SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks Gnome.I do think the current front could do with a makeover. I don't think it a good idea to go back to an SPGB emblazoned front though.
I think I have seen an image of Head Office somewhere, but I can't recall it.How about a picture of the shop front as it is now, in colour, so folk like me who aint been down there can av a butchers?
A couple of days ago, by accident, I saw most of a debate about Syria on a BBC3 programe called Free Speech. I was encouraged by what I heard from the audience and a couple of panel members.The panel consisted of Damian Green (Tory mp and minister for Policing and Criminal Justice), Mehdi Hasan (Political Editor of the UK Huffington Post), Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty), Milo Yiannopoulos ("entrepreneur" and Editor in chief of online magazine, The Kernel) and Seema Malhotra (Labour mp). The audience were made up of 150 16 to 25 year olds, as the blurb points out.One audience member asked why no humanitarian military intervention takes place in African countries blighted by brutal wars and dictators, the same person suspected the Syria issue was about financial interests. The male host diverted that question away from the panel, but it was a question the two Tory warmongers on the panel would not have been able to answer. Another question as to why Israel is allowed to use white phosphorous bombs in Palestine, saw no answers from the right wingers.An Afghan audience member made a good point about Assad's chemical weapons being supplied by western sources, and highlighting the lack of attention being paid to the American backed Egyptian military dictatorship, in it's routine abuse of civilians. Again the two right wing warmongers stayed silent.Mehdi Hasan made some insightful points, one in particular aimed at, Damian Green, as a rebuttal to Greens mantra about chemical weapons being illegal. Mehdi asked why the Tory government of 1988 turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical agents against his own people and Iran. Can anyone guess what Green's answer was?The show has a poll rating system based on support for the panelists arguments, and unsurprisingly Green and Yiannopoulos scored low in the ratings. Both supported military intervention, but neither had explanation as to how it would be of benefit, nor any post attack plans.Check it out. It was a pleasant change to see some intelligence being allowed a voice on such a show, intelligence that had the warmongers on the ropes and lost for words. Very surprised to see it coming from the BBC.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039sn21/Free_Speech_Series_2_Syria_Crisis_Free_Speech_Special/
gnome wrote:We've been here before, fairly recently in fact.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/race-gender-and-classHrothgar sounds suspiciously like Tom Rogers…Spot on there Gnome, he does sound a lot like Tom Rogers. As I recall TWC dealt very effectively with his pseudo science to which he never replied, just disapeared. I guess he couldn't accept that he may have got it wrong. Sad when people refuse to learn something new. But the ideology of racism is ten a penny unfortunately, so Hrothgar could be just another racist. As dweenlander points out you can always rely on dull predictability with racists.One thing that racists, with their ideology of seperatism, can never explain, is the fact that wherever you go people of different skin colours and cultures always end up, getting it on. If it weren't for this fact, humans would probably not be the successful species we are today. There is no getting away from the power of sex, lets face it we love it, and it does seem to be the case with the old saying, "Love conquers all".
Very interesting article JS. I've been doing a fair bit of research recently on this subject. The elites in the oil rich middle eastern countries coupled with oil greedy foreign powers are playing a very dangerous game, the old classic of divide and conquer.The concern that workers in the rest of the world should have, if they are not concerned with the misery of others, is that the utter chaos stirred up will at some point spill over and burn them. The manipulators don't suffer but the working class end up the targets of angry fanatics, venting their frustration on easy targets. So much for "the war on terror". It is the exact opposite.
Has anyone got a take on the Labour stance against attacking the Syrian regime?Was it Labour playing at party politics or have Labour fingers been burnt by the deceit used during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003?
US President, Obama wrote:"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale."Presumably he can accept a world were women and children are blown to pieces by American missiles, time and time again. Over time collateral damage mounts up "on a terrible scale".
alanjjohnstone wrote:But the article is right that the West want a impotent divided emasculated Syria to manipulate and the best way is to keep it bogged down in a long drawn out seemingly endless civil war. Turn it into another Lebanon. This suits Israel, when Hezbullah turn their rockets on Syrian rebels. Supporting Syrian government is costing Iran a fair amount, weakening it even further economicallyKeep a country tied up in chaos and it becomes impotent, unable to function on the world stage. Less competition for the manipulators while selling weaponry to anyone for huge profits. Perhaps a little simplified, but does anyone see things differently?A few weeks back I saw a Newsnight report about Yemen and the conditions the people have to endure because of Americas fight against al Qaeda. Drone aircraft are killing pretty much indiscriminately, in their search for terrorists. The people were fed up, seeing their family and friends murdered. The irony was that al Qaeda, turned up after the attacks to offer financial support and help people rebuild homes, thus gaining potential support. The west are creating a breeding ground for potential terrorist recruits. The locals interviewed all said they disagreed with al Qaeda, they just wanted to get on with their lives, as most people do. Though I expect some would question their sincerity.Like most on this site I question the motives behind a strategy that causes such obvious misery and chaos. If the west really want to tackle terrorism, surely the best way to do so is by cutting off support and recruitment. The most effective method I can see would be helping people to better their conditions and gain their trust. Like wise if you want to create hatred and potential terrorists, the best way is to wreck lives and create fear and instability. It's not rocket science.Perhaps it has more to do with rockets sales.Chaos and capitalism go hand in hand. If anyone has seen the dubious film, The Great Rock n Roll Swindle, Malcolm McLaren used the slogan "cash from chaos" frequently. He was more accurate than perhaps he realised. Am I oversimplifying things? I have been somewhat pre-occupied lately and have pretty much missed most world events, I even "slept" through most of the recent Syrian, chemical warfare outrage. It was hilarious to see the PM performing a Blairesque moral crusade act. I wonder if these people actually believe their own bullshit, or just know they will most likely get away with it ?
DJP wrote:The only moderator at present is myself, not that there has been much moderation to be done…Hi there, I'm sure I could think of a way to change that, if anyone fancies it? LOL!
Hi Alex,In saying you do not consider yourself a "Marxist", you are waving a red rag at a bull, with some in the SPGB. I do not see myself as a "Marxist", but I am most definitely a socialist. Once people start to identify themselves so strongly with an iconic figure head, Marx, Lenin and others, it so often leads to misguided adherence to everything the icon says, writes and does. A bit like a religion. So often iconic infallibility rears its head.
I tend to lean towards thinking that the material conditions for socialism need not be especially specific. It's like a socialist from 200 years in the future traveling back in time and saying, "Socialism can only come about once humans figure out how to grow cucumbers on Mars." The technology is irrelevant. I already included the caveat (that Alan missed in #47) that understanding socialism was the most crucial piece needed to build a true socialist world.Previously Alex mentioned that material resources have always been available, with people learning how to utilise them effectively. The horrors of mass starvation around the globe, exploded since western capitalist nations invaded, forcing people off fertile lands, stealing resources etc. How often have I heard socialists (myself included) talk of capitalism creating artificial scarcity.The only thing that has ever truly stopped anything that we would call socialism from taking shape, is lack of understanding the marvellous possibilities that exist.I would go as far in saying that once capitalism had established such a foothold as we see today, it may be virtually impossible to break it's stranglehold on society. Those who have so much to gain from capitalism have become masters at distracting and splintering the majority of workers with stress and trivia.I hope I am wrong.
Hi Alan
alanjjohnstone wrote:Not the way i read Engels' remark. I interpret it meaning that the West's movement to-wards socialism will be in gradual steps…and the Communist Manifsto written a year or so later, laid down these steps that were required in M and E's opinion in 1848. In later decades this gradualism they decided was no longer necessary – capitalism had fulfilled its task and developed the means of production so that socialism was an immediate possibility,…Which brings us back to my point of the referencing of the outdated idea of "gradualism" in one of your responses to Alex. I first said that confusion could arise from this, because I was fully aware that Marx and Engels corrected some of their earlier ideas. With respect, I would advocate not using quotes from Marx and Engels that they themselves later discarded.I have done quite a bit of thinking on the idea that the material circumstances need to be just right before socialism can be established. Two points that are basic requirements for socialism to be brought about, are being put forward here. First, that a workable majority of workers understand and want to bring socialism into existence. Second, that the material conditions need to be correct. One of these exist today. We are more than capable of feeding, housing, clothing and medically treating the population of the world to a good standard, in a sustainable manner. It is the first that is lacking.Imagine, if during Marx and Engels time, there had been a workable majority of the worlds population that understood and wanted socialism. Surely, given such a situation, the socialist majority would have been able to bring a socialist world into existence, before the material conditions were fully met? The marvelous thing about humans, is our resourcefulness and ingenuity, if we want to do something we find a way. But we have to want it first.
Thanks Alan.Does that mean the "gradualism" referred to earlier, is a nod to the more developed Western countries (at that time) becoming socialist (via workers revolution) and then helping to spread it to the less developed parts of the world?
Thanks for having a go Alan. I am indeed a bit rusty on Marx and Engels theory these days, having never indulged in the pleasure for some years. I was aware that they were writing at a time when the material conditions were not yet ripe for socialist revolution.I'll try and simplify my question a bit.Pupil- "Hey Engels, do you think private property can be abolished in one go?Engels- "No. The workers revolution will probably transform society gradually. Private property will only be abolished when the material conditions of production are sufficiently developed."Pupil- "So when the material conditions are right, can socialism be established in one go, or do you still see a need for gradual change?"The "gradually" quote is potentially a sticky wicket, when it is used as an example. But hey, I could be completely missing the point. If I am, let me know.
I think there is some danger of major confusion arising here.On one aspect Alex is correct in thinking socialism can be "jumped" to straight away. As Gnome points out, the material conditions for establishing world socialism exist now. If enough workers want socialism tomorrow, it could be done. "In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually…"Anyone care to explain the above snippet of Engels, in light of the fact that material conditions are ripe for socialism now?
