Well Done Hugo Chavez

[Blackpool Jags]

Just to say - well done the big man. That must've really pissed the Yanks off, even more than getting gubbed in the Ryder Cup.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19867445

[Meister Jag]

Nice one BJ and as you say, one in the eye for Uncle Spam. Apparently Chavez was re-elected following an 81% turnout at the polls. Quite a sizeable turnout IMO and the people have spoken!

 

Talking of all things democratic, interesting story in many of today's papers that confirms that Britain is actually one of the least democratic countries in Europe. The research was conducted by a German research team and it concluded that there were problems in three areas: majority representation in parliament which creates distortion between votes cast and seats in parliament, a media that is skewed by private-sector interests, and declining trust in the police. The research wasn't exactly of the dip-stick variety as it took place over 10-years; so I guess I can't take a cheap shot at the Tories and their lap dug mates. Team GB was 26th out of 30 EU countries - Denmark, Finland and Belgium topped the research.

[jaggybunnet]

Nice one BJ and as you say, one in the eye for Uncle Spam. Apparently Chavez was re-elected following an 81% turnout at the polls. Quite a sizeable turnout IMO and the people have spoken!

 

Talking of all things democratic, interesting story in many of today's papers that confirms that Britain is actually one of the least democratic countries in Europe. The research was conducted by a German research team and it concluded that there were problems in three areas: majority representation in parliament which creates distortion between votes cast and seats in parliament, a media that is skewed by private-sector interests, and declining trust in the police. The research wasn't exactly of the dip-stick variety as it took place over 10-years; so I guess I can't take a cheap shot at the Tories and their lap dug mates. Team GB was 26th out of 30 EU countries - Denmark, Finland and Belgium topped the research.

 

no irony at all then, A nation that decides wheather other countries go bust or not telling us we are not democratic

[sigesige00]

Hugo Chávez is a capitalist demagogue from whom the proletariat can expect nothing. Without breaking with any illusions in capitalist politicians, the proletariat cannot take power. The degenerated reformist sects, like the International Marxist Tendency of the late Ted Grant and the fake "Fourth International" of the late Ernest Mandel spread such illusions. They are not revolutionaries, but obstacles on the road to revolution.

 

Re-Create the Fourth International on the genuine Marxist political basis!

[Meister Jag]

no irony at all then, A nation that decides wheather other countries go bust or not telling us we are not democratic

 

Hi Jaggy

 

Apart from the fact that Germans stay in Germany, what don't you like about Germany? I'd have thought you'd have envied their industrial might and discipline - jackboots and riding crop optional for what day of the week it is in Schloss von Jaggy!

 

But seriously and it's not like me to defend a capitalist state where the majority of wealth is in the hands of the few, isn't German showing European leadership that your mates, or should that be masters, in the Tory party can only have wet dreams about? I mean, who in Europe takes Cameron seriously?

 

As I've told you before, take a chill pill and come join the revolution. Good news is it won't happen in our life time, but we can prepare future generations...

 

 

MJ

[Meister Jag]

Hugo Chávez is a capitalist demagogue from whom the proletariat can expect nothing. Without breaking with any illusions in capitalist politicians, the proletariat cannot take power. The degenerated reformist sects, like the International Marxist Tendency of the late Ted Grant and the fake "Fourth International" of the late Ernest Mandel spread such illusions. They are not revolutionaries, but obstacles on the road to revolution.

 

Re-Create the Fourth International on the genuine Marxist political basis!

 

Aww f**k it must be a full moon in East Asia. Rather than have a rant, please explain all of the above; especially comments about the 4th International. Where exactly are you coming from (probably a silly question)?

 

For example, if your suggesting that Ted Grant and other IMG type Trots had certain sectarian characteristics then perhaps a revealing insight emerges (authors cited to assist my explanation) e.g.

 

1. Sectarians maintain they have ‘the key’ or ‘solution’ for workers to adopt. is this true of the IMG? (From Marx/Engels.)

 

2. Their point of honour is what ‘criteria’ (shibboleth) distinguishes them from the working class. (Marx/Engels.)

 

3. Sectarians are ‘religious’ in having an unshakeable belief in their correctness despite a gap between this conviction and reality. (Marx, Engels, Trotsky etc. Think Militant / SWP.)

 

4. They carry out struggles against each other even in face of common dangers. (Engels)

 

5. They elevate trivialities into principles and then use these to split the movement. (Lenin)

 

6. They often shout loudest for unity but only on their own terms. (Engels)

 

7. They are characterised by extreme bitterness. (Trotsky to tee!)

 

8. They are often boastful and arrogant. (Marx/Engels.)

 

9. They are satisfied by logical deductions and operate by with abstractions. (Trotsky and his ramblings in exile.)

 

10. They demand (sooner or later) the movement as a whole subordinate itself to their leadership. (Marx and followed by Grant, Taaffe etc.)

 

This analysis is relevant to my mind, for it is not the failure of the Soviet attempt at a post-capitalist form of society which still casts a shadow over any revolutionary aspirations of working people, but the brutal and brutalised methods adopted by the ‘vanguard’ to implement its own understanding of a post-capitalist society. Working people are familiar with failures and very few give up on things they want simply because they initially fail. In general they regroup, reassess, and try again; this, in time, will happen in Britain when the circumstances are right. I take it this is the very point that you're trying to make? If so, I guess I've answered my own question!

 

I think you should return to Britain to lead the new vanguard, any thoughts as to if this is possible and can you bring hauners (a few comrades to assist in the festivities)? Might also swell the gates at Firhill. Singing is optional.

[Blackpool Jags]

Hugo Chávez is a capitalist demagogue from whom the proletariat can expect nothing. Without breaking with any illusions in capitalist politicians, the proletariat cannot take power. The degenerated reformist sects, like the International Marxist Tendency of the late Ted Grant and the fake "Fourth International" of the late Ernest Mandel spread such illusions. They are not revolutionaries, but obstacles on the road to revolution.

 

Re-Create the Fourth International on the genuine Marxist political basis!

 

And you, my associate Jaggy comrade, are a bam. The Venezuelan proletariat can indeed expect nothing.........other than Healthcare, Education and Social Housing.

 

If dear old Ted Grant was alive today, he'd be snarling in his grave.

 

MJ - Classic

Edited October 10, 2012 by Blackpool Jags

[sigesige00]

Aww f**k it must be a full moon in East Asia. Rather than have a rant, please explain all of the above; especially comments about the 4th International. Where exactly are you coming from (probably a silly question)?

 

For example, if your suggesting that Ted Grant and other IMG type Trots had certain sectarian characteristics then perhaps a revealing insight emerges (authors cited to assist my explanation) e.g.

 

1. Sectarians maintain they have ‘the key’ or ‘solution’ for workers to adopt. is this true of the IMG? (From Marx/Engels.)

 

2. Their point of honour is what ‘criteria’ (shibboleth) distinguishes them from the working class. (Marx/Engels.)

 

3. Sectarians are ‘religious’ in having an unshakeable belief in their correctness despite a gap between this conviction and reality. (Marx, Engels, Trotsky etc. Think Militant / SWP.)

 

4. They carry out struggles against each other even in face of common dangers. (Engels)

 

5. They elevate trivialities into principles and then use these to split the movement. (Lenin)

 

6. They often shout loudest for unity but only on their own terms. (Engels)

 

7. They are characterised by extreme bitterness. (Trotsky to tee!)

 

8. They are often boastful and arrogant. (Marx/Engels.)

 

9. They are satisfied by logical deductions and operate by with abstractions. (Trotsky and his ramblings in exile.)

 

10. They demand (sooner or later) the movement as a whole subordinate itself to their leadership. (Marx and followed by Grant, Taaffe etc.)

 

This analysis is relevant to my mind, for it is not the failure of the Soviet attempt at a post-capitalist form of society which still casts a shadow over any revolutionary aspirations of working people, but the brutal and brutalised methods adopted by the ‘vanguard’ to implement its own understanding of a post-capitalist society. Working people are familiar with failures and very few give up on things they want simply because they initially fail. In general they regroup, reassess, and try again; this, in time, will happen in Britain when the circumstances are right. I take it this is the very point that you're trying to make? If so, I guess I've answered my own question!

 

I think you should return to Britain to lead the new vanguard, any thoughts as to if this is possible and can you bring hauners (a few comrades to assist in the festivities)? Might also swell the gates at Firhill. Singing is optional.

 

Well, you asked me too many questions. I don't care of the definition of sectarianism now -- if you have followed the politics of Ted Grant and Ernest Mandel, it would not be difficult to reach to the conclusion that their groups were (and still are) reformist sects, who do not have real programme for the working class.

I do not deny the theoretical contribution they have made -- Professor Ernest Mandel wrote an extensive book on the modern-day capitalism (Late Capitalism) from which I have learned much. But they degenerated into revisionism -- Ernest Mandel scoffed at the "ridiculous theory that Gorbachev is re-introducing capitalism into the USSR" (Beyond Perestroika). Ernest Mandel's group degenerated into to an appalling level -- their international journal praised the "Forest Brothers" -- Estonian Nazi Collaborators!

 

The reborn Fourth International, or World Communist Party if you do not like numbers, cannot be built on this political basis. And new classless society will not be built by the "vanguard". The role of the vanguard, the most class conscious section of the proletariat and intelligentsia, is to develop the consciousness of the class, not bureaucratically control it. The vanguard party cannot act as agent of the whole class, but can only help the development of class consciousness. On this point Lenin and Trotsky committed mistakes -- although under the heavy conditions of civil war. The Marxist principle is clearly stated in the Foundation statement of the 1st International -- the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class itself.

[Meister Jag]

Well, you asked me too many questions. I don't care of the definition of sectarianism now -- if you have followed the politics of Ted Grant and Ernest Mandel, it would not be difficult to reach to the conclusion that their groups were (and still are) reformist sects, who do not have real programme for the working class.

I do not deny the theoretical contribution they have made -- Professor Ernest Mandel wrote an extensive book on the modern-day capitalism (Late Capitalism) from which I have learned much. But they degenerated into revisionism -- Ernest Mandel scoffed at the "ridiculous theory that Gorbachev is re-introducing capitalism into the USSR" (Beyond Perestroika). Ernest Mandel's group degenerated into to an appalling level -- their international journal praised the "Forest Brothers" -- Estonian Nazi Collaborators!

 

The reborn Fourth International, or World Communist Party if you do not like numbers, cannot be built on this political basis. And new classless society will not be built by the "vanguard". The role of the vanguard, the most class conscious section of the proletariat and intelligentsia, is to develop the consciousness of the class, not bureaucratically control it. The vanguard party cannot act as agent of the whole class, but can only help the development of class consciousness. On this point Lenin and Trotsky committed mistakes -- although under the heavy conditions of civil war. The Marxist principle is clearly stated in the Foundation statement of the 1st International -- the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class itself.

 

I probably asked for that; so I'll keep my response simple and to the point as normally one tends to ignore shallow and vulgar criticisms, particularly when they give the appearance of being hurriedly written (possibly without having read the entire book; or even any book). However crude though your thoughts are, there does appear to be a thread that runs through what you are saying: a thread of assumptions, vulgar concepts, and economic deterministic prejudices which represent the ideology of the theory of communism as you know and understand it (state capitalism or something learned off the back of a Fredo wrapper?). So in sending fraternal greetings may I, in the interests of internationalism, offer the following -

• The 4th International is still very much alive and met in February. Quite a large gathering in Belgium with representatives from over 200 countries in attendance. Beer and chocolate probably influenced the venue but I'd say it was the national colours that swung it; who can resist a bit of red, yellow and black!
  

• The most irresponsible of Mandel's statements - and there are quite a few - is the one that denies the existence and the very possibility of a society in transition between capitalism and socialism. (He also tipped Charles Green as being the saviour of Glasgow football (some pub team from Govan), but what does he know? He is no saviour - even of lost souls; but this isn't relevant. But in all fairness, were they still about, even Tony Cliff and Ted Grant wouldn't have agreed with him on this point!) Calling a society a mere “verbal convenience” and denying the valuable role of the "vanguard of the proletariat" is not only in opposition to the whole body of theory of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky and to more than a century of experience of the revolutionary labour movement (it is not Mandel who invented that category, after all), it also puts a question mark over the possibility of socialist revolution anywhere in the world today; especially in Britain and / or Western-Europe. In other words, like me, the man is talking out his a***!
  

In terms of advancing the struggle, I'd adopt new heroes, younger men who can lead from the front. Blackpool Jag would probably take you under his wing if you ask him nicely. Hang in there, and remember: "on the road to freedom you will encounter many potholes, so learn from the masses and then teach them!" (Originally Bertie Auld when talking about political theory and then borrowed by Mao Tse-Tung when talking about the state of Maryhill's roads.)

 

 

 

MJ

[mrD]

Dang. Reckon Chavez's victory will probably ensure a better life for those on lower incomes and what not in venezuala but i think its a bit heavy to have a go at him in lacking in communist credentials given that to my knowledge he doesn't claim that. I mean is his whole thing not Bolivarian nationalism, which probably in practice means a bit of anti-imperialism with a nice bit of social democracy thrown in. Im sure the average punter would prefer market externalities being softened somewhat with that kinda policy framework than the alternatives on offer within our current horizons...

 

Also, i dont think anybody on the left can really formulate a programme as to 'what needs to be done' i mean it seems even in the mainstream in the present crisis context don't seem to be able to come up with ideas on the parameters of whats been done before to mitigate such a crisis (ie keynesianism) and the left, well doesn't seem to have recovered from the fall of the soviet union. I think tthis is a time for reflection, whilst engaging in defensive struggles as they arise, and through that process come up with a practice that is relevent to the particular set of circumstances we are facing.

 

However IMO, one good thing has emerged in the last wee while. And that is the recovery of marx in the light of the present crisis *stephanie flanders done a programme on marx alongside hayek and keynes ffs!)and that now sufficient amount of time has passed where one claiming a communist position needs to be linked in some way to the soviet union. This frees Marx from the baggage of lenin, trotsky et al..

 

And i guess thats whats depressing about all this chat of fourth internationals, what lenin says and all that - cause it takes us back to the tired old arguements where we become apologists for the soviet union or one of our favourite dead russians that were part of that set up but didnt manage to prevail in shaping the direction of the soviet union. lets just leave that shit behind.

 

Mandels introduction on the penguin edition of capital volume 1 is awesome IMO

 

Just about to start capital volume 2 - good times

Edited October 10, 2012 by mrD

[sigesige00]

Dang. Reckon Chavez's victory will probably ensure a better life for those on lower incomes and what not in venezuala but i think its a bit heavy to have a go at him in lacking in communist credentials given that to my knowledge he doesn't claim that. I mean is his whole thing not Bolivarian nationalism, which probably in practice means a bit of anti-imperialism with a nice bit of social democracy thrown in. Im sure the average punter would prefer market externalities being softened somewhat with that kinda policy framework than the alternatives on offer within our current horizons...

 

Also, i dont think anybody on the left can really formulate a programme as to 'what needs to be done' i mean it seems even in the mainstream in the present crisis context don't seem to be able to come up with ideas on the parameters of whats been done before to mitigate such a crisis (ie keynesianism) and the left, well doesn't seem to have recovered from the fall of the soviet union. I think tthis is a time for reflection, whilst engaging in defensive struggles as they arise, and through that process come up with a practice that is relevent to the particular set of circumstances we are facing.

 

However IMO, one good thing has emerged in the last wee while. And that is the recovery of marx in the light of the present crisis *stephanie flanders done a programme on marx alongside hayek and keynes ffs!)and that now sufficient amount of time has passed where one claiming a communist position needs to be linked in some way to the soviet union. This frees Marx from the baggage of lenin, trotsky et al..

 

And i guess thats whats depressing about all this chat of fourth internationals, what lenin says and all that - cause it takes us back to the tired old arguements where we become apologists for the soviet union or one of our favourite dead russians that were part of that set up but didnt manage to prevail in shaping the direction of the soviet union. lets just leave that shit behind.

 

Mandels introduction on the penguin edition of capital volume 1 is awesome IMO

 

Just about to start capital volume 2 - good times

 

Who is the translator of Das Kapital?

My supervisor told me that one of the English versions is very bad because it is translated by an Althusserian. I do not remember which version, but it is likely the Penguin version.

[sigesige00]

• The 4th International is still very much alive and met in February. Quite a large gathering in Belgium with representatives from over 200 countries in attendance. Beer and chocolate probably influenced the venue but I'd say it was the national colours that swung it; who can resist a bit of red, yellow and black!
  

 

Well, that is the fake "Fourth International", called USec (United Secretariat of the Fourth International), of the late Ernest Mandel.

They have abandoned all revolutionary principles, and degenerated into reformist sect based on anti-Marxist politics like "anti-globalisation".

 

Their flagship section was the French LCR, but they dissolved themselves into the NPA (New Anti-capitalist Party), a new reformist party which is a part of the pro-capitalist "Union of the Left". The influence of the NPA is rapidly declining, and the USec will collapse in the next few years.

[Meister Jag]

Well, that is the fake "Fourth International", called USec (United Secretariat of the Fourth International), of the late Ernest Mandel.

They have abandoned all revolutionary principles, and degenerated into reformist sect based on anti-Marxist politics like "anti-globalisation".

 

Their flagship section was the French LCR, but they dissolved themselves into the NPA (New Anti-capitalist Party), a new reformist party which is a part of the pro-capitalist "Union of the Left". The influence of the NPA is rapidly declining, and the USec will collapse in the next few years.

 

Siege Siege, we could argue all day about this and I'd say you're wrong, you'd say you're wrong. It is fragmentation and attention to detail like this that his split the left for years and has turned it into a bit of a joke IMO. Even when I was in the Labour Party (prior to the Militant expulsions) there were various groups (you'd call them sects) vying for control of the party.

 

TBH, left ideas won't go away, but what is needed is someone to articulate them at a national level. Tommy Sheridan probably came closest in Scotland in recent years but look at what happened to him - combination of self-destruct button and dodgy dealings by gutter press. In England there have been one or two who've tried over the years and Dave Nellist springs to mind as an MP who led by example e.g. took the wage of a skilled worker so handed back 60% of his wage to the labour movement and charities. Galloway, is well Galloway, and is a thorn in the side of the establishment - good orator but too much of his own man (no bad thing as politics is devoid of personalities).

 

Speak to your supervisor about this thread and get his take on this issue. As the great man (Mandel) said: "Marxism is always open, always critical, always self-critical." There's something in that but it takes an open mind to take the struggle forward. IMO, that where the sects fall down.

 

Also and here's where I'm having a go at you: The revolutionary party, based on the Leninist concept of the vanguard party and composed of the class conscious vanguard fighters of the working class, is the sole historical organ of revolutionary consciousness. This conscious strategy and vanguard instrument for the preparation and leadership of the socialist revolution can only mean the recreation of Trotsky’s world party of the workers’ socialist revolution i.e. the Fourth International.

 

Right... back to our chances against Cowdenbeath and when does the City Centre bus leave...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Meister Jag

[mrD]

Who is the translator of Das Kapital?

My supervisor told me that one of the English versions is very bad because it is translated by an Althusserian. I do not remember which version, but it is likely the Penguin version.

 

Its Ben Fowkes that does the penguin edition. I'm not sure if hes an althussairian though. Incedentally reading althusser's book on capital is pretty high on my reading list. The reason why im using the penguin version is because thats the version that is used in the david harvey online course in reading capital. As for whether its a good translation, well given that i know no german i'm not in a position to judge. But what i would say is that i reckon there is a danger that once we start getting into debates about which translation is better we are starting to sound like christians arguing over which edition of the bible is better - and i'd be pretty sure that our assessment of what the best version would be would be led by what version fits our a-priori conception of what constitutes authentic marxism.

 

On a related question, it would be interesting to hear both yours and meister jags thoughts on reading marx. Does it in your opinion have to be read through the lense of what came after marx, ie lenin, trotsky and what not?

[mrD]

Speak to your supervisor about this thread and get his take on this issue. As the great man (Mandel) said: "Marxism is always open, always critical, always self-critical." There's something in that but it takes an open mind to take the struggle forward. IMO, that where the sects fall down.

 

In that vein, one cannot help thinking of that famous letter of the early marx to arnold rouge where he stated that one should be engaged in a process of a "ruthless criticism of everything that exists". I reckon even the foundations of marxism is not immune to this. For instance, the labour theory of value was the main viewpoint of the eminant political economists of Marxes day (eg Adam Smith, David Ricardo), but not long after marx came about the marginal revolution, whereby there is more of an emphasis on the use-value determining the value, rather than the amount of labour congealed in it. It would be interesting to imagine what marx's conceptions would be like if he was writing capital now, with the categories that are in place in neoclassical economics. Would he defend labour theory of value using the terminology that abounds, or would he build a new theory of exploitation based on the present conceptions?

 

Thats why i think for us on the left today, whilst we need to return to marx as still the greatest critic of capitalism, id worry that we could just go into the territory of making an idol out of Das Kapital rather than forumlating our own critiques that might be of more relevance to capitalism as we face it now..

Edited October 11, 2012 by mrD

[Meister Jag]

MrD, heading out just now but will respond later this eveing. Expect the usual load of tosh from my side. But as J P Cannon said: "there's sh*** and there's good sh***!" Some of his stuff remains contemporary and I found his explanations on Marxist theory to my liking (he was after all a Trot). Try (from memory) his book Socialism on Trial: relates to testimony in trial proceedings against members of Socialist Workers Party indicted for sedition in USA. Cannon used it as a platform for his beliefs and basically explained in layman's terms what he stood for. Good read IMO; but you've probably worked out where i'm coming from.

 

Siege Siege will like this as it's as real as what's going on in his napper - http://www.nationsta..._cannon_brigade

 

I've pulled this from something I was looking at the other day (would like to say they're my words but they're not): Marxism... "is not an armchair philosophy of retrospection, but a philosophy of social action; more specifically, a theory of social revolution." [sidney Hook, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx: A Revolutionary Interpretation (1933)] Never thought I'd start citing refernces on a post but there's a first for everything.

 

Closing point is that take my posts with a pinch of salt - I don't come on here that often and generally write one load of keech; just to get a reaction from one or two chums of a right wing empire loyalist persuasion. There are a few on here plus one or two neo-liberals.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Meister Jag

[mrD]

be interesting to hear your thoughts regardless of how much is there to troll the neoliberals on here

 

ha well i bet you can guess where i am coming from which is pretty much a Lutheran sola scriptura take on reading Marx. To be honest though, this is more led by the fact that the idea of trawling through other big communist theorists terrifies me, like i do not know the first thing about the russian revolution, and all i can see from the fact that most lefties seem to think its important to learn about that and have a position on that is that im going to have to read a lot of books on that. And given that i have 2 kids, work, and am at uni doing completely unrelated subjects to my personal interest in marxist theory, means i do not have much in the way of time to devote to reading such subject matter. So opportunity cost is making me narrow my scope haha. But actually, i probably should set aside some time for russia and its dead ones. Ill read 5 books on it and no more. Suggestions would be welcome.. I think Lenins 'what is to be done' and 'imperialism' ought to be on that list somewhere...

 

Edited to add: i read sydney hooks from hegel to marx many years ago. Despite not understanding much about it, i nevertheless found it an enjoyable read. I think ill be buying that one from amazon at some point to return to it..

Edited October 11, 2012 by mrD

[mrD]

I should mention that there has started a capital volume 1 reading group for anybody who may be interested. The first meeting was yesterday, but given that it is following the david harvey lectures it shouldnt be a problem to catch up , and if i remember correctly there is no reading required prior to the first meeting anyway.

 

I should also mention that it is a non-sectarian outfit and is not a front for any lefty party...

 

heres the information:

 

http://glasgoweducat.../capital/vol-1/

 

Next week is starting capital volume 2 reading group, for anyone thats wanting to tackle that tome.

 

heres the details for that.

 

http://glasgoweducat.../capital/vol-2/

Edited October 11, 2012 by mrD

[jaggybunnet]

 

 

Closing point is that take my posts with a pinch of salt - I don't come on here that often and generally write one load of keech; just to get a reaction from one or two chums of a right wing empire loyalist persuasion. There are a few one here plus one or two neo-liberals.

 

 

[Meister Jag]

 

Good to hear from you Jaggy, I trust your gout isn't too bad these days - time to lay off the port and foie gras.

 

Any truth in the rumour that when you went to see the doc' about your sore feet. He told you "Gout."

 

And you said... "I've just fu**ing walked in!"

 

Okay, I know that wasn't very good...

[Meister Jag]

I should mention that there has started a capital volume 1 reading group for anybody who may be interested. The first meeting was yesterday, but given that it is following the david harvey lectures it shouldnt be a problem to catch up , and if i remember correctly there is no reading required prior to the first meeting anyway.

 

I should also mention that it is a non-sectarian outfit and is not a front for any lefty party...

 

heres the information:

 

http://glasgoweducat.../capital/vol-1/

 

Next week is starting capital volume 2 reading group, for anyone thats wanting to tackle that tome.

 

heres the details for that.

 

http://glasgoweducat.../capital/vol-2/

 

I was going to give you a long post but thought the easiest thing to do was to point you in the direction of the CWI site

http://www.marxist.net/ if you go down the left hand column you'll see some decent publications listed. From memory, I'm not a member BTW, they still meet in Glasgow on a Monday night. If you're wanting a group (I want call them a sect) to join then I'll get you contact details. Without going into too much detail, the CWI are pretty much what's left of the old Militant Tendency / International Socialists; thus the references to the 4th International that seem to upset Siege Siege so much.

A couple of other good reads - both biographies on Marx are Francis Wheen's Karl Marx: A Life (good on a number of levels especially because it portrays the old guy as an argumentative bevy merchant who'd an eye for the ladies) & David McLelland's equally good biography. McLelland is quite scholarly in his style but still a good read. If pushed and if you're after an easier read, I'd go for Wheen's book.

I'm currently reading Trotsky's My Life; which I'm finding hard going. The more I read the more I think I might have fallen out with the grumpy old b******* if we'd ever met. Then again, he did live a good part of his life under house arrest and on the run from Stalin's hit men.

Good luck with the reading group and good to see that there's still quite a lot of interest in Marxism. I wonder why

[jaggybunnet]

Good to hear from you Jaggy, I trust your gout isn't too bad these days - time to lay off the port and foie gras.

 

Any truth in the rumour that when you went to see the doc' about your sore feet. He told you "Gout."

 

And you said... "I've just fu**ing walked in!"

 

Okay, I know that wasn't very good...

[Jordanhill Jag]

Just to say - well done the big man. That must've really pissed the Yanks off, even more than getting gubbed in the Ryder Cup.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...merica-19867445

 

 

So someone who controls the media ,removes any voice of opposition in the media uses all the arms of the state to work on his re-election is good for democracy how ,despite massive Oli Reserves the people in Venezula are still poor ,its the second most violent Country in South America after Mexico which has been in a de facto War against the Drug Cartels for four years by any stretch of the imagination how is this guys re-election good for the people of Venezula - so you shout left Wing rubbish meantime ensure no one can oppose you but this makes you a good guy ?

[Blackpool Jags]

So someone who controls the media ,removes any voice of opposition in the media uses all the arms of the state to work on his re-election is good for democracy how ,despite massive Oli Reserves the people in Venezula are still poor ,its the second most violent Country in South America after Mexico which has been in a de facto War against the Drug Cartels for four years by any stretch of the imagination how is this guys re-election good for the people of Venezula - so you shout left Wing rubbish meantime ensure no one can oppose you but this makes you a good guy ?

 

Calm down down, Jim, it's only a wee forum debate.

 

Well, everything's relative as they say. A very clear majority in a turnout of over 80% is something any US president, or our own cool Dave would die for. So as for democratic credentials, Hugo boy scores very well.

 

My main point was about the Yanks being hacked off at not being able to control another state in their back yard. I'm not sure to what extent Chavez controls the media, as you put it but, given some of the outrageous US-backed attempts to smear him, arrest him and do him in, then its hardly surprising that he keeps a beady eye on what propaganda tricks his rivals use.

 

It does seem that, despite the fluent and very well funded campaign of his main rival, the people of Venezuela stuck with the guy who prioritises Health Care, Education and Social Housing over the drive for grubby profiteering by neo-liberals. It must stick in the craw of the American establishment that a wee nation like Venezuela won't toe their line, just like Cuba and Nicaragua before them.

 

The US's track record in Central and South America is something to be very unproud of, but the Venezuelans have made their own minds up and stuck with Chavez, warts and all, for a fourth term; maybe a wee message in there.

 

Gaun yersel, Hugo. You de man.

[jaggybunnet]

Calm down down, Jim, it's only a wee forum debate.

 

Well, everything's relative as they say. A very clear majority in a turnout of over 80% is something any US president, or our own cool Dave would die for. So as for democratic credentials, Hugo boy scores very well.

 

seem to remember some guy in germany and another in the soviet union who had similer results if not better

 

My main point was about the Yanks being hacked off at not being able to control another state in their back yard. I'm not sure to what extent Chavez controls the media, as you put it but, given some of the outrageous US-backed attempts to smear him, arrest him and do him in, then its hardly surprising that he keeps a beady eye on what propaganda tricks his rivals use.

 

It does seem that, despite the fluent and very well funded campaign of his main rival, the people of Venezuela stuck with the guy who prioritises Health Care, Education and Social Housing over the drive for grubby profiteering by neo-liberals. It must stick in the craw of the American establishment that a wee nation like Venezuela won't toe their line, just like Cuba and Nicaragua before them.

 

and of course you beleive all this, are you george gallaway in disguise

 

The US's track record in Central and South America is something to be very unproud of, but the Venezuelans have made their own minds up and stuck with Chavez, warts and all, for a fourth term; maybe a wee message in there.

 

Gaun yersel, Hugo. You de man.

 

Admin can we make sure this is thread is archived please, as i am sure i will need it for some of BJ and MJ quotes later