person with normal vision will still see a mirage, as it is the very essence of the mirage which creates the illusion. Marx was primarily concerned with the nature of the capitalist mode of production. The cardinal tenets of Marx's theory of the essence of capitalism are: Only expenditure of labour creates economic value, in proportion to the amount of labour expended; workers do not receive the whole value of what they produce – capitalists enjoy profits due to surplus value, for which the worker is not paid; labour power is the only form of capital investment which creates profit. (1) The social appearance, on the other hand is: An object is worth what it can be exchanged for in the market, i.e. its exchange-value; workers appear to be paid for all of their labour; capital is seen to 'create' profit. There is clearly a marked difference between the appearance and essence of society. Marx uses the idea of 'commodity fetishism' to explain this difference.Brian wrote:In my debate with the Greens in Swansea later tonight its their blind contradictions and life on the treadmill which I'll be focusing on so the audience can get a sense of how stopping the treadmill is possible and necessary. I know my opponent will be making the claim that he considers himself an eco-socialist which will get my passion flowing! I will of course be using the paragraph above to hit home the point that the Green strategy is nothing new.Hi Brian,How did it go the other night?
Hi LBird,If you remember, no that long ago several SPGB/WSM members argued that socialism/communism was not an ideology.
Hud955 wrote:What is problematic for Chomsky's theory are the grammatical structures of the world's 'communication systems'. Chomsky claims that underneath all the superficial differences of actual grammars, there is a single underlying universal grammatical structure which was installed in our brain through genetic mutation some time in our ancestral past. The problem is, he has never been able to identify a single rule belonging to his underlying universal grammar which all languages have in common. I am no linguist, but I am also aware that languages divide the observable world up in different ways. One particularly obvious example is the way they divide up the colour spectrum. Colour words in Welsh for example do not map on to colour words in English. Welsh has a single word to cover what in English we would distinguish as dark blue and grey, for instance. This would seem to be fatal to Chomsky's assertion that we have a stock of fixed concepts with which we are all born and which our various languages merely reproduce.Hi Hud,This isn't a subject I find that riveting but I'm watching to see what I can pick up. If what you say here is accurate regarding Chomsky's theory of universal grammar, then if he hasn't been able to back up his theory with evidence by now, it's unlikely he ever will. Therefore he is wrong.
DJP wrote:The worst problem we face is the legacy of 100 years of reformist "socialism" and leninst "communism", this has muddied the waters, perhaps irrecoverably. When or if socialism happens the odds are, i think, that it will not be called socialism and the the socialist party of great britian will not be THE socialist party.Right now it is not hard to convince people that there is something wrong, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if "it's a nice idea but…." is the most common responce to our case. With the "but…" relating to some kind of idea about "human nature".I think those are the two greatest barriers we have to overcome…Spot on there DJP. This has been my general experience to date.It's a hard slog debunking those common barriers. The hardest being the human nature, reinforced concrete bunker.
