|
Post by RedFlag32 on Jan 12, 2008 1:40:41 GMT
Im going to throw a spanner in the works, should Marxists not be allowing the progress of capitalism to take shape in pursuing its downfall instead of getting rid of its seeds of destruction before they are at a level to bring the system down?
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Jan 12, 2008 2:02:40 GMT
I often wonder this myself comrade but would this require support for FF? *extreme shudder* ;D
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Jan 12, 2008 2:05:14 GMT
And when we do make a decision, they dont accept it until we vote their way. Nice? Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Jan 12, 2008 2:10:05 GMT
I held that view for a while, still do to some extents.
Its called "economism" - nasty word in Marxist circles ;D
No I think waiting for capitalism to collapse is sort of like a belief in God - we really dont know if it will.
To flip the coin around, I think fighting to reform peoples rights within capitalism and make them better puts strain on the system. Its hard to peel back workers rights and gains, any attempt to do so will be met with resistence.
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Jan 12, 2008 21:27:29 GMT
Its called "economism" - nasty word in Marxist circles ;D I thought that phrase meant trade "unionism" and not the belief that capitalism has sown its own seeds of destruction? But isn't this a basic Marxist belief,that the history of mankind is a history of classes and social/economic orders? The progression of this will mean the end of Capitalism,it just can't continue because of its contradictions,of which Marx outlined. I wouldn't say we should wait around for it either comrade, all I'm saying is that should we be secretly happy that we may be seeing the last stages of capitalism i.e. Globalism,Imperialism etc..? Good point, i can't see them trying to take back the right to vote for instance. I wonder what is all of our personal definitions of what is bad reformism and good reformism? The reformism of the labour and PSF party is surely counter revolutionary because they are trying to make capitalism work for the workers which it just can't. So when does reformism become revolutionary in existence?
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Jan 12, 2008 22:05:10 GMT
Well I might be mixing up the terms here. All I know is that I got some grilling over at revleft for supposedly being an "economist" and they tried to kick me out of the CC. I never knew it might refer to trade unionism now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economism this is probaby what they were refering to. Yes, but I wouldnt suggest in the slightest that communism is some sort of inevtibility - the reality is, we just dont know. I think the best way of approching it is to be of the position of proposing (and fighting) for an alternative, something of a solution that we propose to work instead. Not, on the other hand, of the belief that communism is inevtitable. This is why i think the left really need to come up with some sort of workable theortical alternative. There is too much of "we'll sort that out when the revolution comes" - in otherwords - "we actually dont have a detailed workable proposal to offer only blind faith that things will work themselves out" We really have to figure out what socialism is for us to get anywhere. you know, its simple saying "socialism will be democratic" - but what exactly are these democratic structures that people talk about, how exactly do they work etc. Yeah, i suppose somewhat. But i wouldnt like to be on the recieving end of imperialism, or working in a sweatshop in the interests of progressing capitalism. I dont think we should be happy, I find it very depressing thinking about these things. we should fight for the alternative proposal, and not progress capitalism as we really dont kno where that will take us, or what will happen. I dont think reformism is necessarily a bad word. What is the alternative to reform at the present time? - revolutionary "we dont really know where we are going with this"? Reformism is bad when it, at certain times, attempts to dampen a revolutionary situation and popular discontent. Take the Spanish Civil War. There was mass revolutionary action there - "destroy the old order and class system" etc - but also, you would have had reformists attempting to destroy this vision and practice - to bring it more in line with the status quo. During times of no revolutionary consciousness amongst the people - reformism has to something good, and really, we cant do anything but reform.
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Jan 12, 2008 22:58:51 GMT
Im going to throw a spanner in the works, should Marxists not be allowing the progress of capitalism to take shape in pursuing its downfall instead of getting rid of its seeds of destruction before they are at a level to bring the system down? Basically both. The working class always exerts pressure against the progress of capitalisma nd this counterbalance probably prevents catastrophe. Every defeat of the imperialists opens up space for the workers movement... and now that capitalism is decadent, it undermines itself. let's just hope it doesn't take humanity down with it.
|
|
|
Post by anticapitalist on Apr 6, 2008 16:46:28 GMT
Here is a short understandable version of what the treaty of Lisbon does without all the legal bullshit
1, Lisbon makes the EU constitution superior to the Irish constitution in all areas of EU law.
2, Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supernational European federal state, and turns Ireland and the other member states into regions or provinces of this federation.
3, Lisbon shifts the influence over law-making and decision -taking in the EU towards the big states and away from the smaller ones like Ireland.
4, Lisbon removes Irelands right to a permanent EU commissioner.
5, Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission.
6, Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments.
7, Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to EU control of Ireland's company taxes.
8, Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights.
9, Lisbon militarizes the EU further.
10, Lisbon provides that if one-third on National Parliament object to the Commission's proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it.
Maybe a moderator might move a copy of this over to the Irsp forum, in the Lisbon treaty thread as i do not know how to do it
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Apr 6, 2008 18:22:52 GMT
Thats a great outline of why we should be against it, and id be against every one of them. Theyd be good for leaflets aswell.
Ill copy and paste it over there.
|
|
|
Post by anticapitalist on Apr 15, 2008 20:06:12 GMT
I would say the majority of population would be against everyone of those reasons for no vote aswell, if they were made to know about them, there seems to be a big cover up, from the political parties to stop people getting real knowledge on this.
Number 9 is the most worrying in relation to millitarization, If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on it's territory, the other member state have an obligation to assist by all means in their power, so if the yanks provoke Russia through Poland or any other country, it will put us in the shit straight away, and we can not vote on it, as Lisbon is that vote.
Also it will allow sub groups of member states to make more binding commitments to each other with a view to armed demanding missions on behalf of the EU, without the need of a UN mandate, this will for certain drag us into more dangerous operations than the likes of the one undertaken in Chad
|
|