Future elections
- This topic has 138 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I agree with you alan that we need an international socialist revolution where we see beyond one's little community, though all I am saying is that we also need to remember what community we live in as, in a socialist world, you may disagree but I see a world full of lots of little local communities that co-operate with one another. So basically common ownership of decentralized governments and common ownership of international unions will create a democratic world.Let's get this clear. we are one world and one human race and socialism will only ever happen if we have a world of common ownership. Though this does not mean that we should throw the ideas of localism in the rubbish bin, as localism is a way of opposing the current corrupt global capitalist system, and localism will benefit all because it has environmentally friendly policies, a world of peace, harmony and a world where communities always get put first before the individual, and a world where there is no exploiters.So localism and international socialism go very well together, as to create the best world possible we need both international socialism and localism put into practice.
Ed wrote:I am interested in both Socialist Punk and Alex's opinion on what a Socialist should do if elected to either a council seat or a parliamentary seat? I should add there's no set party position on this. Rather it would be debated and put to a vote when the candidate is elected. Just interested to know where you guys would stand in that debate.Hi EdApologies for the delay in replying, wanted to get on sooner but personal stuff has a habit of interfering.I have given the matter some thought, it is not any easy one and this will be a bit rough around the edges.Ultimately, in a socialist society councilors and other "political bodies" would be 100% public servants and as such must represent the views and wants of the democratic majority. But in the event of the first socialist candidate being voted in, within capitalism, they would find themselves "against the grain". The only thing that could be done is for the elected socialist to keep the voters fully informed about the realities of what their political masters are up to at that level. Try to encourage voters to get involved with as many issues as possible. It is what real democracy is about. Most people are more than capable of it, so the elected socialist would need to help to nurture that within the community.They would be there to represent the people, but in the event of the electorate wishing the elected socialist to act against their socialist principles, well…………..?But having an elected socialist councilor or whatever, suggests a lot of hard graft, connecting with local people, would have been undertaken. And that as they say, is another story entirely. But one I will have a stab at later.
I agree with a lot of what you say in post #59 Alan.
Alanjjohnstone wrote:That is the task for socialists. Other members know from past contributions that i have sought to argue for greater co-operation and collaboration with what is called the “thin red line”, various anarchist and Left Communists, who constitute the non-market, anti-state sector. But as some of us have problems with them and some of them have problems with ourselves. It will be enough not to be hostile to them, IMHO.I too think the SPGB are too aloof regarding some of the other revolutionary groups out there.I was pointing to that type of attitude on the "the labour movement must be a safe place for women" thread. Imagine if we could build bridges with other groups, find common ground with some? ( I apologise for using "we", I keep doing it, habit I guess) I know some party members are trying very patiently to build bridges with other political groups, but as Alan points out there is historical hostility. Could well be an in built consequence of the hostility clause in the DoP? Admit it or not, that little bit of history influences big time.
SocialistPunk, I know of one particular group which we could potentially find common ground with. This group is known as the Contemporary Marxist Party, though we need to wait several months before this party gets out a manifesto and see what they really stand for, so whether they are true socialists or just reformists.
I see that the CMP has the logo and the flags and are participating in demos. But as you say I cannot find anything that describes their political platform. The cart before the horse?I'm also guessing that since both You Tube videos were located in Dundee, they are too.The first point of difference would be the right for neo-fascists to express themselves. The SPGB has always argued that not only is it wrong in principle to try and suppress the right-wing because it can easily be turned against ourselves by the state but it is also wrong tactically because it turns them into the victim and martyrs. I know that the illegality of para-military uniforms was brought in because of the Mosley's Blackshirts but I know personally of one person arrested at a troops out protest for wearing a black beret, sun-glasses and a combat jacket…the uniform of the IRA , it was alleged…he was found guilty.
alanjjohnstone, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to surpress the right wing and neo-fascists because, even though it may be wrong what they believe in, freedom of speech is an absolute fundamental to a democratic society.Though when the CMP done that rally in Dundee I don't know whether they were trying to surpress the right or just express their own opinions and think that it was all right for the SDL to speak freely as long as the CMP had the right to speak freely too.Anyway, we shall see what the CMP really stands for in several months time when they eventually get a manifesto together.
ALB wrote:For the County Council elections you'll have to be described on the ballot paper as an "Independent" or, better, without any description at all. But for the Town Council election, as a "parish council", the old rules apply and you'll be able to use a description of up to six words which does not confuse you with any registered party. I'm sure you will be able to think of something, eg PROFITS NOT PEOPLE CANDIDATE or DOWN WITH CAPITALISM CANDIDATE or ANTi-CAPITALISM CANDIDATE.Perhaps the party should issue an apology to ex-comrade Colborne and ask him to rejoin the party and stand on behalf of the SPGB at future elections. It is now clear that ex comrade colborn was censored particularly on the Spintcom. He was moderated for discussing stuff that was not strictly party business. He was treated shamefully. A glimpse at spintcom today shows no such ‘moderation’ is being used on other members guilty for similar ‘evils’It is a shameful waste of talent and resources. .
TheOldGreyWhistle, Blimey. I never realised there were people in the party who didn't like people talking about other things apart from SPGB activities. Hopefully this is not the case anymore and, nowadays, all members are tolerant of their peers.
There have been independent candidates at elections before who have stood on a similar platform to us. One was Ernie Reynolds who stood in Swindon North in the 2005 general election as an "Abolish Money" candidate.He did know of us and filled out an application form to join but didn't proceed with it as he probably knew that he would not be accepted as he envisaged the "abolition of money" in one country (not that we stand for the abolition of money as such but rather for the establishment of common ownership, democratic control and production directly to satisfy people's needs that would make money redundant). He got 195 votes.Incidentally, the Andy Newman who is confusingly called a "Socialist" here, and got 208 votes on a programme promising various reforms of capitalism, was a Trotskyist (of the "Socialist Unity" faction) who is now a well-known blogger. He has since returned to the Labour Party presumably on the logic that if you want reforms you might as well be in a party that has a chance of delivering some. He has a good chance of becoming a Labour councillor next year,
AlbNot sure what that has to do with Steve Colborn. I believe he was in tha SPGB for 30 years and has worked his butt off but will receive no financial support when he stands and presents the case. He deserves the support of any decent socialist movement.
Had offers of support from N.E. Socialists, (non members that is) monetarally but turned them down. I will stand, or fall, by my 32 years of advocating Socialism in this constituency, letters, meetings, talking to fellow workers. Advocating "our" aims, on the terms that if, "you do not understand and agree", we do not want, or need, your vote. Steve.
There is an official party position on how our delegates to elected bodies will behave, the answer to W.B. of Upton Park (link).
The EC wrote:[our] presence [in Parliament], backed, as it must needs be, by a wide-awake electorate (suggestive of more to come and the threatened "end of all,") would in all probability evoke the initiation, by one or other of the capitalist parties, of measures that may conceivably contain some small advantage for the working-class. Now intellectual vitality requires the continual absorption, and digestion of new facts as they occur. So with Socialism and proletarian politics. The S.P.G.B. is always ready to consider new facts and phases when these present themselves, and therefore the question of whether Socialist representatives should support any such measures in Parliament, is one that we do not, in January 1910, pretend to answer. We can only say as to this, that as we progress and new situations arise, our membership, ever guided by the revolutionary principle of NO COMPROMISE, by our general understanding of Socialism and the requirements of the greatest interest of the working class, its emancipation, will DEMOCRATICALLY direct the action of its representatives.This answer was endorsed by conference and party polls. We would, in Morris' words, go to parliament as rebels and not reformers. Our candidates stand pledged to carry out the instructions of branches locally, and the EC nationally; and they stand on the party's platform, not on their personal attributes/achievement/endevours. Hence why we don't do pictures of candidates on our election material, it's the case, not the face. The only criterion for being a candidate is that a member should have passed the speaker's test, which is a test of whether their understanding of the case is robust enough to answer thjose tricky questions we get in public.
And here's what a front-page statement on "Municipal Elections" in the Socialist Standard of October 1906 said when the party first put up candidates for local councils:
Quote:The candidates of the SPGB therefore, whilst quite prepared to use the local powers for such small temporary benefits as may be forced from the capitalists' hands for the workers in those districts, nevertheless do not seek suffrages for this, which can only be a secondary business of the political party of the workers. The fact, pointed out above, must be strongly reiterated, that the powers of the local bodies are strictly limited and are controlled by the Government.The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters into municipal contests as a step in the work of the capturing of the whole political machinery. Fulling realising, and pointing out to the workers, the strict limitations of the power of local bodies, making no promises that are beyond our power to fulfil, we ask the members of our class, when (but not before) they have studied these facts and realised their correctness, to cast their votes for the candidates of the SPGB who alone stand on the above basis.A very clear statement of our position which is still valid and which we still apply today.
This is the relevant part to which I was referring
Quote:The S.P.G.B. is always ready to consider new facts and phases when these present themselves, and therefore the question of whether Socialist representatives should support any such measures in Parliament, is one that we do not, in January 1910, pretend to answer.Clearly that's not a position is it? I have my personal opinion which is workers cannot run capitalism in their own interests. No reform is in the interests of workers which would indicate how we should vote, if at all. My understanding is that it would be debated and voted upon at the time. Are you trying to tell me it's already pre-decided? It would be a crying shame if the party ever made it that far to suddenly turn around and end up like the Guesdists.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.