Author	Message
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Sep 2004 05:35 pm    Post subject: Announce your links and activities Please post messages in this thread: --- to advertise your web site which promotes the education and organization of the working class (i.e., no commercial spam) --- you may announce public meetings, books and periodicals, demonstrations, conferences, strikes, boycotts, event schedules and itineraries, etc.
arminius	Posted: 08 Nov 2004 08:34 pm    Post subject: Folks here may be interested that World in Common has put out Common Voice #2,'A Journal for the Anti-capitalist, Anti-statist and Anti-reformist Political Sector' and is available on-line. The contents include: LETS abolish money? - Adam Buick Socialism: Challenging the Right Beyond the Left - Len Wallace What Is Anarchist Communism? - Toby, Thrall Global Labor in the Age of Empire - Eugene W. Plawiuk Co-Operatives and Socialism - Jules Guesde Co-Operative Communities - Daniel De Leon Co-Operatives and Trade Unions - Karl Marx Only one other world is possible: communism! - Jens Identity Theft on a Mass Basis - Michael James Beneath the Paving Stones: Situationists and the Beach, May 1968 - Nate Holdren The Creation of Patriarchy - Torgun Bullen Contact Directory for the Anti-capitalist, Anti-statist, Anti-reformist Political Sector To access it, simply click http://www.cvoice.org/ Common Voice #1 focussed on the Environment and is also available. The World in Common project is not merely yet another political group of the Left, but rather an international association of groups and individuals who share a vision of a world without capitalism (whether in its 'private' or 'state' capitalist varieties), without the state and which can be reached without the vitiating distraction of reformist politics. We are committed to a vision of an alternative way of living where all the world's resources are owned and democratically controlled by communities on an ecologically sustainable and socially harmonious basis. We recognise that such an alternative society can only be established from the 'bottom up' by the vast majority of people, without the intervention of leaders, politicians or 'vanguards'. We certainly are not in any way 'rivals' to any other group in this sector, and indeed, some of our members belong quite happily to one or other such groups. Nor are we in any sense a political party. Whether they prefer to be called anarchists, socialists, communists or other, this vision is what unites our efforts at common action, and forms the foundation for our commitment to continue the process of contact and co-operation with the various groups in our political sector. This does not mean ignoring that which makes us unique, rather that we should devote time and energy to building on what we have in common. We call on anyone broadly sympathetic with our aims to join with us to help build a strong, inclusive, and principled movement for radical change in the spirit of co-operation, friendship and solidarity. For more information, visit www.worldincommon.org/ For Freesocialism, arminius
Anonymous	Posted: 14 Jul 2005 02:53 am    Post subject: null
davesearles	Posted: 14 Jul 2005 02:48 pm    Post subject: I've taken a couple looks at vince's website posted above and I have a few comments which I am posting at at new topic: Discussion: Topics raised in People for a Cooperative Society website. dave
RSYM	Posted: 29 Aug 2005 05:53 am    Post subject: (Irish) Republican Socialist Youth Movement forum http://www.rsym.org/forum We're a newly organised youth movement, a youth branch of the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Please join us if you get the chance, we're a multi-tendencied Marxist movement. 8)
davesearles	Posted: 30 Aug 2005 02:44 am    Post subject: I took a look at the site - It is difficult for one who grew up in the USA to understand the current importance of the Irish Republic movement. Is this a real issue or rhetorical to the Irish workers? dave
RSYM	Posted: 07 Sep 2005 05:02 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: I took a look at the site - It is difficult for one who grew up in the USA to understand the current importance of the Irish Republic movement. Is this a real issue or rhetorical to the Irish workers? dave Good question! It depends a lot on where you live. If you're someone who's suffered from the brutality of British imperialism, it would matter more. The RSM are strongest in working class areas of Belfast, Derry and Strabane.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2005 11:42 am    Post subject: I am sure that if I suffered from the brutality of British Imperialism I would look at incorporating the idea of national liberation into what I espoused. It's entirely fact based - but at the site I saw some about natiional liberation and not much about socialism - which would benefit the Irish and the English and all workers. imho dave
RSYM	Posted: 07 Sep 2005 06:28 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: I am sure that if I suffered from the brutality of British Imperialism I would look at incorporating the idea of national liberation into what I espoused. It's entirely fact based - but at the site I saw some about natiional liberation and not much about socialism - which would benefit the Irish and the English and all workers. imho dave I agree with you entirely that it's in the interest of the working class, English and Irish to do away with imperialism and create working class unity. Did you check out the link when I first put it up? The site was still new then and it's still getting on its feet but there's more content about marxist and working class politics. Feel free to contribute articles on industrial unionism if you like. We hope to make the site an educational resource for our youth.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2005 10:07 pm    Post subject: Will do. dave
Anonymous	Posted: 29 Oct 2005 05:18 am    Post subject: null
davesearles	Posted: 03 Nov 2005 01:01 pm    Post subject: "Replace Money and Profit, with Love and Cooperation" I would be remiss in my duties as an authoritarian old coot incapable of new or different ways of thinking to point out that the cooperative society that I envision does not depend on love for its existence - People should not be dependent on the love of others for their existence. Under a cooperative society there will be more things than now that are available to all for the asking - hopefully we can convert asap to a system where virtually anything can be had for the asking (within reason of course) However until then there should be a medium of exchange for those things that are not in total abundance. I am a landlord. If people do not pay their rent I have them evicted. I have them evicted not because of an absence of love, but because I need the money to pay the bills, or out into the streets I go - again not because of the lack of love but because the bank needs to pay its bills. I will love who I want to love (in any of the various aspects of love) - as in religion it is my personal belief - the more others try to use that concept to promote their own ideas - even though on the surface I may be in agreement with some aspects of the underlying idea, the more I choose to resist this what I believe to be an improer use of "love". I would feel the same way for any other resort to religous or religous type sentiment such as the "golden rule" etc. etc. I remember moons and moons ago - Wonder Bread had an advertising slogan to the effect that Mother's who care about their children will insist on Wonder Bread. After that my father would not let a crumb of Wonder Bread into our house because he disagreed with what he thought to be the total misuse of the sentiment in trying to convince people to purchase that product. In this regard (METAPHORE ALERT!!!!) the apple did not fall far from the tree at all. imho dave
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Nov 2005 09:15 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: that the cooperative society that I envision does not depend on love for its existence But would you go along with the statement that having more love in the world would be one of the desirable side-effects?
davesearles	Posted: 05 Nov 2005 02:52 pm    Post subject: I would not. Love is (I believe) personal umeasurable infinite. And even it could conceivably be so, I would still puposefully distance myself from and object to any use of the more love line to convince people to overthrow the existing order and establish a new one. It is a confusion that workers are exploited under capitalism because of a lack of love. It is also a confusion and (to me) demonstartes a misundersatding of love to assert that people cannot love as greatly under this system as the next. Is there more love under ths system than in ancient society? How would you prove it one way or the other. The thing is, I am not out here to promote what I think love is or isn't. Where others use an idea such as socialism will bring more love I don't want any part of it and I want it to be clear that I disassociate myself from such concept, as much as possible. a very cranky, dave
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Nov 2005 10:05 am    Post subject: Love. Not the first definition of the word that appears in my dictionary; in fact, it's definition "6c", but it says: "The benevolence, kindness or brotherhood that man should rightfully feel toward others." Comment: I can see socialists having lengthy debates about how it might be generated, but I can't imagine many socialists disputing the idea that it would be wonderful for a lot of it to be generated.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Nov 2005 12:14 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: "The benevolence, kindness or brotherhood that man should rightfully feel toward others." To me this all comes under the topic of human nature. To me, in general - benevolence, kindness or brotherhood are a consequence of material conditions. Under conditions that favor cooperation between individuals another person is my work mate or at least my potential work mate - under far less favorable conditions another person may look more like a potential source of protein. But as many hunters do, I would with benevolence kindness and brotherhood try to make that person's passing into protein as painless as possible so as not to disturb its spirit. Love is expressed in many ways. mikelepore wrote: "Comment: I can see socialists having lengthy debates about how it might be generated, but I can't imagine many socialists disputing the idea that it would be wonderful for a lot of it to be generated." Whether or not it gets generated is not the question, but the conditions under which any human sentiment may be expressed is. I would rather that you hate me under socialism than love me under capitalism. Assuming that you have any love for me now - Whether you will love me under socialism is not ascertainable now. Love has to just happen or what is it? Beyond all of this is the notion (or my notion) that emotions are very very difficult if not impossible to deal with politically and to a great extent - even generally. Glib answers or proposals are always subject to resentment by a number of people (myself included) who have in the present or the past had a hard time with emotional issues. Many have found (myself included) that there is never an easy answer and that we identify people proposing easy answers as part of the problem. I do not even know that under socialism there will be a better environment for dealing with emotional issues. I speculate that there would be - I am not going to preach or associate with preachers who say that it will be better for all. I do see that humanity cannot survive without the workers around the world finally coming together with socialist industrial union. I do not care if a singe one of those workers has one bit of love for me or even human kind in general. If the Aquarian age blossoms under SIU that would be fine, if not, oh well! ANALOGY ALERT!! Just as it really does not concern me that the person driving towards me in the opposite lane of a two lane road loves me or not as long as he or she obeys the established rules of the road. Of course this is all imho. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Nov 2005 10:31 am    Post subject: PowerKord wrote: constitute a thread, and more properly belong elsewhere Whenever this happens, I'll wait until the thread dies down and then I'll move the messages. I learned recently that I will have to keep moving messages to files anyway, because of problems that occur when the database gets too large.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Nov 2005 10:48 am    Post subject: Re: ROLE OF LOVE IN REVOLUTIONARY MEANS AND END PowerKord wrote: If there was a sufficient ethic of love in capitalist society, it wouldn't remain capitalism for very long. Yes, speaking technically, exploitation occurs because it must occur, for that is how capitalism works. But if there was love, such operation and its pernicious by-products would quickly become unacceptable, as it would violate the new love-based moral code. That would spell, at best, the end of capitalism, or, at worst, a genuine, large-scale social effort to find a better way of doing things, whatever that turned out to be. I think some evidence to support what you said takes the form of how people react, not to their own problems, but to other people's problems. Since I live in a rural area with fresh air and water, why do I dislike capitalism for making some other people sick from pollution in cities? Since I don't know any casualties of war, why do I dislike capitalism for causing war? Why would someone who has never been homeless oppose a social system for the way it makes some people homeless? It must be the case that it bothers us that capitalism hurts other people. This is one of the things that induces us to become socialists. Perhaps the reason more people don't become socialists is that they are not sufficiently bothered by capitalism hurting other people. __________________________________________________ It reminds me of the famous words of the Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoeller: "In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -- and by that time, no one was left to speak up." __________________________________________________ If this is true -- that a part of the revolutionary spirit is to have empathy with the pain of others -- I'd say that this fulfills the dictionary definition of love.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Nov 2005 12:28 pm    Post subject: But there is love abounding even under capitalism - don't either of you experience it? I find it all around. Capitalism works just fine. Except that its working spells its doom. Even without the extraction of profits the system shall disintegrate. Not because of lack of love or violation of some "moral code". You think that people do not care about other people? I beg to differ greatly. In this capitalist country charitable contributions by individuals was $188 billion for an all time high in 2004. It will probably be way higher this year because of all of the giving involving the tsunami, hurricanes and earthquake. This does not include informal giving such as food, clothing, blood, bone marrow donations etc. Individuals volunteering their time in 2004 - 65 million people did some volunteer work in 2004 or 28.8%. "Oh if only people had the compassion for their fellow human that I do - there wouldn't be any capitalism" That's what you both are saying. I do not buy it. Everyone has love for there fellow human beings - some have a hard time showing it. Some are in situations that they cannot show it, but many show it greatly. I am a landlord, as I say. My love for my fellow humans dictates to me that as much as possible I try to keep the apartments clean and safe and as affordable as possible (conflicting pressures) but capitalism dictates that I can only go so far or I am put out of business. We live in a community and a state where there is great sensitivity to the fact that people do not have a lot of money - but the city still has to pay its fire department, the insurance company still has to cover its losses the oil company has to pay its drivers and for fuel, etc etc.. Even if all players did everything that they could as lovingly as possible - its still capitalism, morality, religion, etc. notwithstanding. Part of my love for my fellow human is that I do not try to foist my own beliefs concerning love, moral codes, etc upon them. I assume that they are totally competent in that area, and I respect their beliefs. I do from time to time try to talk about captialism and socialism - but not to in any way insinuate that my moral belief system is in any way superior to theirs. I woud find that incredibly obnoxious. lovingly submitted in accordance with all known moral codes, dave
Anonymous	Posted: 08 Nov 2005 02:36 am    Post subject: null
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Nov 2005 08:29 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: "Oh if only people had the compassion for their fellow human that I do - there wouldn't be any capitalism" That's what you both are saying. I do not buy it. That's not what either Powerkord or I said. Or course, people need to learn certain things about history and politics and economics. People need to learn that social problems are effects, and acquire knowledge about underlying causes. People need to learn that some methods of social change are more effective than others. But it's also a necessary condition that people care personally about the wellbeing of other people, even strangers on the other side of the world. After Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery, why did she sneak back into slave territory seventeen more times to help other people also escape? Why did an affluent factory owner in Germany named Engels write a book entitled "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844"? These patterns can only be explained by the human capacity to have empathy with the feelings of others. This caring about others can be described variously. The ancient Greeks called it agape. Freud said it was a type of learning that is one of the functions of the superego. John Stuart Mill believed that the difference between right and wrong lies in trying intellectually to solve a formula for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Socialists believe that the proper response to giving a damn is to see the world in terms of systems or constructions, and to cooperate in organizing a more optimum social system.
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Nov 2005 08:55 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: To me, in general - benevolence, kindness or brotherhood are a consequence of material conditions. Feedback loop. The environment determines how we think, and how we think determines the environment. For people who realize that this is happening to themselves, any opportunity to inject something into the feedback loop may be useful. If we can improve the environment, we will then, as a result, think better. Conversely, if we think better, then, as a result, we will construct a better environment. This message (that objective and the subjective are in a dialectical feedback loop) is everywhere in Marx, if we read between the lines. Marx didn't phrase it exactly that way because he had a Hegelian stick up his butt -- he was trying to prove that history moves in an inevitable track toward inevitable results, which by now we should recognize to be unfounded.
davesearles	Posted: 08 Nov 2005 12:41 pm    Post subject: Sorry I screwed this up. I meant to leave the original post in tact and add this post as a new one. Oh well, it's not that important. davesearles wrote: Vince wrote: It is entirely possible that the revolution will perk along quite nicely, even without this overlay. Yet, without that much difficulty, I can envision a socialist society characterized by much of, or maybe even more than, the same narcissism characteristic of capitalism. If so, we may have something called "socialism" that is radically different in many ways from capitalism--but we won't have the kind of "brotherhood of man" that I've always understood as the best and highest conceptualization of what socialism is supposed to be. And it is this conceptualization that I am fighting for. Perhaps, and just perhaps - you can envision a socialist society characterized by much as or even more of the same narcissism that is characteristic of capitalism - because that is your bent - to envision narcissism. I for one do not share that bent. I did not mean to imply here that narcissism is a characteristic of capitalism. What I did mean to imply was that if Vince sees narcissism as a characteristic of capitalism, and that without much difficulty he can envision socialist society characterized by the same if not more of the narcissism that characterizes capitalism - that perhaps the common denominator is Vince's prediliction for envisioning narcissism as a chacteristic of modern societies. There's nothing wrong with that but it doesn't seem to be a very useful concept. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 09 Nov 2005 10:15 am    Post subject: It's more nuanced than the extreme positions that you suggest. No one here said that non-socialists are unfeeling. No one said here that sentimentality is a sufficient tactic to change society.
davesearles	Posted: 09 Nov 2005 08:18 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: It's more nuanced than the extreme positions that you suggest. No one here said that non-socialists are unfeeling. No one said here that sentimentality is a sufficient tactic to change society. That is just what I understood (or misunderstood) those comments to mean. The ethics, morality, ect. of non-socialists in general are just as good as, just as developed as, just as valid as socialists'? Is that agreed to? Me have extreme views? How could that ever be? Perish the very thought. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 10 Nov 2005 06:48 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: The ethics, morality, ect. of non-socialists in general are just as good as, just as developed as, just as valid as socialists'? Is that agreed to? I would say no. Not when so many people think that "good deeds" means such nonsense as chanting prayers and waving national flags, and they have no conception of the need sweepingly to end economic insecurity for all, and end the fracturing of humanity into royalty and servants. Not when people are willing merely to write an occasional check to help feed a poor family, but as soon as a socialist suggests ending poverty itself, they snap back at once that they are opposed to the idea. Not when so many people, upon hearing of a disaster, say, a tnunami or plane crash, express such responses as "Oh, God forbid that some of the victims might be U.S. citizens!" or "Oh, thank God, it has just been reported that none of them were U.S. citizens!" Not when so many people say that the purpose of judicial punishment is to get revenge on law breakers, to "make them suffer". Not when approximately one half of the U.S. population wants a return to the days of back-alley coat-hanger abortions. I would say that the morality of most non-socialists is sadly inferior. Liberals generally have much more conscience and compassion than conservatives, but liberals are nearly as ignorant as conservatives are of the fact that, if you want to get rid of an effect, that means you need to get rid of its cause. Liberals will oppose an effect (war, poverty, pollution, or any other) while supporting its cause (class rule). Conservatives, having even less measure of compassion, will not even condemn the effect.
davesearles	Posted: 10 Nov 2005 01:14 pm    Post subject: Dan the man said in What Means this Strike - http://www.deleonism.org/wmts.htm "What you now stand in need of, aye, more than of bread, is the knowledge of a few elemental principles of political economy and of sociology." Did he get that wrong? - should he have added that the workers were in need of more, or a more valid or developed set of ethics, morality etc. in order to be able to come to understand the few elemental priciples of political economy and of sociology? I do not dare compare my own morals or ethics favorably to that of any other person - this is not a specious statement but a statement of abject humility and knowledge of my own personal weaknesses and failures. I have nothing to teach anyone of ethics, morality, etc. I may be wrong but I suspect that others who preach the Socialist gospel as well may be similarly afflicted. I do not preach advocate or suggest that anyone try to have better morals, ethics, etc. concerning others or to themselves, and throughout these writings I want it clear that I do not in anyway, shape or form even silently go along with anyone that does. As DeLeon suggested above, I am of the opinion that we socialists should be about disseminating knowledge about the few elemental principles - (that is hard enough). Moreover I cringe (and maybe this is only me) at the idea that morality ethics ought to flow or appear to flow from socialists - to me (and again may this is only me) it seems like a short step to an equation that if a person does not agree with some "established" socialist precept that the disagreement stems from a deficiency on the part of the person in morals or ethics. imho dave
davesearles	Posted: 10 Nov 2005 06:46 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: This message (that objective and the subjective are in a dialectical feedback loop) is everywhere in Marx, if we read between the lines. Marx didn't phrase it exactly that way because he had a Hegelian stick up his butt -- he was trying to prove that history moves in an inevitable track toward inevitable results, which by now we should recognize to be unfounded. I would like to kick this around a bit more. Ill post a response to this from Mike at Materialist Conception of History in the Fundamentals of Marxism Forum. dave
Anonymous	Posted: 16 Nov 2005 11:08 pm    Post subject: null
davesearles	Posted: 17 Nov 2005 02:14 pm    Post subject: Re: PCS SECOND MEETING SUSPENDED Vince wrote: The proposed second meeting of the North Jersey branch of People For a Cooperative Society has been suspended, due to insufficient interest. Not good for us, not good for the movement. The need for people getting out to a meeting does not seem that pressing when there is the internet. Vince wrote: If you are a libertarian socialist residing in the tri-state area, you should strongly consider attending. DeLeonists advocate that the means of production be wrested from the ownership of the capitalist class - can that be classifed as libertarian? It seems that libertarian is trying to be snuck in the back to to try to replace the dreaded r word. Vince wrote: The SPUSA is the only organization democratic in means and end that is active in our area. The SP have an actually defined democratic end? Have not seen evidence of such. dave