Latest News and Comment

"We can stop all the conspiracy theories about Hitler," Charlier said. "He did not flee to Argentina in a submarine; he is not in a hidden base in Antarctica or on the dark side of the moon." A team of French pathologists was recently allowed to inspect a set of teeth kept in Moscow that were recovered in Berlin in early May 1945 — the first time that Russian authorities had allowed anyone to
1 min 54 sec ago
 It is inconvenient to hear but psychological distress is political. Studies have shown an association between the implementation of austerity policies and increasing mental health needs. Austerity after the recent recession hit the poorest hardest. Families with the lowest incomes got poorer and deprived areas saw the greatest funding cuts at the level of local government. Resources used to 
9 hours 6 min ago

Musings from our past . . .
The Making of the English Working Class, E.P. Thompson's classic text, takes the interested reader far in illuminating the brutal social upheavals emerging capitalism caused monoplizing economic and political power in its violent thirst putting money of its class before humanity's need.
V. The Sherwood Lads
“Luddism lingers in the popular mind as an uncouth, spontaneous affair of illiterate handworkers, blindly resisting machinery. But machine breaking has a far longer history. The destruction of materials, looms, threshing machines, the flooding of pits or damage to pithead gear, or the robbing or firing of houses or property of unpopular employers – these, and other forms of violent direct action, were employed in the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth, while 'rattening' was still endemic in parts of the Sheffield cutlery industry in the late 1860s. Such methods were sometimes aimed at machinery held to be obnoxious as such. More often they were a means of enforcing customary conditions, intimidating blacklegs, 'illegal' men, or masters, or were (often effective) ancillary means to strike or other 'trade union' action.” Although related to this tradition, the Luddite movement must be distinguished from it, first, by its high degree of organization, second, by the political context within which it flourished. These differences may be summed up in a single characteristic: while finding its origin in particular industrial grievances, Luddism was a quasiinsurrectionary movement, which continually trembled on the edge of ulterior revolutionary objectives. This is not to say that it was a wholly conscious revolutionary movement; on the other hand, it had a tendency towards becoming such a movement, and it is this tendency which is most often understated.”
The Making of the English Working Class in England, 1963.
9 hours 6 min ago

Like everyone else, Socialists are shocked and saddened at the senseless slaughter that happened on Toronto's Yonge St. on April 23 and need not be described here. Obviously it was the behaviour of a very mentally ill person which we Socialists can never condone. Nor can we condone a society which creates such pressure on individuals that cracks them to perform anti-social acts. We cannot argue that there will be no mentally ill people in a Socialist society. What we can say is with the removal of the pressures capitalism places on us, it will be considerably less, and if someone is showing signs of mental sickness, they will quickly receive treatment. Until then, violent antisocial acts, which crapitalism engenders year in and year out, will undoubtedly continue with no end in sight until it ends.
For socialism, Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.
9 hours 6 min ago
The Socialist Party of Great Britain is not the socialist "party" that Marx (or even our Declaration of Principles) envisages, ie the working class as a whole organised politically for socialism. That will come later. At the moment, the Socialist Party can be described as only a socialist propaganda or socialist education organisation and can't be anything else (and nor would it try to be, at the moment ). Possibly, we might be the embryo of the future mass "socialist party" but there's no guarantee that we will be (more likely just a contributing element.) But who cares? As long as such a party does eventually emerge. At some stage, for whatever reason, socialist consciousness will reach a "critical mass", at which point it will just snowball and carry people along with it. It may even come about without people actually giving it the label of socialism.
In 1904 the Socialist Party raised the banner for such a single, mass socialist party and proclaimed itself as the basis of such a party. Not only did the working class in general not "muster under its banner" but neither did all socialists. So although with a long history as a political party based on agreed goals, methods and organisational principles we were left as a small propagandist group, but still committed to the tenets set out in our Declaration of Principles. But we have never been so arrogant as to claim that we're the only socialists and that anybody not in the SPGB is not a socialist. 
There are socialists outside the SPGB, and some of them are organised in different groups. That doesn't mean that we are not opposed to the organisations they have formed, but we are not opposed to them because we think they represent some section of the capitalist class. We are opposed to them because we disagree with what they are proposing the working class should do to get socialism -- and of course, the opposite is the case too: they're opposed to what we propose. Nearly all the others who stand for a class-free, state-free, money-free, wageless society are anti-parliamentary (the old Socialist Labour Party being an exception). For the Socialist Party, using the existing historically-evolved mechanism of political democracy (the ballot box and parliament) is the best and safest way for a socialist-minded working class majority to get to socialism. For them, it's anathema. For the members of the Socialist Party, some of the alternatives they suggest (armed insurrection or a general strike) are anathema. We all present our respective proposals for working-class action to get socialism and, while criticising each other's proposals, not challenging each other's socialist credentials.
Mandating delegates, voting on resolutions and membership referendums are democratic practices for ensuring that the members of an organisation control that organisation – and as such key procedures in any organisation genuinely seeking socialism. Socialism can only be a fully democratic society in which everybody will have an equal say in the ways things are run. This means that it can only come about democratically, both in the sense of being the expressed will of the working class and in the sense of the working class being organised democratically – without leaders, but with mandated delegates – to achieve it. In rejecting these procedures what is being declared is that the working class should not organise itself democratically.
We need to organise politically, into a political party, a socialist party. We don't suffer from delusions of grandeur so we don't necessarily claim that we are that party. What we are talking about is not a small educational and propagandist group such as ourselves, but a mass party that has yet to emerge. It is all about understanding limitations and they will be subject to change when conditions change. The main purpose of the SPGB at the moment is to (a) argue for socialism, and (b) put up candidates to measure how many socialist voters there are. The SPGB doesn't go around creating myths of false hopes and false dawns at every walk-out or laying down of tools but will remind workers of the reality of the class struggle and its constraints within capitalism and as a party, unfortunately, suffers the negative consequence of this political honesty.
Anton Pannekoek, the Dutch writer on Marxism, writing in an American magazine, Modern Socialism, said: "The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working-class . . . Because a party is an organisation that aims to lead and control the workers". He qualified this statement. "If . . . persons with the same fundamental conceptions (regarding Socialism) unite for the discussion of practical steps and seek clarification through discussion and propagandise their conclusions, such groups might be called parties, but they would be parties in an entirely different sense from those of to-day."
The Socialist Party position is that it was not parties as such that had failed, but the form all parties (except the SPGB) had taken as groups of persons seeking power above the worker. Because the establishment of socialism depends upon an understanding of the necessary social changes by a majority of the population, these changes cannot be left to parties acting apart from or above the workers. The workers cannot vote for socialism as they do for reformist parties and then go home or go to work and carry on as usual. To put the matter in this way is to show its absurdity. The Socialist Party of Great Britain and its fellow parties, therefore, reject all comparison with other political parties. We do not ask for power; we help to educate the working-class itself into taking it.
Pannekoek wished workers' political parties to be “organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom”and “means of propaganda and enlightenment”.
Which is almost exactly the role and purpose hoped for by the Socialist Party of Great Britain's present members.
Lothian Socialist DiscussionWednesday, 23 May  7:30pm - 9:00pmThe Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh,17 West Montgomery Place,Edinburgh EH7 5HA

9 hours 6 min ago