Newbie Question: How important is 'Anti-Dühring' ?

[Grunt]

How important is Engels 'Anti-Dühring'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For most dialectical Marxists, it is a classic defence of dialectics (or the first half is).

For us materialists, it's one of the worst books ever written by a socialist (easily rivalling Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-criticism, and Trotsky's ABC of Dialectics).

It was recently pulled apart here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html

Much of the second half is excellent though.

In fact, you can find a list of the threads on dialectics at Revleft since I joined 3 years ago here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

Not a pretty sight for the dialectical mystics though...http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/zjujfjf.gif

[Grunt]

Okey Dokey, хорошo! - Cпасибо товарищ Роза ! :D

Will buy it and just skip the first half or so...

The other comrades will kill me - oh well....

'Live for nothing or Die for something!'

Cпасибо for the links! :thumbup1:

P.S.: Note my new title (under my name) -
you will be pleased! :D

[Yehuda Stern]

For most dialectical Marxists, it is a classic defence of dialectics (or the first half is).

This is the sentence you should probably take away from this post - the other ones (especially the amusing claim that Rosa has ever managed to pull the work apart) are just meant to be simple mud slinging.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


This is the sentence you should probably take away from this post - the other ones (especially the amusing claim that Rosa has ever managed to pull the work apart) are just meant to be simple mud slinging.

Well, you can't take me on, can you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt:


The other comrades will kill me

Apart from the odd exception here and there, with respect to the many hundreds of 'debates' I have had with our dialectically-distracted comrades over the last twenty-five years, they all argue roughly like YS here. They can't respond to me so they either attack me personally, ignore me or distract attention by any means they can think of.

As the quotation I posted on that other thread said, they almost all turn in an "absurdly pathetic performance" -- no wonder workers ignore them in their hundreds of millions, and it's no surprise either that they have presided over 150 years of almost total failure.


But there is also an embarrassing side to Bryan: the ‘great commoner’ was a Bible-banging fundamentalist. When officials in Dayton, Tennessee decided to roast John Scopes for teaching evolution in 1925, they called in the ageing Bryan to prosecute. The week-long trial became a national sensation and reached its climax when the defence attorney, Clarence Darrow, called Bryan to the stand and eviscerated his Biblical verities. ‘Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?’ Darrow asked sarcastically. ‘Do you believe a whale swallowed Jonah? Will you tell us the exact date of the great flood?’ Bryan tried to swat away the swarm of contradictions. ‘I do not think about things I don’t think about,’ he said. The New York Times called it an ‘absurdly pathetic performance’, reducing a famous American to the ‘butt of a crowd’s rude laughter’. This paunchy, sweaty figure went down as an icon of the cranky right. Today, most Americans encounter the Scopes trial and Bryan himself in a play called Inherit the Wind. I once played the role of Bryan and the director kept saying: ‘More pompous. Make him more pompous.’

If it wasn't so serious, it would be a joke.

Yehuda Scopes here being one of the more risible.

[Grunt]

[...]They can't respond to me so they either attack me personally, ignore me or distract attention by any means they can think of.
Yes. And that is according to Schopenhauer's 'Die Kunst, Recht zu
behalten' (roughly: 'The art of winning a discussion') the last resort,
if everything else fails...

[Grunt]

[...]and it's no surprise either that they have presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

Almost is the important word.

Here is a great exception:


http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee107/conchbe/SovjetFlagontheReichstag.jpg

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I agree, but dialectics had nothing to do with this.

But it did help in destroying it.

Details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[Hiero]

Will buy it and just skip the first half or so...

Or you read it and make your own decision.

Do not fall prey to Rosa bullying tactics. She is not an authority on what is right or wrong.

It is quite funny, if you read anti-duhring you see that Engels has already dealt with criticisms made against materialist dialectics by Duhring himself. Rosa criticisms are very much the same as Duhrings, and have already been dealt with. So for me and others, Rosa isn't worth our time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Do not fall prey to Rosa bullying tactics. She is not an authority on what is right or wrong.

Maybe I am and maybe I'm not, but one thing is for sure, you can't respond effectively to my demolition of Engels's 'theory'.


It is quite funny, if you read anti-duhring you see that Engels has already dealt with criticisms made against materialist dialectics by Duhring himself. Rosa criticisms are very much the same as Duhrings, and have already been dealt with. So for me and others, Rosa isn't worth our time.

That's a lie; my criticisms of Engels are almost totally original -- but you would not know, since you haven't read them, but are quite happy to pontificate about my ideas from a position of almost total ignorance.

At least I had the decency to study Engels carefully before dismantling his 'theory'.

And it looks like Grunt does not need to be 'bullied' into anything; he has already made his mind up that dialectics is hogwash, and inferior hogwash at that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How important is Engels 'Anti-Dühring'?

"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way."

[ :D ;) ]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index6.html


Whoever said that is an idiot; the Tokyo telephone directory would have been better than 'Anti-Duhring' in this respect. In its 'philosophical' capacity, it is without doubt one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.


http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-engels.shtml

A week ago, I wrote to the International Social Review making the above point to them: that this book is (philosophically) among the very worst ever written by a Marxist.

Let's see if they publish it.

[Grunt]

^^^I agree, but dialectics had nothing to do with this.

No - certainly not. But the grunts of the Glorious Red Army had everything to do with that!


We must never forget:


http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee107/conchbe/Lamentingthedead-KerchtheCrimea1942.jpg



10,700,000 soldiers of The Red Army were KIA, froze to death,
died of starvation and/or diseases or were plain slaughtered

11,400,000 civilian Sovjet human beings were killed, froze to death,
died of starvation and/or diseases or were plain slaughtered

1,000,000 Sovjet jews were exterminated

That brings the Sovjet death toll to: 23,100,000



In comparison(totals):

US: 418,500
UK: 449,800
F: 567,600



___________________________________________

[Grunt]

Or you read it and make your own decision.

Will do! But if I smell Hegel (yes, yes - I read some of his supposedly
'important' stuff...) - I am allowed to skip those parts, am I not?




Do not fall prey to Rosa bullying tactics. She is not an authority on what is right or wrong.
:lol: She is not bullying me the least! On the contrary: Being a
materialist and firm believer of analytical logical positivism
in the great tradition of B. Russell - I am relieved that there
are Bolshevik's around who don't buy the Hegelian mysticism
and mumbo-jumbo.

(I have to admit though that I now and then coquette/flirt
a bit with nihilism and that I consider F. Nietzsche as one of the
real great thinkers...{The Nazi's ab-used bits and pieces of his
philosophy as they pleased - not one of them had the faintest
idea what N. really was talking about.})




It is quite funny, if you read anti-duhring you see that Engels has already
dealt with criticisms made against materialist dialectics by Duhring himself.
Rosa criticisms are very much the same as Duhrings, and have already
been dealt with. So for me and others, Rosa isn't worth our time.
Sounds intriguing...

Well - I will acquire the (in-)famous book some time in
January and read it - to see what all the fuss is about
and then I will judge.

I can chose between the German original (Dietz Verlag:
Marx-Engels Werke Band: 20), a Swedish and an English
translation. I think I will read it in the original.



So for me and others, Rosa isn't worth our time.
Now, now - who is bullying whom here?? She has
read more than I ever will manage to read in my lifetime -
and you only have to check her site to see that her
arguments are well-founded, as far as I can tell.

[Grunt]

At least I had the decency to study Engels carefully before dismantling his 'theory'.
I am not sure whether I can muster the patience and dilligence -
if he really goes on and on about mystic things...

Oh well, I can try...



And it looks like Grunt does not need to be 'bullied' into anything; he has already made his mind up that dialectics is hogwash, and inferior hogwash at that.
Damn right! I made the crucial choice between: Logic, Reason, Science, Matter, Energy
AND Idealism, Mysticism, 'Religion', Spirit, Soul and other nonsense,
a long time ago! :)

[Grunt]

"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way."
Is that a quote from the great Ильи́ч ?
It doesn't say in the thread you referred to.

Thanks for the link.

So: One has to read Anti-Dühring first and then Das Kapital?

Bummer! But maybe that's the reason why I understood only
about 50% of Das Kapital...

What's your opinion, Rosa?

[chegitz guevara]

The anti-Engels crowd would like to forget that Marx wrote a chapter of Anti-Duhring and also edited it.

It's definitely worth reading.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


The anti-Engels crowd would like to forget that Marx wrote a chapter of Anti-Duhring and also edited it.

1) Who would like to forget it? Not me.

2) What do you mean "edited it"?

3) What has this got to do with whether the first half is any good or not?

4) Marx's chapter was in the second half.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt:


I am not sure whether I can muster the patience and dilligence -
if he really goes on and on about mystic things...

I'm not suggesting you should, but I had to study it if I was to demolish it fairly and accurately.

The JR quote is from Kautsky, and he was wrong if he meant the first half of that book.


What's your opinion, Rosa?

Certainly read the second half, which is excellent in many ways.

[Grunt]

I'm not suggesting you should, but I had to study it if I
was to demolish it fairly and accurately.
Yes - that's the right Modus operandi of course.
Still it sure as hell was/(is?) hard, hard work and
requires an IQ I can only dream about...



The JR quote is from Kautsky, and he was wrong if he meant
the first half of that book.
Thanks! Dunno much about him. Will check wiki.




Certainly read the second half, which is excellent
in many ways.
Will do as promised - although now I'm a bit scared...

I'm not 'the sharpest knife in the drawer', you know! :(


I suddenly have the uneasy feeling that all the other
comrades here are 'mental giants' with unlimited amounts
of time to spare and/or unlimited energy...

No offense intended!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You seem pretty sharp to me -- you should have seen me at your age! I wasn't even in the box!

Karl Kautsky was perhaps the leading marxist on the planet before WW1. He edited many of Marx's unpublished works after Engels died.

In the end, he capitulated to the imperialism of the Prussian state, upsetting Lenin no end.


I suddenly have the uneasy feeling that all the other
comrades here are 'mental giants' with unlimited amounts
of time to spare and/or unlimited energy

We all began like you -- we have just had several years start on you that's all!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Karl Kautsky was perhaps the leading marxist on the planet before WW1. He edited many of Marx's unpublished works after Engels died.

In the end, he capitulated to the imperialism of the Prussian state, upsetting Lenin no end.

Indeed:

Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)
Lenin and Kautsky: The Final Chapter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-and-kautsky-t78667/index.html) (PM me if you're interested in Lars Lih's comprehensive "database")
Kautsky and Class Struggles in France (http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/pdf/2006confpapers/abstracts/Lih%20Abstract.pdf) (where, OMG, the true founder of "Marxism" himself attacks bourgeois parliamentarism)
The revolutionary party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32)
The Degeneration of Kautsky as a Marxist Theoretician (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocratism-and-t90459/index.html?p=1250015)

Both of you may also be interested in the Study Group thread on The Class Struggle, written in 1891 as THE authoritative commentary for the equally authoritative Erfurt Programme of the international proletariat's first vanguard party: the SPD (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that JR, and one day I promise I will try to drum up some enthusiasm for Kautsky -- honest!:)

[Hit The North]

Which chapter of Anti-Duhring did Marx write?

[Hit The North]

Grunt:

Being a materialist and firm believer of analytical logical positivism
in the great tradition of B. Russell For all his 'great tradition' you do know that Russell was an implacable opponent of Bolshevism and an ardent supporter of the British tradition of elitist and technocratic Fabianism?

Do you think this has anything to do with his "analytical logical positivism" or is his philosophy and politics unconnected?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Do you think this has anything to do with his "analytical logical positivism" or is his philosophy and politics unconnected?

No, because several Logical Postivists were Marxists (Otto Neurath, for one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Neurath

The rest were mostly socialists of one sort or another.

But, one thing we do know, there are and have been far more dialecticians who were supporters of the Stalinist and Maoist regimes than there have ever been Trotskyists of every stripe.

And of us Trots, most of them have used dialectics to argue in support of substitutionist 'socialist/nationalist' regimes!

What a tawdry 'theory' you support!

[Grunt]

We all began like you -- we have just had several years start on you that's all!
Thanks! :) But I am just a grunt. I will learn as much as I can,
within my limitations...

However: If you ever need an experienced and
unafraid street-fighter - I'm your man! :)


:star3:

[Grunt]

Indeed:

Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)
Lenin and Kautsky: The Final Chapter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-and-kautsky-t78667/index.html) (PM me if you're interested in Lars Lih's comprehensive "database")
Kautsky and Class Struggles in France (http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/pdf/2006confpapers/abstracts/Lih%20Abstract.pdf) (where, OMG, the true founder of "Marxism" himself attacks bourgeois parliamentarism)
The revolutionary party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32)
The Degeneration of Kautsky as a Marxist Theoretician (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocratism-and-t90459/index.html?p=1250015)

Both of you may also be interested in the Study Group thread on The Class Struggle, written in 1891 as THE authoritative commentary for the equally authoritative Erfurt Programme of the international proletariat's first vanguard party: the SPD (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html).

Thanks comrade for taking an interest and for the fabulous
links!!!

I will look whether I can get a copy of Class Struggle.

My head is spinning - I have a list of books to read that will
keep me occupied for all of next year.

Problem is that (like you fine comrades), as a working man,
I have to sell myself everyday to a greedy capitalist like
a whore, so its sometimes hard, real hard to 'force' myself
to study when I finally come...
home...


JR: I will save the link to your post - and check out the
info. Thanks again for taking an interest and helping me!

:star3:

[Grunt]

Grunt:
For all his 'great tradition' you do know that Russell was an implacable opponent of Bolshevism and an ardent supporter of the British tradition of elitist and technocratic Fabianism?

Do you think this has anything to do with his "analytical logical positivism" or is his philosophy and politics unconnected?

Thanks for your reply, Bob! I appreciate!


As far as I know: Russell was first enthusiastic when the October
Revolution happened. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe he
even visited the CCCP.

I have to look up at what point he got disillusioned and began
opposing the party line.

(He was not the only 'westerner' - look at the great Jack Reed!)

Dunno nothing about 'Fabianism' - sorry and my apologies for my
ignorance. :blushing: Will look it up in wiki tonight...

Honestly - I am in no position to speculate whether Russell and
the philosophical school of 'analytical logical positivism' and the
political convictions of the followers of that school are connected.

Ask me again in a couple of years...:cool:


:star3:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt:


Honestly - I am in no position to speculate whether Russell and
the philosophical school of 'analytical logical positivism' and the
political convictions of the followers of that school are connected.

Check out my reply to BTB, where I deal with this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1304935&postcount=26


Problem is that (like you fine comrades), as a working man,
I have to sell myself everyday to a greedy capitalist like
a whore, so its sometimes hard, real hard to 'force' myself
to study when I finally come...
home...

Indeed, like myself -- except, I left work when younger and got myself a university education -- and am now back in work.


I will learn as much as I can,
within my limitations...

Anything we can do to help, just ask.:)

[Hit The North]

BTB:
No, because several Logical Postivists were Marxists (Otto Neurath, for one).


Like Russell, Neurath was a reformist. So this is hardly proof that logical positivism is not to account for Russell's political positions.

Try again.

[Hit The North]

As far as I know: Russell was first enthusiastic when the October
Revolution happened. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe he
even visited the CCCP.


Yes, he had an essentially liberal position on the revolution - losing confidence when he witnessed the life and death struggle the Bolsheviks and Russian working class had to endure. His The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920) is a good illustration of the political trajectory of a certain strata of British intellectuals at this time, especially his final chapter which is an appeal for gradualism.


I have to look up at what point he got disillusioned and began
opposing the party line. He was never a self-proclaimed communist so I don't think we can accuse him of 'opposing the party line'.

The question is whether logical positivism necessarily leads to a gradualist theory of socialist change?

Rosa claims not but has yet to give one example of a logical positivist who remained a revolutionary Marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Like Russell, Neurath was a reformist. So this is hardly proof that logical positivism is not to account for Russell's political positions.

Like them too, the dialecticians in the Stalinised Bolshevik party were reformists, and worse. As were the Maoists.

If you are going to try to infer the politics of someone based on their philosophical predilections, at least tell the whole story.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


The question is whether logical positivism necessarily leads to a gradualist theory of socialist change?

There is in fact no connection between logical positivism and any particular politcal stance, since its adherents denied their philosophy had anything to do with politics. It was primarily aimed at making philosophy thoroughly scientific, and at exposing the hot air in traditional philosophy. So it was mainly a philosophy of science, logic and mathematics.

And I am not here to defend logical positivism, which, while I prefer it to many other philosophical traditions, was a serious wrong turn.


Rosa claims not but has yet to give one example of a logical positivist who remained a revolutionary Marxist

When have I claimed this?

The problem with your position is that dialectics can and has been used to defend all manner of counter-revolutionary and substitutionist doctrines. Indeed, there have been far more who have done the latter who are dialecticians than there have been what you and I would call revolutionary marxists who are dialecticians, and by several orders of magnitude -- you keep ignoring glaring this fact.

This 'theory' of yours, because of its fondness for 'contradictions', can be used to defend anything you like, and its opposite, in the same breath!

So, the alleged crimes of logical positivism pall into insignificance when compared to those of this mystical 'theory' of yours.

In that case, as I have pointed out to you several times before, dialectics is not automatically linked to revolutionary Marxism, but it is more obviously connected with to its opposite.

[Grunt]

His The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920) is a good illustration of the political trajectory of a certain strata of British intellectuals at this time, especially his final chapter which is an appeal for gradualism.
Just ordered the book. Luckily a cheap paperback edition is
available...:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt: forget it, it's not worth reading -- honest!

[Grunt]

Grunt: forget it, it's not worth reading -- honest!
You sure? But Bertrand Russell is the author! His stuff is usually
very good...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, this is among some of his worst material. Seriously.

[Hit The North]

BTB:
If you are going to try to infer the politics of someone based on their philosophical predilections, at least tell the whole story.
Nice attempt at changing the subject which is: Does Russell's and Neurath's logical positivism necessarily lead to their reformism.


Like them too, the dialecticians in the Stalinised Bolshevik party were reformists, and worse. As were the Maoists.
The question isn't whether logical positivism is the only road to reformism. Again, nice try at deflecting the question. Except it wasn't.


When have I claimed this?Erm, when you wrote this:
There is in fact no connection between logical positivism and any particular politcal stance... ???


... since its adherents denied their philosophy had anything to do with politics. Of course they do - they have to. Capitalists also claim that labour power is not the primary source of value. It must be true, therefore :rolleyes:.


The problem with your position is that dialectics can and has been used to defend all manner of counter-revolutionary and substitutionist doctrines. Indeed, there have been far more who have done the latter who are dialecticians than there have been what you and I would call revolutionary marxists who are dialecticians, and by several orders of magnitude -- you keep ignoring glaring this fact.
You're right the distortion of dialectics in the hands of these opportunists is a problem, but not confined to dialectics. The Stalinists and Maoists have managed to defame many aspects of Marxism.

Henri Lefebvre provides a brief demolition of the Stalinist systematisation of dialectics in his forward to the fifth edition of his Dialectical Materialism.


In that case, as I have pointed out to you several times before, dialectics is not automatically linked to revolutionary Marxism, but it is more obviously connected with to its opposite. Then name one revolutionary Marxist current which has been anti-dialectical.

[Grunt]

No, this is among some of his worst material. Seriously.
OK - I take your word for it! You just saved me SEK 125:- :)

[Grunt]

[...]and an ardent supporter of the British tradition of elitist and technocratic Fabianism?
Have just browse through some basic info about The Fabian
Society - hopefully I will have something worth reading to write
in a little while...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Nice attempt at changing the subject which is: Does Russell's and Neurath's logical positivism necessarily lead to their reformism.

1) It's a tatic you use all the time.

2) It was aimed at controverting your general point, that we can infer the politics of someone who is a logical positivist. You only tell a fraction of the story.


The question isn't whether logical positivism is the only road to reformism. Again, nice try at deflecting the question. Except it wasn't.

And neither is it the question whether dialectics is the only mystical theory and the only road to counter-revolutionary/substitutionist thinking -- but it is the major one for most Dialectical Marxists.


Of course they do - they have to. Capitalists also claim that labour power is not the primary source of value. It must be true, therefore

Well, you are going to have to produce a bit more evidence to show that there is such a connection than this analogy drawn against the capitalists.:lol:


Erm, when you wrote this:

Apologies, I misunderstood you.:(


You're right the distortion of dialectics in the hands of these opportunists is a problem, but not confined to dialectics. The Stalinists and Maoists have managed to defame many aspects of Marxism.

Ah, but they say the same of us Trots. In fact there is no way to tell of the many thousands (!!) of versions of dialectics there are out there which is or which isn't a 'distortion'!

And, I'd like to see you try this argument over in the Dialectical Materialist Cabal -- try it and see what the Maoists, Stalinists and Hoxha-fans say!


Henri Lefebvre provides a brief demolition of the Stalinist systematisation of dialectics in his forward to the fifth edition of his Dialectical Materialism.

An apallingly bad book -- full of logical blunders. How we can trust a single thing this confused 'theorist', I hesitate to ask.

But, as I said, refer the non-Trotskyist dialecticians over in your cabal to this book, and let's see the non-dialectical fur fly.

We need a laugh. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif


Then name one revolutionary Marxist current which has been anti-dialectical.

I can't, but then that is part of the reason why every single one is such a failure.

Prove me wrong:

Name me one successful dialectical marxist current. [Recall, 1917 has been reversed...]

--------------------

Added on edit:

I have just checked that book, and one could use it to attack the current postion of SWP-dialecticians, in that they too advocate this 'theory' as a theory of nature.

Glass houses and all that...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I hate to detract from all the philosophical mudslinging, but the chapters on "Socialism" - especially the one on distribution - are an absolute must-read (as my signature implies)! Grunt, the two Cliffites who have responded to your posts so far are monetary socialists, with their version of "socialism" being accommodative of the money-commodities-money process (a.k.a. CAPITAL).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR -- what are you on about?

I am not a 'Cliffite'! Are you trying to fall out with me?

And all that stuff about money -- well, words fail me...

[Hit The North]

What on Earth is a Cliffite?

What in Heaven's name is a monetary socialist and what the Hell has it got to do with the argument in this thread?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Perhaps he means this:

http://www.cliffite.blogspot.com/

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR -- what are you on about?

I am not a 'Cliffite'! Are you trying to fall out with me?

And all that stuff about money -- well, words fail me...

Aren't you a subscriber to Cliff's "state capitalism" stuff? Also, I'm sure that the SWP is a Cliffite party.

[Grunt]

I hate to detract from all the philosophical mudslinging, but the chapters on "Socialism" - especially the one on distribution - are an absolute must-read (as my signature implies)! Grunt, the two Cliffites who have responded to your posts so far are monetary socialists, with their version of "socialism" being accommodative of the money-commodities-money process (a.k.a. CAPITAL).
Thanks for that JR! :) Of course I know nothing (yet) about Cliff
and Cliffites - will look it up tonight.

A big thank you, JR - that you are treating me like a comrade
among comrades and not (like some) like an ignorant idiot! :)

I may not be the smartest - but I am active in the party
I am a member in: Kocking doors and trying to sell our
weekly paper every thursday night. Selling the paper
and engaging people in discussions downtown on the
street every saturday, plus of course party-meetings,
demonstartions and stuff.
I know: It's grassroot stuff - but it's important too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


Aren't you a subscriber to Cliff's "state capitalism" stuff? Also, I'm sure that the SWP is a Cliffite party.

The vast majority of SWP-ers would regard the term 'Cliffite' as an insult both to them and to him.

---------------------------

Grunt, perhaps the best place to read up on the SWP-UK tradition is here:

http://www.marxists.de/admin/contents.htm

[Grunt]

Grunt, perhaps the best place to read up on the SWP-UK tradition is here:

http://www.marxists.de/admin/contents.htm
Thanks Rosa! :)