Who are non-socialists?
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Arising from the topic on Caroline Lucas
A quote from a document about disputes in the SPGB
Quote:The first Manchester dispute, 1920 This dispute seems to have been a theoretical one. In response to a questionnaire of Manchester branch, presumably called because of known differences, certain members claimed that the class struggle was not waged independently of the SPGB (implying, but not specifically stating, that trade unions were reformist and that socialists should not join them). A Party Poll was carried out. The results were declared on 1st November 1920: Members voted 144 to 10 to ask the charged to resign. They did not do so and the following were declared expelled on 30th November 1920:It seems that the members in question – those who maintained that the class struggle could not be waged independently of the SPGB – could be considered guilty of a kind of idealist position on this matter. Did they imagine that classes only materialised out of a worldview exclusively promulgated by the SPGB or, if not , if classes existed independently of the SPGB, that the relationship between these classes was not in fact in an underlying sense, intrinsically antagonistic i.e.. took the form of a "struggle" over such things as wages etc. Their whole position seems absurd and utterly contrary to anything that could be called recognisably Marxian in its approach to society and history. All this, needless to say, has ramifications for what we are talking about on other threads such as the need for a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to what might be called "non socialists", based on the recognition that there are clearly degrees of socialist understanding so the question of where to "place the bar" becomes critical. Too low raises the prospect of being swamped by reformists and the like; too high on the other hand, has crippling implications for the growth of the organisation and its future vitality. Given the gradual and seemingly remorseless decline in the membership of the SPGB since the War, I would suggest this is a matter that needs to be urgently addressed. Mind you, personally, if I was in the SPGB in the 1920s I wouldn't have voted myself in favour of expulsion of the above members. I think there must be room for differences of opinion within a revolutionary socialist organisation and I don't think the difference of opinion in this case was sufficiently significant to warrant expulsion. Pragmatically, all that matters is Isaac Rab's core criteria of what constitutes a socialist; anything else is secondary and dispensable
jondwhite wrote:Arising from the topic on Caroline LucasA quote from a document about disputes in the SPGBQuote:The first Manchester dispute, 1920 This dispute seems to have been a theoretical one. In response to a questionnaire of Manchester branch, presumably called because of known differences, certain members claimed that the class struggle was not waged independently of the SPGB (implying, but not specifically stating, that trade unions were reformist and that socialists should not join them). A Party Poll was carried out. The results were declared on 1st November 1920: Members voted 144 to 10 to ask the charged to resign. They did not do so and the following were declared expelled on 30th November 1920:This is a trifle vague. What were the members charged with and what is the source of this quote?
I have just e-mailed the document but I think it was shared by archives committee at one time. There are no further details on the charge in the document only the names of members involved.
jondwhite wrote:I have just e-mailed the document but I think it was shared by archives committee at one time. There are no further details on the charge in the document only the names of members involved.Why not publish the document here for the benefit and interest of other forum contributors?
Could do but the document is a history of disputes with members names, and not all disputes pertain to this issue.
In relation to expulsions from the SPGB for disciplinary offences against party rules or instructions…do you become a non-socialist, and perhaps even anti-socialist…No need to go back to 1920 we have the case of the Socialist Studies group. Are they a socialist party? (their number of members is irrelevant)…being critics of ourselves, does that place them in the anti-socialist camp?
Yes, SP, and we have already stated this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1252-december-2008/robert-owenpaternalist-utopianhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/06/robert-owen-and-new-lanark.htmlI think though we have to place him into his time…1820s/1830s, were the conditions right to establish socialism? That can be debated and discussed…i think socialistic would be a better description…as then Munzer and Winstanley can join the ranks of our antecedents.
Marx called for state ownership,and taxing of the rich: anti working class Corbynite1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the 27 Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists populace over the country.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all prod Communist manifesto.Indeed Corbyn's proposals are much more democratic and working class friendly and 'socialistic', and even Brand shames Marx by calling for community control of resources.Rather than State Capitalism.How could Marx's analysis have been accurate when he called for such anti working class measures?No doubt some members would have attacked Marx and turned him away from the SPGB.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.