stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks Imposs! Last I paid attention Rob Newman was doing amusing impressions of Bez. Is he to the left of that now?!
Since you asked Alan, my current beliefs are something like this: that socialism, as defined here, is probably not possible, even with the best will in the world, but that nevertheless the world needs radical change, along "green" and "spiritual" lines, or along any lines towards a more compassionate world. So I'm roughly in Russell Brand's camp (though I'm a supporter and member of nothing at the moment). You'd better start another thread if you'd like to discuss this though. Cheers
Thanks for your interest Alan, but I have discussed my views on these things many times, and my ideas about them are always changing (which I don't think is a bad thing), and anyway to continue the discussion would derail this thread. So to get back on topic, would the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party be, on the whole, a good thing or a bad thing from a progressive, socialist point of view? For me, especially having jus watched his performance on the Marr show, the question answers itself. His election would change the whole narrative – the whole structure of what it is and is not possible to talk about in polite company – a necessary first step if any bigger changes are to become even thinkable yet alone doable.
In the interests of positivity, and rather than repeat what I've already said on many other occasions, I'll say instead what the party gets right. Its internal democracy, its general attitude to and engagement with democracy, its support of trade union action "on sound lines", its encouragement of education and debate and independent thinking, its general friendliness with opponents, its refusal to engage in dishonest political activity. There might be many more that slip my mind at the moment. Whatever's on the other side of the balance sheet, all this is something to be proud of.
I don't think I've ever criticised the party as "purist", or if I have I'm happy to take it back. My argument with the party is not that it's purist, but that it's wrong.
What Greece has learnt is that it cannot both write off its debt and stay in the eurozone. Not sailing through the strait was not an option for them. It's not an option for anyone – surely the moral of the story is that sometimes you have to choose between two evils whether you like it or not.
Alan wants me to provide an answer to the problems workers face in Asia, and is righteously angry with everyone who doesn't agree with him. Well, that really is his whole problem in a nutshell. Maybe things are a bit more complex than that.
So Odysseus refused to sail through the strait, but decided to sit there and wait for better conditions? If so, I grant you your victory!
According to Marx, social being determines consciousness. So what does "social being" look like in early 21st century capitalism? It's probably not possible or meaningful to give a single general answer to that. But as far as the rich countries go, there is a large population of young people who are disaffected politically, excluded economically, and who have little prospect for material advancement or wellbeing. These young people are at the same time incredibly well-educated (by world and historic standards), and, thanks to new technology, well informed about what's going on in the world, and connected to each other. They are, in their own ways, politically active and engaged, and economically active but outside the usual confines of the capitalist and state economy. Now, do such facts have any relevance or interest at all in relation to the question of whether or not it's possible to go beyond capitalism and have a socialist society? If you think yes, then Paul Mason would pretty obviously be a good first port of call for finding out more. If not, then why not? Is it perhaps that you don't really believe that social being is at all relevant to the question of consciousness? Or disbelieve that workers or their material conditions have any relevance to the question of socialism?
You still didn't answer my question, so I'll have a stab myself. One of the ways in which we can struggle to emancipate ourselves from capitalism is not to be subject to the attitude of mind it tends to cultivate. So, for example, we must strive to learn and educate ourselves, and not be anti-intellectual; to pay our respects to those we learn from, and not be cynical or sneering; to not be so attached to our own limited views that we can't hear those of others… to name just the few that spring to mind. So yes, please do prostrate yourself before Paul Mason, it would be very healthy indeed.
"They skirted the land of the Sirens, who sang an enchanting song that normally caused passing sailors to steer toward the rocks, only to hit them and sink. All of the sailors except for Odysseus, who was tied to the mast as he wanted to hear the song, had their ears plugged up with beeswax."
I take back what I said (on another thread) about the twittering yoof. They've obviously got their heads screwed on.http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/whos-backing-jeremy-corbyn-young
And you didn't answer my question, your quote is not relevant. What does it really mean to emancipate ourselves from capitalism through struggle?
I'd rather keep jumping ship than stay in the dock.You've turned me into an advocate for Mason for your own rhetorical purposes, but the first thing I said was that I found what he says implausible. I love his journalism because he does exactly what you say he doesn't. He's brilliant at reporting on what's going on in the world while providing historic context. I'm not buying his vision of the future, but if you think he's bought it because he's daft, well, then, you're daft!Why not join the odyssey that seeks for truth? I promise you it's better than grasping hold of one aspect of the truth, then digging in and aggressively defending it against allcomers.
I do like that kind of SPGB analysis I must admit. It's more or less exactly what the right says, especially when it's trying to whip up fear of alternatives. I'm not making a polemical point – the right do have a point. But it amuses me that trade unions and your own party are the one and only thing that get ring-fenced from this analysis. As if a rise in trade union power or a rising vote for an extreme left party like yourselves wouldn't lead to exactly the kinds of things you're warning will befall a left Labour government! As revolutionaries, perhaps you should be prepared to risk radical breaks of all kinds, not just the ones that are not on the cards.
